Non-Catholics: How do you know that the words of Jesus are true?

[icamhif]

Without The Church, people wouldn’t have the New Testament that they do today. You’re welcome.

I agree, though maybe not for the same reason as yours. If not for the faithfulness of the believers, the New Testament documents would not have been copied, and would probably have went down into obscurity.

kpeople:And if so many people think that The Church is in error on so many topics, why respect the books of the bible they put together? If I thought a group was wrong on so much stuff, I wouldn’t respect any book they compiled. :whacky:

That’s like saying that because I disagree with some things a Professor believes that I can’t respect his textbooks.

 

[Tom_Baum]

I wouldn’t dare say that the most devoted followers of Jesus Christ are not Catholic. That’s actually a bit judgmental and uncharitable.
I know incredible Catholics that have so much grace that one can see all the beatitudes in their faces already.

However, with so many different interpretations one is forced to conclude that despite the fact that some think they are guided by the Holy Spirit, that might not be true because the Holy Spirit wouldn’t contradict Himself.
Only the magisterium of the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit.
We are also not to make private interpretations as St. Peter tells us.

You wrote, “I wouldn’t dare say that the most devoted followers of Jesus Christ are not Catholic.”

EveningSkye111 didn’t say that either.

EveningSkye111 wrote, “Some of the most devoted followers of Jesus Christ are not Catholic. These are some of my closest friends.”

“the most devoted followers of Jesus Christ are not Catholic” and "“Some of the most devoted followers of Jesus Christ are not Catholic” have two completely different meanings.

Just a observation, some Catholics seem to be very anti non-Catholic whereas the Catholic Church has invited many non-Catholics scholars to help in translating the bible, I find this rather interesting.

This slightly different wording, “Some of the most” and “the most” helps to point out that translation is also important, along with any scribal error that might be there and also the fact that some things do NOT translate very well from one language to another.

Merely my opinion but I believe that God is quite capable of meaning more than one thing when God says something.

As far as, “We are also not to make private interpretations as St. Peter tells us.”

Wouldn’t that seem to be a private interpretation of St. Peter?

I don’t know if you have had any “private interpretations” or “private revelations” but do you think that God is capable of doing things such as that?

One of the interesting things about the bible, in my opinion, is that quite a few that had something to say in the bible were not believed at the time they were saying it.

As far as, “Only the magisterium of the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit”, not even close to what Jesus said concerning the Holy Spirit.

As a matter of fact, one of this Sunday’s reading is about some who received the Holy Spirit “before” they were baptized.

God can “use” the sacraments, so to speak, but God is “not bound” by the sacraments.

 

[icamhif]

The problem for us colorblind folks is when we read a red letter Bible we think Jesus didn’t say anything at all.

lol

 

[Tom_Baum]

Jesus said concerning the Eucharist, “This Is My Body”, the reason that I “know” that this is true is because the Holy Spirit revealed this to me.

Before this was revealed to me, I believed it but I did not know it.

I happen to believe that the words “believe and know” have two completely different meanings, others disagree with me on this and that is fine.

 

[KendraDZ1902]

I agree, though maybe not for the same reason as yours. If not for the faithfulness of the believers, the New Testament documents would not have been copied, and would probably have went down into obscurity.

That’s like saying that because I disagree with some thing a Professor believes that I can’t respect his textbooks.

Uh, I think Sacred Scripture is much more important than a textbook. If you disagree with what a professor teaches, why would his textbook be your go to book? “I don’t believe that Professor X is right, however, his textbook is where I get all my info from and I believe his textbook” Yep, makes sense.

 

[icamhif]

Uh, I think Sacred Scripture is much more important than a textbook. If you disagree with what a professor teaches, why would his textbook be your go to book? “I don’t believe that Professor X is right, however, his textbook is where I get all my info from and I believe his textbook” Yep, makes sense.

It does make sense. The Professor may happen to be an atheist, but is the most reputable and trustworthy scientist in matters of nuclear physics.

 

[Telstar]

The Bible is truth and everything that we do should should be able to live up to what Scriptures say…We know Scriptures are true because we have Catholic councils ratify and canonize them thus confirming the inerrant Word of God. All other teachings ought to be measured up to Scriptures…

That’s what I always seem to hear from a lot of people outside the RCC, but it makes no sense for anyone to not follow the Church’s teachings, when we look at all the facts. Until the Canon of the Bible was confirmed by Pope Damasus, at the Roman Council of 382 A.D., and translated into Latin by St. Jerome, there was no Bible as we know it, today. So, how did the ECFs preach the Word of God before that time, without the Bible?

