How do we know Jesus is the Messiah?

[Hatikvah]

Not sure what you mean?

A verse is “incorrect” based on…what?

If it varies, one must be wrong. There was one original book that, say, is attributed to St. John. Now, this does not negate the inerrancy of Scripture, but it is not as straightforward as it may seem, either.

If the Alexandrian text says “seventh heaven” while two others say “heavens,” the implication is that one is true and the other has been altered. It is kind of like the United States system of checks and balances, if you will. They check each other (though it is not based on power, just textual accuracy).

Our brethren in the faith two thousand years ago or so did not put the New Testament books in a time capsule and wait until the invention of the printing press. Scribes copied text after text, and yet we manage to have copies very close to the originals.

So it varies based on the other texts. Kind of like scribal peer review.

 

[jcrichton]

Hello all,

I am Jewish and have been exploring the Catholic Church. I am fairly convinced that if Christianity is true, then the Catholic Church is the true church. How do we know Jesus is the messiah and is who he says he is?

I have studied some of the proof texts from both Christian and Jewish homoletic standpoint and am torn on which to believe.

Hi!
Though you’ve probably already been through these I want to offer you my take on it…

…in the Beginning was the Word (John 1:1) and the Word was with God and the Word was God.

Basically this tells me that God does not Change (He is Immutable); hence, Yahweh God existed as He Is from the Beginning.

God had a love affair with a chosen people (Hebrews); to His chosen He made a Covenant; He Promised that He would Be His God and that he (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob) would be His Son (actually His first-born: Israel). Yet, within that Promise there is a secondary Promise (something that happens with God’s prophecies: prophecy within a prophecy) as we find that Abraham’s name was changed from Abram (don’t know the meaning) to include not only the Hebrews (known later as Israel) but also the Gentiles: Abraham means father of many nations (not just twelve tribes).

The Promise remains throughout Biblical Times–it is followed from Abraham and passed on through his first-born (not Ismael since he was not the son of the Promise–meaning, the one elected by God), Isaac, who begot Jacob (yes, technically not the first-born–yet, actually, the one elected by God), who begot Joseph (again, Rachel’s first-born is the elect), who begot Ephraim (again, the Hand of God elects the younger son)… we progress to David who becomes the bearer of Israel’s kingship as elected by Yahweh God–yes, the runt of the litter becomes the holder of the scepter which will pass on to the Messiah…

The intro to the Messiah is found on Genesis 3:15–due to Adam’s disobedience a curse is placed on the serpent (the ancient serpent aka Satan aka the devil aka Lucifer) and Yahweh God Prophesizes that there will exists enmity between the serpent and the woman, between its seeds and the woman’s with the caveat: He will stomp on your head while you attack His heel. (Interestingly enough, this battle in Gen 3:15 is expanded upon in Apocalypse 12, where the Virgin is about to give birth, the dragon cannot exterminate the Son, Who is snatched up to the Father, and the beast remains in disappointing angst seeking to attack the woman’s other children–the Believers–since he was unable to derail the Promise.)

Later, Moses is allowed the knowledge that God will raise, from Israel, another like him in Whom the Gentiles will place their hope (Salvation). This other prophet, like Moses, will be Yahweh God’s High Priest, Israel’s (and, ultimately, the world’s) King, and Prophet.

Through the prophets the Messiah is made known… Who He Is, Where He will Be born (Incarnated), What His Purpose Is…

These are powerful signs that will not be repeated… though many will claim title (and even take on the name), only the True Messiah will Reveal Himself to Israel and the world through the fulfillment of all the prophecies.

