Biblical Truth

[Tetiaroa]

And we “know that the CC is infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit” because the book the CC itself came up with says so?
Wow!

And we should believe this circular argument why?

There is no circular argument in this my friend other than “Inspired scripture is inspired scripture because inspired scripture says that inspired scripture is inspired scripture”

Now that is a circular argument in which if your are a “Bible only” believer will say and I DON’T BELIEVE IN THAT!!!

An argument saying that "Inspired scripture is inspired scripture because the Catholic Church through the guidance of the Holy Spirit revealed to us is not a circular argument. It is the truth revealed to us by the Church Jesus established (the Catholic Church). If you deny the decision of the Church then you deny the Bible. The Bible is the Catholic Church book and it has the sole right and authority to say which scripture belongs in there.

 

[Tetiaroa]

There are two main guiding question to assist with these big question.

1. How do we know that Jesus is God?
2. How do we know that the Bible is the word of God?

In short, the Catholic Church preached in the year 33AD that Jesus is the messiah and he is God and WE BELIEVED!
The Catholic Church preached again in 390AD, that the Bible is the true word of God. SHOULD WE NOT BELIEVE?

 

[anon5216]

There is no circular argument in this my friend other than “Inspired scripture is inspired scripture because inspired scripture says that inspired scripture is inspired scripture”

Now that is a circular argument in which if your are a “Bible only” believer will say and I DON’T BELIEVE IN THAT!!!

An argument saying that "Inspired scripture is inspired scripture because the Catholic Church through the guidance of the Holy Spirit revealed to us is not a circular argument. It is the truth revealed to us by the Church Jesus established (the Catholic Church). If you deny the decision of the Church then you deny the Bible. The Bible is the Catholic Church book and it has the sole right and authority to say which scripture belongs in there.

If you say the CC claims direct guidance of the Holy Spirit on its own authority, yes - there is no circular argument there.
But how does the CC prove this claim?
It could just be a matter of faith, but that, of course, is not proof.

If the CC attempts to prove its claim by referring to texts it itself authored - well that’s definitely a circular argument and again proves nothing.

If you just want to take it on faith as a “working hypothesis” and follow that spiritual path to its fruition then the results will speak for themselves.

It still wouldn’t actually “prove” the premise - it just means believing the premise was a useful thing to believe as far as results are concerned.
But the fact that a child believing that Santa Claus was watching them every day might truly behave saintly all year and get their temporal reward as well - doesn’t prove Santa’s reality. (At least not as literally defined to the child).

I do believe the Catholic faith is a valid spiritual path that can engender true spiritual transformation.

But I also believe that the CC uses tactics parents sometimes use to get children to grow and behave that wouldn’t be appreciated by those same parents if used by others on them.

Since people like Padre Pio are what I consider spiritual ‘adults’, I guess those tactics might still be reasonable for the other 99.9% of the population.
(Just to be clear, I do not consider myself remotely on par with a spiritual giant like Padre Pio).

 

[Tetiaroa]

The “spiral” argument really is only useful to a person wanting to believe, but having a minor issue with the question of circular argument.
It then can comfort them and give a measure of confidence in their faith - as long as they don’t inquire more deeply into the validity of the “spiral” argument.

I think you better read again the previous post carefully and remove any prejudice pre-conception. I think you better consider your definition of a “spiral” argument.

Unless you are atheist then it is a different story.

God set the path down the man through Jesus. Jesus established a Church. Then the Church preaches what Jesus taught. Then Jesus, also gave the authority to the Church. Then, by the authority and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Church canonized the books of the Bible.

Do you see the connection here which is not going into circles but rather, coming down from God - Jesus - Holy Spirit - the Church - the Bible - Christians - YOU

One God, One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism, One Church, One Husband, One Wife, One Book, One Path, One Family, One Body, One Truth, One Life, One soul, One Spirit, One Shepherd, One flock, One Ark etc etc into the Oneness of the only ONE.

AMEN.

 

[anon5216]

There are two main guiding question to assist with these big question.

1. How do we know that Jesus is God?
2. How do we know that the Bible is the word of God?

In short, the Catholic Church preached in the year 33AD that Jesus is the messiah and he is God and WE BELIEVED!
The Catholic Church preached again in 390AD, that the Bible is the true word of God. SHOULD WE NOT BELIEVE?

That of course, addresses the matter of faith - not the matter of objective proof.

