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

[D0UBTFIRE]

But you’re assuming a split between behavior and doctrine, and then berating us for failing to make it.

Make the case for the split.

I understand that this seems off-topic. However, the line of argument taken by Catholics on this thread forces the raising of this question. If the implicit argument is “you can’t know that the words of Jesus are true without accepting the authority of the Catholic Church as we define it” then my response is a relevant and necessary one.

Just to be clear: I believe in the indefectibility of the successors of St. Peter (i.e., the bishops of Rome, historically) and don’t have any insoluble objections to infallibility. My objection–heightened every time I try to become Catholic, as I did again this past year–is to the claim that doctrinal infallibility, narrowly and carefully defined (a broader and less careful definition is clearly unbelievable), is a sufficient basis for “trusting the Church to be led by the Spirit.”

To put it clearly: there are some obvious ways in which my evangelical Wesleyan tradition has listened to the Spirit’s guidance better than the post-Reformation “Roman Catholic Church” has. Maybe these ways have nothing to do with doctrine, though that seems unlikely. I am much more confident that any doctrinal shifts/developments that need to take place in the Roman Communion can take place without the Catholic Church radically abandoning its core commitments and changing its identity (which is basically what many Protestants would like to see). But when you move away from the narrow issue of infallibility in official dogma and make blanket claims about the Spirit’s guidance and our need to trust the Church, then the issues that I raised (and many other similar ones) become highly relevant. And it isn’t reasonable for you then to move back to the narrow definition and chide me for ignoring how narrow it is. I didn’t ignore that at all–I pointed it out. I did not say that the issues I raised contradicted infallibility. I said that infallibility in its tenable, official form is extremely narrow and does not provide grounds for a general confidence in the Spirit’s guidance of the Church in all the ways that are relevant at any given moment in the Church’s history. Long-term, yes. I am confident that Rome will never finally fall away and will always listen to the Spirit eventually. I am not confident that at any given cross-section of the Church’s history, Rome is listening to the Spirit in more effective and relevant ways than any given Christian community not in communion with Rome or any given dissenting Catholic censured by the Church. Historically, that is obviously false if the current stances and commitments of the Roman Communion are true. (I.e., if the Catechism is right in quoting Jerome’s maxim “ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ” and calling for access to Scripture to be opened wide to the Christian faithful, then the Jansenists and Protestants were right and Pope Clement XI was wrong on that particular point. If the Holy Spirit does not and never did want heretics to be burned at the stake, then Luther was right and Leo X was wrong on that particular point. And so on.)

Edwin

mind = blown

YESS!!! I’m not good with words so I have difficulty expressing my self sometimes, but you put one of my issues with infallibility into words perfectly … I know, I know, I’m way behind on this thread… still reading through it…

 

[mek42]

The above is a nonsequitur.

Could you please answer the questions I posed?
It’s important for you to do this because I don’t think you’ve actually thought your position through.

I have alluded to, though perhaps not clearly stated, that my position is uncertainty, I’m in the process of learning about things, so of course cannot be expected eloquently argue.

Also, you did not answer whether allegorical passages were lies. You assumed where I was going and provided argument, yet you expect me to answer your questions within a limited frame work of truth or lie, not allowing for any other option. How am I to conclude that allegorical passages are not lies, if they did not actually happen?

 

[PRmerger]

I have alluded to, though perhaps not clearly stated, that my position is uncertainty, I’m in the process of learning about things, so of course cannot be expected eloquently argue.

I get that.

But that’s no excuse for not being able to defend what you are considering to be a possibility.

 

[PRmerger]

I have alluded to, though perhaps not clearly stated, that my position is uncertainty, I’m in the process of learning about things, so of course cannot be expected eloquently argue.

You need to be able to provide some coherence to your argument.

Imagine if you said, “I don’t know if it’s true, but it may be possible that a human being and an alligator made a baby together once.”

When you are asked: how would that work? How could a human male impregnate a female alligator? Or how could a male alligator impregnate a human female? Walk me through this…

You respond, “I’m just saying it’s possible, ok?”

That wouldn’t be a very lucid position to promote, no?

 

[mek42]

I get that.

But that’s no excuse for not being able to defend what you are considering to be a possibility.

I’m finding Tabor’s “Paul and Jesus” to be a convincing read. I’m still working through it. It is available on Scribd. Feel free to give him a read to get a better idea where my thoughts are coming from.