The most hidden in plain sight is this one:

13 And I will bring them out from the peoples, and will gather them out of the countries, and will bring them to their own land: and I will feed them in the mountains of Israel, by the rivers, and in all the habitations of the land. (Ezekiel 34–see Luke 2; Isaiah 43; Jeremiah 31)

11 I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd giveth his life for his sheep. 14 I am the good shepherd; and I know mine, and mine know me. 15 As the Father knoweth me, and I know the Father: and I lay down my life for my sheep. 16 And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd. (St. John 10)

Though there are many more passages that I can offer, due to text restrains, at this time, I will limit it to these:

1 Behold I send my angel, and he shall prepare the way before my face. And presently the Lord, whom you seek, and the angel of the testament, whom you desire, shall come to his temple. Behold he cometh, saith the Lord of hosts. (Malachi 3:1–St. Matthew 11:9-11; St. Mark 1:1-3)

4 And Jesus making answer said to them: Go and relate to John what you have heard and seen. 5 The blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead rise again, the poor have the gospel preached to them. (St. Matthew 11:4-5)

21 And he began to say to them: This day is fulfilled this scripture in your ears. (St. Luke 4)

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[PRmerger]

If it varies, one must be wrong. There was one original book that, say, is attributed to St. John. Now, this does not negate the inerrancy of Scripture, but it is not as straightforward as it may seem, either.

If the Alexandrian text says “seventh heaven” while two others say “heavens,” the implication is that one is true and the other has been altered. It is kind of like the United States system of checks and balances, if you will. They check each other (though it is not based on power, just textual accuracy).

Our brethren in the faith two thousand years ago or so did not put the New Testament books in a time capsule and wait until the invention of the printing press. Scribes copied text after text, and yet we manage to have copies very close to the originals.

So it varies based on the other texts. Kind of like scribal peer review.

Do you have a Bible verse that tells us that this is the way to evaluate the inerrancy of Scripture?

And I’m still confused as to how you know which is the “correct” version of the text.

Could you please offer a specific example of what you use to determine which is “correct” and which is "incorrect?

 

[Hatikvah]

Do you have a Bible verse that tells us that this is the way to evaluate the inerrancy of Scripture?

The Bible itself is not all so specific on how scriptural inerrancy works. We know it exists, at the least. Plus, the Bible was written before the copying and scribal history could begin and it wouldn’t be relevant for that to even be in the text. This is a secular source on that matter: religioustolerance.org/inerran3.htm

And I’m still confused as to how you know which is the “correct” version of the text.

I don’t know, but I know that the Holy Spirit knew. The original text (the autographs) was the first, written by certain saints. This was passed down, and we can only cross-check. We received the text almost as the original, and we can sort of know through textual criticism. (I’m not a textual critic, I only read a book on it and some online stuff.)

Could you please offer a specific example of what you use to determine which is “correct” and which is "incorrect?

What I described (external evidence) is not the only way. Again, I’m not a textual critic myself. Eclecticism is used to refer to the practice of consulting a wide variety of manuscripts to narrow it down to an original. The Wikipedia article is not bad: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_criticism#Eclecticism

I’m not denying scriptural inerrancy, either, but there is diversity within the text and we shouldn’t deny what is already there, only use it to prove our point.

We also must figure that textual criticism is a primarily secular field now, the Holy Spirit is not used.

 

[jcrichton]

Do you have a Bible verse that tells us that this is the way to evaluate the inerrancy of Scripture?

And I’m still confused as to how you know which is the “correct” version of the text.

Could you please offer a specific example of what you use to determine which is “correct” and which is "incorrect?

Hi, PR!
…I think that what you are missing is that there were several copies of copies of copies…

The Jews and the early Church were persecuted; their captors would raze their existence (culture) by both physically destroying buildings and killing the scholars, leaders, and religious… the Word of God was transmitted through families (members) whose function was to both safeguard and duplicate the Sacred Writings.

…as life would have it, there would be zealots who would introduce “corrections” (I recall one Martin L) that would deviate from the copy they were to reproduce; there would also be errors (imagine replicating Hebrew and Greek for hours upon hours upon hours, in semi lit conditions, while hiding yourself and the scrolls) caused by speed and exhaustion… when a difference arises in the various scrolls found/compared the most analogous/homologous would determine the correctness–in the example you were given 2 versions held “heavens” while 1 held “7 heaven;” it is most likely that the term “heavens” would be the correct word since two copies concur on it.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Hatikvah]

…as life would have it, there would be zealots who would introduce “corrections” (I recall one Martin L) that would deviate from the copy they were to reproduce; there would also be errors (imagine replicating Hebrew and Greek for hours upon hours upon hours, in semi lit conditions, while hiding yourself and the scrolls)

What “Martin L” did is irrelevant, as Scripture was already “safe” (though we know that the Holy Spirit would have protected it no matter what) by at least the time of the Gutenberg Bible for printing. Luckily, we can get biblical text so easily nowadays and there are many translations (though we have the old ones safe and preserved) to view and compare.

