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

  • Thread starter Thread starter PRmerger
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
spedteacherita said:
Can the words of Jesus not be authoritative without the Church?
Click to expand...
1 Timothy 3:15

15
But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.
 
Jon_S said:
It just seems so nonsensical and illogical.

You basically are saying, the Holy Spirit led and guided the church…except in this this this this and this…he didn’t lead them there.

He waited 1914 years until some Pentecostal ministers got together and the Holy Spirit decided to lead them for the first time in history…
Click to expand...
I guess so
 
MaryT777 said:
1 Timothy 3:15

15
But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.
Click to expand...
I don’t disagree with this but I don’t believe that the RCC has not strayed from His pillar and foundation of truth…I find doctrines of the Church hard to believe when they are placed against the Word of God. Unless and until I am certain that all the doctrines which the RCC teaches were also taught by Christ or apostles I cannot get on board with what is taught.

Blessings, Rita
 
St John 21:
…24This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true. 25And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.

This makes one wonder… How can we know exactly all that the Apostles knew? How can we discern the Bible without knowing all those other things?
 
Jon_S said:
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
Click to expand...
Further to this point, it is unknown who wrote the Gospels. The names given to the Gospels are just by tradition; they are anonymous texts. There is no author given in the originals.
 
PRmerger said:
If you don’t trust the authority of the Catholic Church, how do you know what Jesus said, as recorded in the Bible, are true?
Click to expand...
Perhaps for the same reason you believe that the Catholic Church has the authority to teach God’s truth infallibly: I trust that the New Testament documents and the writings of the Early Church Fathers (i.e. the traditions of the early Church) are reliable and accurate accounts of the teachings of Christ.
 
TemperanceOfGod said:
St John 21:
…24This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true. 25And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.

This makes one wonder… How can we know exactly all that the Apostles knew? How can we discern the Bible without knowing all those other things?
Click to expand...
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…
 
EveningSkye111 said:
Some of the most devoted followers of Jesus Christ are not Catholic. These are some of my closest friends.

A Bible and guidance from the Holy Spirit puts Jesus right with you.
Click to expand...
Magdalenaa said:
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.
Click to expand...
You misquoted the poster. Some is not the same thing as most.
 
Jon_S said:
I’m not sure what I am supposed to read there, but it is a huge whole in your providence supporting the Bible if you say “the Catholic Church is false and full of errors”. The bible is a fruit of their errors.
Click to expand...
If one can defend from a historical standpoint that the New Testament documents are reliable accounts of Christ and His teachings, then it is not a double-standard to believe that the Catholic Church got the canon of Scripture right and some other things wrong.
 
icamhif said:
If one can defend from a historical standpoint that the New Testament documents are reliable accounts of Christ and His teachings, then it is not a double-standard to believe that the Catholic Church got the canon of Scripture right and some other things wrong.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Jon_S said:
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.
Click to expand...
For Mark, I appeal to the Early Church Fathers who long predated the Council of Carthage, Hippo, and Rome. As far as I know, none of them, not even the earliest ones, doubted the authorship of Mark.

For Revelation and 1 Clement, there were some who held that 1 Clement is canon in the early church, while others who did not. Same for Revelation. To this, I appeal to the fact that the Early Church did not see the Canonicity of Scripture as an critical controversy that levels to that the Christologies, for they also have the oral traditions and liturgical church practices to mantain the Apostolic teaching. No Apostolic teaching stands or falls on whether 1 Clement is canon, anyway. It was ultimately the three local councils I mentioned above who made the 27 New Testament books the norm in all Christian circles, but that is not the same as saying that the Catholic Church is infallible in all matters of faith and practice.
 
icamhif said:
For Mark, I appeal to the Early Church Fathers who long predated the Council of Carthage, Hippo, and Rome. As far as I know, none of them, not even the earliest ones, doubted the authorship of Mark.

For Revelation and 1 Clement, there were some who held that 1 Clement is canon in the early church, while others who did not. Same for Revelation. To this, I appeal to the fact that the Early Church did not see the Canonicity of Scripture as an critical controversy that levels to that the Christologies, for they also have the oral traditions and liturgical church practices to mantain the Apostolic teaching. No Apostolic teaching stands or falls on whether 1 Clement is canon, anyway. It was ultimately the three local councils I mentioned above who made the 27 New Testament books the norm in all Christian circles, but that is not the same as saying that the Catholic Church is infallible in all matters of faith and practice.
Click to expand...
But it is using the authority of the church to defend this…an authority you accept here but reject that those same fathers who believed in the real presence in the Eucharist, were right there.

How do you determine what of their work you reject and accept??

Why is the church not allowed to bind and loose or settle disputes as Christ commanded them?
 
Without The Church, people wouldn’t have the New Testament that they do today. You’re welcome.

:okpeople: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:
 
Jon_S said:
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.
Click to expand...
Also, even if one doesn’t know whether Mark is the true author of Mark or whether Revelation is canon, he can still conclude that the four Gospels and the Pauline Epistles are reliable accounts of the teachings of Christ. Scholars agree that all four Gospels were written in the 1st century. Textual criticism, multiple attestations, outside sources, and the criteria of embarrassment makes it reasonable to believe that the four Gospels are generally reliable. Scholars almost unanimously believe that Jesus existed, that He was baptized by John in the river of Jordan, and that He was crucified under Pontius Pilate. Almost all of the Apostles died for their faith, and there is not much dispute among scholars about that. One can reasonably conclude from these facts that Christ Resurrected and that He intended His teachings to be passed down throughout the generations.

The Early Church Fathers testifies to the continuity of teachings. Although new words were developed to formalize already-held doctrines, the Church has never changed in substance in terms of doctrines. Seeing a continuity of teaching from the earliest church until now is not the same as saying that it is infallible.
 
What do you mean by true? Do you mean an accurate accounting of what he said? Do you mean that anything that is attributed to Jesus in the Bible was exactly what He really did say? The same question could be asked of any historical writing. It could be a challenge for anyone because they did not have quotation marks.
TemperanceOfGod said:
When I was Protestant, I KNEW the words of Jesus were true because they were written in red! Seriously.
Click to expand...
The problem for us colorblind folks is when we read a red letter Bible we think Jesus didn’t say anything at all.
 
Jon_S said:
But it is using the authority of the church to defend this…an authority you accept here but reject that those same fathers who believed in the real presence in the Eucharist, were right there.

How do you determine what of their work you reject and accept??

Why is the church not allowed to bind and loose or settle disputes as Christ commanded them?
Click to expand...
I believe in the Real Presence, not because the Fourth Lateran Council dogmatized transubstantiation, but because the Real Presence was explicitly taught in the 2nd century, by the testimony of Ignatius and Justin Martyr.

I determine what work I reject or accept by looking at the history and see which work has the most historical continuity.

The Church is allowed to settle disputes, as testified by the Council of Nicea etc. Whether those Councils are infallible to the letter, though, is another question.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top