How do we know that scripture is Inspired?

[mdcpensive1]

Contarini;12763621:

Why would I take it up with Catholic Answers? They are an organization institutionally committed to a certain kind of apologetics, which I regard as inherently corrupt. They are answering bad fundamentalist arguments with slightly less bad Catholic arguments, and that’s between them and the fundamentalists. I have no relationship with them and there is no reason for them to listen to me.

Speaking of “inherently corrupt” Isn’t that one of the main reasons Christ came to redeem mankind from, inherent corruption? Isn’t it understood that corruption is endemic? Doesn’t this corruption even effect man’s thinking and reasoning? Aren’t all men fallible, the most intelligent philosophers, scientists, and even conscientious historians? So to limit inherently corrupt to a certain kind of apologetics would not appear to be just in it’s application. And if that’s enough to cut off relationships with those who use this inherently corrupt apologetics is that truly representing the truth of Christianity.

I also know of a spiritual condition called “self righteousness” a person thinks he is right because he is convinced in his own mind that he is right with employing all his mental accumen. It’s a condition that affects all humanity. St.Paul is a very good example. There is no personal accusation being made by my statements, but things I have to consider in my own thoughts and actions, and I have to test myself. I sometimes think that being historically accurate, with the discipline involved, and the mental energies expended can be an obstacle to the Faith if the same approach is made towards Faith Reason can not give us the gift of Faith, but it can dispose us to receiving it. When received we experience that it does not oppose reason but might , or does reinforce it, and also supersedes it, for who has known the mind of the Lord? God does confound the wise, and exalts the humble. How much of ourselves are we willing to give? It’s always a challenge. I would think that one who studies history conscientiously would discover how weak and ignorant and fallible human nature really is, and if one is truthful to one’s self, how he suffers the same condition. This should correct our approach to our neighbors no matter how corrupt what they do appears, and it is the greatest challenge to charity.

Your response is very deep and has some good thoughts for me to try to comprehend. I do know that in John’s Gospel he writes that Christ is the way, truth, and life. So if He is the truth then we should be able to use the great gift of reason to help in our understanding of the eternal “Logos” who is truth itself. God is not contradictory but understood by right reason as well as our faith. We have a 2000 year history of meditations and prayer to more deeply understand ramifications of His revelations given to us in the traditions passed down. Apologetics I did not know had styles but was just a way of explaining things in terms that can be understood by the listener but in terms of truth.

 

[clem456]

Proving Inspiration
catholic.com/tracts/proving-inspiration

The Catholic method of proving the Bible to be inspired is this: The Bible is initially approached as any other ancient work. It is not, at first, presumed to be inspired. From textual criticism we are able to conclude that we have a text the accuracy of which is more certain than the accuracy of any other ancient work.

I have to say I fundamentally (no pun intended) dislike this method of “proof” as well. All the elements make sense themselves, but they don’t form a step by step system to prove inspiration. The basis for inspiration cannot be historical verification of the book, when the whole of our faith is based in the person of Jesus Christ.
It’s very difficult to make a case this way when we have people who can’t agree on the historicity of events of even 50 years ago.

It’s interesting, the etymology of that little word:
inspiration

 

[ericc]

I think the idea that you would equate a relative trivality like an academic degree with divine inspiration explains quite well why Lucy and I find this whole line of approach to be “secular” and even blasphemous.

My intention wasn’t to trivialize religious learning. Learning is important generally speaking regardless of discipline. If you feel offended, I apologize. My point was that learning must be from an authoritative source to gain credibility. Self learning is also important but it doesn’t come with external accreditation or objective grading.

I have come to realize that this is my fundamental disagreement with Catholicism, at least in its traditional, conservative form. I just don’t believe that grace or spiritual authority work that way. I believe in apostolic succession as a means through which Christ has acted to preserve continuity with the original, historic Faith. But I don’t believe for a minute that we poor lay mortals are just supposed to run through some kind of historical exercise which will enable us to put all our trust in some allegedly trustworthy authority. That’s a morally and spiritually bankrupt approach.

