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

[Thorolfr]

Though you understand that Anglicans and Lutherans may differ on the point.

 

[rcwitness]

rcwitness;12979024:

RC, would he forget otherwise ? I think eucharisting is strictly for our benefit.

Yes, I completely agree. Do you benefit from His Eucharist?

Sorry, but these are pre calvary conditions. Post Calvary conditions call for Thanksgiving for deliverance out of bondage.

So we no no longer need His sacrifice at given times in our journey? There seems to be a contradiction in your view. On one hand you say we always benefit from the once for all sacrifice, then you imply there is only a one time benefit and further communion is strictly for saying thanks only. Paul tells us it is an actual participation in His life.

I could be understanding you wrong… and probably am, so I am eager to be corrected.

 

[Cake_or_Death]

Cake or Death, if I may be so bold, you ought to read some of the threads on Catholic-Orthodox (or Orthodox-Catholic) relations … in particular, relating to the fact that the Catholic attitude toward Orthodox is much different now than it used to be.

Or, if you don’t mind reading something off-forum, I might suggest the Balamand Agreement, Uniatism, Method of Union of the Past, and the Present Search for Full Communion

Oh it has improved considerably I don’t doubt But from what I can see several of the non-negotiables such as the later Papal Dogmas and the encyclicals prohibiting divorce and contraception are also non-negotiables for the Orthodox.

Ecumenicalism has made them more friendly, but they won’t be sharing the Eucharist anytime soon.

Thanks for the link by the way!

 

[benhur]

Why would you think it was only symbolic? Did Jesus say, “these will be symbols of my body and blood”

Maybe because it was the most obvious ?

The celebration of Passover, like many other signs of the Messiah that we see in the OT, was a foreshadowing of Jesus, the real Sacrificial Lamb of God, being celebrated in the Mass, forever. The Holy Eucharist is the literal Lamb of God that we actually eat to remember His Sacrifice on the cross, just like the Jews actually eat the Paschal Lamb to remember the Exodus of Moses. Was the Paschal Lamb just a symbol of the sacrifice, or a real lamb that they actually ate?

The OT passover folk ate real symbolic elements, just as we do in communion. The Jews did not eat the same actual lamb and wine of the original Passover that they remember. They eat lamb and wine in like fashion as their forefathers. The elements are elements and are representative of the first actual sacrifice.

Blessings

 

[rcwitness]

Why must it be authoritative? The very earliest Christians operated quite well enough with an open canon and were willing to assess many accounts of Jesus’ life, as did the Jews have an open canon for much of their history. Had the temple not been destroyed it might have remained open.

And… they obeyed Church leaders. They were in Communion with each other.

What proof do you have the canon you use is endorsed by the Holy spirit any more than the much larger tomes used by the Oriental Orthodox? Yes the Catholic Church tells you it is, but does that come with a certificate I can check? Perhaps one of those snazzy holographic labels we get on DVD boxes as a sign of authenticity?

Its the same New Testament canon as all of Christendom, and much of the denominations claim sola scriptura! So the question remains, what authority establishes that the New Testament is able to be relied upon as God’s written word?

I think both you and I take the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to be very different things, I have found much inspiration and pause for thought while reading the canon Catholic scriptures, I didn’t feel any need for a certificate of authenticity or feel any sense that it would make them any more profound. Likewise I have also found just as deeply insightful, indeed inspirational words when reading the Ethiopian Orthodox Canon.

I think most Christians (even Sola Scriptura subscribers) would disagree with you.

God did give us a revelation, but I don’t automatically assume what we have received on paper is divine itself. It accounts it as best it can, as can all fallible things.

Again, this seems very different from most Christian Churches. what Church do you receive Communion from???

 

[Cake_or_Death]

And… they obeyed Church leaders. They were in Communion with each other.

We assume, the amount of times they fought with each other or the theological differences between say the Assyrian Church of the East and the Coptics it’s a bit hard to say.

