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

[Abu]

Thorolfr #454
I don’t see how anyone could say that most books of the Bible are “without error”.

That is because you have been misled as to the meaning and purpose of the Bible as the Word of God, of which you obviously do not know.

The correct translation of Vatican II’s *Dei Verbum *11 is found in the CCC #107:
“Since, therefore, all that the inspired authors, or sacred writers, affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture, firmly, faithfully and without error, teach (that) the truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the sacred Scriptures.”

On a literal interpretation see rtforum.org/lt/lt59.html
[Fr Brian Harrison refers to *The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum) of Vatican II, 1963-5].
‘The true sense of Dei Verbum, 11, then, is not that the guarantee of inerrancy covers those propositions which a biblical author affirms (or teaches) as opposed to those which he merely “states,” i.e., with less force or deliberation, but still as an expression of his own judgment. Rather, it covers those propositions he affirms (or teaches) as opposed to those which he merely “uses materially,” i.e., those in which what appears on paper, taken in isolation, or in its most superficially literal sense, does not express his own judgment in any way.

‘These “materially used” (but not formally affirmed) propositions in Scripture would appear to be of three main kinds. First (and most obviously), there are those which the human author does not himself utter but attributes to someone else, in which case divine inspiration guarantees only the truthful reporting of such propositions, not the truth of the propositions themselves. Secondly, this category would include individual propositions used by the author as part of a parable or other imaginative literary composition, in which the formally affirmed teachings it sets out to convey emerge only from the story as a whole. Finally, there are propositions in which not every word is meant to be understood in the most immediate literal sense, since the author may be “using” hyperbole, metaphor, or other literary devices, even within a passage or book which is substantially ‘straight’ history or didactic teaching rather than fiction of some sort.

‘In short, what is essentially guaranteed to be true by virtue of divine inspiration, according to the sentence of Dei Verbum, 11, we are considering, is not the isolated propositions taken in their ‘surface’ meaning and without regard to their historical and literary context, but rather (as the next article of Dei Verbum puts it)** “that meaning which the sacred writers really intended, and which God, by their words, wanted to make known.” **55 The discernment of that divine and human meaning is what the Church understands by a proper ‘literal’ interpretation of the text - which is not to be confused with a ‘literalist’ interpretation.” ’ [My emphasis].

There are no “errors” or “contradictions” in the meaning which the sacred writers intended – only in the feelings of those who fail to understand and assent to the teaching of the Church on the Sacred Scriptures.

 

[Cake_or_Death]

Hi CD,

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

You say it far more eloquently than myself, thank you I think along those lines myself.

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.

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.

I’ll admit I’m a bit more sceptical about some of the books of the NT, there’s a fair bit of biblical scholarship going around that suggests some of the Pauline epistles are much later innovations and are not actually written by Paul. Same goes with the Gospels in that there is some points to suggest the evangelists did not actually write them as claimed.

I generally don’t linger too long on those topics myself, all accounts of the teachings of Christ deserve reading, if indeed some do end up telling us more about the writer than what Christ actually really said.

Of course the OT is a whole other messy kettle of fish that few groups of Christians have ever managed to agree on, even the Catholic Church and their “sister” Orthodox Church doesn’t!

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

Oh I don’t mind a recommendation either, a useful bit of information is always appreciated but I don’t assume all is at it seems until I’ve examined it myself these days. The Corinthians are indeed an excellent example.

 

[Cake_or_Death]

That is because you have been misled as to the meaning and purpose of the Bible as the Word of God, of which you obviously do not know.

There are no “errors” or “contradictions” in the meaning which the sacred writers intended – only in the feelings of those who fail to understand and assent to the teaching of the Church on the Sacred Scriptures.

You know Abu, while I admire your recall of Vatican documents your apologetic technique is rather lacking, in several posts on this thread alone you really do come across as talking down to people; that generally doesn’t help win people around. If anything for those who do disagree it just throws gasoline onto their fire.

 

[adf417]

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’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**.

Greetings Cake or Death, the above two statements, coming from the same post, seem to wildly contradict each other on understanding your thought process. Could you clarify please? What is the process you use to find out what is true?

Peace!!!

 

[MaryT777]

You know Abu, while I admire your recall of Vatican documents your apologetic technique is rather lacking, in several posts on this thread alone you really do come across as talking down to people; that generally doesn’t help win people around. If anything for those who do disagree it just throws gasoline onto their fire.

Stick to the topic, not your opinion of the poster’s “technique”

Mary.

