PRELIM EXAMINATION

1. Jesus and the earliest individuals from the Christian confidence custom were Jews, and in
this manner they remained in the confidence custom acquired by Hebrew individuals in
Israel and the grounds of the Diaspora. They were monotheists, dedicated to the God of
Israel. Whenever they asserted that Jesus was heavenly, they needed to do as such in
manners that wouldn't challenge monotheism. To the extent that they started to isolate or
be isolated from Judaism, which didn't acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah, the earliest
Christians communicated specific thoughts regarding the one on whom their confidence
centered. Similarly as with other strict individuals, they became associated with a quest
for truth. God, in the actual idea of things, was fundamentally the last truth. In a reference
saved in the Gospel According to John, notwithstanding, Jesus alludes to himself as "the
way" and "the life" yet in addition as "reality." Roughly, this signified "all the truth there
is" and was a reference to Jesus' support in the truth of the one God.
From the start there were Christians who might not have considered Jesus to be reality or
as a one of a kind member in the truth of God. There have been “humanist” enthusiasts of
Jesus, pioneer connectors of reality with regards to the Christ, however even in the
demonstration of adjusting him to humanist ideas in their day they have added to the
discussion of the embodiment of Christianity and taken it back to the issues of
monotheism and a method of salvation.
Christianity and taken it back to the issues of monotheism and a method of salvation. It
has been proposed that the most ideal way to save the quintessence of Christianity is to
take a gander at the earliest records — the four Gospels and the letters that make up a
large part of the New Testament — which contain the best record of what the earliest
Christians recollected, instructed, or accepted about Jesus Christ. It is assumed that “the
basic Jesus” and the “crude confidence” rise up out of these reports as the center of the
quintessence. This view has been tested, nonetheless, by the view that the compositions
that make up the New Testament themselves reflect Jewish and Greek perspectives about
Jesus and God.
In looking for an embodiment of truth and the method of salvation, a few crude Jewish
Christian gatherings, like the Ebionites, and incidental scholars in later ages utilized an
analogy of reception. These scholars utilized as their source specific scriptural entries
(e.g., Acts 2:22). Much as a natural parent would embrace a kid, so the heavenly parent,
the one Jesus called abba (Aramaic: “daddy,” or “father”), had taken on him and brought
him into the core of the idea of what it is to be God. There were innumerable varieties of
subjects like the previous Logos or the idea of reception, yet they give some feeling of
the manners in which the early Apologists completed their errand of adding to the
meaning of the quintessence of their Jesus-zeroed in yet monotheistic confidence. The
pith of Christianity in the long run included articulations about the truth to God.
Christians acquired from the Jews a somewhat personal image of a their young and little
God universe, with its brilliant sky, and afterward continued talk with people, making
agreements with them and fulfilling or rebuffing them. Be that as it may, the Greek piece
of their custom contributed the idea of a more prominent God than any thoughts of God
yet who must be tended to through thoughts.

The modern church and world carried new challenges to the journey for characterizing a
quintessence of Christianity. Both because of Renaissance humanism, which gloried in
human accomplishment and energized human independence, and of Reformation
thoughts that devotees were dependable in still, small voice and justification for their
confidence, an independence in communicating confidence created. Some discussed
Protestantism as being dedicated to one side of private judgment. Roman Catholics
cautioned that adherents who didn’t submit to chapel authority would issue however
many ideas of pith as there were devotees to make the cases.

