Foundations of the Church

[Dan_471]

Hello

Suppose one accepts a few basic truths about Jesus… that he was a real person, he died, was raised again… Is this enough to lead a person to believe that the RCC is God’s instrument for communicating truth to humans?

To put it another way, or perhaps a similar question, how strong is the connection between accepting the above few truths about Jesus, and believing that he wanted to establish a particular group, or church… the conversion stories that I’ve read usually have the person saying that they felt drawn to the RCC… suppose that drawing isn’t there?

Peace,
Dan

 

[Della]

Hello

Suppose one accepts a few basic truths about Jesus… that he was a real person, he died, was raised again… Is this enough to lead a person to believe that the RCC is God’s instrument for communicating truth to humans?

Well, not quite, but very close. One also should believe that Christ established his Church on the Apostles, as we read in the Gospels.

To put it another way, or perhaps a similar question, how strong is the connection between accepting the above few truths about Jesus, and believing that he wanted to establish a particular group, or church…

The connection is really quite simple. Jesus himself said, “I will establish my church…” He appointed Peter as the chief shepherd and commissioned the Apostles to go into the whole world, baptizing and teaching what he taught them. He always had his Church in mind as the means by which he would remain in the world–through the Apostles teaching and their successors and in the Sacraments, espcially the Eucharist in which he gives us his body and blood, soul and divinity.

the conversion stories that I’ve read usually have the person saying that they felt drawn to the RCC… suppose that drawing isn’t there?

Peace,
Dan

The first stage of being drawn is asking questions, so you are being drawn even if you feel no emotional pulling. Often God does draw us through intellectual curiosity/inquiry which leads to learning which leads to understanding which opens our hearts to accept who Jesus is, what he can mean for us, and how he wishes to draw us to himself. The Church stands ready to help us do those things. I hope that helps.

 

[pablope]

Hello

Suppose one accepts a few basic truths about Jesus… that he was a real person, he died, was raised again… Is this enough to lead a person to believe that the RCC is God’s instrument for communicating truth to humans?

To put it another way, or perhaps a similar question, how strong is the connection between accepting the above few truths about Jesus, and believing that he wanted to establish a particular group, or church… the conversion stories that I’ve read usually have the person saying that they felt drawn to the RCC… suppose that drawing isn’t there?

Peace,
Dan

Well…Jesus said in Matt 16…He was going to build a church with Peter as the rock or foundation…and He sent the Apostles to baptize in the name of the Trinity.

And the Bible says…one faith, one baptism…and Christ prayed “that they may be one” in John’s gospel…so you may ask…with so many denominations…which one is true?

So, the question may be asked…which Church is this that can speak with authority and authoritatively? I may lead to several more questions…to search history, the history of the ealry church…how they functioned…how they worshipped…and this search will lead you down paths…thay may lead you to a conclusion of what this church is?

In the early days, the creed said the Church had four marks…and I will let a convert tell them to you about it…what he discovered…The Four marks of the Church…by Scott Hahn…star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m3/Mod3.html

 

[Dan_471]

Hello, Della

Thank you for the nice response… and I can accept that God may be drawing me through the questioning process…

So,

Jesus himself said, “I will establish my church…”

This would be a key point, I think. Did Jesus say that? Many scholars question the reliability of the gospels… In the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus is quoted as saying “be passersby”, which could indicate to me kind of the opposite of establishing a fixed group… (some researchers feel that Thomas contains earlier {and thus more accurate?} sayings of Jesus)

 

[Dan_471]

Well, let’s see… I think that’s from Ephesians… many people say that Paul wrote that (tho others say someone else wrote it in Paul’s name). Should we listen to what Paul said? He seems like an earnest enough person… Maybe somethings he wrote were true, some not… ?

Hahn writes

So also He shares with us the Holy Spirit so that we might put our faith in the Apostles…

If I understand Hahn right, it’s something that the Holy Spirit puts inside of you… the basis for faith in the Apostles isn’t something that you can take out and show someone else… The Mormons put out the idea that if one prays and asks God to show you if the Book of Mormon is true, He will. I prayed that prayer, and got a positive response… then I prayed for God to show me if Buddhism was true… again, same positive response. I can sense some leading of the Holy Spirit that Christ set up the Apostles to form the Church, then again, I can also sense the spirit telling me "No, go with someone like Marcion (the early 'heretic ’ guy)

 

[Della]

Hello, Della

Thank you for the nice response… and I can accept that God may be drawing me through the questioning process…

You have my prayers for your journey.

