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

[SyCarl]

Jesus founded a Church.

Do you agree with that?

Yes He did but we will differ on exactly what the Church is. However given that in the Old Testament that God chose a people but did not give them an infallible authority, I do not think reason necessitates that He give the Church one.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes He did but we will differ on exactly what the Church is. However given that in the Old Testament that God chose a people but did not give them an infallible authority, I do not think reason necessitates that He give the Church one.

Of course reason does.

The Church is Headed by Christ, and ensouled by the HS, and cannot err.

The Israelites, while God’s Chosen People, did not have the Word of God, incarnated, ensouled and God-breathed in their midst.

 

[SyCarl]

Of course reason does.

The Church is Headed by Christ, and ensouled by the HS, and cannot err.

The Israelites, while God’s Chosen People, did not have the Word of God, incarnated, ensouled and God-breathed in their midst.

In 2 Thessalonians Paul warns that the man of lawlessness will take his seat in the temple of God. What is the temple of God today but the Church? Even the Haydock Commentary recognizes this possibility. They say it could mean a Christian Church but if the Catholic Church is the Church, what else would be meant by the temple of God?

 

[PRmerger]

In 2 Thessalonians Paul warns that the man of lawlessness will take his seat in the temple of God. What is the temple of God today but the Church? Even the Haydock Commentary recognizes this possibility. They say it could mean a Christian Church but if the Catholic Church is teh Church, what else would be meant by the temple of God?

Certainly. The Catholic Church acknowledges that she is imperfect.

825 “The Church on earth is endowed already with a sanctity that is real though imperfect.” In her members perfect holiness is something yet to be acquired: “Strengthened by so many and such great means of salvation, all the faithful, whatever their condition or state - though each in his own way - are called by the Lord to that perfection of sanctity by which the Father himself is perfect.”

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t deny that Christ wants us to see the fullness of truth. I just disagree with the epistemology proposed by PRmerger. It’s a false dichotomy. There are various ways we can be confident or certain about things.

How, then, do you know that Hebrews belongs in the NT and that the epistles of Clement do not?

 

[dronald]

Because reason tells me that something can’t come from nothing.

I find the Kalaam Cosmological argument so profound in its simplicity:
Whatever begins to exist must have a cause.
The universe exists, therefore it has a cause.

Same.

So this reasoning was based on your fallible or infallible thinking?

You eventually came to believe that the Catholic Church got it right. Again, fallible or infallible thinking and conclusion?

You have no reason to trust that the words of Christ, your Church, or Hebrews are true, other than the fact that it makes sense to you that it all belongs.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

**Catholics and Non-Catholics: How do you know that a thread is about to come to an end?
**

 

[PRmerger]

Same.

So this reasoning was based on your fallible or infallible thinking?

You eventually came to believe that the Catholic Church got it right. Again, fallible or infallible thinking and conclusion?

You have no reason to trust that the words of Christ, your Church, or Hebrews are true, other than the fact that it makes sense to you that it all belongs.

This is true that my reasoning is fallible.

How is it that you reason from that to: therefore the CC is infallible?

I don’t understand.

 

[icamhif]

How, then, do you know that Hebrews belongs in the NT and that the epistles of Clement do not?

If one knows a lot about Church History, and if he wants to be confident that the complete NT canon is the present one, he has to place at least some confidence in the testimony of the early Christians (at least the first four centuries.)

I realize that we have been talking past each other for some time.

Your main point is that we cannot know the complete canon, without trusting the Church. I get that.

My main point is that one can be confident that the New Testament (at least the Four Gospels) reliably account for the teachings of Christ, without presupposing the infallibility of the Church. You get that.

So there’s no need to argue further; we both get each other’s main points.

So, all I have to say now is: It has been a pleasure discussing with you, and I wish you all the best.

 

[PRmerger]

If one knows a lot about Church History, and if he wants to be confident that the complete NT canon is the present one, he has to place at least some confidence in the testimony of the early Christians (at least the first four centuries.)

I realize that we have been talking past each other for some time.

Your main point is that we cannot know the complete canon, without trusting the Church. I get that.

Excellent.

My main point is that one can be confident that the New Testament (at least the Four Gospels) reliably account for the teachings of Christ, without presupposing the infallibility of the Church. You get that.

Actually, no.

Unless you believe the Church got it wrong, and that perhaps she should have excluded Revelation and included 1 and 2 Clement, then you do believe that the Church was given the charism of infallibility.

So, all I have to say now is: It has been a pleasure discussing with you, and I wish you all the best.

Back at 'cha.

Just hope you connect the dots, friend.

 

[dronald]

This is true that my reasoning is fallible.

How is it that you reason from that to: therefore the CC is infallible?