Also, as I have shown above (and as usual on this topic people ignore or deflect my points rather than dealing with them), it just doesn’t work historically in the first place.

No, you don’t know this from history. You accept it by faith. No historical analysis, using standard historical/literary methods, will lead you to any confidence that Jesus actually said those words about establishing the Church. These words are not found in what most scholars consider the earlier version of the story (Mark 8), but only in Matthew’s version. Matthew is in fact the only Gospel writer to use the word “church” at all. If you compare Matthew and Mark, you see that over and over again Mark has a more developed, elaborate theological explanation of what Mark describes cryptically and succinctly. The most reasonable explanation of this, by normal historical methods, is that Matthew was written later and that whoever wrote it (unlikely to be the apostle Matthew, at least in the form in which we have the book) added theological commentary into the text. The “you are Peter” passage from Matt. 16 is one of the best examples of this, but it’s part of a pervasive pattern.

That is what honest historical inquiry generally leads one to conclude. Now historical methods are far from certain. Sure, it’s possible that Matthew records a fuller version of what happened which Mark abridged for some reason. It’s possible that Matthew was really written first.

But for the spiral argument to work you need something much more than possibility. You need certainty. And you don’t even have the balance of probability. Hence, the argument fails miserably at its most crucial point.

But we do know with certainty from history

1. that the Church existed before the Bible.
2. that the Church gave us the Bible.

Even if the Bible is silent or ambiguous on certain historical accounts, we still believe the Church’s account to be credible because the Church can not be subservient to her own creation. And the logical thing is to check with the source if there is uncertainty. Unlike other historical organizations, the Church and the Seat of Peter continue to exist to this day, still holding to the responsibility charged to her by Christ. We can still go back to her. We are not told that the Bible is the pit stop. It never was. The refusal to check with the Church is self-imposed.

You know a lot about how God does things, apparently. If anything is obvious to me about God, it’s that God does things the exact opposite of how we would expect most of the time. Hence, such an argument is less than worthless–it actually casts suspicion on any position it’s used to support. (Yes, this is paradoxical–if God usually does things the opposite of how we expect, then sometimes that might mean that God does things in the way we expect, because that’s the opposite of how we expect. And yes, I know that pushing it to this point is silly.)

No, you are very wrong. I do NOT know a lot about how God does things. But we do know that he provides sufficient resources for us to do his work. He gave us the Church with the proper mandate, authority and management while guaranteeing that he will be with us all the way and the Holy Spirit to guide us.

I do not in fact believe that the mission of the apostles ended with their deaths. But I do not reach that conclusion based on history alone. I reach it because I trust the Church. You simply can’t establish all this without first appealing to the authority of the Church. In other words, you can’t establish the authority of the Church by history alone, although you can use historical methods to argue for the probability of the Catholic position and to refute objections.

Edwin

So why do you not trust the Church fully? Why must many stop at the Bible? It is not even biblical to stop there because there is a process given to resolve disputes and uncertainty. The apostolic Church is still here, the one that gave us the Bible. If the Church is no longer here, then some may have a point to stop at the Bible.

 

[Lucy107]

It is only possible if someone who you believe or have reasons to believe has the authority to proclaim it.

I suppose that there might be a special case - where the Holy Spirit intervenes and gives a person the certainty about the divine inspiration of the Bible.

So how do I know that a particular scripture is inspired? The Church told me so.

I think you are missing an important step here. The above should be:
“So how do I know that a particular scripture is inspired? The Church told me so. And I trust the Church.”

The Church tells things to all kinds of people, but not all trust her.
Why doesn’t everyone trust her?
Is it really the case that all those who don’t trust the Church do so in deliberate rebellion against her?

People who first approach the Catholic Church when they are already adults, especially if they are not particularly young adults anymore at that time, are in a strikingly different position than those who are born into the Church.

People like myself are at best step-children, and the Church my step-mother. And you know what step-children and step-mothers tend to feel about eachother.

There is a special trust that exists between mothers and children; no matter how problematic the relationship may otherwise be, no matter if it is fraught with poverty, or disease, or abuse – that trust remains.