So,

This would be a key point, I think. Did Jesus say that? Many scholars question the reliability of the gospels… In the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus is quoted as saying “be passersby”, which could indicate to me kind of the opposite of establishing a fixed group… (some researchers feel that Thomas contains earlier {and thus more accurate?} sayings of Jesus)

The “Gospel of Thomas” is a much later writing. I don’t know where you are getting your information, but the Church compiled the books of the NT based on rigorous criteria. Some of them were the work had to be written by an Apostle or one of their immediate associates, such as Luke and Mark, it had to be written in the first century, which the GoT wasn’t, and so didn’t qualify on either score, and it couldn’t contradict the oral teachings of the Apostles and the Magisterium, which had existed long before the GoT was written. So, it is not on par with Scripture and is not a reliable witness to orthodox Christianity. There were other criteria which the GoT didn’t meet, but I won’t weary you with more.

Jesus gave his authority to the Apostles. His Church is Christ’s body and representative on earth and no other. Don’t let voices that deny this plain fact disturb you or sidetrack you. Many voices speaking contradictory things cannot be true. There is only one truth about what the Church is. It’s existed since 33 AD when Christ commissioned the Apostles, which the Holy Spirit confirmed on Pentecost.

 

[Ignatius]

Hello

Suppose one accepts a few basic truths about Jesus… that he was a real person, he died, was raised again… Is this enough to lead a person to believe that the RCC is God’s instrument for communicating truth to humans?

To put it another way, or perhaps a similar question, how strong is the connection between accepting the above few truths about Jesus, and believing that he wanted to establish a particular group, or church… the conversion stories that I’ve read usually have the person saying that they felt drawn to the RCC… suppose that drawing isn’t there?

Peace,
Dan

It doesn’t really matter if you feel drawn. Feelings are transient. What matters is Truth. The important Truth is what Church is The Church that Jesus Christ founded. So, how do we find out which is this Church? Consider the following about the Church that Jesus Christ founded:

1. It was built by Jesus Christ himself (Matt 16:18) which means that His church must be about 2000 years old. This fact alone eliminates the vast majority of churches.
2. Jesus only built ONE church (Matt 16:18) hence there is only one.
3. The Church which Jesus Christ founded is the one to whom He revealed and which declared and decreed which books are to be contained in the New Testament.
4. Jesus handed His Authority to His Apostles (Mat 28:16-20), therefore His Church must be able to trace it’s chief pastors back in a line of succession to The Apostles.

 

[Dan_471]

You have my prayers for your journey.

Thank you.

The “Gospel of Thomas” is a much later writing.

Well, my understanding is that that’s hotly debated.

I don’t know where you are getting your information,…

Mostly from [what appear to be] well-researched pages on the internet.

…but the Church compiled the books of the NT based on rigorous criteria.

Well, yes. At the same time, other people were compiling other lists, so I think we have several different lists to choose from…

Some of them were the work had to be written by an Apostle or one of their immediate associates, such as Luke and Mark, it had to be written in the first century,

Well, again, yes… some books in the NT are unknown as to date and authorship, so I’m not sure how to handle those…

which the GoT wasn’t, and so didn’t qualify on either score,
and it couldn’t contradict the oral teachings of the Apostles and the Magisterium,

Well, assuming that a unified teaching existed, yes…

…which had existed long before the GoT was written.

OK, if I may observe here, that sounds like a statement of faith… which of course a person is welcome to believe… there are, of course, many things a person can choose to believe…

So, it is not on par with Scripture and is not a reliable witness to orthodox Christianity.

We can definitely agree that GoT isn’t orthodox Christianity… I do think there is a possibility of circular thinking in this issue… this idea isn’t orthodox because no orthodox person thought it… here’s a person that thought it… they weren’t orthodox… how do we know? because no orthodox person thought it…

There were other criteria which the GoT didn’t meet, but I won’t weary you with more.

