Ancient Catholic documents unlocked

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maranatha
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Richardols:
Will we get more proof that Catholic teaching is true?

We have no “proof” at all. We have evidence, that’s all; our belief in the truths of Catholicism is all a matter of faith, a faith which God has bestowed upon us.

If “proof” were available, how could anyone refuse to accept Catholic teaching? They could not.
Click to expand...
I was using a defination of “proof” as in evidence or test (definations #1, #2 or #4 below not #3). Perhaps the term proof was not best choice of words becasue it has such multiple meaning.

proof proof ]

noun (plural proofs)
  1. conclusive evidence: evidence or an argument that serves to establish a fact or the truth of something
  2. test of something: a test or trial of something to establish whether it is true
  3. state of having been proved: the quality or condition of having been proved
  4. law trial evidence: the evidence in a trial that helps to determine the court’s decision
 
40.png
Maranatha:
I was using a defination of “proof” as in evidence or test (definations #1, #2 or #4 below not #3). Perhaps the term proof was not best choice of words becasue it has such multiple meaning.

proof proof ]

noun (plural proofs)
  1. conclusive evidence: evidence or an argument that serves to establish a fact or the truth of something
  2. test of something: a test or trial of something to establish whether it is true
  3. state of having been proved: the quality or condition of having been proved
  4. law trial evidence: the evidence in a trial that helps to determine the court’s decision
Click to expand...
But what is it that is capable of being proven?

Perhaps that the traditional order of the Gospels is right (some preliminary work indicates that Matthew may have written a decade earlier, and may precede Mark)?

Or maybe that a particular version of the current Gospels is earlier (the alternate ending of the Gospel of Mark, for example)?

Or the identity of some of the people mentioned in the New Testament but not otherwise identified (Thephilos, for example)?

But as for “proof” of the Christian Message, what can possibly be there that will incontrovertably prove it?
 
vern humphrey:
But what is it that is capable of being proven?

Perhaps that the traditional order of the Gospels is right (some preliminary work indicates that Matthew may have written a decade earlier, and may precede Mark)?

Or maybe that a particular version of the current Gospels is earlier (the alternate ending of the Gospel of Mark, for example)?

Or the identity of some of the people mentioned in the New Testament but not otherwise identified (Thephilos, for example)?

But as for “proof” of the Christian Message, what can possibly be there that will incontrovertably prove it?
Click to expand...
Again. sorry I used the word proof. I certainly did not use the word incontrovertible. Not knowing what’s in the documents is, of course, what makes their existence intriguing.

Evidence can be strong or weak. Evidence we have today is Biblical and non-Biblical. Some don’t’ accept non-Biblical evidence (and still won’t after the documents are decoded).

If you believe “orthodoxy” was formulated over the first three centuries of the early Church then first century Christian documents would show that. If orthodoxy was given to us from Christ then new first century documents will support that. Either way they will most likely be controversial.
 
40.png
Maranatha:
Again. sorry I used the word proof. I certainly did not use the word incontrovertible. Not knowing what’s in the documents is, of course, what makes their existence intriguing.

Evidence can be strong or weak. Evidence we have today is Biblical and non-Biblical. Some don’t’ accept non-Biblical evidence (and still won’t after the documents are decoded).

If you believe “orthodoxy” was formulated over the first three centuries of the early Church then first century Christian documents would show that. If orthodoxy was given to us from Christ then new first century documents will support that. Either way they will most likely be controversial.
Click to expand...
I think there are two different issues in orthodoxy. We may define it as “consistent with the message of Christ” or as “consistent with the official doctrine of the Church.”

The Apostles wrestled with the first issue from the beginning – we find references to false teachings scattrered through the epistles and Revelation. The ultimate reaction was to formalize the doctrine of the Church (which Iraneaus is credited with starting), laying out the Church’s teaching in a sort of ABC format.

So far, we have found that the original message and the Church’s doctrines are in conformance. So if we find documents that are not in conformance, that automatically marks them as heretical. As I said before, orthodoxy is one element in establishing authenticity.
 
Other observations I have made revolve around the fact that if we believe Jesus Christ was God, then to acknowledge in any way that the Church he founded and survives today is a false Church is to acknowledge that he failed in his mission and aspiration.

I find the Gnostic texts confirm othodoxy not challenge it. Pagels is a useful independant voice whose books seems to me to assert that if you do not see Gnosticism as the answer, you MUST be Catholic!
 
40.png
FightingFat:
Other observations I have made revolve around the fact that if we believe Jesus Christ was God, then to acknowledge in any way that the Church he founded and survives today is a false Church is to acknowledge that he failed in his mission and aspiration.

I find the Gnostic texts confirm othodoxy not challenge it. Pagels is a useful independant voice whose books seems to me to assert that if you do not see Gnosticism as the answer, you MUST be Catholic!
Click to expand...
Kind of like a skeleton at a waterhole warns you, “Don’t drink here.”
 