 

[Thorolfr]

The historical evidence that the Gospels were not written by the Apostles for whom they are named does seem plausible to me, which makes them hearsay rather than eyewitness accounts.

I agree and since the gospels probably do contain hearsay accounts, some of the words in them that are attributed to Jesus were probably not really said by him and are therefore not true. Even some very important statements attributed to Jesus in the gospels might not ever have been said by him including perhaps the one that forbids divorce and remarriage or the one in which Jesus says to Peter, “upon this rock I will build my church.” We just don’t know for sure.

 

[PRmerger]

I agree and since the gospels probably do contain hearsay accounts, some of the words in them that are attributed to Jesus were probably not really said by him and are therefore not true. Even some very important statements attributed to Jesus in the gospels might not ever have been said by him including perhaps the one that forbids divorce and remarriage or the one in which Jesus says to Peter, “upon this rock I will build my church.” We just don’t know for sure.

Then the central tenets of Christianity–i.e: the divinity of Christ, the atonement of your sins, the resurrection of Christ–are uncertain for you?

 

[PRmerger]

I’m finding Tabor’s “Paul and Jesus” to be a convincing read. I’m still working through it. It is available on Scribd. Feel free to give him a read to get a better idea where my thoughts are coming from.

Come back and make your assertions (or considerations/possibilities) when you are ready to defend them, mek.

Otherwise, your assertions are as otiose as someone coming here and saying, “I read an author who says that he believes that 100 years ago there was a kingdom ruled by a talking dinosaur named T. Rex. He ate everyone and then died and left no evidence.”

 

[mek42]

Come back and make your assertions (or considerations/possibilities) when you are ready to defend them, mek.

Otherwise, your assertions are as otiose as someone coming here and saying, “I read an author who says that he believes that 100 years ago there was a kingdom ruled by a talking dinosaur named T. Rex. He ate everyone and then died and left no evidence.”

Why can you call church tradition your defense but when I cite a historian’s work it is considered insufficient?

Further, why do you feel I need to provide a defense for things I am wrestling with? Are you persecuting me?

 

[Thorolfr]

Then the central tenets of Christianity–i.e: the divinity of Christ, the atonement of your sins, the resurrection of Christ–are uncertain for you?

I think that I have doubts and sometimes feel uncertain about all those things and try to accept them for now on faith as best I can. But uncertainty and doubt are, in my opinion, something that we all have to live with. Even Peter had doubts. As it says in Matthew 14:28-31:

28 Peter answered him, “Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water.” 29 He said, “Come.” So Peter got out of the boat, started walking on the water, and came toward Jesus. 30 But when he noticed the strong wind, he became frightened, and beginning to sink, he cried out, “Lord, save me!” 31 Jesus immediately reached out his hand and caught him, saying to him, “You of little faith, why did you doubt?”

I just have to hope that when I feel uncertain and have doubts that Jesus will reach out his hand and grab me.

 

[PRmerger]

Why can you call church tradition your defense but when I cite a historian’s work it is considered insufficient?

Because I don’t say, when questioned, “I am simply offering a possibility.”

My position is eminently defensible.

You cannot defend your position.

Further, why do you feel I need to provide a defense for things I am wrestling with? Are you persecuting me?

Perhaps you are thinking too one-dimensionally here.

There is a classical definition of “defense” that does not involve persecution. It involves being able to offer reasons for what you believe.

No one here ought to be offering some weird positions and then when asked pointed questions about the incoherence of the position, retreat with, “Well, I’m just offering a possibility that it could have happened this way.”

If you want to make an assertion, offer some defense of it.

Otherwise, it’s an inutile assertion.

Kind of like saying, “I believe it’s possible that Bruce Jenner is a reincarnation of John Lennon” and when the response is, “Holy cow! Where’d you get that idea? And why would you even consider it?”…

saying, “I read a book once. But stop asking me why I believe it’s possible.”

 

[Telstar]

I agree and since the gospels probably do contain hearsay accounts, some of the words in them that are attributed to Jesus were probably not really said by him and are therefore not true. Even some very important statements attributed to Jesus in the gospels might not ever have been said by him including perhaps the one that forbids divorce and remarriage or the one in which Jesus says to Peter, “upon this rock I will build my church.” We just don’t know for sure.

