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

[Peter_J]

Keep in mind that bad polemics exist in all religious sides.

That is, in fact, on reason I don’t participate one Protestant forums (along with the fact that I’m trying to keep a lid on my web-forum-participation-time in general).

 

[PRmerger]

If they were going to lie about the Resurrection they would have done a better job of it. Just for starters, all four gospels name women as the first people Jesus appeared to. Any first century Jewish man cooking up a lie would not have done that. In first century Jerusalem, women were not acceptable witnesses. Their word was not taken. So, if anyone was lying about the Resurrection, they would have placed men at the tomb, not women.

Second, nothing but the Resurrection can account for the radically changed life of the apostles. Prior to the Resurrection, they were hiding in fear. John was the only disciple to stand at the foot of the Cross, as I’m sure you all know. Yet after the Resurrection, all of the apostles became very active. All were eventually martyred except for John, and he was thrown in a vat of boiling oil, though it doesn’t seem to have harmed him.

I could go on and on and on, but I’m sure most of you know all of this. Liars would have done a better job of it.

Egg-zactly.

 

[PRmerger]

Surely we need to move beyond such simplistic thinking which behooves children but perhaps not adults.

And yet, here you are professing such simplistic thinking yourself.

It is curious that you reserve for yourself what you object to in others.

 

[Reuben_J]

Even some of the great Christian dogmas were not explicitly clear in the Early Church - they were implicit and took time to be widely understood and affirmed.

Just curious. Which dogmas that were took time to be widely understood and affirmed?

Does this mean that the apostles themselves weren’t sure of the divinity of Jesus?

 

[rcwitness]

Just curious. Which dogmas that were took time to be widely understood and affirmed?

Does this mean that the apostles themselves weren’t sure of the divinity of Jesus?

I didn’t get the impression Blue Horizon was suggesting that the Apostles weren’t sure of the divinity at all.

The Apostles spoke with prophetic meaning many times. This meant that leaders had to discern their meaning. There was various reasons for this I believe. One reason is to keep the wisdom of the Kingdom from this world and the evil one. For example, the professed definitions on the papacy needed much persecution to settle so the Bishop was not made into a target.

 

[Reuben_J]

I didn’t get the impression Blue Horizon was suggesting that the Apostles weren’t sure of the divinity at all

.

Thanks. It was important to me that the apostles knew who Jesus was, and what he was claiming to be, especially after the resurrection, since our faith is based on apostolic witnesses and teaching.

 

[rcwitness]

Thanks. It was important to me that the apostles knew who Jesus was, and what he was claiming to be, especially after the resurrection, since our faith is based on apostolic witnesses and teaching.

But I didn’t mean to speak for Blue. Just looking at what you quoted from him.

Hopefully, he can explain what he believes.

 

[Reuben_J]

But I didn’t mean to speak for Blue. Just looking at what you quoted from him.

Hopefully, he can explain what he believes.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

And yet, here you are professing such simplistic thinking yourself.

It is curious that you reserve for yourself what you object to in others.

Let’s be careful not to play the man if we are unable to play the ball PR.

I wasn’t talking about you personally as I presumed you were open to a range of views when I commented on your assumptions.

 

[PRmerger]

Let’s be careful not to play the man if we are unable to play the ball PR.

I wasn’t talking about you personally as I presumed you were open to a range of views when I commented on your assumptions.

It’s irrelevant whether you were talking about me personally or in general, Blue.

I simply made an observation: it’s odd for you to reserve for yourself the right to have simplistic thinking but object to this in others.

#justsayin

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Just curious. Which dogmas that were took time to be widely understood and affirmed?

Does this mean that the apostles themselves weren’t sure of the divinity of Jesus?

It’s a really interesting question RJ.
What I observed below in Catholic Biblical scholarship was limited to the average follower of Jesus and even the Gospel writers.

Sometimes we only realise. and fully understand the actions and words of our loved ones many years after they have died. I know that to be true for my father. Cannot this true of Church teaching too - the meaning was always there at the time but we can be too immature, too distracted with life, too self obsessed to see or get it until later - usually at the cost of much reflection and suffering.
This is what I understand by “implicit.”

Clearly the youngest apostle, John, may have got it in his own lifetime.
But possibly most only penetrated to title like Messiah, or higher ones that appear more angelic in nature than divine as we now understand since C4.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It’s irrelevant whether you were talking about me personally or in general, Blue.

I simply made an observation: it’s odd for you to reserve for yourself the right to have simplistic thinking but object to this in others.

#justsayin

PR I don’t feel the need to always have the last word by repeating myself - let’s see if you do .

 

[PRmerger]

PR I don’t feel the need to always have the last word by repeating myself - let’s see if you do .

I like to discuss. So if I have the time, and someone poses something that needs to be refuted, I love to clear things up and correct any errors.

It also is important for the lurkers to see when someone, esp. a Catholic, has posted something patently false, be re-directed towards a more correct understanding.

Also, when someone reserves for himself what he objects to in others, I do like to point that out.

 

[icamhif]

Strangely this was disputed by sincere and educated Christians, who certainly knew their NT, up until C4.