Step-children are another matter. Step-children are children only provisionally, temporarily, conditionally. They are optional. Step-children might as well leave or die, the step-mother would not particularly care, and the step-children know it.
That essential warmth is just not there between step-children and step-mothers.

And I don’t blame the Church - she didn’t invest in me, she didn’t invest in my upbringing, so why should she care about me the way she does about her own children? She also doesn’t have the same rights over me the way she has over her own children.

As a prospective step-child, what could I possibly ask of her? Nothing.
As a prospective step-child, what could I possibly rely on her for? Nothing.

The Catholic Church seems very well suitable for being born and raised into it (as is the case with most traditional religions). And it seems that her apologetic arguments are designed for people who were born and raised into it – in that those arguments take for granted that there is an essential trust already in place between the individual and the Church.

But with adult outsiders (especially if they have already experienced some trouble with Catholics), that trust simply doesn’t exist, and an apologetics that takes this trust for granted will simply not work as intended on those people.

 

[Lucy107]

I also know of a spiritual condition called “self righteousness” a person thinks he is right because he is convinced in his own mind that he is right with employing all his mental accumen.

Just because I am proud or stupid doesn’t make the Catholic Church right.

“I am proud and stupid, therefore, the Catholic Church is right” is not a sound argument.

That I am or may be proud and stupid means just that: that I am or may be proud and stupid.

But from there on, it doesn’t follow that this or that particular religious institution or person is right.

I have heard less or more veiled accusations of “self-righteousness” (and stupidity and pride) from people from several Christian denominations, from the Hare Krishnas, and from some Muslims.

They have all more or less directly accused me of being proud, or stupid. And to them, this somehow meant that their own religion was right.

Well, if that it so, then all those Christian denominations, the Hare Krishnas, and Islam are all the right religion!

 

[Lucy107]

So why do you not trust the Church fully?

For one source of such reasons, see my post above about being a step-child.

Why must many stop at the Bible?

What else is there that is not specific to Catholicism, but is still Christian, and monotheisic?

It is not even biblical to stop there because there is a process given to resolve disputes and uncertainty.

What disputes do you mean here?
The Catholic Church has a process which non-Catholics can follow to resolve disputes with Catholics or the Catholic doctrine?

For comparison: I once looked into the teachings and practices of the Hare Krishnas. I had a dispute with one of the members. I heard that in such cases, one could turn to the member’s teacher. I asked this member about who his teacher was, so that I could take the matter to him. This member told me that if I have an issue with him, I should go to the police.

Would it not be the same with Catholics?

If I have a problem with a Catholic, whom can I turn to? Nobody except the police?

If I have a problem with the Catholic doctrine, whom can I turn to? The Catholics will most likely simply tell me that the doctrine is right, and that I owe it to God to accept it. As far as I’ve come to know Catholics, they won’t really explain anything. As far as I have seen, Catholics simply take for granted that one trusts or must trust the Catholic doctrine, and that’s that.

And from what I’ve seen, members of other religions function by the same principle. Buddhists tend to take for granted that people should trust Buddhist teachings. Muslims tend to take for granted that people should trust Muslim teachings. Hindus tend to take for granted that people should trust Hindu teachings. And so on.

The refusal to check with the Church is self-imposed.

For someone born and raised in the Catholic Church, such a refusal is indeed self-imposed.

But for those outside of the Church?

Although I don’t really hope that you will understand what I’m talking about.

 

[Lucy107]

I think the idea that you would equate a relative trivality like an academic degree with divine inspiration explains quite well why Lucy and I find this whole line of approach to be “secular” and even blasphemous.

You know, maybe people like you and I need to take an entirely different approach.

It seems that as things stand, we are trying to mimic the faith of people who were born and raised in the Catholic Church.

I sometimes catch myself doing just that - I try to be like the Catholics. I try to skip the fact that I was not born and raised in the Catholic Church. I try to pretend that it doesn’t matter that I was not born and raised in the Catholic Church. I try to hype myself up and to conjure up the sort of faith that I think they have. I try to pretend I have the sort of trust for the Church like they have.