Again I highlight that we assume, just because we know some did.

Its the same New Testament canon as all of Christendom, and much of the denominations claim sola scriptura! So the question remains, what authority establishes that the New Testament is able to be relied upon as God’s written word?

I certainly don’t believe in Sola Scriptura, but I don’t agree that Catholic (or Orthodox for that matter) have it perfect with your sacred traditions either.

I don’t see any need to establish that the new testament can be relied upon, there is evidence by 200 AD the most popular collection circulating was very similar if not almost identical to the NT we know today (de Jonge, HJ (2003), “The New Testament Canon”); and surprise of all surprises it didn’t need anyone to make it “authoritative”. It came together because it was popular. So if anything, popular acclaim and preference gave it not authority, but popular approval.

I think most Christians (even Sola Scriptura subscribers) would disagree with you.

I’m sure some would, but I don’t care what “most” Christians think. I care about finding out what is true, not what is thought to be true.

Again, this seems very different from most Christian Churches. what Church do you receive Communion from???

I receive from the Church of Ireland, although I frequent other members of the Anglican/Episcopal communion when I am outside of the country.

I’m not a formal member of the CoI, I’m a Religious Studies scholar and I’m aware my research has led me to some rather uncommon beliefs regarding scripture.

 

[GKC]

And we do.

I’ve actually stumbled upon stragglers who appear not to.

I don’t encourage that,

 

[Peter_J]

Oh it has improved considerably I don’t doubt But from what I can see several of the non-negotiables such as the later Papal Dogmas and the encyclicals prohibiting divorce and contraception are also non-negotiables for the Orthodox.

Exactly. If they complain that we’re “out to get them” (or whatever) we can counter that they’re “out to get us”.

But I think that, if you look at the Catholics chosen to serve on the dialogues, they aren’t out to get the Orthodox at all. Alternately put, if an Orthodox wants to become Catholic (ICWR) of his/her own volition, we won’t say “no” … we just don’t encourage it.

 

[Peter_J]

… and surprise of all surprises it didn’t need **anyone **to make it “authoritative”. It came together because it was popular.

(emphasis added)

This wasn’t addressed to me (but I didn’t let that stop me before so why start now? ) but it very much makes me want to quote G. K. Chesterton,

“A person can’t be quite alone in a street a second before she receives a letter.”

 

[rcwitness]

We assume, the amount of times they fought with each other or the theological differences between say the Assyrian Church of the East and the Coptics it’s a bit hard to say.

Hard to say they were or were not in Communion with one another? When was the first split of communion? Yet this split was still legitimate Communions.

I don’t see any need to establish that the new testament can be relied upon, there is evidence by 200 AD the most popular collection circulating was very similar if not almost identical to the NT we know today (de Jonge, HJ (2003), “The New Testament Canon”); and surprise of all surprises it didn’t need anyone to make it “authoritative”. It came together because it was popular. So if anything, popular acclaim and preference gave it not authority, but popular approval.

But all Christian Churches do rely on an established canon. The Church didnt ‘make’ it authoratative, rather it had the authority to declare it as divinely inspired. That doesnt mean much if you dont believe it is, but all Christian Churches do believe in its divine inspiration. Most just dont realize they are able to have that security because of the early Church.

I’m sure some would, but I don’t care what “most” Christians think. I care about finding out what is true, not what is thought to be true.

Ok. I’m not trying to persuade you with mere majority. But I dont think a single Church Communion holds to what you are subscribing to.

I receive from the Church of Ireland, although I frequent other members of the Anglican/Episcopal communion when I am outside of the country.

These, im guessing, profess Scripture to be divinely inspired AND inerrant.

I’m not a formal member of the CoI, I’m a Religious Studies scholar and I’m aware my research has led me to some rather uncommon beliefs regarding scripture.

