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

[benhur]

Could Peter err?

]Why does Jesus tell us to bring disputes to the Church? What good is doing that if the Church can err?

Because it is better than civil courts as Paul references.(Theocracy is the best form of governance or will be). Being fallible does not negate God-given civil authority, nor certainly any church authority.

What good are keys to the kingdom if they don’t work?

I think it is the conditionality of the keys working perfectly that makes them and us so special.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Unless you believe that Christ can err?

Did Christ err with Adam and Eve covenant ? With Abraham covenant ? With Davidic covenant ? With the Israelites, the Jews covenant ?

 

[benhur]

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.

Hi Mek.

I pray that you come off the fence.

In that regard, read all you want, speculate and think all you want. Eventually however, I hope you will "give it up’’, for flesh and blood, even your own, can not reveal “'it” to you. You must be born again. It is a gift. Giving up on your own thinking is a gift. Oh, do not worry. It is replaced with another rational faith, even with the mind of Christ Himself.

Otherwise “it” is impossible. And no man seeks after God, yet He does draw us, to seek and even find.

Blessings and prayers, from one who has been there, done that (where you are and what you do).

 

[benhur]

It was inconceivable for Jewish converts to believe that their OT God of pure Spirit could ever be perfectly identified with a flesh and blood man. That is why Jesus was first identified with the expected Messiah, not with God himself.

Hi BH

The makeup of the Messiah certainly evolved within Judaism, One little tidbit that helped me out is 2 Samuel 7:19 “And this was yet a small thing in thy sight, O Lord GOD; but thou hast spoken also of thy servant’s house for a great while to come. And is this the manner of man, O Lord GOD?”

The “is this the manner of man” speaks to me of David seeing, discerning, even prophesying of the necessity of the “Messiah” going beyond what mortal man is to accomplish the Davidic covenant and it’s wonderful promises.

Blessings

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Why would Jews want to stone someone for claiming to be the “expected Messiah”?

What is the relevance re what I said?

 

[PRmerger]

What is the relevance re what I said?

Jesus claimed to be God and that’s why they wanted to stone him.

Again: Jesus claimed to be God.

It’s a bit abstruse for someone to read the Scriptures and conclude that Jesus made no claims about his divinity.

 

[PRmerger]

Did Christ err with Adam and Eve covenant ? With Abraham covenant ? With Davidic covenant ? With the Israelites, the Jews covenant ?

Nope.

Are you proposing that he did?

 

[PRmerger]

The very resource which protestant Christians use to justify rejecting the fullness of the Catholic faith relied on the Catholic hierarchy to define and confirm.

Egg-zactly.

As Mark Shea says, ever so eloquently: “The original 16th-century revolutionaries had the mysterious conviction that you could attack a procession of Catholic worshippers, knock the miter off the priest’s head, dash the Eucharist to the ground, burn the vestments, smash the images, and overturn the altar — yet inexplicably seize their Holy Book and declare it an infallible oracle.”

There is great cognitive dissonance in the idea that non-Cs can take our Holy Book and declare it to be the Word of God, yet banish the very authority and source which gave them this Holy Book.

 

[PRmerger]

That would be it, but ya’ll seem to be enjoying the discussion, so I’ll just let go on for a bit longer.

Yay! Thank you!


.

I hope this doesn’t count as one more post in the countdown!

 

[PRmerger]

It depends on how you define Church.

Well, in the context of this discussion, for this thread, for the idea of how you know what Jesus said, “Church” means “the body of bishops and their successors who received the kerygma from the Apostles”.

And, again, if you believe that the 27 book canon of the NT is correct, then you submit to the authority of this Church.

If you mean a particular visible institution like the Catholic Church, yes it can err.

Then did it err in the 27 book canon? If so, which books should it have excluded? Which books should it have included?

And here’s the kicker, Sy: how do you know it erred? Or, how do you know she got it right?

I’ve asked the latter question here, numerous times, to numerous non-Catholics, and no one has given even a whisper of a response.

 

[PRmerger]

It does not mean submission to the authority of the Catholic Church and it doesn’t mean the Catholic Church is infallible.

The Reformed confessions set out what the canon is.

And how did the Reformers know?

Answer: because they deferred to the authority of the CC here.

After reading the Bible the Holy Spirit convinces me that they got it right.

LOL!

You know that they "got it right’ based on what? What’s your original source for the Word of God to which you can compare the NT canon and say, “Yes, the CC got it right in including Hebrews because the kerygma I received (from where, again??) agrees with Hebrews!”

It is possible to get something right without the need to be infallible in all teachings.

This defies logic, Sy.

It’s as if you are supernatural event after supernatural event, in Jesus’ time and saying, “It’s possible to walk on water without it being miraculous”.

Remember, if you believe the Holy Spirit guides the Church, and was with the Church in all of its councils, then you NECESSARILY believe that the bishops were INFALLIBLE when they “got it right” with the 27 book canon.

The Holy Spirit doesn’t guide someone to error.

 

[PRmerger]

If you mean a particular visible institution like the Catholic Church, yes it can err.

