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

[Thorolfr]

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.

Well, Luther didn’t care much for Hebrews (or for James, Jude, and Revelation) and had some doubts about their canonical status. But he was not alone. Erasmus also had doubts about them as well and called them into question in the Annotationes to his 1516 Greek New Testament. Erasmus had doubts about the Pauline authorship of Hebrews and wrote, “Paul, or whoever is the author of the Epistle…”. Also, Luther’s contemporary, the famous Roman Catholic Cardinal Tommaso de Vio Gaetani Cajetan had some doubts about these books and other parts of Scripture as well. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, “he seemed more than three centuries in advance of his day in questioning the authenticity of the last chapter of St. Mark, the authorship of several epistles, viz., Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, Jude, the genuineness of the passage of the three witnesses of (1 John 5:7), etc.”

newadvent.org/cathen/03145c.htm

 

[PRmerger]

Well, Luther didn’t care much for Hebrews (or for James, Jude, and Revelation) and had some doubts about their canonical status. But he was not alone. Erasmus also had doubts about them as well and called them into question in the Annotationes to his 1516 Greek New Testament. Erasmus had doubts about the Pauline authorship of Hebrews and wrote, “Paul, or whoever is the author of the Epistle…”. Also, their Luther’s contemporary, the famous Roman Catholic Cardinal Tommaso de Vio Gaetani Cajetan had some doubts about these books and others parts of Scripture as well. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, “he seemed more than three centuries in advance of his day in questioning the authenticity of the last chapter of St. Mark, the authorship of several epistles, viz., Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, Jude, the genuineness of the passage of the three witnesses of (1 John 5:7), etc.”

newadvent.org/cathen/03145c.htm

So you believe that each of us has the right to throw out books of the NT based on our own study?

Like these folks? They believe the epistles of St. Paul are satanic.

lasttrumpet.org/paul_false_apostle.htm

They have a tenable position, in your opinion?

 

[Tom_Baum]

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?

I ponder what may be the “whys” of the Eucharist but as far as the “how” of the Eucharist, I just accept the “fact” that that is beyond my human understanding and for that matter, I don’t consider the “how” as even important for me to know, the important thing is that It Is.

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

I think that it is fine for anyone to ponder whatever anyone wants to ponder.

I don’t ponder the “reasons” for my belief, I accept them as a gift from God but I do ponder the “knowledge” that God has given me in relation to pretty much everything.

Remember what it says about Mary’s ponderings?

By “when it comes to explaining the Eucharist?”, just what are you talking about?

As I have said before, I believe that God rewarded my faith and my “blind leap of faith with my eyes open”, with some knowledge.

And as far as “my faith”, I believe that it was/is God Who Is responsible for my having faith and that God has a Plan and has had a Plan since before creation and it is unfolding as we speak.

We all have different “jobs” and the readings for this Sunday, Pentecost, and/or the verses near them speak of ALL having different “jobs”.

God’s Plan of Salvation is unfolding, it did not end with Jesus.

 

[Tom_Baum]

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?

As far as, “So you don’t think God the Father regards the Eucharist as His son’s body and blood?”

No, I don’t think God “regards it” but “knows it”.

Does “regards” and “know” mean the same thing to you?

I happen to think that sometimes simple, straightforward, unambiguous language is called for, for something that is simple yet beyond our understanding.

Concerning your question, “I am a heretic for phrasing it this way?”

As I said, you can think and/or believe whatever you want and you can phrase anything however you want.

Merely my opinion but it sounds watered down to me as if Our Father regards it as Jesus’s Body whether it is or isn’t, as it “symbolic” only.

However, if the translation is correct and Jesus was that blunt with His description of what the Eucharist Is, than maybe we should be just as blunt.

 

[Telstar]

As far as, “So you don’t think God the Father regards the Eucharist as His son’s body and blood?”

No, I don’t think God “regards it” but “knows it”.

Does “regards” and “know” mean the same thing to you?