How did the Roman Council of 382 even know which ‘books’ of scripture were true, and worthy to be added to the Bible? How did the Church make any decisions about what was true Doctrine prior to the Roman Council of 382? There’s only one answer that makes any sense. They made all of those decisions based on the Tradition of the Catholic Church that had been carefully passed down to them, from the Apostles to their followers (the Magisterium), who were always guided by the Holy Spirit. That’s why Apostolic succession is so important.“John 14: [16] And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever. [17] The spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him: but you shall know him; because he shall abide with you, and shall be in you.”

“[26] But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.”

“Matthew 28: [18] And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. [19] Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.”
In all of those quotes, Jesus was teaching the Apostles, that He specifically chose to lead His Church. So, if we refuse to follow them (His only Church), because we don’t think what they teach now is correct, are we saying that Jesus didn’t really mean what He said, or that He might have lied to them? IMHO, that’s absolutely impossible, but it seems to be what some people think these days. I just can’t understand how anyone could believe that.

The RCC is extremely careful about what She teaches to the people of God, because She has to answer to Him if She strays from the Truth of Jesus Christ. The members of the hierarchy of the Church bear the full brunt of that responsibility. They do not take it lightly. They have to firmly teach the Truth of Jesus Christ, no matter what the world might think about it, nor how strongly other Christians may disagree with what the Catholic Church teaches.

 

[Magdalenaa]

You wrote, “I wouldn’t dare say that the most devoted followers of Jesus Christ are not Catholic.”

EveningSkye111 didn’t say that either.

EveningSkye111 wrote, “Some of the most devoted followers of Jesus Christ are not Catholic. These are some of my closest friends.”

“the most devoted followers of Jesus Christ are not Catholic” and "“Some of the most devoted followers of Jesus Christ are not Catholic” have two completely different meanings.

Just a observation, some Catholics seem to be very anti non-Catholic whereas the Catholic Church has invited many non-Catholics scholars to help in translating the bible, I find this rather interesting.

This slightly different wording, “Some of the most” and “the most” helps to point out that translation is also important, along with any scribal error that might be there and also the fact that some things do NOT translate very well from one language to another.

Merely my opinion but I believe that God is quite capable of meaning more than one thing when God says something.

As far as, “We are also not to make private interpretations as St. Peter tells us.”

Wouldn’t that seem to be a private interpretation of St. Peter?

I don’t know if you have had any “private interpretations” or “private revelations” but do you think that God is capable of doing things such as that?

One of the interesting things about the bible, in my opinion, is that quite a few that had something to say in the bible were not believed at the time they were saying it.

As far as, “Only the magisterium of the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit”, not even close to what Jesus said concerning the Holy Spirit.

As a matter of fact, one of this Sunday’s reading is about some who received the Holy Spirit “before” they were baptized.

God can “use” the sacraments, so to speak, but God is “not bound” by the sacraments.

To say some of the most devoted are not Catholic is a statement in itself. Let’s examine it. That denotes, according to the author, that the most devoted to Jesus Christ are not Catholic. She didn’t specify that that was her own experience. That was a statement she made. I think that is a lie because I have seen Catholics who are so full of grace that one can already see it in their faces, in their actions.
Maybe the person should have added, in my experience some of the most devoted followers…

As to private interpretation goes, I still conclude given the number of people who think they have the Holy Spirit guiding them but yet contradicting each other is proof that they don’t have the guidance of the HS.

 

[Magdalenaa]

You misquoted the poster. Some is not the same thing as most.

How does she know that some of most the devoted followers are NOT Catholic.
The poster should have specified that that was based on her own experience, but that does not make it a true statement as I personally know Catholics who I think are the most devoted followers of Jesus Christ I have ever seen.

 

[openmind77]

Ok, show me historically who wrote the book of Mark.

Without using the Catholic Church it cannot be done.

Show me historically why Revelation is included but not 1 Clement. It cannot be done without the Catholic Church.

I think OP’s question was specifically about the words of Jesus, not about what sections are included in the New Testament and what are not. I do trust the words of Jesus in the Bible but I don’t believe some of the other stuff that is there including parts of Revelation.

Here is why I know that the words of Jesus are true - for example, I don’t believe most of what is on Fox News, but when the they quote someone, I believe the quotes are correct. Only the most irresponsible news organization would deliberately misquote people. I don’t think there is any chance that the Church would change Jesus’s direct words - that is why believe those words. But the rest of the Church’s positions and teachings are open to debate.

(Of course I am not comparing Fox News to the Church, I have far more respect for the Church).

 

[KendraDZ1902]

It does make sense. The Professor may happen to be an atheist, but is the most reputable and trustworthy scientist in matters of nuclear physics.

Uh, I think Sacred Scripture is much more important than a textbook. If you disagree with what a professor teaches, why would his textbook be your go to book? “I don’t believe that Professor X is right, however, his textbook is where I get all my info from and I believe his textbook” Yep, makes sense.