 

[Cake_or_Death]

Stick to the topic, not your opinion of the poster’s “technique”

Mary.

I think it’s exactly on topic. Abu’s entire post essentially boils down to “you’re wrong because Catholic Church said xyz”

For someone who does not believe the Catholic Church’s opinion is any more valid than that of say the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch or the Archbishop of Canterbury this is not a good argument. He might as well make an appeal to the authority of Katy Perry for as much good as it does in this situation

Greetings Cake or Death, the above two statements, coming from the same post, seem to wildly contradict each other on understanding your thought process. Could you clarify please? What is the process you use to find out what is true?

Peace!!!

Certainly My first point is directed towards the notion that the New Testament somehow needed a “seal of approval” or Catholic bishops to compile what we today recognise as scripture for them to be assured to have any worth as sacred scripture. Since the canon was long in circulation long before the canon was compiled by the Roman Catholic Church’s reckoning (let us bear in mind others debated it for somewhat longer) I think the claim that somehow the Roman Catholic church “owns” or “made” the new testament is a mistake.

As for the second I felt the poster was making an appeal to the notion that because few share my beliefs they must be wrong, Gallileo was thought by most to be very wrong but it turned out he was quite right. Widespread belief or assumption does not always lend strength to a claim.
.

 

[rcwitness]

Since the canon was long in circulation long before the canon was compiled by the Roman Catholic Church’s reckoning (let us bear in mind others debated it for somewhat longer) I think the claim that somehow the Roman Catholic church “owns” or “made” the new testament is a mistake.

As for the second I felt the poster was making an appeal to the notion that because few share my beliefs they must be wrong, Gallileo was thought by most to be very wrong but it turned out he was quite right. Widespread belief or assumption does not always lend strength to a claim.
.

Hey C or D,

When exactly did the Catholic Church officially define the canon of Scripture?

As for your views of Scripture being held by only a few is an understatement, dont you think?

I dont think there is one Christian Church who denies that the Bible (though some OT books are disputed) is divinely inspired and intended to have a level of authority over all other writings.

You only named the Universalists. Are they a legitimate Christian Church? And the Churches you claim to receive Communion from would not support your view (as a whole, not individuals).

But correct me if im wrong. My point wasnt a mere ‘majority rules’ but that all Christian Churches hold this same view that Scripture is inerrant (in faith and morals) and divinely inspired.

 

[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.

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

I mean could you “read and determine for yourself” about a book that did have wide consensus?

 

[Cake_or_Death]

When exactly did the Catholic Church officially define the canon of Scripture?

Technically the canon was closed at the Council of Trent, but I know it prefers to claim what the New Advent Catholic encyclopaedia describes as “The period of fixation” (A.D. 367-405). The same page admits the canon goes back further than that, but without a seal of approval from any group of Bishops. They didn’t compile it.

As for your views of Scripture being held by only a few is an understatement, dont you think?

Not especially, one of my mentors has offered to recommend me for a “fast tracked” ordination with a seminary within the Porvoo communion. While there is no doubt I am left leaning even within liberal Christianity, I am not as radical and off the rails as Spong or Schori.

I dont think there is one Christian Church who denies that the Bible (though some OT books are disputed) is divinely inspired and intended to have a level of authority over all other writings.

I never said it wasn’t inspired, I just don’t agree the men who put it together as one book were. As pointed out above, your American Episcopal Church and the Canadian Methodist Church is far more radical than I am.

You only named the Universalists. Are they a legitimate Christian Church? And the Churches you claim to receive Communion from would not support your view (as a whole, not individuals).

The Anglican communion is a rather strange affair, the Church in the next major town from me for instance advertises itself as a “gay church” which is technically not allowed. My local one is a tad more conservative.

I see nothing wrong with this, in theory Catholics may belive in one body of doctrine but as all the PewReports, Gallup surveys as well as the Vatican’s own Synod surveys indicates most Catholics strongly disagree with several elements of Catholic teaching.

Protestants know there is disagreement amongst them, they simply are honest about it, don’t hide it and try to share their beliefs whereas most Cafeteria Catholics are more apathetic or simply don’t care enough to bother.

But correct me if im wrong. My point wasnt a mere ‘majority rules’ but that all Christian Churches hold this same view that Scripture is inerrant (in faith and morals) and divinely inspired.

As I’ve just pointed out no they don’t, many churches have a far wider range of views even within individual denominations. Take the Church of Norway for instance, they’ve an agnostic lesbian bishop. Does that sound like a lady who thinks the bible is inerrant?

