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

[Telstar]

Surely there must have been someone there taking notes on a piece of papyrus

That’s not what Jesus said.
John 14 [26] But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.

 

[PRmerger]

Based on what?

You would have to have some sort of Master Plan of Revelation to which you could compare the Gospel of Thomas and the Shepherd of Hermas to, to see if they are coherent expressions of this Master Plan.

What’s the Master Plan that you’re using?

Thorolfr–can you please answer?

 

[Peter_J]

Thorolfr–can you please answer?

Welcome to my world.

 

[Peter_J]

Welcome to my world.

(This probably goes without saying but I think I’d better say it anyhow: my last post was *not *meant as a completely-serious commentary on my interactions with Thor or any other Protestant poster on CAF. See also forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=953439.)

 

[Thorolfr]

Based on what?

You would have to have some sort of Master Plan of Revelation to which you could compare the Gospel of Thomas and the Shepherd of Hermas to, to see if they are coherent expressions of this Master Plan.

What’s the Master Plan that you’re using?

I don’t think that there is a Master Plan and there are already things in canonical Scripture that I have a hard time believing were inspired by God. In my opinion, the present canon came into being by a process of consensus, but I don’t think that it is necessarily an infallible consensus.

I’ve been reading the Bible starting with Genesis and just to give some examples of things that I have a hard time believing were inspired by God:

• Several places in the Book of Job, it says that Job owned slaves and yet Job 1:1 says that he was “blameless and upright”. So according to this, there was no blame in owning slaves.
• Leviticus 25:44-46 says, “As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. 45 You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. 46 You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property.” So here we have slaves that are explicitly described as “property” which can be possessed and left as part of an inheritance.
• it says in Genesis 5:6, “Abram took his wife Sarai and his brother’s son Lot, and all the possessions that they had gathered, and the persons whom they had acquired in Haran; and they set forth to go to the land of Canaan.” So here we have Abraham buying some slaves. Later on in Genesis 16, Sarah gives her husband her Egyptian slavegirl Hagar to have sex with as a kind of surrogate since she is barren. One commentary on this by the Jewish scholar Robert Alter says that Hagar “belongs to Sarah as property.” So she can do whatever she wants with her property including letting her husband have sex with her slavegirl.

In Genesis 17:13, God says to Abraham, “Both the slave born in your house and the one bought with your money must be circumcised.” So it appears that the owners of slaves could circumcise them without their permission since they were property.

• In Genesis 30, Rachel gives Jacob her slavegirl Bilhah to have sex with as a surrogate since she has been barren and Leah gives him her slavegirl Zilpah to have sex with.

For me it’s hard to believe that God would actually have approved of one person owning another and I have a difficult time believing that these portions of Scripture are inspired by God. Even Pope John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor lists slavery as something that is “intrinsically evil.”

 

[Tom_Baum]

That I have never seen coming from any real Catholic. Where is the evidence for your assertion?

Real Catholics know the errors of the Orthodox. That while having the priesthood and thus the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and sacraments, they fell into error by jettisoning Christ’s Magisterium and the infallible teaching against contraception, deny the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, and permit divorce and remarriage.

If “Real Catholics know the errors of the Orthodox.”

Do Real Orthodox know the errors of the Catholics?

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t think that there is a Master Plan and there are already things in canonical Scripture that I have a hard time believing were inspired by God. In my opinion, the present canon came into being by a process of consensus, but I don’t think that it is necessarily an infallible consensus.

I’ve been reading the Bible starting with Genesis and just to give some examples of things that I have a hard time believing were inspired by God:

• Several places in the Book of Job, it says that Job owned slaves and yet Job 1:1 says that he was “blameless and upright”. So according to this, there was no blame in owning slaves.
• Leviticus 25:44-46 says, “As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. 45 You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. 46 You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property.” So here we have slaves that are explicitly described as “property” which can be possessed and left as part of an inheritance.
• it says in Genesis 5:6, “Abram took his wife Sarai and his brother’s son Lot, and all the possessions that they had gathered, and the persons whom they had acquired in Haran; and they set forth to go to the land of Canaan.” So here we have Abraham buying some slaves. Later on in Genesis 16, Sarah gives her husband her Egyptian slavegirl Hagar to have sex with as a kind of surrogate since she is barren. One commentary on this by the Jewish scholar Robert Alter says that Hagar “belongs to Sarah as property.” So she can do whatever she wants with her property including letting her husband have sex with her slavegirl.