Feel free to weary me. I’m into stuff like that…

Jesus gave his authority to the Apostles. His Church is Christ’s body and representative on earth and no other. Don’t let voices that deny this plain fact…

I guess I disagree there… it doesn’t look like a fact to me… unless I’m missing something… I’m willing to consider that…

…disturb you or sidetrack you. Many voices speaking contradictory things cannot be true. There is only one truth about what the Church is. It’s existed since 33 AD when Christ commissioned the Apostles, which the Holy Spirit confirmed on Pentecost.

Well, let’s see how the discussion turns out…

 

[Della]

Thank you.

You’re welcome. Please say a prayer for me, as well.

Well, my understanding is that that’s hotly debated.

By whom? Those with an agenda or those who have a real desire to be historically accurate? And no, I have no agenda here, even if it may seem so. Plain simple history tells us the GoT was written much later–even the historical-critical method of interpretation agrees with that assesment. I raise the point not because I personally subscribe to the H/C method, but merely to point out that not all modern exegesis is as good as another and anyone can forumlate objections based on agenda/desire for fame/to be contrary, etc. I know people who want to push the “Jesus married Mary Magdelene” idea love to cite these later Gnostic works as “proof”, which, of course, it isn’t.

Mostly from [what appear to be] well-researched pages on the internet.

Maybe you need to do a bit more research from other sources.

Well, yes. At the same time, other people were compiling other lists, so I think we have several different lists to choose from…

The only groups with the authority to make any sort of canon would be the Church and the Jewish leaders. And both did. Neither included GoT. The Jewish canon had a much narrower criteria than the Church’s canon, of course not including the NT writings, but those are the only ones who could have any real claim to do so.

Well, again, yes… some books in the NT are unknown as to date and authorship, so I’m not sure how to handle those…

The Early Church Fathers told us who wrote which books, and being so close to the times, they would know better than more modern attempts at it. There’s no good reason to doubt them. There was no historical-critical method in use at the time, nor was it necessary then (or now, IMHO). The H/C method presumes miracles don’t happen, and the ECFs assumed they did. It makes no sense to me to distrust those who knew the Apostles and their successors over those who are 2000 years removed from the times and the culture.

Well, assuming that a unified teaching existed, yes…

It did. There was, as St. Paul put it, “one faith, one baptism…” That has not changed.

OK, if I may observe here, that sounds like a statement of faith… which of course a person is welcome to believe… there are, of course, many things a person can choose to believe…

One must choose to believe what is based on good evidence. I could choose to believe in fairies but there is very poor evidence for their existence. The Church’s evidence for its claims are rock solid–not because they seem right and good, although they are, but because they have the weight of history on their side.

We can definitely agree that GoT isn’t orthodox Christianity… I do think there is a possibility of circular thinking in this issue… this idea isn’t orthodox because no orthodox person thought it… here’s a person that thought it… they weren’t orthodox… how do we know? because no orthodox person thought it…

Christianity is not a thought up religion–it is a religion of revelation–the revelation of Christ’s life, death and resurrection. As, once again, St. Paul so succiently put it, “If Christ be not raised from the dead, our faith is in vain.” The NT is simly the witness to that, to what Christ said and did (not all, of course, but that which we need for our salvation), and witness to the beginnings of the Church. Read from and through the Catholic perspective it all fits together. Read from any other perspective and it seems contradictory and confusing because no other method of interpretation will work except within the context of the Faith that gave it to us.

Feel free to weary me. I’m into stuff like that…

Unfortunately, there isn’t room within a forum thread to go into that much detail. But, here are articles for you to read: Gospel of Thomas.

I don’t say that the Church is right merely because of what I want to believe. I am a “convert”. Trust me, I didn’t believe the Church or understand it until I gave it a fair chance and investigated for myself. The Church’s claims make the most sense, historically, theologically, spiritually, psychologically, etc. It tells us the truth about what man is and who God is because it tells us what Christ told us about those things–undiluted, unchanged and in charity.

 

[Dan_471]

It doesn’t really matter if you feel drawn. Feelings are transient. What matters is Truth. The important Truth is what Church is The Church that Jesus Christ founded.

Well, if He founded a Church, then, yes

So, how do we find out which is this Church? Consider the following about the Church that Jesus Christ founded:

1. It was built by Jesus Christ himself (Matt 16:18)…

Yes, if He said that, yes

…which means that His church must be about 2000 years old. This fact alone eliminates the vast majority of churches.