Enough said

 

[Cake_or_Death]

(emphasis added)

This wasn’t addressed to me (but I didn’t let that stop me before so why start now? ) but it very much makes me want to quote G. K. Chesterton,

“A person can’t be quite alone in a street a second before she receives a letter.”

Ah, forgive me I see I phrased that rather poorly.

What I meant was that there was no single individual or collective which decided “yep, this is what we’re gonna use from now on lads” at this stage. Rather like how a good sauce brand takes off through good sales, this collection “took off” because people approved of it.

These people didn’t necessarily have theological qualifications if such existed then, or ordination. I wouldn’t even hazard a guess at this stage at why they would have chosen them but they did.

Exactly. If they complain that we’re “out to get them” (or whatever) we can counter that they’re “out to get us”.

But I think that, if you look at the Catholics chosen to serve on the dialogues, they aren’t out to get the Orthodox at all. Alternately put, if an Orthodox wants to become Catholic (ICWR) of his/her own volition, we won’t say “no” … we just don’t encourage it.

Its a good compromise really, I mean I do understand there is only so far once can stretch “outside the [Catholic] Church there is no salvation” into ecumenicalism but for what they both had to work with this was quite a good result

 

[Cake_or_Death]

Hard to say they were or were not in Communion with one another? When was the first split of communion? Yet this split was still legitimate Communions.

Prior to Chalcedon, as we can already detect in the record a few competing factions.

But all Christian Churches do rely on an established canon. The Church didnt ‘make’ it authoratative, rather it had the authority to declare it as divinely inspired. That doesnt mean much if you dont believe it is, but all Christian Churches do believe in its divine inspiration. Most just dont realize they are able to have that security because of the early Church.

The Catholic Church can declare whatever it likes to be inspired, just like I can declare whats in my left hand to be a bear. It still doesn’t necessarily make it a bear, it might be but you can’t know.

Ok. I’m not trying to persuade you with mere majority. But I dont think a single Church Communion holds to what you are subscribing to.

I know the universalists do, I simply don’t agree with them on other doctrines regarding Christ amongst other things. There are several methodist and anglican groups in Europe who would not find my beliefs objectionable, in fact I have given lectures at several meteropolitan and methodist meetings on areas of Biblical Scholarship .

These, im guessing, profess Scripture to be divinely inspired AND inerrant.

Not necessarily, take Bishop Spong over in the US. He’s an Atheist although that itself is rather exceptional in the Episcopal communion there. There are more in Europe who do not.

Enough said

Oh yes, I’ve got a degree and I’m not a Catholic Clearly I’m part of a secret neo-nazi anti-catholic masonic illumanati proto-zionist communist hyper-liberal gay agenda with the dual aims as decreed by Satan during our last secret black mass for Democrat party members which state we’re to bring down Christendom and make sodomy the next cool teenage fad

Did I fit all the buzz words in there or did I miss one?

 

[benhur]

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?

Not sure , but was there not another thread where a Catholic argument was made that the bible is reliable , even historically reliable, and it talks of a church, and therefore the church is historiaclly "reliable’? The argument almost stated that by itself , as a document, the bible is reliable.

I myself would say that might be true, but the understanding of the contents is to be within the church, as opposed to the “world” as like the Greeks or Romans or say Hindu’s or Buddhists etc.

 

[GKC]

(emphasis added)

This wasn’t addressed to me (but I didn’t let that stop me before so why start now? ) but it very much makes me want to quote G. K. Chesterton,

“A person can’t be quite alone in a street a second before she receives a letter.”

INNOCENCE OF FATHER BROWN, “The Invisible Man”, p.144, 1st ed. 1911.

 

[Abu]

Cake or Death #423 Religion: ???
Counter question OP: How do you know the assumption actually happened?

Simple. The first question is did Jesus found His own Church on St Peter and guarantee that St Peter and His successors could not teach error to the whole Church on faith and morals?