In Genesis 17:13, God says to Abraham, “Both the slave born in your house and the one bought with your money must be circumcised.” So it appears that the owners of slaves could circumcise them without their permission since they were property.

• In Genesis 30, Rachel gives Jacob her slavegirl Bilhah to have sex with as a surrogate since she has been barren and Leah gives him her slavegirl Zilpah to have sex with.

For me it’s hard to believe that God would actually have approved of one person owning another and I have a difficult time believing that these portions of Scripture are inspired by God. Even Pope John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor lists slavery as something that is “intrinsically evil.”

So, again, on what do you base your conclusion that something is inspired?

You have an idea of what is inspired or not–and this comes from…what, exactly?

 

[Tom_Baum]

I respect what you are saying, but the reality is that the accidents of bread and wine remain. It is not going against Catholic Teaching to believe that God the Father ‘regards’ this blessed bread and wine as His son’s body and blood.

When I say ‘regards’ it is in that deep mysterious unknown of the eternal God touching us in time and Sacrament. What God ‘regards’ is as relevant, tangible, and true as anything we know.

The Eucharist is Jesus, and that doesn’t negate the symbolism that exists also. Bread and wine have symbols. Eating has symbols.

You wrote, “When I say ‘regards’ it is in that deep mysterious unknown of the eternal God touching us in time and Sacrament. What God ‘regards’ is as relevant, tangible, and true as anything we know.”

Could be that God the Son meant exactly what He said.

Jesus did NOT say, “regard this as My Body…”, Jesus said quite simply and plainly and directly, “This Is My Body…”, you don’t have to believe that Jesus was saying the truth.

It is up to you if you want to change what Jesus so clearly said.

If you remember, at least in one of the places that Jesus was teaching about the Eucharist, many disciples left when He made it plain that “This Is My Body…” is what He meant.

Jesus did not water it down and say, ‘ah just regard it as my body’.

Who knows, maybe some of those who left would have come back for the “watered-down” version.

 

[Thorolfr]

So, again, on what do you base your conclusion that something is inspired?

You have an idea of what is inspired or not–and this comes from…what, exactly?

One thing I do is acknowledge that not all Scripture is equal. I use some verses of Scripture as a lens to look at other parts of the Bible and decide whether I think that they are truly inspired. For example, in Mark 12:30-31, Jesus says, "'you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

Or Matthew 7:16-19 says, “Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.”

So, for example, owning a slave does not seem to me to have anything to do with “love your neighbor as yourself” since most people would not want to be owned as a slave. I certainly wouldn’t. In 1 Samuel 15:3 where God supposedly tells Saul, “Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey,” I doubt that killing man, woman, child, and infant is in keeping with “love your neighbor as yourself.” It also doesn’t seem like something that would bear good fruit.

 

[Tom_Baum]

Catholics interpret the Bible in a “literal” sense, while many fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and others interpret the Bible in a literalist sense.

The “literal” meaning of a passage of Scripture is the meaning that the author of that passage of Scripture intended to convey. The “literalist” interpretation of a passage of Scripture is: “that’s what it says, that’s what it means.”

Let me give you an example to illustrate the difference. If you were to read a passage in a book that said it was “raining cats and dogs outside”, how would you interpret that? As Americans, in the 21st Century, you would know that the author was intending to convey the idea that it was raining pretty doggone hard outside. That would be the “literal” interpretation…the interpretation the author intended to convey. On the other hand, what if you made a “literalist” interpretation of the phrase, “it’s raining cats and dogs”?

The “literalist” interpretation would be that, were you to walk outside, you would actually see cats and dogs falling from the sky like rain. No taking into account the popularly accepted meaning of this phrase. No taking into account the author’s intentions. The words say it was raining cats and dogs, so, by golly, it was raining cats and dogs! That is the literalist, or fundamentalist, way of interpretation.