1. Jesus only built ONE church (Matt 16:18) hence there is only one.

Kind of a lot resting on that passage… suppose one isn’t sure about the reliability of the book we call Matthew?

1. The Church which Jesus Christ founded is the one to whom He revealed and which declared and decreed which books are to be contained in the New Testament.

Yes, that’s true. At the same time, we would need to know which group (if any?) was the One Church that He founded, so that we would then know what was reliable Scripture.

1. Jesus handed His Authority to His Apostles (Mat 28:16-20), …

Yes, certainly, if the passage is reliable… another possibility is that the author thought that’s what Jesus said or meant but didn’t get it exactly right.

… therefore His Church must be able to trace it’s chief pastors back in a line of succession to The Apostles.

Yes, I’ll agree with you there if we can settle the earlier parts…

 

[Ignatius]

If you don’t accept the the revealed Word of God, then that is reallly the place to start. Please start a thread on that subject so that we can address it without violating the off-topic rule.

 

[Dan_471]

You’re welcome.‭ ‬Please say a prayer for me,‭ ‬as well.

Certainly.‭ Will do.

Well,‭ ‬my understanding is that that’s hotly debated.

By whom‭?

Well,‭ ‬this person‭ ‬users.misericordia.edu//davies/thomas/faq.htm‭

Those with an agenda or those who have a real desire to be historically accurate‭?

Well,‭ ‬I can’t exactly ask a scholar if they have a real desire to be accurate…

‎

‏And no,‭ ‬I have no agenda here,‭ ‬even if it may seem so.‭ ‬Plain simple history tells us the GoT was written much later–even the historical-critical method of interpretation agrees with that assesment.

‎
Well,‎ ‏a possible point here…‭ ‬some of the gospels seem to be compiled out of earlier sources…‭ ‬So GoT may have a late compiling date,‭ ‬and an early source for some of its sayings…‭ ‬I would think it would be very difficult find a date for a sayings source‭… ‬I could be wrong there,‭ ‬tho‭… ‬so far we’ve focused mostly here on date,‭ ‬even with a really early date,‭ ‬a manuscript may not reflect accurate quotes‭… ‬if Jesus was speaking in Aramaic and the writer was using‭ ‬Greek,‭ ‬there is the issue of both memory and translation
‎

I raise the point not because I personally subscribe to the H/C method,‎ ‏but merely to point out that not all modern exegesis is as good as another and anyone can forumlate objections based on agenda/desire for fame/to be contrary,‭ ‬etc.

I agree.‭ ‬I have maybe a hobbyist’s level of skill and time to use,‭ ‬so I’ll probably be using experts somewhere along the line‭… ‬the best most of us can do,‭ ‬I think,‭ ‬is to see what processes the expert is using‭…

I know people who want to push the‎ “‏Jesus married Mary Magdelene‭” ‬idea love to cite these later Gnostic works as‭ "‬proof‭"‬,‭ ‬which,‭ ‬of course,‭ ‬it isn’t.

I’ll agree with that‭… ‬now,‭ ‬to me,‭ ‬the idea that Jesus may have been married,‭ ‬and his wife died before He began his ministry,‭ ‬I could see that‭… ‬no proof,‭ ‬tho

Mostly from‭ ‬what appear to be‭] ‬well-researched pages on the internet.

Maybe you need to do a bit more research from other sources.

Sure,‭ ‬tho the Internet is very convenient,‭ ‬and I can make the text nice and large‭…

Well,‭ ‬yes.‭ ‬At the same time,‭ ‬other people were compiling other lists,‭ ‬so I think we have several different lists to choose from…

The only groups with the authority to make any sort of canon would be the Church and the Jewish leaders.

Well,‭ ‬there’s the rub,‭ ‬I think‭…‬ who has the authority

And both did.‎ ‏Neither included GoT.

True.‭ ‬At the same time,‭ ‬somebody must have liked it enough to make hand-written copies.

[gotta cut here, next section follows]

 

[Dan_471]

[continued]

‎

‏The Jewish canon had a much narrower criteria than the Church’s canon,‭ ‬of course not including the NT writings,‭ ‬but those are the only ones who could have any real claim to do so.