If you disagree with what Professor X TEACHES it would be stupid for his textbook to be your go to book on the subject.
Same with Sacred Scripture. You don’t believe what The Church TEACHES, yet it is your go to book for your religion. It is absolutely insane.

It would have been better for those who broke away from the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church to come up with their own book.

 

[Thorolfr]

Jesus’ words are authoritative period.

The real question is how do you trust that

1. they are recorded accurately and
2. that the manuscripts we gave are preserved properly.

For those questions one requires something other than scripture…namely…the church

I actually doubt that some of the things attributed to Jesus in the Bible were really said by him. I’ve got a color coded copy of the bible put together by the Jesus Seminar in which a number of scholars voted on whether they think Jesus undoubtedly said something (in red), probably said something (in pink), Jesus didn’t say something but the ideas contained in this saying are close his own (in gray), and Jesus didn’t say something and it represents the perspective of a later tradition (in black).

So, for instance, they have color coded Matthew 5:31-32 in black in which Jesus supposedly said, “Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” The scholars in the Jesus seminar don’t think Jesus actually said this.

I’m not sure I agree with all of the conclusions of the Jesus Seminar, but I do doubt that Jesus said some of the things attributed to him in our Bibles.

 

[icamhif]

If you disagree with what Professor X TEACHES it would be stupid for his textbook to be your go to book on the subject.
Same with Sacred Scripture. You don’t believe what The Church TEACHES, yet it is your go to book for your religion. It is absolutely insane.

So I can’t agree with what he teaches on matters of physics while disagreeing with what he teaches on matters of religion?

 

[Tom_Baum]

Ok, show me historically who wrote the book of Mark.

Without using the Catholic Church it cannot be done.

Show me historically why Revelation is included but not 1 Clement. It cannot be done without the Catholic Church.

You wrote, that “It cannot be done without the Catholic Church”, are you saying that the Catholic Chuch has “old written evidence” concerning this?

I am no bible scholar by any stretch but is there, according to your knowledge, any historical “proof” out there still?

I have heard that there isn’t, that over time all of the “written stuff”, so to speak, has been lost, is this so?

If this is so, than no person or institution can “Show me (or anyone else) historically”, can they?

Is this why you say that only the Catholic Church can do this?

 

[Jon_S_1]

So I can’t agree with what he teaches on matters of physics while disagreeing with what he teaches on matters of religion?

No because the church teaches christianity and you disagree on what it teaches about Christisnity.

It’s like saying, I disagree with Stephen Hawking about physics and black holes but I love his books and reference them for everything.

 

[KendraDZ1902]

So I can’t agree with what he teaches on matters of physics while disagreeing with what he teaches on matters of religion?

The Professor doesn’t teach matters of religion, he teaches on matter of physics.

So, if you think that Professor X’s theories, teachings, etc. are wrong it would be stupid for his textbook that has all of this theories, teachings, etc. to be your go to book on said matters.

 

[KendraDZ1902]

No because the church teaches christianity and you disagree on what it teaches about Christisnity.

It’s like saying, I disagree with Stephen Hawking about physics and black holes but I love his books and reference them for everything.

Bingo!

 

[Jon_S_1]

You wrote, that “It cannot be done without the Catholic Church”, are you saying that the Catholic Chuch has “old written evidence” concerning this?

I am no bible scholar by any stretch but is there, according to your knowledge, any historical “proof” out there still?

I have heard that there isn’t, that over time all of the “written stuff”, so to speak, has been lost, is this so?

If this is so, than no person or institution can “Show me (or anyone else) historically”, can they?

Is this why you say that only the Catholic Church can do this?

Yes I suppose so. Because it is the Catholic Churches, tradition and its writings which give the support for the scriptures as authentic.

 

[icamhif]

No because the church teaches christianity and you disagree on what it teaches about Christisnity.

It’s like saying, I disagree with Stephen Hawking about physics and black holes but I love his books and reference them for everything.

The Canonicity of Scripture and Christology may both fall under the category of Christianity, but that doesn’t mean that if one is a trustworthy expert in canonicity that he is a trustworthy expert in Christology.

 

[Thorolfr]

Ok, show me historically who wrote the book of Mark.

Without using the Catholic Church it cannot be done.

Show me historically why Revelation is included but not 1 Clement. It cannot be done without the Catholic Church.

I don’t think we can know for sure who wrote the Gospel of Mark or any of the gospels. The writing we call the Gospel of Mark was not attributed to someone named Mark until the end of the 2nd century and since the name Mark was not an unusual one, even if it was written by someone named Mark, we don’t know for sure which Mark wrote it.