There is a fundamental epistemic problem that people who are born and raised into a religion typically don’t have.
Also, the people who join a religion as adults, but who do so in a time of great personal turmoil, also don’t seem to have that fundamental epistemic problem.

That fundamental epistemic problem can be summarized in questions like “How do you know which religion is the right/true one?” or “How do you know that the religion you feel drawn to is in fact the right/true one?”

People who are born and raised into a religion typically begin to believe that their religion is the right/true one long before their capacities of critical thinking develop to the point where they could even ask that question. They have the certainty that their religion is the right/true one long before they can cogently think of arguments to support it.

The people who join a religion as adults, but who do so in a time of great personal turmoil, seem to be driven by their despair, and this despair can wipe out all epistemic questioning. So for such people, the resulting felt certainty is effectively the same as with those born and raised into a religion.

But what if one is neither born and raised into a religion, nor sufficiently despaired, but neverthless feels drawn to a religion – then what?

It seems that such people need to create an entirely new path for themselves. And it seems like a path where those inside the religion can’t help with.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Oh no, not this again.

You have never been able to defend this. It’s a bogus, dishonest approach. Stop using it, for the love of God.

Forever. I will quote this forever.

Unless you demonstrate here and now two things:

1. Why it is flawed.
2. A reasonable alternative.

I’m just as weary of your constant sniping against Catholicism as you seem to be of my defense of it.

Have a nice Lent, Edwin.

 

[Lucy107]

Forever. I will quote this forever.

Are you willing to consider that things look vastly different, depending on whether one looks at them as a member of the Catholic Church, or whether one looks at them as an outsider to the Church?

Unless you demonstrate here and now two things:

1. Why it is flawed.
2. A reasonable alternative.

For that, you would need to be able to actually place yourself in the shoes of an outsider. Which, for an insider, is impossible.

I’m just as weary of your constant sniping against Catholicism as you seem to be of my defense of it.

You are defending insider-Catholicism. The sort of Catholicism that is closed off to outsiders.

You want people to convert to Catholicism, but the reasons for conversion you give are acceptable and accessible only for insiders.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Bunk. You don’t approach the Bible that way, do you? So don’t pretend you do. No one actually follows this method. It’s pretense.

This is complete rubbish.

The historical accuracy of the NT is well-established and it is pathetic that someone with your education and position as a university professor would argue otherwise.

I can use external evidence from numerous extra-biblical sources as well as archaelogical evidence to confirm that the NT is accurate in the people, places, names, geography, topography and events recorded therein. Additionally, internal evidence such as the Criterion of Embarrassment supports the idea that the NT is accurate.

Having established that the NT is reliable on many, many fronts, the burden of proof shifts to skeptics because the authors of the NT have earned the benefit of the doubt by the accuracy of their reporting which has been verified.

Textual criticism can’t conclude anything about the accuracy of the events described in the text, only about the accuracy of the copies we have compared with the probable original. We have a very high degree of certainty that the texts we have are essentially what the “original authors” wrote. That tells us nothing about whether what they wrote was true or not.

Well, duh. The goal of textual criticism is the determine what the original autographs contained…not about the accuracy of the history they record. For example, textual criticism can tell us whether we have accurate text of Shakespeare’s plays, but we cannot conclude from that alone as to whether “Richard II” was faithful to the actual events.

Bottom line: Scholars are confident that the texts we have today are sufficient to give a high degree of confidence that what we read is what Matthew, Mark, Luke or John actually wrote.

This is a glaring logical fallacy. You know this, because I’ve pointed it out many times before. So what is your excuse for continuing to use it?

Because I’m right, and you are wrong.

Just. That. Simple.

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Plenty of people who approach the Bible merely as history do not conclude that the historical Jesus claimed to be God. Even N. T. Wright, who clearly approaches the Bible from a standpoint of faith but with integrity as a historian, concludes that Jesus claimed to be God only in a rather qualified and indirect sense. So the argument fails here too.

Poppycock. Here is a SHORT refutation of this tripe…it’s still in outline form because I’m not done with the document, but YOU need to see it NOW.