The article states that the artifacts were found in an “ancient rubbish dump”. If they thought it was rubbish 2000 years ago, what are the chances they contain anything worthwhile now? (from a theological perspective)
 
Dr. Colossus:
The article states that the artifacts were found in an “ancient rubbish dump”. If they thought it was rubbish 2000 years ago, what are the chances they contain anything worthwhile now? (from a theological perspective)
Click to expand...
Good point but, if the writing was faded then some might consider them rubbish even if they were originally thought valuable.
 
Dr. Colossus:
The article states that the artifacts were found in an “ancient rubbish dump”. If they thought it was rubbish 2000 years ago, what are the chances they contain anything worthwhile now? (from a theological perspective)
Click to expand...
What was rubbish 2,000 years ago is something different now – if it contains copies of books we have only heard about from other ancient writers, they would be invaluable.

This same “rubbish” has already yielded what appear to be fragments of the Gospel of Matthew, which can be dated to about 10 years earlier than current wisdom says Matthew wrote.
 
Dr. Colossus:
The article states that the artifacts were found in an “ancient rubbish dump”. If they thought it was rubbish 2000 years ago, what are the chances they contain anything worthwhile now? (from a theological perspective)
Click to expand...

Who put them there, and why ? It is not where they were found, but what they say and mean, that matters.​

 
40.png
Digitonomy:
I haven’t read her book on the Gospel of Thomas - what’s her interpretation of the verse that says women must become male to enter the Kingdom?
Click to expand...
I haven’t read it either – but here’s a blurb on it:

[From Publishers Weekly:
“In this majestic new book, Pagels (author of The Gnostic Gospels) ranges panoramically over the history of early Christianity, demonstrating the religion’s initial tremendous diversity and its narrowing to include only certain texts supporting certain beliefs. At the center of her book is the conflict between the gospels of John and Thomas. Reading these gospels closely, she shows that Thomas offered readers a message of spiritual enlightenment. Rather than promoting Jesus as the only light of the world, Thomas taught individuals that ‘there is a light within each person, and it lights up the whole universe. If it does not shine, there is darkness.’”

](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0375501568/thegospelofthoma/002-3318286-6124820)
 
phew… this revelation thing and wear you out at times…

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
40.png
Richardols:
Will we get more proof that Catholic teaching is true?

We have no “proof” at all. We have evidence, that’s all; our belief in the truths of Catholicism is all a matter of faith, a faith which God has bestowed upon us.

If “proof” were available, how could anyone refuse to accept Catholic teaching? They could not.
Click to expand...
I am waiting for a definitive, irrefutable document or writing that will erase all doubts from anti-Catholics, so much so that to dismiss such writings would make one fall into heresy, even in the eyes of their fellow Protestants. If something like that comes out, verified to be authentic, then we’d see a great surge towards the Catholic Church. But alas, I don’t think such writings exist, aside from the Gospels.
 
40.png
Milliardo:
I am waiting for a definitive, irrefutable document or writing that will erase all doubts from anti-Catholics, so much so that to dismiss such writings would make one fall into heresy, even in the eyes of their fellow Protestants. If something like that comes out, verified to be authentic, then we’d see a great surge towards the Catholic Church. But alas, I don’t think such writings exist, aside from the Gospels.
Click to expand...
We already have such documents – the New Testament. You see how they pick and choose in the New Testament, finding verses they like, and rejecting others.

How many Protestant churches accept divorce and re-marriage, despite Christ’s explicit prohibition? How many deny the Real Presense in the Eucharist, despite Christ’s explicit commands?
 
40.png
Milliardo:
I am waiting for a definitive, irrefutable document or writing that will erase all doubts from anti-Catholics, so much so that to dismiss such writings would make one fall into heresy, even in the eyes of their fellow Protestants. If something like that comes out, verified to be authentic, then we’d see a great surge towards the Catholic Church. But alas, I don’t think such writings exist, aside from the Gospels.
Click to expand...
Documents are nice, but newly discovered documents are rather like the old axiom about science: every answer leads to two new questions. That’s the way the hard-core dissenters will abuse it anyway.:confused:

The way to grow the church is by sticking to core basics. “Modernism” tries to stand for so many things that it ends up standing for nothing. The only place left to run is back Home to Rome!! :yup:
 
Its important to realise that all Divine Revelation is already completed in Christ; so the other documents discovered, if authentic, will witness to Him alone; as the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

*** III. Christ Jesus – “Mediator and Fullness of All Revelation”*25**

God has said everything in his Word

65 "In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son."26 Christ, the Son of God made man, is the Father’s one, perfect and unsurpassable Word. In him he has said everything; there will be no other word than this one. St. John of the Cross, among others, commented strikingly on Hebrews 1:1-2:

In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word - and he has no more to say. . . because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behaviour but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novelty.27

There will be no further Revelation

66 "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ."28 Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.]

Besides as Catholics we know that Divine Revelation consists of both the Sacred Scripture and the Sacred Tradition of the Church, so any document which radically disagrees with already revealed Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition in matters of doctrine, will not be considered authentic or canonical anyway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top