I don’t understand.

My point is that Hebrews seems so obviously inspired to me based on history, the text, etc. You came to the belief that the CC is the One based on your own studies. So we all at first rely on our own logic and line of thought, and don’t submit to anyone at first.

 

[icamhif]

Same.

So this reasoning was based on your fallible or infallible thinking?

You eventually came to believe that the Catholic Church got it right. Again, fallible or infallible thinking and conclusion?

You have no reason to trust that the words of Christ, your Church, or Hebrews are true, other than the fact that it makes sense to you that it all belongs.

Exactly. In the end, we all have to trust in our fallible reasoning, and hope that God is guiding us. Choosing to trust in someone who claims to have infallible authority does not hide that reality. That may sound irksome to someone hoping for rigid certainty, but who said that we need to be certain about all circumstances in life, in order to succeed? What we can do, though, is pray, trust in God’s mercy, believe with our heart that He will guide us, and follow Him wherever He leads us.

 

[mek42]

In response to post 1 of this thread:

I don’t. I am currently reading a work that argues that Mark was written after the Pauline letters and includes theological embellishments to support a Pauline religion. For a long time I have observed that modern Christianity is based more on the words of Paul than the words of Jesus, so this work is of great interest.

This may lead to an investigation of 1st century messianic Judaism in the tradition of James, brother of Jesus, and the remaining 11 Apostles. I hope that some material is available regarding this topic.

 

[PRmerger]

My point is that Hebrews seems so obviously inspired to me based on history, the text, etc.

On the text?

I don’t understand. How do you know something is inspired based on the text? And based on history? And what does “etc” mean here?

You came to the belief that the CC is the One based on your own studies. So we all at first rely on our own logic and line of thought, and don’t submit to anyone at first.

Yes, we do all rely on our own logic and line of thought.

Now it’s time to connect the dots.

If you believe that Hebrews is inspired and that 1 and 2 Clement are not…it’s because you are giving your tacit submission to the authority of the CC.

 

[PRmerger]

In response to post 1 of this thread:

I don’t. I am currently reading a work that argues that Mark was written after the Pauline letters and includes theological embellishments to support a Pauline religion. For a long time I have observed that modern Christianity is based more on the words of Paul than the words of Jesus, so this work is of great interest.

This may lead to an investigation of 1st century messianic Judaism in the tradition of James, brother of Jesus, and the remaining 11 Apostles. I hope that some material is available regarding this topic.

Do you believe that Christ is divine?

 

[icamhif]

Unless you believe the Church got it wrong, and that perhaps she should have excluded Revelation and included 1 and 2 Clement, then you do believe that the Church was given the charism of infallibility.

Again, a false dichotomy. Firstly, something can be inerrant without being infallible. Secondly, one can trust that the Council of Carthage is a reliable council for determining the canon, based on its antiquity. Believing that it got a charism of infallibility is not necessary.

You can have the last word; I need a break from forum debates.

 

[mek42]

Do you believe that Christ is divine?

I do not know, which makes the short answer, “No,” but neither do I believe Jesus to be not divine. I do not currently have a belief one way or the other. I am uncertain.

 

[PRmerger]

Again, a false dichotomy. Firstly, something can be inerrant without being infallible.

True. The Scriptures are inerrant. The Church is infallible.

Secondly, one can trust that the Council of Carthage is a reliable council for determining the canon, based on its antiquity

How is antiquity a guarantee of reliability? That is a peculiar comment!

 

[PRmerger]

I do not know, which makes the short answer, “No,” but neither do I believe Jesus to be not divine. I do not currently have a belief one way or the other. I am uncertain.

Do you believe that a man named Jesus walked on this earth?

 

[dronald]

On the text?

I don’t understand. How do you know something is inspired based on the text? And based on history? And what does “etc” mean here?

Well, why don’t you tell me?

Apparently you chose a Church that includes Hebrews rather than one that does not. Is it because it makes sense that Hebrews belongs?

The Jews, Muslims and Atheists don’t believe Hebrews is an inspired word of God. Why go with the CC when none of them believe it? Because you believe that the Catholic Church’s belief that Hebrews is swell and good is correct; along with other beliefs like the primacy of Peter and whatever else have you.

Yes, we do all rely on our own logic and line of thought.

Now it’s time to connect the dots.

If you believe that Hebrews is inspired and that 1 and 2 Clement are not…it’s because you are giving your tacit submission to the authority of the CC.

Nope.

You accept the CC as the correct Church because the entirety of what it believes makes the most sense to you; including the inclusion of Hebrews.

I’m not Catholic because I reject much of what the CC says, but I am a Christian Protestant because what my Church teaches makes the most sense to me, including the inclusion of Hebrews.