Yes and I think you and I probably believe it because of the same sources and information. My question, though, and I suppose dovetailing off of what you said, esp. history and universality; if the criterion for whether we know something is infallibility or 100% certainty, then I think we are both on the same playing field there.Don’t you trust them?
OK, that was for dronald, since that is the type of “answer” he’s been giving.
In addition to what PR said, with which I agree, my real answer is history and universality.
These men went to their deaths professing something that, if it was a lie, they would know so. Nobody ever does that.
And, the Church believes what the Early Church always believed. Believed always, everywhere, and by everyone in the Church.
Because the Scriptures attest to that.How do you know they saw Him, loved Him and that He gave them that authority?
What “playing field” is it that you are referring to?Yes and I think you and I probably believe it because of the same sources and information. My question, though, and I suppose dovetailing off of what you said, esp. history and universality; if the criterion for whether we know something is infallibility or 100% certainty, then I think we are both on the same playing field there.
Yes, they do. But what is the starting point of your reasoning?Because the Scriptures attest to that.
Epistemology.What “playing field” is it that you are referring to?
I don’t claim to know anything infallibly. Not that I don’t believe there are other agents outside of myself that are infallible. Just not my personal knowledge.How do you know something infallible (as it applies to religious doctrine)?
Who gives you the right to interpret history and come to a decision yourself?Don’t you trust them?
OK, that was for dronald, since that is the type of “answer” he’s been giving.
In addition to what PR said, with which I agree, my real answer is history and universality.
These men went to their deaths professing something that, if it was a lie, they would know so. Nobody ever does that.
And, the Church believes what the Early Church always believed. Believed always, everywhere, and by everyone in the Church.
That’s a peculiar question.Who gives you the right to interpret history and come to a decision yourself?
The Bible as a historical document.Yes, they do. But what is the starting point of your reasoning?
My argument is that we know what the Scriptures are because of the CC.Correct me if I am wrong but it seems the argument you’ve been making to dronald is along the lines of the church, in view of its infallibility, has defined the canon and/or stated that the Scriptures are infallible. You can be certain, then, that the Scriptures are infallible because the church’s authority has witnessed to it.
But don’t you want to include the ones you’ve removed? To wit:I just can’t think of any other books I want in the Bible…
Okay. What is your basis for accepting the Bible, not only as a historical document, but as an infallible historical document?The Bible as a historical document.
Can you answer first if you agree that the ONLY way you know that the Epistle to the Hebrews is inspired is because you give submission to the authority of the CC which discerned this?Okay. What is your basis for accepting the Bible, not only as a historical document, but as an infallible historical document?
There is no “right” to interpret history. We interpret what we can in life,** within our sphere of competence and authority.** But we are free to give our assent to anything we want.Who gives you the right to interpret history and come to a decision yourself?
This is a nonsequitur.I just can’t think of any other books I want in the Bible, nor can you, nor your Church. But it doesn’t change my question; why do you even trust that the Catholic Church got it right?
That particular book? Sure, in the sense that the church has recognized it as such over the first few centuries of Christian history, using what tools were at the church’s disposal to determine that it was apostolic, agreed with the rest of the (more well-attested) NT books, etc.Can you answer first if you agree that the ONLY way you know that the Epistle to the Hebrews is inspired is because you give submission to the authority of the CC which discerned this?
That’s our position as well. And due to history, and logic we have the same NT books as you.That’s a peculiar question.
Do you believe that God has prohibited us from “interpreting history”?
The Catholic position is that we are commanded to do this.
And I suspect that you have taken this right to interpret history and come to decisions yourself.
Further proof that my Church does not submit to the Catholic Church’s authority.But don’t you want to include the ones you’ve removed? To wit:
- 1 and 2 Maccabees
- Sirach
- Wisdom
- Baruch
- Tobit
- Judith
- and parts of Daniel and Esther
Yes, further proof that individual Church’s come to a decision regardless of what the CC teaches. I would say that the said link’s Church is wrong, while I would say yours is right in regards to the NT books. We happen to have come to the same decision.This is a nonsequitur.
You didn’t address the question.
You believe in something, even if you don’t have a single word of it written down in the Bible.
QED.
As far as your statement that you can’t think of any other books you want in the Bible–um, ok.
But if you get to decide what you “want” in the Bible, do you think that other folks have that right as well?
Do you know that there’s a group of folks who don’t like the Pauline epistles? They “want” them removed from the Bible.
What do you think of that?
It’s good that you believe in Sacred Tradition, one of the 3 sources of true doctrine.Yes and I think you and I probably believe it because of the same sources and information.
IF you actually believed in it, then I’d agree. But since Sacred Tradition and Scripture witness to the Magisterium, unless you believe in all 3, you are DISbelieving in the other two.My question, though, and I suppose dovetailing off of what you said, esp. history and universality; if the criterion for whether we know something is infallibility or 100% certainty, then I think we are both on the same playing field there.
OK, I’ll correct you. PR said that scripture attests to that. Scripture is a witness to that fact. Not the source of the fact. The source of the fact is Jesus.Yes, they do. But what is the starting point of your reasoning?
Correct me if I am wrong but it seems the argument you’ve been making to dronald is along the lines of the church, in view of its infallibility, has defined the canon and/or stated that the Scriptures are infallible. You can be certain, then, that the Scriptures are infallible because the church’s authority has witnessed to it.
Well, I would submit my will to that of the Holy Spirit and the Christ-promised guidance of His Church.Yes, further proof that individual Church’s come to a decision regardless of what the CC teaches. I would say that the said link’s Church is wrong, while I would say yours is right in regards to the NT books. We happen to have come to the same decision.
How do you know that Jesus is the source of the fact?OK, I’ll correct you. PR said that scripture attests to that. Scripture is a witness to that fact. Not the source of the fact. The source of the fact is Jesus.