 

[Peter_J]

… in several posts on this thread alone you really do come across as talking down to people; that generally doesn’t help win people around. If anything for those who do disagree it just throws gasoline onto their fire.

I honestly don’t know if that’s true or untrue of the particular posts/poster to whom you were speaking. But speaking generally, and under the assumption that posts like that do exist (either on this forum or on some other forum somewhere on the Internet) I would say that the best thing is either to ignore those posts, or to report them to a forum moderator (if they break any forum rule).

 

[Peter_J]

Certainly My first point is directed towards the notion that the New Testament somehow needed a “seal of approval” or Catholic bishops to compile what we today recognise as scripture for them to be assured to have any worth as sacred scripture. Since the canon was long in circulation long before the canon was compiled by the Roman Catholic Church’s reckoning (let us bear in mind others debated it for somewhat longer) I think the claim that somehow the Roman Catholic church “owns” or “made” the new testament is a mistake.

As for the second I felt the poster was making an appeal to the notion that because few share my beliefs they must be wrong, Gallileo was thought by most to be very wrong but it turned out he was quite right. Widespread belief or assumption does not always lend strength to a claim.

I’m not sure this addresses adf417’s objection … but that aside, let me point out that there is no Roman Church. (The closest thing would be the Latin Church.) I assume you mean “everyone in communion with Rome (ICWR)” or something like that … which raises the question, wasn’t everyone in communion with Rome in the early church?

 

[Eddie_Mac]

I know but can you see how you switch your mode of interpreting ? You read eat my flesh and think physical eating yet when Christ says you won’t die, like your forefathers, you switch to spiritual and not physical. Yes, Christ later clarifies this “not dying” to spiritual,eternal. You are right if you say then why did not Christ clarify the “eating”? I say because the former dealt with the warning of unbelief, meeting people where they are at. He wanted them to depart for they had false views and unbelief in the right view of Messiah The latter was "hidden manna’’, almost like a parable, to be understood only by those with "spiritual " ears
I will try. It has been said that “I” am like those that departed and do not want to eat His flesh. I flip that around and say “you” are more like them for you both understand it as flesh eating, but how is it that the unbelievers , the carnal disciples, have your view of His words ? Another words, I do eat but not as the unbelievers thought (flesh). You eat as the unbelievers thought (flesh).

As for the apostles, who have spiritual eyes and believe, we can not conclude on their thoughts of what eating is, except that they were going to do it, by any understanding within Judaic understanding (probably not flesh eating).

Blessings

catholic.com/tracts/the-real-presence

catholic.com/video/biblical-evidence-for-the-real-presence

catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/is-the-eucharist-truly-jesus-body-and-blood

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Return to the topic of the OP please

 

[adf417]

Certainly My first point is directed towards the notion that the New Testament somehow needed a “seal of approval” or Catholic bishops to compile what we today recognise as scripture for them to be assured to have any worth as sacred scripture. Since the canon was long in circulation long before the canon was compiled by the Roman Catholic Church’s reckoning (let us bear in mind others debated it for somewhat longer) I think the claim that somehow the Roman Catholic church “owns” or “made” the new testament is a mistake.

As for the second I felt the poster was making an appeal to the notion that because few share my beliefs they must be wrong, Gallileo was thought by most to be very wrong but it turned out he was quite right. Widespread belief or assumption does not always lend strength to a claim.
.

Thanks for the reply but it didn’t answer the question - “What is the process you use to find out what is true?” And I was specifically referring to the canon since as time progressed from the first century the number of books in the would be canon grew to over 400 in the 4th century. What mechanism do you refer to that eventually paired this down to the 27 books you have today and how do you know IT to be correct?

Peace!!!

 

[spedteacherita]

Can we test the quality of Catholic faith as opposed to Orthodox faith? Is there some sort of litmus test we could apply to contrast the quality of your faith to that of the Ethiopian Orthodox?

Faith is faith regardless of how you dress it up.

As for the words, that is a simple enterprise. Thanks to the findings at Nag Hammandi we now have a vast trove of gospels that suggest the early Christians prior to the compilation of the bible used a wide variety of different scriptures. Some were from the new testament yes, others we know that were in wide circulation like the Gospel of Peter and the Gospel of Truth were not.

I.

I’ve understood that those findings at Nag Hammandi were all Gnostic Gospels that do not contain truly Biblically inerrant or inspired writing from God.

God bless, Cake (your name makes me hungry!)