As far as Catholic faith is concerned, yes, those two “believings” make consistent sense.

But consider that believing Jesus is God is not necessarily the same as believing everything the CC claims (regarding faith and morals at least) is guaranteed infallible.

If you only believe Jesus is God because the CC said so and you believe the CC above all else, your second premise naturally follows.
It is, however, possible to believe Jesus is God in the context of other spiritual traditions - notably some of those from India - without believing in the supremacy and infallibility of the CC.

The practical thing to my mind is to apply one’s faith 100% to one’s own spiritual transformation and not pretend to objectively prove something that simply can’t be objectively proven.

 

[tjm190]

Look through the Nicene Creed and you’ll notice that we do not profess the knowledge that the Church’s teachings are true- we profess belief.

 

[anon5216]

I think you better read again the previous post carefully and remove any prejudice pre-conception. I think you better consider your definition of a “spiral” argument.

Unless you are atheist then it is a different story. Not an atheist - I would hope my signature makes that clear enough.

The CC claims that: God set the path down the man through Jesus - in texts it itself authored.
The CC claims that: Jesus established a Church - in texts it itself authored.
The CC claims that: Then the Church preaches what Jesus taught - in texts it itself authored.
The CC claims that: Then Jesus, also gave the authority to the Church - in texts it itself authored.
The CC claims that: Then, by the authority and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Church canonized the books of the Bible - in texts it itself authored.

Do you see the connection here which is not going into circles but rather, coming down from God - Jesus - Holy Spirit - the Church - the Bible - Christians - YOU
Honestly - no.

One God, One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism, One Church, One Husband, One Wife, One Book, One Path, One Family, One Body, One Truth, One Life, One soul, One Spirit, One Shepherd, One flock, One Ark etc etc into the Oneness of the only ONE.

AMEN.

That said, I don’t intend to deter you from using your faith as you believe it to become spiritually transformed.

 

[Tetiaroa]

If you say the CC claims direct guidance of the Holy Spirit on its own authority, yes - there is no circular argument there.
But how does the CC prove this claim?
It could just be a matter of faith, but that, of course, is not proof.

If the CC attempts to prove its claim by referring to texts it itself authored - well that’s definitely a circular argument and again proves nothing.

If you just want to take it on faith as a “working hypothesis” and follow that spiritual path to its fruition then the results will speak for themselves.

e Pio).

I think an understanding how the canonizing process was done will help. Read further.

There were around 200 writings that circulated among the local branches of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church in the early centuries of Christianity. When she was nearly 400 years old, the Catholic Church canonized 27 of them and named them the New Testament.

Since the Catholic Church has been teaching from Apostolic Tradition there were certain criteria that the Church applied to these writings to test or proof their acceptability into the canon of Scripture or why they should be called inspired.

(1) the writing had to be of apostolic origin, or influenced by an Apostle;

(2) the writing had to have been universally accepted by all the local Churches that were part of the Universal (Catholic) Church;

(3) the writing had to have been used in the liturgy (read aloud during the Liturgy of the Word segment of the Mass);

(4) the writing had to conform to the doctrines that came from the Apostles that were already believed and taught by the Church.

The Catholic Church rejected from the canon those writings which did not meet all of the criteria she herself established for the Scriptures of the New Covenant.

So I hope this helps.

 

[Philthy]

Hi anon5216!

That of course, addresses the matter of faith - not the matter of objective proof.

It is not scientific or philosophical truth in the manner of other information. Much of your life and “knowledge” cannot be demonstrated by that level of certitude. If you are looking for that level of veracity regarding a matter of faith then you will never find it. More than likely you will be left with no faith and the equal inability to prove that there is nothing to have faith in. There are elements of “objective truth” in the arguments presented.
Here is the bare bones historical proof (Scripture, Josephus)
Jesus Christ existed; He had followers…a church; He was crucified and rose from the dead; His followers went on to multiply in most improbable fashion; they recorded the events surrounding his life and their missionary efforts; the organization He established reproduced and protected these writings; this organization remains today - as predicted by those writings; the writings they verified in the 4th century remain the writings they verify today.

The practical thing to my mind is to apply one’s faith 100% to one’s own spiritual transformation and not pretend to objectively prove something that simply can’t be objectively proven.

Oh! I thought you wanted proof…um ignore everything I wrote then…

 

[anon5216]

I think an understanding how the canonizing process was done will help. Read further.