If someone 2000 years in the future picked up that same book and read, “It was raining cats and dogs outside,” in order to properly understand that passage in the book, they would need a “literal” interpretation, not a “literalist” interpretation. Now, think about that in the context of interpreting the Bible 2000-3000 years after it was written.

Would you say that Jesus saying, “This Is My Body…” is The “literal”, “literalist” or in this case both since the “literal” meaning is the “literalistly” meaning?

As far as, “Catholics interpret the Bible in a “literal” sense, while many fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and others interpret the Bible in a literalist sense.”

I don’t know who you consider “Catholic” but if you read any of the posts on CA, I would think that you would see that some do one, some do the other and some do both.

And as far as, “while many fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and others interpret the Bible in a literalist sense”.

I would agree with many, with many meaning some but not necessarily most, since just like in a lot of cases, generalizations just do not pan out.

I would say that there are fundamentalists and Evangelicals that are “literal” and “literalist” and a combination of both since the “literal” meaning is sometimes “literalist”.

I would also venture to guess that there have been “fundamentalists and Evangelicals” that have helped in some of the “translations” of “Catholic bibles”.

 

[Tom_Baum]

I don’t understand. Is your paradigm “I don’t know and I don’t understand how”?

Or is your paradigm: “I believe. I seek to understand.”

Mine is the latter.

It certainly sounded like you were advocating the former.

I find the former to be just the recipe for a trip to atheism. In fact, I just heard a podcast of Catholic Answers Live in which a former Catholic said that very thing: “I believed but didn’t quite understand”. He is now an atheist.

catholic.com/audio-player/29959

Had to look up the word “paradigm”.

I don’t think that I really have one.

I was told in a dream that “only I could say it”, not having a clue what “it” was, so I just have to trust the Holy Spirit to guide me like Jesus said He would.

I have said many times that I “know” a little and I “believe” quite a bit, I guess one could say that it is as simple as that.

 

[Peter_J]

I responded to this on the other thread, but now it seems that I should move it here …

Catholics interpret the Bible in a “literal” sense, while many fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and others interpret the Bible in a literalist sense.

The “literal” meaning of a passage of Scripture is the meaning that the author of that passage of Scripture intended to convey. The “literalist” interpretation of a passage of Scripture is: “that’s what it says, that’s what it means.”

Let me give you an example to illustrate the difference. If you were to read a passage in a book that said it was “raining cats and dogs outside”, how would you interpret that? As Americans, in the 21st Century, you would know that the author was intending to convey the idea that it was raining pretty doggone hard outside. That would be the “literal” interpretation…the interpretation the author intended to convey. On the other hand, what if you made a “literalist” interpretation of the phrase, “it’s raining cats and dogs”?

The “literalist” interpretation would be that, were you to walk outside, you would actually see cats and dogs falling from the sky like rain. No taking into account the popularly accepted meaning of this phrase. No taking into account the author’s intentions. The words say it was raining cats and dogs, so, by golly, it was raining cats and dogs! That is the literalist, or fundamentalist, way of interpretation.

If someone 2000 years in the future picked up that same book and read, “It was raining cats and dogs outside,” in order to properly understand that passage in the book, they would need a “literal” interpretation, not a “literalist” interpretation. Now, think about that in the context of interpreting the Bible 2000-3000 years after it was written.

Yes, that’s what I’m talking about … See my earlier post about “Call no man father.”

P.S. I mean this one:

Well, I don’t know about your use of the word “here”. (I can’t be in this conversation without thinking of the Evangelical Protestant who once told me that the literal meaning of Matthew 23:9 is: Do not call any religious leader father.)

 

[PRmerger]

One thing I do is acknowledge that not all Scripture is equal. I use some verses of Scripture as a lens to look at other parts of the Bible and decide whether I think that they are truly inspired. For example, in Mark 12:30-31, Jesus says, "'you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

Or Matthew 7:16-19 says, “Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.”