Rita

 

[spedteacherita]

The reality is that the Lutheran Orders are not valid – the Catholic Church does not recognize Anglican or Lutheran orders as valid.
tinyurl.com/l5l6pm6

Thus there can be no “True Presence”.

I appreciate your understanding of the Scriptures - but, seriously, do we want to “limit” where Christ is at any place and time? God is so much bigger than what we can even imagine. At this time I accept that I am interacting with the True Presence of Christ as I celebrate His Holy Communion each Sunday.

God bless, Abu…

Rita

 

[Thorolfr]

I appreciate your understanding of the Scriptures - but, seriously, do we want to “limit” where Christ is at any place and time? God is so much bigger than what we can even imagine. At this time I accept that I am interacting with the True Presence of Christ as I celebrate His Holy Communion each Sunday.

God bless, Abu…

Rita

 

[Telstar]

Yes, those are the words that I find unbiblical, and the only words of the Mass not found in scripture,if I am correct. But words have meaning and unfortunately those words separate the remembrance from what others practice.

I never said they were Biblical. You asked me, “is the Catholic eucharistic wording wrong” when it asks “your hands be acceptable and holy” (which you put in quotes), so I was showing you what the actual words of the Catholic Mass really are. You twisted them up and turned them around to a completely different perspective, and it made them almost unrecognizable to me. Please, if you’re going to claim that something in the Mass might be worded incorrectly (in your opinion), then you should at least quote them correctly. I agree, words do have meaning, that’s why it’s important to quote them properly if you’re going to call them into question, particularly on this Catholic forum.

I am afraid it is very close to an re-enactment, as one brother here said ," like we are right there at the Cross". It is ok to be there, but it is wrong to be there in the same time perspective of the moment, setting aside the Resurrection and Ascension , the known “acceptance”’ of the sacrifice. I do not think loved ones were being “thankful” right there at the cross , at that moment. Our perspective is to be different , and totally thankful, with no worry or hoping for acceptance.

We really are “right there at the Cross” during Mass. Did you miss the part where I explained that “time” is irrelevant to God? There is no before, or after anything, to Him. There is no past, present or future. There is only the eternal now, at this present moment. Time is only fully effective in the physical world, but not in the spiritual world. The celebration of Mass is a mystical suspension of all time and space, even though we still remain in this physical world, that is subject to time.

In the Mass, we are all spiritually transported to Calvary. When we’re at Mass, we pay our respects and give our humble and heartfelt thanks to God, for the great gift that He has given us through the Life, Death and Resurrection of Jesus. We offer our prayers of thanksgiving, and also sing songs of praise and glory to Him. Then He spiritually feeds us with His Glorified Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity that infuses us as we partake of the Holy Eucharist.

The Holy Eucharist is not transformed into the physical, human flesh of Jesus, that was just like our own flesh. In the Holy Eucharist, the bread and wine are turned into His Glorified Body and Blood, that were completely transformed after His Resurrection. Remember how He could walk through locked doors, but the Apostles could still touch Him? Glorified flesh is not the same as our physical flesh.

Right, faith in Him with no explanation of what eating is beyond that.

You’re right. Without having a strong faith in Him, no one would ever believe what Jesus was actually teaching His disciples in that discourse. Peter’s response was based on his very simple faith, and it showed His absolute trust in Jesus. He believed what Jesus said must be true, even though he couldn’t fathom what it meant at the time.

Agreed that the Last Supper was the next step. However, still not sure you can say the apostles understood any kind of transubstantiation at this time either. Could have just as easily been a spiritual or symbolic eating.

The Last Supper was where Jesus actually showed it to them, and explained it more fully, but it was still not totally understood by them until after the Resurrection. The term transubstantiation is completely irrelevant to that point in time. It was a term created for a theological explanation of what takes place at the Consecration, many years later. Just because they might not have understood the theology behind it, that doesn’t mean they couldn’t understand what Jesus was telling them. He said that His blessing of the bread and wine had actually transformed them into His Body and Blood. The Apostles had already seen Him cure the blind and the lepers, made cripples walk, and even raised the dead, so it wasn’t that big of a stretch for them to take Him at His word when He told them that this was also true.

Yes, but the trouble is we have two versions of the Messiah (Isaiah’s suffereing Lamb, and a Davidic King). Who knew back then that the Son of Man was to come “twice” ? They were expecting the Davidic kingdom to be reestablished. Hence false disciples that Christ had to separate out, for their own sakes, so that they might later on accept the Isaiah Lamb Messiah.