From the supremely trenchant Mark Shea again: “The Church, as it is a human institution, is always in danger of the sin, stupidity, weakness, and pride of its members — and its enemies. But the insistence of Christ Himself is that that it is not merely a human institution.”

crisismagazine.com/2009/on-finding-christ-in-the-church

Despite all the best efforts of its members to sink the Mother Ship, the Church continues to navigate through these scum-ridden waters, always heading to True North.
As Shea continues, “It’s like she’s guided by God or something.”

**For you, dronald, **who thinks you can worship Jesus without a church:
"The very worst thing you can possibly do is try to find “the real Jesus” by shoving the Church aside and going on some wild goose chase for the “Jesus of history” as though He is somebody other than the “Christ of faith.

For the truth is this: Jesus, removed from the Apostolic Tradition and preaching of the Church,almost instantly becomes a mirror and projection of whatever our culture happens to be myopically obsessing over right now. "

 

[dronald]

Again my point remains that the entirety of this discussion is on something we actually agree on. Does anyone ever read their Bible’s anymore?

Sometimes I read the thing and come to realize how ungodly these discussions are.

 

[PRmerger]

Again my point remains that the entirety of this discussion is on something we actually agree on. Does anyone ever read their Bible’s anymore?

Sometimes I read the thing and come to realize how ungodly these discussions are.

There is absolutely NOTHING ungodly about these discussions.

That you may be discomfited by them is not the same thing as being ungodly.

We are commanded to always give a reason for the hope that is within us.

What we are doing is getting to the heart by going through the mind.

We must love God with our MINDS as well as our hearts, ronald.

And, I would add: if you may find these discussions uncomfortable tells me that you see the truths of what we are proposing here, and may not like where the truth leads you. You are comfortable where you are but are a man of integrity so know that you must go where all roads go…to Rome.

EDIT: the Bible is FULL of commands to do exactly what we are doing. Besides the verses I already cited, another that comes to mind is from Isaiah: “Come, let us reason together.”

 

[icamhif]

I wouldn’t beat yourself up, I don’t think you were being very rude. But I think you were participating in a mass halluci-fallacy, whereby the Catholic position is thought to be determined by what one person thinks (so long as it’s posted on the Internet).

You are right, Peter. The apologetics and polemics promoted by some are not representative of the official Catholic position.

And thanks for the humorous video.

 

[PRmerger]

Sola Scriptura has not helped combat this but fueled it.

'zactly.

When one divorces himself from the Faith which gave him these Scriptures, it leads to all sorts doctrinal confusion and theological chaos.

Because one does not need a magisterium, one can make all sorts of conclusions about Jesus including:

• Jesus was a woman.
• Jesus was a space alien and is buried in Japan.
• Jesus survived the crucifixion and is buried in Kashmir.
• Jesus was a Buddhist.
• Jesus was a Muslim.
• Jesus was a Mormon.
• Jesus was a magician.
• Jesus was a Gnostic.
• Jesus was the son of Mary and a Roman solider.
• Jesus never existed.
• Jesus was never executed.
• Jesus was married and had children.
• Jesus was a social revolutionary, when he was not a mere Mediterranean peasant.
• Jesus was an itinerant visionary whose real teachings exist only in distorted, fragmented form.
• Jesus was insane.
crisismagazine.com/2009/on-finding-christ-in-the-church

 

[dronald]

There is absolutely NOTHING ungodly about these discussions.

That you may be discomfited by them is not the same thing as being ungodly.

We are commanded to always give a reason for the hope that is within us.

What we are doing is getting to the heart by going through the mind.

We must love God with our MINDS as well as our hearts, ronald.

And, I would add: if you may find these discussions uncomfortable tells me that you see the truths of what we are proposing here, and may not like where the truth leads you. You are comfortable where you are but are a man of integrity so know that you must go where all roads go…to Rome.

EDIT: the Bible is FULL of commands to do exactly what we are doing. Besides the verses I already cited, another that comes to mind is from Isaiah: “Come, let us reason together.”

I’m not discomforted by these discussions.

I find the meme’s, the “LOL”'s and more discomforting. Again, I read the Bible then read this and question how this is Christian discourse.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m not discomforted by these discussions.

I find the meme’s, the “LOL”'s and more discomforting. Again, I read the Bible then read this and question how this is Christian discourse.

Really? You find laughing out loud to be inappropriate for a discussion on religion?

And what are the memes except animated versions of the smilies? You do not think animated smilies have a place in religious discussions?

What was it that St. Therese of Lisieux said? Something like, “God save us from sour-faced saints!”

I hope to never be one of those!

 

[PRmerger]

To me it seems so clear that Hebrews was written by a close companion of Timothy, and has so much Theology that I accept that it wasn’t written by a liar but rather someone very important in the early Church.

And why is the fact that it was written by a close companion of Timothy important?

Could you please answer the above, ronald?

Would that mean that the letters of Clement and Barnabas would also be theopneustos, since those men were “very important in the early Church” as well?

 

[mek42]

So he said that he was God, but he wasn’t?

And his followers said that he rose from the dead, but he actually didn’t?

Why would they do that?

My recollection, is that he said he was what he was, deflecting the question.

To support Paul’s personal revelation. Tabor is a very interesting read so far regarding this hypothesis.