So, for example, owning a slave does not seem to me to have anything to do with “love your neighbor as yourself” since most people would not want to be owned as a slave. I certainly wouldn’t. In 1 Samuel 15:3 where God supposedly tells Saul, “Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey,” I doubt that killing man, woman, child, and infant is in keeping with “love your neighbor as yourself.” It also doesn’t seem like something that would bear good fruit.

You haven’t yet answered the question: on what do you base your idea that something is inspired or not?

 

[PRmerger]

Had to look up the word “paradigm”.

I don’t think that I really have one.

I was told in a dream that “only I could say it”, not having a clue what “it” was, so I just have to trust the Holy Spirit to guide me like Jesus said He would.

I have said many times that I “know” a little and I “believe” quite a bit, I guess one could say that it is as simple as that.

So you think it’s fine to ponder and consider and provide reasons for your belief…except when it comes to explaining the Eucharist?

Is that a correct articulation of your approach here?

 

[rcwitness]

You wrote, “When I say ‘regards’ it is in that deep mysterious unknown of the eternal God touching us in time and Sacrament. What God ‘regards’ is as relevant, tangible, and true as anything we know.”

Could be that God the Son meant exactly what He said.

Jesus did NOT say, “regard this as My Body…”, Jesus said quite simply and plainly and directly, “This Is My Body…”, you don’t have to believe that Jesus was saying the truth.

It is up to you if you want to change what Jesus so clearly said.

If you remember, at least in one of the places that Jesus was teaching about the Eucharist, many disciples left when He made it plain that “This Is My Body…” is what He meant.

Jesus did not water it down and say, ‘ah just regard it as my body’.

Who knows, maybe some of those who left would have come back for the “watered-down” version.

So you don’t think God the Father regards the Eucharist as His son’s body and blood? I am a heretic for phrasing it this way?

 

[Thorolfr]

You haven’t yet answered the question: on what do you base your idea that something is inspired or not?

There’s no clear answer to this. To some extent, I must just accept some parts of Scripture on faith. I also base my ideas in some cases on my own innate sense of right and wrong. So in some cases, parts of Scripture which contradict what I believe a just God would do or say I would have to conclude are not inspired. Also, parts of Scripture that completely contradict what we know from Biblical criticism, from science and what we know about the history of the ancient Near East from archaeology, anthropology etc. I would have to conclude are not inspired by God and are purely human creations.

 

[PRmerger]

There’s no clear answer to this. To some extent, I must just accept some parts of Scripture on faith.

Annnnnd…that’s what I’m saying. You are giving your tacit submission to the authority of the CC when you “accept some parts of Scripture on faith.”

 

[PRmerger]

There’s no clear answer to this. To some extent, I must just accept some parts of Scripture on faith. I also base my ideas in some cases on my own innate sense of right and wrong. So in some cases, parts of Scripture which contradict what I believe a just God would do or say I would have to conclude are not inspired. Also, parts of Scripture that completely contradict what we know from Biblical criticism, from science and what we know about the history of the ancient Near East from archaeology, anthropology etc. I would have to conclude are not inspired by God and are purely human creations.

You do realize that if God exists He’s going to do things, command things, reveal things which are not the same as what you believe, right?

If you have a god who happens to agree with you on every thing, you may be worshipping an idealized version of yourself–paraphrasing Pastor Tim Keller

 

[Thorolfr]

You do realize that if God exists He’s going to do things, command things, reveal things which are not the same as what you believe, right?

If you have a god who happens to agree with you on every thing, you may be worshipping an idealized version of yourself–paraphrasing Pastor Tim Keller

Perhaps you’re right, but as I explained above, for example, I just don’t believe in a God who would order king Saul to commit genocide by killing all the people of Amalek including “both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey” (1 Samuel 15:3).

 

[PRmerger]

Perhaps you’re right, but as I explained above, for example, I just don’t believe in a God who would order king Saul to commit genocide by killing all the people of Amalek including “both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey” (1 Samuel 15:3).

Well, as a Catholic, I don’t either.

But that doesn’t change the fact that you cannot be a Bible Alone advocate if you believe that, say, the Epistle to the Hebrews is the inspired Word of God.

You get that piece of data NOT from the Bible but from the Catholic Church.