Jesus was both, from the time He was born. But, many of the Jews could only see things from a physical perspective. They were the ones that wanted the Messiah to be a national hero. One that would reestablish their earthly kingdom, and vanquish all of their enemies. They didn’t understand spirituality. Nor did they realize that the Kingdom where the Messiah would reign was a Heavenly Kingdom. His real Kingdom is the Church of the New Covenant that He established on earth, where He now reigns as King, both on earth and in Heaven.

The Jews that were more spiritually aware were the ones that followed Jesus, including the Apostles and disciples that remained with Him after His discourse. Even though Judas seemingly still remained with Him, this was the point at which he decided to turn Jesus over to the Jews, because he didn’t believe it. That’s why Jesus asked if they would also leave Him. He knew what Judas was thinking.

 

[Abu]

spedteacherita #72
I appreciate your understanding of the Scriptures - but, seriously, do we want to “limit” where Christ is at any place and time? God is so much bigger than what we can even imagine.

Yes, seriously, we need to listen to Christ Himself, and reject the imagining for the reality. God did not send His only Son to produce thousands of self-created sects differing in their imaginings to suit their tastes. He specifically limited the authenticity of such aberrations by founding His own Church with the credentials established by Him which He clearly defined.

The only reason we have the Bible comprised of a specifically authorized set of “books” is because She has infallibly defined which writings comprise that Word of God. Which is why all can know that God cleanses the saved of all their sins in Purgatory – unknown and/or rejected by those who choose to ignore Her authority from Christ.

Since God Himself in His only Son, Jesus of Nazareth, has founded and mandated through His Church what to believe and how to act morally we can and do know what limitations Christ has placed on how to fully follow and worship Him.

At this time I accept that I am interacting with the True Presence of Christ as I celebrate His Holy Communion each Sunday.

Why do we feel that we may be above the Apostles? To His own Apostles, “whom He loved to the end” Jesus exclaimed: “Have you no sense, no wits, are your hearts dulled, can’t you see, your ears hear, don’t you remember?” (Mk 8:17-18). Further, having commissioned Peter as His first Vicar, on whom He founded His Church, Jesus instructed the eleven and proclaimed: “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations….teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you…”

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and Holy Communion can be a reality only when celebrated and confected by a validly ordained priest. The Magisterium, instituted by Christ Himself, is His authority to define His teaching. The priesthood was initiated by Christ the High Priest when He commanded: “Do this in memory of Me.” (Lk 22:19).

The Hebrew verb that Christ used at the last supper was to “sacrifice” - thus, “Sacrifice this in remembrance of Me.”

 

[spedteacherita]

Yes, seriously, we need to listen to Christ Himself, and reject the imagining for the reality. God did not send His only Son to produce thousands of self-created sects differing in their imaginings to suit their tastes. He specifically limited the authenticity of such aberrations by founding His own Church with the credentials established by Him which He clearly defined.

The only reason we have the Bible comprised of a specifically authorized set of “books” is because She has infallibly defined which writings comprise that Word of God. Which is why all can know that God cleanses the saved of all their sins in Purgatory – unknown and/or rejected by those who choose to ignore Her authority from Christ.

Since God Himself in His only Son, Jesus of Nazareth, has founded and mandated through His Church what to believe and how to act morally we can and do know what limitations Christ has placed on how to fully follow and worship Him.
Why do we feel that we may be above the Apostles? To His own Apostles, “whom He loved to the end” Jesus exclaimed: “Have you no sense, no wits, are your hearts dulled, can’t you see, your ears hear, don’t you remember?” (Mk 8:17-18). Further, having commissioned Peter as His first Vicar, on whom He founded His Church, Jesus instructed the eleven and proclaimed: “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations….teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you…”

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and Holy Communion can be a reality only when celebrated and confected by a validly ordained priest. The Magisterium, instituted by Christ Himself, is His authority to define His teaching. The priesthood was initiated by Christ the High Priest when He commanded: “Do this in memory of Me.” (Lk 22:19).

The Hebrew verb that Christ used at the last supper was to “sacrifice” - thus, “Sacrifice this in remembrance of Me.”

As Eric stated we must return to the OP but I would love to see us take the direction this thread has gone and begin another thread. I’d hate for us to lose the momentum that has been building within it.

So, we should return to the OP which PR began and I elect one of you wonderful guys to start a new one that will capture what has been discussed so far. Who’s going to do that?? Peter? Ben? Thor? Abu?? Cake?? come on - let’s go!

As always…In Christ,

Rita