There were around 200 writings that circulated among the local branches of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church in the early centuries of Christianity. When she was nearly 400 years old, the Catholic Church canonized 27 of them and named them the New Testament.

Since the Catholic Church has been teaching from Apostolic Tradition there were certain criteria that the Church applied to these writings to test or proof their acceptability into the canon of Scripture or why they should be called inspired.

(1) the writing had to be of apostolic origin, or influenced by an Apostle;

(2) the writing had to have been universally accepted by all the local Churches that were part of the Universal (Catholic) Church;

(3) the writing had to have been used in the liturgy (read aloud during the Liturgy of the Word segment of the Mass);

(4) the writing had to conform to the doctrines that came from the Apostles that were already believed and taught by the Church.

The Catholic Church rejected from the canon those writings which did not meet all of the criteria she herself established for the Scriptures of the New Covenant.

So I hope this helps.

I can agree these steps being logical and reasonable for the purpose of a group of fallible human Church leaders wanting to insure consistency in the accepted source writings of a new religion being established.
Personally, I would have left it at that - “here are the writings of the people with some kind of first hand, or at least 2nd hand, experience of Jesus” - these should be defined for posterity.

However, the overlay of “these writings are the ‘Word of God’ and not just sincere but ultimately fallible human accounts of spiritually profound events” is very unfortunate in the long term.
Yes, in the short term it may have helped the spread of Christianity and helped intensify the faith of the average convert, but now in the long term, the Truth behind Christianity is suffering because of it.

 

[anon5216]

Hi anon5216!

It is not scientific or philosophical truth in the manner of other information. Much of your life and “knowledge” cannot be demonstrated by that level of certitude. If you are looking for that level of veracity regarding a matter of faith then you will never find it. More than likely you will be left with no faith and the equal inability to prove that there is nothing to have faith in. There are elements of “objective truth” in the arguments presented.
Here is the bare bones historical proof (Scripture, Josephus)
Jesus Christ existed; He had followers…a church; He was crucified and rose from the dead; His followers went on to multiply in most improbable fashion; they recorded the events surrounding his life and their missionary efforts; the organization He established reproduced and protected these writings; this organization remains today - as predicted by those writings; the writings they verified in the 4th century remain the writings they verify today.

Oh! I thought you wanted proof…um ignore everything I wrote then…

Actually it’s not proof I want.

I simply take extreme exception to people claiming things as indisputably and/or infallibly proven that, as you stated it yourself, simply “cannot be demonstrated by that level of certitude”.

IMO, to require the pretense of “that level of certitude” in matters of religious belief is a sign of very weak faith.
I realize that many people think the more intense that pretense is, the stronger their faith is - but that’s only because they think they are moving in the opposite direction from doubt.
Unfortunately, they’re not.

Faith is tangential to the belief/doubt circle.

 

[Tetiaroa]

Yes, in the short term it may have helped the spread of Christianity and helped intensify the faith of the average convert, but now in the long term, the Truth behind Christianity is suffering because of it.

I’m afraid I have to disagree with that! What you’ve just stated should be true with Fundamentalists who hold that the Bible is the only binding authority but they have a BIG problem when asked about the inspiration of the Bible. For Catholics, the Truth behind Christianity does not suffer because the Bible is not the only rule of faith and practice.

The Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth. Without the Bible the Church still exists. The Church did not use the Bible to spread Christianity. Read the entire Book of Acts and you won’t find that they preached from the Bible. What was only mentioned clearly was this “…and they stick to the Doctrines of the Apostles.” The Doctrines of the Apostles mentioned was not the Bible.

The Truth comes from Jesus and it is this Truth that was passed down through the ages by the Church through the Apostles who were the witnesses to this Truth.

So there is no spiral argument because what we have was originated from somewhere and, that is, from the witnesses, the Apostles. That is the proof of the Church and the Bible. We have 12 witnesses who had witnessed to the Truth. Something that the Bible also contains. They gave their lives and were ready to die for the Truth because they had witnessed everything!