The only ones‭? ‬Again,‭ ‬there‭’‬s the rub‭…

Well,‭ ‬again,‭ ‬yes…‭ ‬some books in the NT are unknown as to date and authorship,‭ ‬so I’m not sure how to handle those…
The Early Church Fathers told us who wrote which books,‭ ‬and being so close to the times,‭ ‬they would know better than more modern attempts at it.

Well,‭ ‬being close might still involve several decades and long distances,‭ ‬so a great deal of reliability might not be available

There’s no good reason to doubt them.

For me, there’re two main traits that humans have, then and now

Desire for power,
and,
an assumption that God has certain characteristics. Assuming that God thinks ‘x’, and Jesus was sent by God, then Jesus must have said ‘x’… this latter part can be done mostly unconsciously.

‎

‏There was no historical-critical method in use at the time,‭ ‬nor was it necessary then‭ (‬or now,‭ ‬IMHO‭)‬.‭ ‬The H/C method presumes miracles don’t happen,‭ ‬and the ECFs assumed they did.‭ ‬It makes no sense to me to distrust those who knew the Apostles and their successors over those who are‭ ‬2000‭ ‬years removed from the times and the culture.

I think both groups would have their advantages

Here’s a possibility… according to the NT Gospels, the apostles sometimes had trouble understanding what Jesus was saying while He walked the earth. Possibly they still had difficulty decades later, so some quotes may not be completely right.

Well,‭ ‬assuming that a unified teaching existed,‭ ‬yes…
It did.‭ ‬There was,‭ ‬as St.‭ ‬Paul put it,‭ “‬one faith,‭ ‬one baptism…‭” ‬That has not changed.

Paul thought that (assuming he wrote Ephesians). Was Paul sent from God (an Apostle)? He spends a lot of time in Corinthians defending his apostleship, and that leads me to think that there were people back then (same time, place) that questioned his apostleship

OK,‭ ‬if I may observe here,‭ ‬that sounds like a statement of faith…‭ ‬which of course a person is welcome to believe…‭ ‬there are,‭ ‬of course,‭ ‬many things a person can choose to believe…

One must choose to believe what is based on good evidence.‭

Right. I agree there.

‬I could choose to believe in fairies but there is very poor evidence for their existence.‭ ‬The Church’s evidence for its claims are rock solid–not because they seem right and good,‭ ‬although they are,‭ ‬but because they have the weight of history on their side.

Well, then it should be an enjoyable discussion.

We can definitely agree that GoT isn’t orthodox Christianity…‭ ‬I do think there is a possibility of circular thinking in this issue…‭ ‬this idea isn’t orthodox because no orthodox person thought it…‭ ‬here’s a person that thought it…‭ ‬they weren’t orthodox…‭ ‬how do we know‭? ‬because no orthodox person thought it…

Christianity is not a thought up religion–it is a religion of revelation–the revelation of Christ’s life,‭ ‬death and resurrection.

Yes, I accept the resurrection

‭ ‬As,‭ ‬once again,‭ ‬St.‭ ‬Paul so succiently put it,‭ “‬If Christ be not raised from the dead,‭ ‬our faith is in vain.‭” ‬The NT is simly the witness to that,‭ ‬to what Christ said and did‭ (‬not all,‭ ‬of course,‭ ‬but that which we need for our salvation‭)‬,‭ ‬and witness to the beginnings of the Church.‭ ‬Read from and through the Catholic perspective it all fits together.‭ ‬Read from any other perspective and it seems contradictory and confusing because no other method of interpretation will work except within the context of the Faith that gave it to us.

Currently, I disagree. Here’s another possibility… Paul comes up with some really amazing things, like justification by faith and ‘if we are lead by the Spirit, we are not under law’… Then he has some ideas like if you’re a man and you pray with your head covered, you’ve done a really bad thing… So Paul looks to me like a work-in-progress, as perhaps all of the Bible (and non-Bible) authors. They had revelation, and sincerely tried (hopefully, because, of course, they were humans like us) to put it into Greek… what we can gain from them is God’s overall pattern for dealing with people, and the big picture of what He wants from us… that to me looks like a valid possibility

I don’t say that the Church is right merely because of what I want to believe.‭ ‬I am a‭ "‬convert‭"‬.‭ ‬Trust me,‭ ‬I didn’t believe the Church or understand it until I gave it a fair chance and investigated for myself.‭ ‬The Church’s claims make the most sense,‭ ‬historically,‭ ‬theologically,‭ ‬spiritually,‭ ‬psychologically,‭ ‬etc.‭ ‬It tells us the truth about what man is and who God is because it tells us what Christ told us about those things–undiluted,‭ ‬unchanged and in charity.