**The Divinity of Jesus Christ Proved from Scripture

I. Did Jesus claim to be God?

1. Jesus claimed the Divine Name (‘I AM’)**

Exodus 3:14
13 Then Moses said to God, “If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?” 14 God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” 15 God also said to Moses, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you’: this is my name for ever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations.

John 8:58
53 Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? And the prophets died! Who do you claim to be?” 54 Jesus answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing; it is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say that he is your God. 55 But you have not known him; I know him. If I said, I do not know him, I should be a liar like you; but I do know him and I keep his word. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced that he was to see my day; he saw it and was glad.” 57 The Jews then said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” 58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” 59 So they took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple.

Why did the Jews want to stone Jesus if they did not believe that He was claiming to be God?

2. Jesus claimed to be the Son of God and equal to God.

John 5:18
16 So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders began to persecute him. 17 In his defense Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.” 18 For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

3. Jesus claimed to be the First and the Last – a Title Reserved for God Alone

Isaiah 44:6
Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: “I am the first and I am the last, and there is no God besides Me.”

Revelation 1:17-18
“Do not be afraid; I [Jesus] am the first and the last, and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.”

Would a mere prophet claim to be the “First and the Last”?

4. Jesus claimed to be Truth – not just to proclaim the truth.

John 14:6
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.

5. Jesus claimed to share in Divine Glory

In the Old Testament, we find that Yahweh will not share his glory with anyone.

Isaiah 42:8
“I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another.” (Cf. Isaiah 48:11—“My glory I will not give to another.”)

Yet Jesus claimed, not only that he would be glorified with the Father, but that he had glory with the Father before the world was created!

John 17:5
“Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.”

How can anyone see this as anything other than a claim to deity?

6. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah and the Son of God Before the Sanhedrin

Daniel 7:13-14
13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

Daniel prophesied that the Son of Man would be worshiped as God.

Mark 14:61-65
61 But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” 62 “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” 63 The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. 64 “You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?” They all condemned him as worthy of death.

Replying to the High Priest at His trial before the Sanhedrin, Jesus quoted the Daniel and applied this prophecy to Himself.

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

II. Did Jesus act as God might act?

1. Jesus forgave sins – which only God can do.
Luke 5:20

2. Jesus accepted worship.
Matthew 2:2, 11
Matthew 14:33
Matthew 28:9, 17
Luke 24:52
John 9:35-38

3. Jesus did not reject worship.
Revelation 19:10 – the angel tells John to worship God only; Jesus never tells anyone not to worship Him.

III. Did Jesus’ disciples believe He was God?
**

1. Thomas worshipped Jesus**
   John 20:28-29

2. John declared that Jesus is God.
John 1:1, John 1:14

3. Paul taught that Jesus was God.

Romans 10:9-13
because, if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord (kurios) and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved. The scripture says, “No one who believes in him will be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and bestows his riches upon all who call upon him. For, “every one who calls upon the name of the Lord (kurios) will be saved.”

In verse 13, Paul quotes an Old Testament prophet who was speaking about God when he wrote:

Joel 2:32
“And it shall come to pass that all who call upon the name of the LORD (kurios) shall be delivered”

Thus, in one brief passage, Paul uses the word kurios, or Lord, to speak about both the Father and the Son proving that Paul believes that Jesus is God.

4. The author of Hebrews clearly shows that the Son of God is God.

Hebrews 1:1-9
In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. 3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. 4 So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs. 5 For to which of the angels did God ever say,
“You are my Son;
today I have become your Father”?
Or again,
“I will be his Father,
and he will be my Son”?
6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says,
“Let all God’s angels worship him.”
7 In speaking of the angels he says,
“He makes his angels spirits,
and his servants flames of fire.”
8 But about the Son he says,
“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;
a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy.”

IV. Did Jesus’ enemies believe He claimed to be God?

1. The Jews tried to stone him for blasphemy.
John 8:58 – “I AM’
John 10:30-33 – second attempted stoning
2. The Sanhedrin asked Jesus if He was the Messiah and the Son of God
Mark 14:61-62 (cf. Daniel 7:13-14, Psalm 110)

 

[Randy_Carson]

V. Did the demons recognize Him as God?

Mark 1:23-24
23 Just then a man in their synagogue who was possessed by an impure spirit cried out, 24 “What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!”