In the eighteenth century the Western philosophical development called the

Enlightenment further clouded looks for the substance of Christianity. The Enlightenment
announced hopeful perspectives on human reach and perfectibility that tested previously
fundamental Christian perspectives on human cutoff points. The Deity turned into an
altruistic if indifferent power, not a specialist that organized a method of salvation to
individuals needing salvage. The Enlightenment likewise encouraged a perspective on
human independence and of the utilization of reason in a quest for truth. However, in the
perspective on Enlightenment masterminds, reason didn’t should be receptive to heavenly
disclosure, as contained in the Old and New Testaments. For sure, reason scrutinized the
trustworthiness of those sacred writings themselves through strategies for verifiable and
abstract analysis. No longer would it be a good idea for one depend on the expression of
clerics who passed on thoughts of fundamental Christianity. While numerous Westerners
moved out of the circle of confidence because of the Enlightenment and the ascent of
analysis, numerous others — in Germany, France, England, Scotland, and, in the long
run, the Americas — remained Christians, individuals of confidence assuming now of
confidence contrastingly communicated. A few Christians, the Unitarians, dismissed the
thoughts of both a previous Logos made manifest in Christ and a Jesus embraced into the
Godhead. Jesus was viewed as the incredible educator or model. They accordingly tried
the limits of fundamental educating about a method of salvation. Also, at the core of
Deist Christianity was a perspective on God that stayed “mono-“ in that it was given to a
solitary rule, however as “deist” rather than “theist” it left from the old image of an
individual God occupied with human undertakings.
2. The Catholic Church proclaims that human life is sacred and that the dignity of the
human person is the foundation of a moral vision for society. This belief is the
foundation of all the principles of our social teaching. Both the dogma and the heretical
teachings against which the dogma was directed are therefore part of the history of Jesus
Christ. To some extent, the Church clearly needs a common discourse if it is to
communicate the one message of Christ to the world, both theologically and pastorally. It
is therefore legitimate to speak of the need for a certain unity of theology. However, unity
here needs to be carefully understood, so as not to be confused with uniformity or a
single style. The unity of theology, like that of the Church, as professed in the Creed,
must be closely correlated with the idea of catholicity, and also with those of holiness and
apostolicity. The Church’s catholicity derives from Christ himself who is the Savior of
the whole world and of all humanity (cf. Eph 1:3-10; 1Tim 2:3-6). The Church is
therefore at home in every nation and culture, and seeks to ‘gather in everything for its
salvation and sanctification’. The fact that there is one Savior shows that there is a
necessary bond between catholicity and unity. As it explores the inexhaustible Mystery of
God and the countless ways in which God’s grace works for salvation in diverse settings,
theology rightly and necessarily takes a multitude of forms, and yet as investigations of
the unique truth of the triune God and of the one plan of salvation centered on the one
Lord Jesus Christ, this plurality must manifest distinctive family traits. The present text
seeks to identify distinctive family traits of Catholic theology. It considers basic
perspectives and principles which characterize Catholic theology, and offers criteria by
which diverse and manifold theologies may nevertheless be recognized as authentically
Catholic, and as participating in the Catholic Church’s mission, which is to proclaim the
good news to people of every nation, tribe, people and language (cf. Mt 28:18-20; Rev
7:9), and, by enabling them to hear the voice of the one Lord, to gather them all into one
flock with one shepherd (cf. Jn 10:16). That mission requires there to be in Catholic
theology both diversity in unity and unity in diversity. Catholic theologies should be
identifiable as such, mutually supportive and mutually accountable, as are Christians
themselves in the communion of the Church for the glory of God. The present text
accordingly consists of three chapters, setting out the following themes: in the rich
plurality of its expressions, protagonists, ideas and contexts, theology is Catholic, and
therefore fundamentally one, if it arises from an attentive listening to the Word of God
(cf. Chapter One); if it situates itself consciously and faithfully in the communion of the
Church (cf. Chapter Two); and if it is orientated to the service of God in the world,
offering divine truth to the men and women of today in an intelligible form (cf. Chapter
Three).

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God’ (Jn
1:1). The Gospel of John starts with a ‘prologue’. This hymn highlights the cosmic scope
of revelation and the culmination of revelation in the incarnation of the Word of God.
‘What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people’ (Jn
1:3-4). Creation and history constitute the space and time in which God reveals himself.
The world, created by God by means of his Word (cf. Gen 1), is also, however, the
setting for the rejection of God by human beings. Nevertheless, God’s love towards them
is always infinitely greater; ‘the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness does not
overcome it’ (Jn 1:5). The incarnation of the Son is the culmination of that steadfast love:
‘And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory
as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth’ (Jn 1:14). The revelation of God as
Father who loves the world (cf. Jn 3:16, 35) is realised in the revelation of Jesus Christ,
crucified and risen, the Son of God and ‘Saviour of the world’ (Jn 4:42). In ‘many and
various ways’ God spoke through the prophets in former times, but in the fullness of time
he spoke to us ‘by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he also
created the worlds’ (Heb 1:1-2). ‘No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who
is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known’ (Jn 1:18).
3. Our memory of our promises often isn’t as acute as our kids’ memories, and they can be
deeply disappointed when we forget. All children crave promise keeping from the
significant adults in their lives. They want to trust that we will do what we say. I’m glad
God doesn’t forget His promises. He keeps His Word. When He makes a promise, He
will deliver. Faithfulness, one of the attributes of the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22), is
a biblical word describing those who keep their promises. It does not mean “full of faith,”
but rather “worthy of faith.” Faithfulness says, “I will keep my word. I will not fail you. I
won’t quit on you.” Faithfulness is the glue that keeps our actions adhering to our
promises. The reliability of God is central to our confidence: If we can’t believe what He
says in the Bible, we have no great explanation to accept. In the event that He doesn’t
stay faithful to His Integrity, then, at that point, our salvation is flimsy and our
expectation is unfilled. Yet, in the event that God satisfies His guarantees, our confidence
is significant and our everlasting predetermination is secure. Steadfastness is basic to a
blissful, God-respecting home too. Promising frozen yogurt and afterward neglecting,
compromising discipline and not completely finishing, or singing "I Love You, Lord" in
chapel and failing to remember Him during that time all influence our youngsters and can
subvert trust. Youngsters who need to manage ceaseless broken guarantees might find it
challenging to trust the critical individuals in their lives — including God. Practice
steadfastness, however, and you will give soundness, security and certainty for your
youngsters. You will reflect God to them. What’s more, you will impart in them the
significance of being consistent with their promise. It’s easy to slip into the mindset of
doubt and cynicism. We live in a broken world, and we may have gone through painful
experiences that cause us to lose our trust in others.
For this reason, faithfulness, a fruit of the Spirit, can be a challenging trait to possess.
Faithfulness comes from a place of trust and loyalty. Hebrews 11:1 says, “Now faith is a
confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.”