This, and Imprimatured and Nihil-Obstat Scriptural Scholarship into the Christological phrases accorded to Jesus by the Gospel writers (which does not necessarily mean Jesus actually spoke those very words) suggests we would be jumping the gun to be too confident about this.

Yes the incident you mention in John contains some of the highest Christological phrases accorded to Jesus. Not surprisingly such high titles are found in the NT book most distant (and most theological) from the actual time of Jesus. It is generally considered that the writer was not even the youngest apostle - but rather his disciple.

These titles/phrases, allegedly spoken by Jesus, are unlikely fully consonant with what we mean today by saying “Jesus is God.” Yes John certainly presents Jesus as claiming to be greater than Abraham hence the stoning. (The same was attempted in Nazareth when he merely suggested that he was a prophet.) But what sort of person he was understood to be claiming to be - that is another issue.

Even some of the great Christian dogmas were not explicitly clear in the Early Church - they were implicit and took time to be widely understood and affirmed.

Yes the nuns taught us everything was black and white from year Resurrection.
Surely we need to move beyond such simplistic thinking which behooves children but perhaps not adults.

I don’t expect you to agree, but it is acceptable for Catholic scholars to hold such a position and it likely better respects what the average follower/Christian actually understood in the first century or two in the Early Church. … let alone in Jesus’s own lifetime.

It also explains why sincere and educated Catholics on both sides fiercely debated the Divinity of Jesus for 300 years.

You are right that mainstream scholars are divided on whether Jesus even claimed to be God in the New Testament. Even the Scriptural proof-texts for Christ’s claim of divinity should come as at least somewhat cryptic to anyone who is neutral about the topic.

It is undeniably clear that doctrines developed in some way, shape, or form. The only question is in what way they develop. The Early Church may not have officially used the word “Trinity” before the Arian controversy, but there is good evidence from Fathers like Ignatius and Tertullian that they understood at least the basic concepts of it.

The question then becomes: Did the Council of Nicea develop the doctrine of the Trinity in the sense that it only took what has always been believed by the Church, and put it into more explicit and formal terminology? Or, did they actually develop the doctrine as a new understanding that was not recognized as Apostolic, beforehand?

 

[PRmerger]

You are right that mainstream scholars are divided on whether Jesus even claimed to be God in the New Testament. Even the Scriptural proof-texts for Christ’s claim of divinity should come as at least somewhat cryptic to anyone who is neutral about the topic.

Annnnd that’s exactly why we need a Church.

 

[icamhif]

Annnnd that’s exactly why we need a Church.

Amen

Just a follow-up question from one your answers to dronald:
You believe that God exists because it is not rational for something to come out of nothing.
Sounds good. Out of all the theistic world religions, though, how do you know that Christianity is the correct one?

 

[Peter_J]

You are right that mainstream scholars are divided on whether Jesus even claimed to be God in the New Testament. Even the Scriptural proof-texts for Christ’s claim of divinity should come as at least somewhat cryptic to anyone who is neutral about the topic.

It is undeniably clear that doctrines developed in some way, shape, or form. The only question is in what way they develop. The Early Church may not have officially used the word “Trinity” before the Arian controversy, but there is good evidence from Fathers like Ignatius and Tertullian that they understood at least the basic concepts of it.

The question then becomes: Did the Council of Nicea develop the doctrine of the Trinity in the sense that it only took what has always been believed by the Church, and put it into more explicit and formal terminology? Or, did they actually develop the doctrine as a new understanding that was not recognized as Apostolic, beforehand?

Good post.

I was just thinking of an anecdote in FMG’s talk, in the Orientale Lumen Conference: she was speaking with a fellow Orthodox and the topic of “development” came up. He gave the example of how Orthodox now pray for “those who travel by sea, air, and land”. She decided that the man probably wasn’t prepared to hear about her own experiences with “development” – she was in the ECUSA before becoming Orthodox.

This is, of course, a poor condensed version.

 

[PRmerger]

Amen

Just a follow-up question from one your answers to dronald:
You believe that God exists because it is not rational for something to come out of nothing.
Sounds good. Out of all the theistic world religions, though, how do you know that Christianity is the correct one?

There is only one religion which has a God who appeared in history. A religion which claims to have a miracle which was witnessed by hundreds and has never been refuted.

The Incarnation and the Resurrection separates Christianity from all other religions.

And the Incarnation* and Resurrection can be attested to by history.

*At least, the fact of a man named Jesus who walked the earth.

 

[icamhif]

There is only one religion which has a God who appeared in history. A religion which claims to have a miracle which was witnessed by hundreds and has never been refuted.

The Incarnation and the Resurrection separates Christianity from all other religions.

And the Incarnation* and Resurrection can be attested to by history.

*At least, the fact of a man named Jesus who walked the earth.

Good. How do you know that the Resurrection actually happened, though?

 

[PRmerger]

Good. How do you know that the Resurrection actually happened, though?

There were 500 witnesses. No one retracted, even under torture.

And no one has given a good answer as to why these 500 folks lied about seeing Him Resurrected?

As apologist Trent Horn likes to say: if you were Jewish and you followed a messiah, but he ended up dead or killed, you simply went home and found another leader. That was the m.o.

No one ever before claimed that their messiah had risen from the dead.

Except for one guy.

#theeventthatchangedeverything