There is no doubt for the sincere.
**All four promises to Peter alone: **
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later to the Twelve]

**Sole authority: **
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

‘Christ Himself emphsised: “The truth shall set you free” (Jn 8:32), and St Paul: “the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth.” (1Tim 3:15).

As Jesus founded His Own Church with St Peter as Her Leader, and no other, only She can proclaim what is Truth and what is error. As the Christ does not allow His Church to teach error on faith and morals to the whole Church the truth is guaranteed.

 

[benhur]

The very earliest Christians operated quite well enough with an open canon and were willing to assess many accounts of Jesus’ life, as did the Jews have an open canon for much of their history. Had the temple not been destroyed it might have remained open.

Hi CD,

Agree.

I think both you and I take the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to be very different things

Still think there is a differentiation between inspired and God-breathed. Even though Judaism did not canonize, they still had two classes of “literature”.

I have found much inspiration and pause for thought while reading the canon Catholic scriptures, I didn’t feel any need for a certificate of authenticity or feel any sense that it would make them any more profound. Likewise I have also found just as deeply insightful, indeed inspirational words when reading the Ethiopian Orthodox Canon.

What I like about your thought is the idea that you can read and have a sense of its inspiration for yourself, in an uninstitutional way. I would only add one should also be able to sense the two classes of inspiration. I would also say the church body can somewhat come to the same consensus.

Even Jerome and Luther understood the spiritual integrity of the reader, and kind of said read and determine for yourself as to which class of book it is (in particular those books that did not have wide consensus as to their "inspiration/God breathedness), as written in their pre-book commentaries.

It accounts it as best it can, as can all fallible things.

Some have said the compilation method may be fallible, but that the God-breathed books are without error.

The books are written by inspiration (God-breathed ) unconditionally, and the reception, compilation, distribution, interpretation and understanding of them is to be inspired also but conditionally.

Again, why must it be worked out and confirmed, and why does it require a certificate of legitimacy?

Well I do not mind a little head start from our forefathers and their discernment while not abdicating my same responsibility on the matter. Yet , I agree with your opening thought. When the Corinthians received a letter from Paul they did not wait for a council or canonization to receive it as "inspired’ and authoritative.

Blessings

 

[Peter_J]

Even Jerome and Luther understood the spiritual integrity of the reader, and kind of said read and determine for yourself as to which class of book it is (in particular those books that did not have wide consensus as to their "inspiration/God breathedness), as written in their pre-book commentaries. Some have said the compilation method may be fallible, but that the God-breathed books are without error.

What if someone did that with a book that did have wide consensus?

 

[Thorolfr]

Some have said the compilation method may be fallible, but that the God-breathed books are without error.

I don’t see how anyone could say that most books of the Bible are “without error”. I just finished reading the Book of Job with a commentary on the original Hebrew, and it is apparent that there are corruptions in the text, parts of it are missing, the meaning of numerous words and sentences is not clear and translations of parts of it are only conjectural.

Likewise, reading parallel versions of the same stories in the four gospels allows one to see numerous contradictions.

I’m not saying that these and other books in the Bible are not not valuable or that we can’t learn anything from them, but I find it hard to consider them “without error”.

 

[benhur]

What if someone did that with a book that did have wide consensus?

You mean include it but comment that they doubted it ? Then what is wide spread consensus? I was speaking quite generally.

 

[benhur]

I don’t see how anyone could say that most books of the Bible are “without error”. I just finished reading the Book of Job with a commentary on the original Hebrew, and it is apparent that there are corruptions in the text, parts of it are missing, the meaning of numerous words and sentences is not clear and translations of parts of it are only conjectural.

Likewise, reading parallel versions of the same stories in the four gospels allows one to see numerous contradictions.

I’m not saying that these and other books in the Bible are not not valuable or that we can’t learn anything from them, but I find it hard to consider them “without error”.

Well, maybe it requires further defining. I was speaking generally. Otherwise we are in quicksand, and I believe God and spirit led man are quite capable of getting it right.