 

[Zooey]

I think maybe that starting with “proving the Bible is inspired” is maybe taking ahold of the wrong end of the stick. It seems to me, that you begin by reading the works of the great Christian apologists. There are no better names to recommend, I believe, than Peter Kreeft (whom you have all ready discovered!), and C S Lewis.
Now, Lewis is interesting, because he started out as an atheist, and became a Christian. (It is true that he was Church of England, but his writings are aimed not at what various Christian groups find to differ over, but the essential heart of the matter, which is: Who is Jesus Christ? And what am I to make of Him?).
Once you have come that far, then you can go on to the matter of proofs for Scripture. The only initial thing that you need to remember, is that the stories of the life of Christ (and his disciples), are part of a well-respected and well-authenticated ancient text written by people who were there, and actually knew Jesus Christ.
It seems to me, that the question of inspiration comes in a little farther down the road…:twocents:

In the meantime: :extrahappy:Congratulations on your new adventure as you come to understand more & more about Our Lord!! What an:extrahappy: exciting thing to be doing, coming upon Him for the first time!!
God bless you, and know that many prayers are with you!!

 

[anon5216]

I’m afraid I have to disagree with that! What you’ve just stated should be true with Fundamentalists who hold that the Bible is the only binding authority but they have a BIG problem when asked about the inspiration of the Bible. For Catholics, the Truth behind Christianity does not suffer because the Bible is not the only rule of faith and practice.

The Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth. Without the Bible the Church still exists. The Church did not use the Bible to spread Christianity. Read the entire Book of Acts and you won’t find that they preached from the Bible. What was only mentioned clearly was this “…and they stick to the Doctrines of the Apostles.” The Doctrines of the Apostles mentioned was not the Bible.

The Truth comes from Jesus and it is this Truth that was passed down through the ages by the Church through the Apostles who were the witnesses to this Truth.

So there is no spiral argument because what we have was originated from somewhere and, that is, from the witnesses, the Apostles. That is the proof of the Church and the Bible. We have 12 witnesses who had witnessed to the Truth. Something that the Bible also contains. They gave their lives and were ready to die for the Truth because they had witnessed everything!

My intention in the previous post was to assert that the entirely fallible human CC leadership’s claims of infallibility (via the Holy Spirit) and related claims of inerrancy of defined scriptural writings are a human overlay that is itself not Truth.
I wasn’t saying the Church used the Bible to spread Christianity, but rather it used the ideas of what is really human interpretation as being infallible and what are really human writings as being inerrant.

As I said before, to carefully collect together and preserve a set of texts and assert: “here are the writings of the people with some kind of first hand, or at least 2nd hand, experience of Jesus” is one thing.
To make brash claims of infallibility of what is clearly fallible human leadership and divine authorship of what are clearly imperfect human writings is entirely another.

Being a witness does not guarantee understanding of what one has witnessed.
Willingness to die for one’s beliefs does not guarantee one’s beliefs are 100% correct.

Evidently we drastically disagree in this area and likely won’t be able to find a common ground.
I do not mean to attack your faith and wish you ever transcending spiritual growth, within the context of your Catholic faith, in whatever ever manner the Holy Trinity of your faith deems appropriate.

 

[Philthy]

My intention in the previous post was to assert that the entirely fallible human CC leadership’s claims of infallibility (via the Holy Spirit) and related claims of inerrancy of defined scriptural writings are a human overlay that is itself not Truth.

But now you are claiming something as true that has even less objective proof than the claims of the faithful that you were criticizing. You can’t prove fallibility as it relates to Scriptural inerrancy nor can you claim to know when the Church has acted infallibly through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. What happened to your objectivity?

 

[TheWhoFreak]

I want to know how we know the Bible is the real deal.

Because the Catholic Church says it is the real deal. Let me explain. Jesus, while on Earth, did one thing so that man would have a visible arena to experience God. He created a Church. He said to the Apostles that He would be with them until the end of time, and that the Gates of Hades will not overcome His Church. Thus, the mark of Christ’s Church would be 2 things:

1. Infallibility
2. Traceable line of doctrine from present day to the time the Church was established

Jesus said that the Gates of Hades would not overcome His Church, and the Catholic Church has never been overcome by Satan. We have never taught error, and never will.

Another way to say the second item is that the Church would teach the same things now as it taught when Jesus established it. This was proved in the 1800s when John Henry Newmann traced all the doctrine taught by the Catholic Church to biblical times. He published a book about it in the 1800s. I forget the name of the book, but you could probably find it on amazon.com fairly quick by using Newmann’s name.
Seeing that the Catholic Church is the True Church because it has these traits, we can then trust its judgement on anything related to faith and morals, knowing that it will be 100% correct.
Thus, when this infallible Church tells us that the Bible is inspired, only then can we trust Scripture as fully inspired, because it is the only way to account for every word of Scripture.