 

[PRmerger]

What “Martin L” did is irrelevant, as Scripture was already “safe” (though we know that the Holy Spirit would have protected it no matter what)

Ah. Interesting…

So you believe in Sacred Tradition?

 

[Hatikvah]

Ah. Interesting…

So you believe in Sacred Tradition?

Yes (I think, or something close to it), and I believe that the Holy Spirit guides us not only as individuals but as a collective unit of Christians (the communion of saints). How did we survive this long? The Holy Spirit and God’s grace were evident. The other movements dispersed, as someone said, but we simply solidified.

The survival of Scripture is a powerful testimony as to God’s will, surely.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, and I believe that the Holy Spirit guides us not only as individuals but as a collective unit of Christians (the communion of saints). How did we survive this long? The Holy Spirit and God’s grace. The other movements dispersed, as someone said, but we simply solidified.

The survival of Scripture is a powerful testimony as to God’s will, surely.

Awesome! So I don’t know of any other Church, save for the Catholic Church and the Orthodox, that endorses the idea of Sacred Tradition.

You cannot be a member of your church and believe in Sacred Tradition–is that correct?

 

[PRmerger]

If the Alexandrian text says “seventh heaven” while two others say “heavens,” the implication is that one is true and the other has been altered…

Correct.

So we must look to the Church to discern which is correctly proclaiming the kerygma, which was given once for all to the saints.

 

[Hatikvah]

Awesome! So I don’t know of any other Church, save for the Catholic Church and the Orthodox, that endorses the idea of Sacred Tradition.

Some Anglican churches use some form of it. The Oriental Orthodox, too. Perhaps my definition isn’t the same as that of others, but it is related. We do have the writing of ancient Christians, and although they differ, they are valuable.

Not only this, but some form of Sacred Tradition is evident, for instance, in the Trinity. It is not explicit in Scripture, but it was expounded far before, and the apostles preached it in some manner.

You cannot be a member of your church and believe in Sacred Tradition–is that correct?

Well, Protestantism is pretty diverse, but it is in one “realm” as far as its ideas go (at some point, a denomination may become liberal or eccentric enough to be part of Christian Restorationism or Unitarian Universalism, leaving Protestantism). You can believe in these things if you’d like, it’s just not common.

I go to a United Methodist church with my family but my beliefs are somewhere near Lutheranism (okay, but I don’t identify as either and I’m not wholly there yet). The Trinity is part of Tradition and the vast majority of Christians accept that. In some way, all Christians use Tradition, but they might not know it. (At least, as I view it.)

 

[PRmerger]

Some Anglican churches use some form of it. The Oriental Orthodox, too. Perhaps my definition isn’t the same as that of others, but it is related. We do have the writing of ancient Christians, and although they differ, they are valuable.

Not only this, but some form of Sacred Tradition is evident, for instance, in the Trinity. It is not explicit in Scripture, but it was expounded far before, and the apostles preached it in some manner.

Egg-zactly.

Well, Protestantism is pretty diverse,

Indeed.

but it is in one “realm” as far as its ideas go (at some point, a denomination may become liberal or eccentric enough to be part of Christian Restorationism or Unitarian Universalism, leaving Protestantism). You can believe in these things if you’d like, it’s just not common.

Yes, anyone can believe whatever he wants, of course.

But if Protestantism is to follow its own paradigm, no one can tell another person that his interpretation of Scripture is incorrect.

I go to a United Methodist church with my family but my beliefs are somewhere near Lutheranism (okay, but I don’t identify as either and I’m not wholly there yet). The Trinity is part of Tradition and the vast majority of Christians accept that. In some way, all Christians use Tradition, but they might not know it. (At least, as I view it.)