Pardon me for sticking my nose in, but I think you might be underestimating the meaning of “regard”. It pretty much means the same thing as “to know”. When someone says, “God the Father regards the Eucharist as His Son’s body and blood”, it means that is exactly the way He sees “the Eucharist”. In other words, He certainly does know that “It is His Son’s body and blood”, because that’s the way He sees it.
re·gard
rəˈɡärd/ verb

verb: regard; 3rd person present: regards; past tense: regarded; past participle: regarded; gerund or present participle: regarding

1. consider or **think of** (someone or **something**) **in a specified way**.
"she regarded Omaha as her base"
synonyms: consider, look on, view, **see**, think of, judge, **deem**, estimate, **assess**, reckon, adjudge, rate, gauge

“We now return you to your regularly scheduled program.”

 

[rcwitness]

Pardon me for sticking my nose in, but I think you might be underestimating the meaning of “regard”. It pretty much means the same thing as “to know”. When someone says, “God the Father regards the Eucharist as His Son’s body and blood”, it means that is exactly the way He sees “the Eucharist”. In other words, He certainly does know that “It is His Son’s body and blood”, because that’s the way He sees it.
re·gard
rəˈɡärd/ verb

verb: regard; 3rd person present: regards; past tense: regarded; past participle: regarded; gerund or present participle: regarding

1. consider or **think of** (someone or **something**) **in a specified way**.
"she regarded Omaha as her base"
synonyms: consider, look on, view, **see**, think of, judge, **deem**, estimate, **assess**, reckon, adjudge, rate, gauge

“We now return you to your regularly scheduled program.”

Thank you!

What the Father of us all regards, we know to be true. My point in phrasing the consecration of His Eucharist this way is to articulate my understanding of our Holy Communion. It is not an authoritative definition, but one that respects what the Church has Taught. I think it could help those who have trouble with understanding the significance of what happens, yet without diminishing anything. What God says in word is our reality by faith. Our Father in heaven no longer regards the bread and wine as such, but as what it really has been made, for our sake… His Body and Blood.

 

[Peter_J]

Thank you!

What the Father of us all regards, we know to be true. My point in phrasing the consecration of His Eucharist this way is to articulate my understanding of our Holy Communion. It is not an authoritative definition, but one that respects what the Church has Taught. I think it could help those who have trouble with understanding the significance of what happens, yet without diminishing anything. What God says in word is our reality by faith. Our Father in heaven no longer regards the bread and wine as such, but as what it really has been made, for our sake… His Body and Blood.

Exactly!

So why do you keep substituting “He regards it as” in place of “It is”?

 

[rcwitness]

Exactly!

So why do you keep substituting “He regards it as” in place of “It is”?

Because it’s fitting.

 

[benhur]

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).

Can you explain? Do you mean that God doesn’t exist or He didn’t do that and scripture is in error, or do you mean yes, He is that but also just and merciful and loving etc ?

 

[spedteacherita]

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).

My understanding (something I recently heard or read) was that we have to understand the “tribal” mentality of society at that time. That mentality meant that the whole tribe had to be annihilated to prevent them from coming back later. God understood this as well and when this didn’t happen those who were not killed off later came back to do more damage to God’s people. Quite a different world at that time than what we know. I will try to see if I can find info regarding this.

Rita

 

[Thorolfr]

Can you explain? Do you mean that God doesn’t exist or He didn’t do that and scripture is in error, or do you mean yes, He is that but also just and merciful and loving etc ?

I believe that God exists, but I don’t believe that a just God would have told Saul to commit genocide and annihilate a whole people including children and infants. So that part of Scripture in 1 Samuel, in my opinion, reflects the flawed beliefs of the author and is not a reflection of what God would have wanted. In that sense, I believe that it is a flaw in Scripture and is not inspired by God.

 

[PRmerger]

I believe that God exists, but I don’t believe that a just God would have told Saul to commit genocide and annihilate a whole people including children and infants. So that part of Scripture in 1 Samuel, in my opinion, reflects the flawed beliefs of the author and is not a reflection of what God would have wanted. In that sense, I believe that it is a flaw in Scripture and is not inspired by God.

So here’s the problem, Thor. You have just created a god that conforms to your own views, rather than conforming your views to God’s.

Incidentally: I don’t believe that a Just God told Saul to commit genocide, either. But I do believe that all 72 books of the OT are inspired.