Then I look forward to a fruitful discussion

 

[Della]

First of all, a document may have early sources and quotes from early sources but it may misuse them or misinterpret them. Simply having an early quote doesn’t make any work reliable on that score alone. As I wrote, the books of the Bible were compiled using a set of criteria that took many things into account. I forget which Pope commissioned the compiling of an official canon, but that is the point–it was a pope who commissioned it. The papacy already existed. The Church already had liturgies and prayers and its teachings and a hierarchy. Those things were not derived from the Bible but through oral Tradition. We cannot put the cart before the horse and declare we can contradict that reality by drawing on a few verses from any document written by anyone. The Bible was compiled mostly so the liturgies of the Church would be consistent, not to “prove” the Church is true or to uphold doctrines or dogmas. Therefore, translations are not really a big issue since no teaching of the Church is dependent on being “backed up” by the Bible alone.

St. Paul did not “come up with” any new ideas. He was preaching and teaching the same Gospel message as all the other Apostles. He did not teach that we are justified by faith, if you mean faith alone. He was making the difference between the Mosaic law and the law of Christ, that’s all. And he defended his apostleship against “Judaizers”, who unlike him, could make no claim to being called by Christ to preach their false doctrine that male converts must follow the Mosaic law by being circumsized. Knowing a bit of history and why Paul wrote what he wrote does help.

The Church existed before the NT. That is an historical fact. The authors of the NT certainly drew on sources, both oral and perhaps some written accounts/repository of Jesus’ teachings, but there is no direct evidence of the latter except in a made up method of dating verses by content, which is has severe limitations and isn’t always accurate and so is unreliable.

Truth does not depend on citing sources alone–but on whether or not it tells us the truth about who we are and who God is. Works that don’t do that are not to be trusted.

We can know the truth because Christ made sure his words and deeds would be preserved by passing on to men he appointed the authority to do that. This is the work, not of men alone, but of the Holy Spirit. Firstly, in the OT it was the patriarchs and prophets whom the Holy Spirit inspired with God’s truth, and in the coming of Christ it was in Christ and the Church he founded. There’s no need to flounder around wondering where the truth lies when Christ has given us the means to know where is subsists and the means to access it.

 

[Dan_471]

If you don’t accept the revealed Word of God, then that is really the place to start. Please start a thread on that subject so that we can address it without violating the off-topic rule.

An excellent suggestion, Ignatius.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=10014009#post10014009

 

[Randy_Carson]

suppose that drawing isn’t there?

Then keep praying and reading…the facts are there. Start here:

The Necessity of Being Catholic (Condensed)
by James Akin
chnetwork.org/journals/nesschurch/ness_7.htm

1. To be saved it is necessary to be a Christian.
2. To be a Christian it is necessary to be a member of Christ’s Church.
3. To be a member of Christ’s Church it is necessary to be a member of the Catholic Church.
4. To be a member of the Catholic Church it is necessary to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
5. Therefore, it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

In this argument, the necessities are all normative necessities and the kind of membership being discussed is formal membership. The argument has a logically valid form (in fact, it expresses a variation on what is known as the “hypothetical syllogism” argument form), meaning that the truth of its conclusion depends only on the truth of the premises it contains.

When a Protestant objects to the above argument, it will be to the third proposition – that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded. Both sides agree on the other three points. While it is beyond the scope of this article to give a full proof of the third proposition (this is one of the major tasks of Catholic apologetics), we can offer a limited proof.

Both Protestants and Catholics agree that Christ founded some Church and that this Church will remain forever (Matt. 16:18). The question is whether this Church is a visible communion that can be identified or whether is it a purely spiritual communion made up of all the saved. If it is a visible communion, the Catholic Church is the only plausible candidate, since only this Church extends back far enough (the Eastern Orthodox communion did not finally break with Rome until the 1450s, a mere sixty years before the Protestant Reformation). We can thus give a limited argument for the third proposition by showing the Church Christ founded is a visible communion.