If you have such doubts as to the authenticity of any scripture because someone thinks some of the Gospels might be based on hearsay, then your entire belief system could eventually fall apart like a house of cards as you consider each other tenet of your faith, which might also be brought into question by the assertions proposed by those people. This kind of thinking is what undermines people’s faith in God, and makes it even more clear to me that there needs to be a central authority to reassure us of the authenticity of Scripture, in order to counter the effects of that type of speculation among so-called Biblical “scholars”, no matter which church they might belong to.

 

[PRmerger]

I think that I have doubts and sometimes feel uncertain about all those things and try to accept them for now on faith as best I can. But uncertainty and doubt are, in my opinion, something that we all have to live with. Even Peter had doubts. As it says in Matthew 14:28-31:

28 Peter answered him, “Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water.” 29 He said, “Come.” So Peter got out of the boat, started walking on the water, and came toward Jesus. 30 But when he noticed the strong wind, he became frightened, and beginning to sink, he cried out, “Lord, save me!” 31 Jesus immediately reached out his hand and caught him, saying to him, “You of little faith, why did you doubt?”

I just have to hope that when I feel uncertain and have doubts that Jesus will reach out his hand and grab me.

There is nothing wrong with having questions and even doubting.

It’s when one doesn’t attempt to find the answers that one is guilty of blind faith.

You should always have a reason for the hope that is within you.

You should use your intellect to come to an understanding of truth.

 

[icamhif]

Hi mek42

I commend you for the effort you are putting in to discern the veracity of Christianity. I haven’t read Tabor’s work, but I know that he is a highly reputable historian. I hope that as you read history of the Gospel accounts, that you will weigh the arguments from all sides of scholarly spectrum. There are conservative and liberal scholars, and many moderates. One reputable conservative scholar is N.T. Wright.

 

[Thorolfr]

This kind of thinking is what undermines people’s faith in God, and makes it even more clear to me that there needs to be a central authority to reassure us of the authenticity of Scripture, in order to counter the effects of that type of speculation among so-called Biblical “scholars”, no matter which church they might belong to.

If someone has doubts about what’s in Scripture, why would that person have fewer doubts about the authority and reliability of an institution such as the Catholic Church to confirm the authenticity of Scripture?

 

[PRmerger]

If someone has doubts about what’s in Scripture, why would that person have fewer doubts about the authority and reliability of an institution such as the Catholic Church to confirm the authenticity of Scripture?

Do you believe that a man in history named Jesus walked on this earth 2000 years ago, preaching and dying a horrific death?

 

[icamhif]

Do you believe that a man in history named Jesus walked on this earth 2000 years ago, preaching and dying a horrific death?

The only Gospel-related events in history that are “beyond question” to most mainstream scholars today is that Jesus existed, that He was baptized by John in the River of Jordan, and that He was crucified by Pontius Pilate. According to Bart Ehrmen, it just makes no sense from a historical standpoint for a Jewish sect to make up a story about a Messiah who was crucified.

 

[PRmerger]

The only events in history that are “beyond question” to most mainstream scholars today is that Jesus existed, that He was baptized by John in the River of Jordan, and that He was crucified by Pontius Pilate. According to Bart Ehrmen, it just makes no sense from a historical standpoint for a Jewish sect to make up a story about a Messiah who was crucified.

Exactly. It does’t make sense to make it up.

So there was a man who died and rose from the dead.

That puts Christianity heads and shoulders way above the other monotheistic religions.

I would think that closes the case.

 

[Thorolfr]

I haven’t read Tabor’s work, but I know that he is a highly reputable historian.

Tabor points out how odd and sometimes radical the writings of Paul really are. As he says on page 20, “Paul proved too radical, too apocalyptic, and too controversial even for the emerging Church in the second through the fourth centuries. He was domesticated, first by the author of Acts, as I have noted, but subsequently by letters written in his name, purporting to be from his hand, that are found in the New Testament. Paul was appropriated as a hero, a courageous preacher and a martyr, who was responsible for taking the gospel beyond the Jewish world, but the radical content of his message, and his view of his unique calling and mission, were lost to subsequent generations of Christians.”

 

[icamhif]

Exactly. It does’t make sense to make it up.

So there was a man who died and rose from the dead.

That puts Christianity heads and shoulders way above the other monotheistic religions.

I would think that closes the case.

To be fair, the Resurrection account is not beyond question to most mainstream scholars, only the Crucifixion account.

That said, there are very strong arguments for the Resurrection.