 

[Cake_or_Death]

I believe that God exists, but I don’t believe that a just God would have told Saul to commit genocide and annihilate a whole people including children and infants. So that part of Scripture in 1 Samuel, in my opinion, reflects the flawed beliefs of the author and is not a reflection of what God would have wanted. In that sense, I believe that it is a flaw in Scripture and is not inspired by God.

I found Bruno Latour’s (2005) explanation of scripture rather good recently, and he himself is a Catholic. He describes scripture as a “continual love story, a developing relationship between God and man”.

It seems fitting in some respects, although I do acknowledge that leads us to a conclusion that Catholics wouldn’t like, that our understanding of God develops further onwards and improves.

So here’s the problem, Thor. You have just created a god that conforms to your own views, rather than conforming your views to God’s.

Incidentally: I don’t believe that a Just God told Saul to commit genocide, either. But I do believe that all 72 books of the OT are inspired.

There’s a difference between infallible and inspired PRmerger, and a difference again in God in my image and “Holy nuggets this fella is bloodthristy as hell, this can’t be right”.

 

[PRmerger]

There’s a difference between infallible and inspired PRmerger, and a difference again in God in my image and “Holy nuggets this fella is bloodthristy as hell, this can’t be right”.

You are correct.

But the fact remains: you would not know what’s inspired and what’s not, were it not for the Catholic Church.

 

[Cake_or_Death]

You are correct.

But the fact remains: you would not know what’s inspired and what’s not, were it not for the Catholic Church.

Not really, as pointed out Catholics and Orthodox both claim to be the Early Church in it’s fullness and both have very impressive credentials; however neither of you agree on the OT canon.

As I also pointed out above the canon of the NT developed much of it’s own accord and had reached its final form long before Athanasius, Constantines or any of the early councils proclamations regarding them.

What we both consider to be the Early Church however is again very different, you see the Early Church and the Roman Catholic Church as one and the same, I see it as the full variety of Christianity such as the Coptics, St Thomas Christians and the Assyrian Church of the East more or less around since the beginning.

 

[PRmerger]

Not really, as pointed out Catholics and Orthodox both claim to be the Early Church in it’s fullness and both have very impressive credentials; however neither of you agree on the OT canon.

Fair enough.

You still defer to the authority of Someone Else when you quote something as the inspired Word of God.

As I also pointed out above the canon of the NT developed much of it’s own accord and had reached its final form long before Athanasius, Constantines or any of the early councils proclamations regarding them.

Can you explain how it developed on “its own accord”? How did this work?

 

[SonOfMan]

You are correct.

But the fact remains: you would not know what’s inspired and what’s not, were it not for the Catholic Church.

I have a pretty good hunch that all the commands for genocide and killing are not inspired by God, if we are to believe that God is good and all-loving. Im not a smart fellow and I figured that one out all on my own.

 

[Cake_or_Death]

Fair enough.

You still defer to the authority of Someone Else when you quote something as the inspired Word of God.

I’d argue you do as well, the very latest I would chart the entity often described as the “Early Church” to is the Great Schism between Rome and Constantinople but even by then the Copts, Ethiopian Orthodox and many others would have left. Both East and West owe the bible to that collective, neither of you have a monopoly on it

Can you explain how it developed on “its own accord”? How did this work?

I actually don’t know for sure, I do know the earliest manuscript so far containing a NT as we recognise it dates from around 180-210 AD. I cannot say this with any certainty, but in the same way a good product takes off I suspect a collection that seemed effective was taken up, and copied by nearby churches on a local level and spread further out.

There clearly are exceptions to this, the “Gnostic Gospel of Truth” was according to Irenaeus and Tertullian one of the most popular “Gospels” in their time but was not included in the canon. Since finding a copy at Nag Hammandi we believe that was because it discouraged following ordained clergy and encouraged following ones “inner light” above everything else.

There are men far better versed on those theories than I.

 

[PRmerger]

I have a pretty good hunch that all the commands for genocide and killing are not inspired by God, if we are to believe that God is good and all-loving. Im not a smart fellow and I figured that one out all on my own.

Sure. You are quite correct about that.

 

[PRmerger]

I’d argue you do as well,

Ummm…yes. Of course I do. I am a Catholic after all. You did see that on my profile, yes?