VI. Does the Bible tell us that Jesus is God?

Acts 20:28 Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)
Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you guardians, to feed the church of the Lord which he obtained with his own blood.

Titus 2:13 Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)
awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,

2 Peter 1:1 Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)
Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours in the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ

Hebrews 1:8 Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)
8 But of the Son he says, “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever, the righteous scepter is the scepter of thy kingdom.

 

[clem456]

The Divinity of Jesus Christ Proved from Scripture

Thanks for that.
It’s all good and solid stuff. It reinforces the faith. It can bring one to the faith.
But maybe the point Lucy is making is… it’s unlikely to draw one who does not have faith, into the faith.

Proving the historical authenticity of the word isn’t a sufficient basis for coming to know The Word. The foundation for coming to know The Word is…well…and encounter with…The Word, however that takes place.
Might be through a reasonable consideration of Scripture as you do above, might be through Christian witness, or some other encounter with the person of Christ and his community, or likely, a combination of these various elements of the faith.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The only one of the Gospels that speaks of Christ founding a Church is Matthew, and the passage which does so is highly dubious regarded purely as a historical text. The dishonesty of the method is shown here in a particularly glaring way. No one using purely historical methods would conclude that Jesus actually said, “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church.” Jesus may in fact have said these words. But the only reason I would conclude this would be out of faith and acceptance of the Church’s authority.

Having previously demonstrated the general reliability of the Gospels as corroborated by archaeology, Jewish historians, etc., I think the burden of proof is upon those who deny that Jesus’ spoke these words.

However, it is not necessary for you to base your acceptance of the exact words on the basis of the Church’s AUTHORITY; you base your acceptance of these words on the Church’s credentials as a reliable eyewitness to a historical event.

IOW, having demonstrated itself to be reliable in other matters that we can objectively verify, the Church has earned the benefit of the doubt in the rest of its accounting of the life and times of Jesus.

Why? Well, it is impossible to corroborate every detail of an ancient text. The best that we can do is to establish general reliability. If the things we can verify do check out, the the document in question, the gospels in this case, may be assumed to be factual unless there is good reason to think otherwise. Once established as a generally reliable document, a historically favorable presumption prevails, and the burden of proof shifts to the skeptics.

Alternatively, you can discount the likelihood of Jesus ever preaching the Sermon the Mount or claiming to be God or any other number of points of doctrine contained in the Gospels.

But using that approach, you will also have to discount what you think you know about Aristotle or Julius Caesar or any other ancient figure of history about whom we have far less information than we do about Jesus Christ.

This is foolishness. The writers of the Gospels were

• Able to write accurate history
• Intended to write accurate history
• Did write accurate history.

Anyone who claims otherwise is not being objectively honest.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Thanks for that.
It’s all good and solid stuff. It reinforces the faith. It can bring one to the faith.
But maybe the point Lucy is making is… it’s unlikely to draw one who does not have faith, into the faith.

Proving the historical authenticity of the word isn’t a sufficient basis for coming to know The Word. The foundation for coming to know The Word is…well…and encounter with…The Word, however that takes place.
Might be through a reasonable consideration of Scripture as you do above, might be through Christian witness, or some other encounter with the person of Christ and his community, or likely, a combination of these various elements of the faith.

“The act of believing is an act of the intellect assenting to the Divine truth at the command of the will moved by the grace of God.” (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-II.2.9)

From this, we see that there are three things at work:

1. God who moves the will
2. Our will which moves our intellect
3. Our intellect which assents to the Divinely revealed truth.

The Christian faith is entirely logical and reasonable. God has given us our reason and He expects us to use it. As an apologist, I try to provide as much accurate information as I can to those who have questions in order to remove any logical or factual impediments to intellectual acceptance of truth. Beyond that, each person must respond to God as (s)he and God desire.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Nonsense. From the NT taken purely as a work of history, we can conclude very little with any certainty about Jesus’ intentions for how his ministry was to be carried on. I think Wright’s arguments are sound, but they are challenged by many other historians with excellent credentials, and Wright does not get us to the proposition “Jesus founded the Catholic Church.” Wright is by far the most hopeful NT scholar for your purposes, and he won’t give you what you need.