This is proven in Matthew 16:17-19, the passage in which Christ promised the gates of hell would never prevail against his Church (meaning that it would always exist). Several factors in the text show he was talking about a visible communion.

First, Jesus made Peter head of this Church (Matt. 16:18), yet Jesus was certainly not making Peter the head of an invisible Church. It is Christ’s own prerogative to be head of the invisible communion of Christians stretching from heaven to earth (Eph. 5:23). Therefore, he must have made Peter the head of a visible, earthly church. (We will not argue here that Jesus made Peter the head; even if one disagrees, the remaining arguments prove our case.)

Second, Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 16:19), which are for use in Church government (compare Isa. 22:22 – the only Old Testament parallel to this verse). But one cannot govern an invisible communion of believers, only a visible one.

Third, Jesus gave Peter the power of binding and loosing (Matt. 16:19), which Matthew 18:17-18 indicates is used in Church discipline. But one cannot exercise Church discipline over an invisible body. Indeed, Matt. 18:17-18 refers it to public excommunication, in which an individual is treated by the church as “a gentile or a tax collector” (that is, as an unbeliever).

Fourth, Jesus explicitly stated that Peter would exercise the power of binding and loosing on earth. This shows his authority is an earthly one, over an earthly Church.

Fifth, Jesus promised the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18), meaning that it would never perish. But it would be ridiculous to promise that an invisible Church would not pass out of existence since some of the Church’s members are in heaven and Christ’s heavenly Church cannot pass away by its very nature. Only a visible, earthly communion needs a promise that it will never perish.

There are thus abundant reasons to conclude that the Church Jesus was discussing in Matthew 16:17-19 was a visible communion of believers, and, since only the Catholic Church goes back that far, only it can be the one Christ founded.

 

[Dan_471]

First of all, a document may have early sources and quotes from early sources but it may misuse them or misinterpret them. Simply having an early quote doesn’t make any work reliable on that score alone.

Right on all counts. And it’s not like I’m ‘sold’ on the GoT… I wanted to consider that some of its quotes may be accurate… and I also wanted to consider that some quotes in Matthew may not be accurate… Is Matthew more accurate that GoT? Very probably. Is it highly accurate? I’m not sure…

As I wrote, the books of the Bible were compiled using a set of criteria that took many things into account. I forget which Pope commissioned the compiling of an official canon, but that is the point–it was a pope who commissioned it. The papacy already existed. The Church already had liturgies and prayers and its teachings and a hierarchy. Those things were not derived from the Bible but through oral Tradition. We cannot put the cart before the horse and declare we can contradict that reality by drawing on a few verses from any document written by anyone. The Bible was compiled mostly so the liturgies of the Church would be consistent, not to “prove” the Church is true or to uphold doctrines or dogmas. Therefore, translations are not really a big issue since no teaching of the Church is dependent on being “backed up” by the Bible alone.

My understanding is that there were many competing canons and groups in the early days of Christianity… one can accept by faith that one of those groups was established by Christ… once one accepts that, then the rest falls into place… I can see that… the first part of the ‘connection’ if you will, is one of faith…

St. Paul did not “come up with” any new ideas. He was preaching and teaching the same Gospel message as all the other Apostles.

I mean he was the first to write them down… I 've heard that Galatians, Corinthians were the first of the NT epistles to be written

He did not teach that we are justified by faith, if you mean faith alone.

No, I don’t think Paul used the word ‘alone’… he says somewhere that we’re justified by faith, or maybe grace, I’m not sure, and that’s the first time that idea had been expanded on, I think…

He was making the difference between the Mosaic law and the law of Christ, that’s all. And he defended his apostleship against “Judaizers”, who unlike him, could make no claim to being called by Christ to preach their false doctrine that male converts must follow the Mosaic law by being circumsized. Knowing a bit of history and why Paul wrote what he wrote does help.

I agree. Yes, the Judaizers in Galatia, probably some other people and groups in other churches as well. Barnabas, who seems to be a good guy, doesn’t feel he has to follow Paul’s directions all the time, I think…

The Church existed before the NT. That is an historical fact.

I agree there, possibly several churches

The authors of the NT certainly drew on sources, both oral and perhaps some written accounts/repository of Jesus’ teachings, but there is no direct evidence of the latter except in a made up method of dating verses by content, which is has severe limitations and isn’t always accurate and so is unreliable.