Indeed. So you must reject Sola Scriptura.

 

[Hatikvah]

Indeed. So you must reject Sola Scriptura.

I just use Luther’s view, perhaps amended a little bit. It still falls under “sola scriptura” as a technicality, but it is far from the Baptist or Fundamentalist reject-all-Tradition-and-Fathers views. (I don’t know how those maintain themselves.)

 

[PRmerger]

I just use Luther’s view, perhaps amended a little bit. It still falls under “sola scriptura” as a technicality, but it is far from the Baptist or Fundamentalist reject-all-Tradition-and-Fathers views. (I don’t know how those maintain themselves.)

Can you please cite your reference for Luther’s view, and then how you have amended it?

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I doubt that Mr. Strobel used the Deuterocanonical books, but with them included, additional prophesies were fulfilled. Example: Wisdom of Solomon, chapter two. This is one of the clearest, most well-defined prophesies of Christ in all of the scriptures. It was written about 50 years before Christ’s birth.

As well, consider that many claimed to be some form of deliverer, but all were killed and their followers were scattered. Christ was the only man (God-man) ever to be pre-announced. No other was known via the prophets well ahead of time. As with the others (Theudas, Judas the Galilean and similar), Christ was also killed - yet He was born to be killed, the only man ever to be born for the specific reason of dying. And,He prophesied His own death and resurrection. The one and only ever to do that.

After His death, look at what happened: rather than being scattered, His followers grew, and grew rapidly. They were collected into His Body, as He promised.

We still used the disputed books in Anglican church for teaching purposes…and i was astonished when i read Wisdom chapter 2. Next question was why in the world is this not in our bibles? Lead me closer to the Catholic church at that time…

 

[Lenten_ashes]

What about the .5% that isn’t? What’s that say?

Minor differences like lack of punctuation, etc. And of course there are a few verses like in John 8(let he who is without sin cast the first stone) that are not found in the eatliest manuscripts.

 

[Hatikvah]

Can you please cite your reference for Luther’s view, and then how you have amended it?

First off, I’m aware that Luther is an extremely incendiary figure here and if someone made a thread with the name “Luther” in its title, it would automatically turn into a perpetually infinite discussion (hyperbole used).

I’m just discussing my current views of the sort and not intending anything otherwise. There’s no need to attack anything because it is not a claim, it is an opinion or view that should not blow up anyone’s entire spiritual paradigm. (Disclaimer)

Also, be prepared for quite a bit of excerptions.

[A] reconstruction of [Luther’s] understanding of such concepts as Scripture and tradition is not an easy task. It must be admitted that there were several terms and even more concepts he used simultaneously to refer to or denote the Scripture and tradition.

The Bible is God’s word, but God’s word is not limited to the written form of Revelation. In fact, Luther was convinced that it is Jesus Christ who must be regarded the Word of God par excellence he stands in the center of whole Bible, being both its author and its “heart.”

Schematically summarized, Luther’s definition of the Scripture is complex and theologically loaded: it stands in connection with the concept of God’s word (and, thus, to Christ himself) but does not embrace it. Rather, God’s word exists in oral (preaching or proclamation) and written (scriptures) form, and the canonical Bible is but the latter.

Better yet, the conclusion of this great source (the entirety of which can be found here) terms Luther’s view as “Tradition 1” by the Oberman-McGrath classification and notes:

Content: it must be concluded that that the source of the truths of Christian theology [in the Tradition 1 view] is… the Scripture alone as the text of the canonical biblical books is accompanied by a theological tradition whereby the traditional-orthodox exegesis, hermeneutics and theological interpretation of the Scripture is meant.

As for “perhaps amended a little bit,” I was wary of stating that full-on because it is not entirely true after reading this again (I used other, partial resources on different occasions).

 

[PRmerger]

First off, I’m aware that Luther is an extremely incendiary figure here and if someone made a thread with the name “Luther” in its title, it would automatically turn into a perpetually infinite discussion (hyperbole used).