 

[Tetiaroa]

My intention in the previous post was to assert that the entirely fallible human CC leadership’s claims of infallibility (via the Holy Spirit) and related claims of inerrancy of defined scriptural writings are a human overlay that is itself not Truth.

Okay! I think you will want to show what is your definition of INSPIRATION so we may be on the same frequency.

I wasn’t saying the Church used the Bible to spread Christianity, but rather it used the ideas of what is really human interpretation as being infallible and what are really human writings as being inerrant.

Sorry if I misread what you meant. I was implying from your previous post as I quoted below:

“…Yes, in the short term it may have helped the spread of Christianity and helped intensify the faith of the average convert…”

To make brash claims of infallibility of what is clearly fallible human leadership and divine authorship of what are clearly imperfect human writings is entirely another.

As I say, it may be good if you define first your understanding of “INSPIRATION”. Then we can proceed from there.

Being a witness does not guarantee understanding of what one has witnessed.
Willingness to die for one’s beliefs does not guarantee one’s beliefs are 100% correct.

I always doubt why would someone waste his or her life on something which is not true!

I do not mean to attack your faith and wish you ever transcending spiritual growth, within the context of your Catholic faith, in whatever ever manner the Holy Trinity of your faith deems appropriate.

I don’t take it as an attack. I take it as an opportunity to open your way back home. You are a former Catholic aren’t you?

 

[irenaeus1]

My intention in the previous post was to assert that the entirely fallible human CC leadership’s claims of infallibility (via the Holy Spirit) and related claims of inerrancy of defined scriptural writings are a human overlay that is itself not Truth.

Is your assertion an infallible one?

As I said before, to carefully collect together and preserve a set of texts and assert: “here are the writings of the people with some kind of first hand, or at least 2nd hand, experience of Jesus” is one thing.
To make brash claims of infallibility of what is clearly fallible human leadership and divine authorship of what are clearly imperfect human writings is entirely another.

Which is why the argument starts with the apostolic writings as historical witness accounts, not that the writings are the infallible Word of God.

Being a witness does not guarantee understanding of what one has witnessed.
Willingness to die for one’s beliefs does not guarantee one’s beliefs are 100% correct.

It certainly helps. Certainly, there are those who have died for a lie. Just think of the Branch Davidians, or Jim Jones and his followers, or Heaven’s Gates, or any number of groups who genuinely believed that they held the objective truth. However, what makes Christianity different is that the apostles and other early martyrs would have been in the best position to know whether what they professed was false. People may die for a lie that they believed wholeheartedly to be true, but people are not willing to die for what they know to be false. So had the resurrection been falsified (e.g., the swoon theory, the disciples stole the body but claimed he had risen, and any other number of falsification theories), what explains the sudden change in the apostles and disciples? What changed them from hiding out behind locked doors fearing for their lives to boldly proclaiming that He is alive. It does not make sense that they were willing to die for him had they known that they themselves were merely perpetrating a falsehood?

 

[irenaeus1]

That said, I don’t intend to deter you from using your faith as you believe it to become spiritually transformed.

Spiritually transformed into what? Just curious.

 

[Tetiaroa]

My intention in the previous post was to assert that the entirely fallible human CC leadership’s claims of infallibility (via the Holy Spirit) and related claims of inerrancy of defined scriptural writings are a human overlay that is itself not Truth.

You may wanna answer these questions:

1. Do you believe that Peter and the rest of the Apostles were fallible men? Yes or No
2. Do you believe that the Apostles (who were fallible) preached through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? Yes or No

3. Do you believe that the Holy Spirit can work through fallible men to write infallibly? Yes or No

4. Do you believe that the Holy Spirit can work through fallible men to decide infallibly? Yes or No
5. Do you believe that the Bible is an infallible collection decided by fallible men through the work of the Holy Spirit? Yes or No

Answering yes to all of the above may lead you to acknowledging the Bible as Inspired.

“here are the writings of the people with some kind of first hand, or at least 2nd hand, experience of Jesus” which is an infallible decision revealed to us by the work of the Holy Spirit

There were many writings and to correctly decide which ones originated from “these people” required the assistance of the Holy Spirit. The Church did not decide on her own. Further, these writings were written by fallible men who wrote in their own fallible style but through the help of the Holy Spirit.