As a Christian, being dedicated to God is significant. It is one thing to just put stock in
Him, however one more to be devoted to Him. At the point when we are really devoted to
God, this shapes the manner in which we live. For instance, we can be faithful in our
connections here on Earth and really love others. Reliability expects us to present our
approaches to God. It comes from a position of understanding that we are needing a
Savior and that He is in charge of our lives. We can fill in our dependability by having an
individual relationship with Christ. In the event that we are really devoted to Him and
comply with His orders, this will be clear in our lives. Think about the manners in which
you show your dependability to God. Are there things that are impeding your
steadfastness? What aspects of your life have you not given over to Him? Through
investing energy in supplication, request that God make these things clear to you, so He
can develop you in your reliability. In this sense the ‘ above ‘ in ‘ Christology from above
‘ refers to God’s actions in the Incarnation, and the ontological result of that action (the
hypostatic union), whereas the ‘ below ‘ in ‘ Christology from below ‘ refers to the
gradual process by which the ·apostolic understanding of that action developed.
4. Each of us have been molded by our own “modes of existence”—thoughts, emotions, and
experiences—navigating our “awareness of reality” as bodily agents: “My experience of
life within the floating time structure of past, present, and future cannot be experienced
by anyone else.” And yet, we are “a member of a species, a social being” functioning
within society according to the “rules and patterns of Society”. Our sense of becoming
and social belonging is thus a “mixture of [social] Enforcement and personal freedom”
by which our seemingly free actions become acts of Reproducing and perpetuating a
particular culture. With this duality in mind, Durkheim fashions the Social and human
sciences:

“Although sociology is defined as the science of societies, it cannot, in reality, deal with.
The human groups that are the immediate object of its investigation without eventually.
Touching on the individual who is the basic element of which these groups are
composed. For society can exist only if it penetrates the consciousness of individuals and
fashions it. In ‘its image and resemblance.’ We can say, therefore, with assurance and
without being. Excessively dogmatic, that a great number of our mental states, including
some of the most Important ones, are of social origin”.

Beliefs are then socially and culturally informed attitudes and dispositions which enable
us to discern what is and is not, to what extent something is or is not, true, as well as what
should and ought to be true. They are embodied methods of discernment by virtue of our
being and becoming2 within the world. There is a diversity and range of epistemologies
intimately tied to our respective cultural histories and personal experiences. This
acknowledges that different operational epistemologies are functioning at various levels,
intersections, and experiences of realities enough to present the claim of multiple worlds
and multiple realities. In this regard, not only do beliefs orient ourselves to the world but
they inform how our agency navigates the world within the parameters by which we
understand ourselves, as “believing selves,” in relation to it. Through various practices,
discourses, and meditations, persons will “find ways to believe particular truths amid
many possible truths” and determine what it means to believe such particular truths, what
that entails in practice, and how it contributes in “understanding the nature and moral
status of human beings”. Attention is thus given to the negotiation and “the interaction
between individuals as centers of experience and agency, and the sociocultural structures
within which those individuals live”. In this regard, commitments to truth are not
constrained by epistemology as it has been conceived within the Western paradigm of
philosophy and its normative claims on truth nor are they constrained by Christian forms
of belief. Instead, the framework of “believing selves” emphasizes the relational
dimensions of persons within their respective socio-cultural and historical contexts,
varieties of discourse, and their subjective commitments and attitudes to truth and to what
is real (textured commitments of what is and ought to be the case). This opens up the
epistemological realm by which meaning can be obtained and value derived from an
open-ended range of possible truths and a variety of forms.
In some cases, life can be so befuddling and distressing that it very well may be hard to
comprehend what God needs for us over the clamor of the world and the hints of the
multitude of commitments pulling at us. Furthermore, in all actuality, God knows what
He needs for us is in charge of our arrangements. He has the diagram for our lives drawn
up. He is directing us and placing seeds in our souls and, similar to a nursery worker, He
waters the seeds He plants inside our souls. God sees you, He hears you, and He answers
your requests. This life can be hard, yet through preliminaries, the Lord makes us more
grounded. During seasons of hardship, our confidence can develop and duplicate.
Romans 5:3-5 shows us that enduring produces tirelessness and character, which prompts
trust that permits Gods to immerse our hearts through the Holy Spirt. While there is
tension from society to succeed and satisfy a specific guideline that the world holds us to,
through God and the calling He puts on our lives, we can accomplish what He needs for
our lives.
 PRELIM
EXAMINATION

LECEL R. MARTINEZ BEED2