No one who is actually acquainted with real NT scholarship and approaches that subject with any degree of fairness would endorse this miserable excuse for an argument.

You are discrediting the Church every time you repeat it. I implore you to stop doing so. You will convince only the credulous, and you will persuade anyone with an ounce of critical faculties that the Church is a sham.

Edwin

Not everyone will be convinced by the Spiral Argument, that’s true. But that is not because the argument itself is flawed.

Not everyone was convinced by Jesus’ resurrection from the dead, either. (cf. Mt. 28:17) And there was nothing flawed about that.

 

[Randy_Carson]

:clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping: [standing O]

:tiphat:

Thanks to Karl Keating and Catholic Answers for providing strong arguments in defense of the faith which are so desperately needed in a post-Christian world.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Why would I take it up with Catholic Answers? They are an organization institutionally committed to a certain kind of apologetics, which I regard as inherently corrupt. They are answering bad fundamentalist arguments with slightly less bad Catholic arguments, and that’s between them and the fundamentalists. I have no relationship with them and there is no reason for them to listen to me.

I am taking it up here because it’s being posted here by someone with whom I have interacted in the past on this and other issues–someone whom I think it might be possible to persuade. If Karl Keating wants to come onto this forum and argue the point with me, I would welcome this.

I absolutely am following the argument step by step. I have done so frequently in many, many posts, and have lost patience with the way people just let the argument drop and then start posting the same nonsense again in a new thread.

Please point out which steps I’m missing and I’ll address them. I’m ignoring the later stages of the argument because they depend on the earlier ones, and it’s the earlier ones that are fatally flawed.

You say that the tract doesn’t say that an accurate text=accurate history. It’s true that it doesn’t say so in so many words. But after the section on textual accuracy, ending “we can work from it with confidence,” the tract goes on immediately to say "Next we take a look at what the Bible, considered merely as a history, tells us. . . " At no point does it again consider the question of historical accuracy. The complete historical accuracy of the Bible is taken for granted from that point on, and the only thing that might possibly be an argument for the historicity of the Bible is the textual-criticism argument.

So take your pick: either the tract is saying that textual accuracy=historical accuracy or it is assuming historical accuracy without even trying to argue for it. Either supposition is fatal to the argument.

Edwin

Textual accuracy means we know with a high degree of probability what the author actually put down on paper.

Historical Accuracy means that what they put down on paper reflects events as they actually happened.

We may be confident when we read a modern translation that both forms of accuracy are present in the text before us.

 

[clem456]

“The act of believing is an act of the intellect assenting to the Divine truth at the command of the will moved by the grace of God.” (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-II.2.9)

From this, we see that there are three things at work:

1. God who moves the will
2. Our will which moves our intellect
3. Our intellect which assents to the Divinely revealed truth.

The Christian faith is entirely logical and reasonable. God has given us our reason and He expects us to use it. As an apologist, I try to provide as much accurate information as I can to those who have questions in order to remove any logical or factual impediments to intellectual acceptance of truth. Beyond that, each person must respond to God as (s)he and God desire.

I agree with that.
Reason and faith mutually enlighten one another.
The line of reasoning and scripture exposition you propose is very edifying…to me as a believer. But faith is a theological gift and without it, it is easy for an unbeliever to discard these “proofs” until one has been stirred by faith to at least pursue the knowledge of Scripture.

To base apologetics and the evangelization of unbelievers on…,.
“the Divine claims of the bible are proved historically”
is going to be very unsatisfying to un-believers. However, for a person who is already bible believing, this line of proof seems to be very effective. It seems that we should propose those elements of the faith that best speak to the audience we are addressing.

The witness of the person of Christ through the love of his community is maybe the best basis for demonstrating the power of faith. (something which I can talk about but am unable to live very well, unfortunately). The durability of the Church, the good that it does, the peace that it brings to the world.
And also the appeal to The Logos as revealed in nature, which all can see and agree on, to a certain extent.