Yes, it’s difficult to test the accuracy of these things

Truth does not depend on citing sources alone–but on whether or not it tells us the truth about who we are and who God is. Works that don’t do that are not to be trusted.

We can know the truth because Christ made sure his words and deeds would be preserved by passing on to men he appointed the authority to do that. This is the work, not of men alone, but of the Holy Spirit. Firstly, in the OT it was the patriarchs and prophets whom the Holy Spirit inspired with God’s truth, and in the coming of Christ it was in Christ and the Church he founded. There’s no need to flounder around wondering where the truth lies when Christ has given us the means to know where is subsists and the means to access it.

Right, and if we accept that the Church is God’s instrument for communicating these things, then we’re all set… I’m just thinking that it’s an act of faith on that first step

 

[Della]

Accepting the Church is the instrument of God’s grace and teaching is a step of faith, but not of blind faith. The weight of evidence is on the side of the Church–it’s the thing that has brought many a convert to the Church from Protestantism. Again and again I’ve read conversion stories in which these persons say, persons trained in Protestant seminaries, not just average lay people, that looking into the early history of the Church is what made them see that the claims of the Church were justified–that the Church they saw when they looked into it was the Catholic Church because the papacy, the liturgy, the prayer life, the teachings, etc. were all there.

 

[guanophore]

 And it's not like I'm 'sold' on the GoT...  I wanted to consider that some of its quotes may be accurate... and I also wanted to consider that some quotes in Matthew may not be accurate...   Is Matthew more accurate that GoT?  Very probably.  Is it highly accurate?   I'm not sure...

It is good you are not “sold” on the GoT, ,since it was rejected by the successors of the Apostles. Since they were there, it would stand to reason that they were able to determine which documents best embodied the faith that was passed on to them.

My understanding is that there were many competing canons and groups in the early days of Christianity… one can accept by faith that one of those groups was established by Christ… once one accepts that, then the rest falls into place… I can see that… the first part of the ‘connection’ if you will, is one of faith…

No, there were not competing canons, just arguements over which books belonged in the one canon. There were 400+ memoirs and letters all claiming to be inspired by God (Holy Scripture). The Church had to sort through them all, and applied rigorous requirements to select those that were bound into the canon we have today. One of those requirements is that the document was used by the Church from the time it was received. Another was that it be written by an Apostle or someone close to an Apostle. If the early Christians had believed the GoT was such a document, it would be in the canon today.

 

[guanophore]

I mean he was the first to write them down… I 've heard that Galatians, Corinthians were the first of the NT epistles to be written

Yes, but this same Apostle also testifies in his writings that the OT Scriptures were sufficient to lead one to salvation. That means the Apostles could see all of what was needed in the OT, and that is what they preached from until the NT began to be written. Those scriptures and the teachings of Jesus.

No, I don’t think Paul used the word ‘alone’… he says somewhere that we’re justified by faith, or maybe grace, I’m not sure, and that’s the first time that idea had been expanded on, I think…

Yes Paul has a great deal to say about justification by faith, grace, etc. You might be thinking of the only place in the NT where the words “faith” and “alone” are found together?

James 2:24-25
24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

 But this is not the first time the idea had been expanded upon.

Not at all. The Christian faith came out of Judaism, and is build firmly upon the Jewish moral law. Justification has always been by grace, through faith. That did not change with the coming of Jesus.

I agree.   Yes, the Judaizers in Galatia, probably some other people and groups in other churches as well.  Barnabas, who seems to be a good guy, doesn't feel he has to follow Paul's directions all the time, I think...

Dan_471;10015380:

I agree there, possibly several churches

No, the Apostles taught that there is only One church, One faith. Those who were not in communion with the successors of the Apostles were not considered part of the one Church.

Yes, it’s difficult to test the accuracy of these things

It is, which is why it is a good idea to rely upon the testimony of those who were present at the time.

Right, and if we accept that the Church is God’s instrument for communicating these things, then we’re all set… I’m just thinking that it’s an act of faith on that first step

Yes, it is that. I have an idea. What if you tried this experimentally. Take that step of faith, and move forward “as if” you believed it were true. What is the worst thing that could happen?