While this may or may not be true, it’s an odd thing to mention when asked to provide Luther’s definition of Sola Scriptura.

I’m just discussing my current views of the sort and not intending anything otherwise. There’s no need to attack anything because it is not a claim, it is an opinion or view that should not blow up anyone’s entire spiritual paradigm. (Disclaimer)

Also, be prepared for quite a bit of excerptions.

Better yet, the conclusion of this great source (the entirety of which can be found here) terms Luther’s view as “Tradition 1” by the Oberman-McGrath classification and notes:

Thanks for all of that, but in there I was not able to discern what Luther’s defintion of SS is?

Could you please just offer it, simply, and then the reference to his definition? His words, please.

And where it is you depart from his definition?

 

[jcrichton]

What “Martin L” did is irrelevant, as Scripture was already “safe” (though we know that the Holy Spirit would have protected it no matter what) by at least the time of the Gutenberg Bible for printing. Luckily, we can get biblical text so easily nowadays and there are many translations (though we have the old ones safe and preserved) to view and compare.

…so only you are allowed to throw in examples?

Zealots for God and country do commit errors in their efforts to safeguard and communicate… that’s the relevancy!

…still, I concur with you that the Holy Spirit is the Ultimate Guard and Guarantor of Scripture Inerrancy!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Hatikvah]

Thanks for all of that, but in there I was not able to discern what Luther’s defintion of SS is?

Could you please just offer it, simply, and then the reference to his definition? His words, please.

And where it is you depart from his definition?

So when confronted with “SS,” I’m assuming you mean sola scriptura and not Sacred Scripture. Sacred Scripture was described in the second to last excerpt so… process of elimination. Luther ascribes inerrancy to the Bible as most Christians still do today, but only the Bible is divinely inerrant as a text:

I am profoundly convinced that none of these writers [of the Bible] has erred. All other writers, however they may have distinguished themselves in holiness or in doctrine, I read in this way I evaluate what they say, not on the basis that they themselves believe that a thing is true, but only insofar as they are able to convince me by the authority of the canonical books or by clear reason. (WA, 2. 618. Contra malignum Iohannis Eccii iudicium … Martini Lutheri defensio 11519).

Then note that he believes that councils and even the words of the pope should be checked with Scripture (though he does make a claim about them); he even considers himself “bound by” them:

Unless I am convinced by the testimonies of the Holy Scriptures or evident reason (for I believe in neither the Pope nor councils alone, since it has been established that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures that I have adduced, and my conscience has been taken captive by the Word of God; and I am neither able nor willing to recant, since it is neither safe nor right to act against conscience. God help me. Amen.

I got the quotes from this resource and it has others as well with a bibliography cited. This is another source that goes into greater length.

Luther valued the early Church and what he saw as its practices when describing what he saw as impiety in the Church of his day:

They must certainly confess that their cause is not grounded in Scripture and that their faith and practice (wesen) did not exist at the time of the apostles and martyrs — when the church was at its best — but was invented by men. My cause, however, is not contrary to Scripture, as they themselves must say, but is pure Scripture. . . . Let him who does not want Scripture stick to his own. (#3766, pp. 1178-1179; preface to sermon on Luke 17:11-19 in 1521)

The word wesen in German simply means “being” (so that means their current practices). This is a critical Catholic source with many of Luther’s views on what he means by the gospel, Scripture, and how it must be used.

In practice, he did use earlier writing of the Church Fathers and of various saints. Luther quoted from St. Augustine’s Letter to Jerome (no. 82 ca. 405):

I have learned to yield this respect and honor only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error.

And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the manuscript is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it.

This is another critical Catholic source from which I got that quote. More or less, Luther did seek out the early Church and a form of Tradition where he could, but he saw Scripture as superior, not equal. As for my “amendments,” there isn’t anything I can actually detect (which is why I used cautious language). I’m learning on the matter as I’m reading and using excerpts as well.

Remember, Calvin and Zwingli and others used sola scriptura differently, but it still meant the superior authority of Scripture (though Calvin had an obsession with St. Augustine’s writings on predestination).