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.
I actually don’t know for sure,
LOL!

That’s a curious assertion to make, then, that the canon developed “on its own accord”.
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.
But how was it that these manuscripts were determined to be inspired, while some other ones were not?

Who discerned this? And how do you know that they got it right?

Or do you believe, like some folks do, that the Epistles of St. Paul are satanic and ought not be in the Bible?
 
Ummm…yes. Of course I do. I am a Catholic after all. You did see that on my profile, yes?
I wasn’t talking about the Catholic Church 😉 Athanasius lived in Alexandria, not Rome. Alexandria has always had far stronger loyalties to the East than the West, and lest we forget is the main powerbase of the Coptics.

It’s very wishful thinking to think of him as a Catholic.
 
I wasn’t talking about the Catholic Church 😉 Athanasius lived in Alexandria, not Rome. Alexandria has always had far stronger loyalties to the East than the West, and lest we forget is the main powerbase of the Coptics.

It’s very wishful thinking to think of him as a Catholic.
I claim him to be Catholic because the Catholic Church claims him to be Catholic.

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1169.htm
 
LOL!

That’s a curious assertion to make, then, that the canon developed “on its own accord”.
I mean I cannot chart the exact development for you, I explained below but just pointed out I am not an expert on this area, neither is anyone for that matter since it is a point that has been fiercely debated within Biblical studies for 300 years and nobody has come up with a certain answer yet. We probably never will.
But how was it that these manuscripts were determined to be inspired, while some other ones were not?
Popular approval, nobody approved the Gospel of Truth but it was the most widely read Gospel according to Irenaeus. The only reason we didn’t have it until Nag Hammandi was because for several centuries it was a crime punishable by death to own a copy.
Who discerned this? And how do you know that they got it right?
The Early Church members as a whole. And quite frankly I don’t, the history of the Gospel of Truth does make that look a bit shady but its the best we’ve got.
Or do you believe, like some folks do, that the Epistles of St. Paul are satanic and ought not be in the Bible?
I believe the Epistles of Paul aren’t all written by him, a view shared by almost all Biblical Scholars. Satanic? I don’t think so? Misguided on several points? Absolutley, you think we should round up and punish all the female Catholic theology teachers for speaking to men?
 
I claim him to be Catholic because the Catholic Church claims him to be Catholic.

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1169.htm
This is the same institution that said belief in the existence of Uranus (known then as “The Gregorian Star”) was a heresy for at least one hundred years. Pray excuse me if I take that with a pinch of salt.

By all means check the banned books index if you think I’m making that up.
 
Cake or Death #568
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.
Incorrect, and shows a lack of understanding of what Christ’s Church teaches and real Catholics know.

Christ’s Catholic Church teaches that doctrine develops, and this means the understanding by the Church develops, without contradiction, as Pope John XXIII so clearly enunciated at Vatican II:
“The greatest concern of the Ecumenical Council is this, that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously…it is necessary that this certain and unchangeable doctrine, to which the obedience of Faith must be given, be studied thoroughly and explained in the way for which our times are calling. One thing is the deposit of Faith which consists of the truth contained in sacred doctrine, another thing is the manner of presentation, always however with the same meaning and the same sense.” [Pope John XXIII in his opening address to the Council Fathers at Vatican II, *Creed and Catechetics, Msgr E Kevane p 60, 221-222]. The Pope here uses the very words of Vatican I, which in turn came from St Vincent of Lerins.

This development of doctrine takes place as Christ foreshadowed when He proclaimed:
“I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you." (John 14:15-18) “The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name, he will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.” (John 14:26) “But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that he will take from what is mine and declare it to you.” (John 16:13-15)

Often a dogma or doctrine is infallibly defined after the need is identified through a dispute over what should be believed (faith – the Trinity) or how we should act (morals – contraception).

In Mysterium Ecclesiae, (CDF, 1973, #5): “For this reason also it often happens that ancient dogmatic formulas and others closely connected with them remain living and fruitful in the habitual usage of the Church, but with suitable expository and explanatory additions that maintain and clarify their original meaning. In addition, it has sometimes happened that in this habitual usage of the Church certain of these formulas gave way to new expressions which, proposed and approved by the Sacred Magisterium, presented more clearly or more completely the same meaning.” This was seen in John XXIII”s opening address of Vatican II, using the words of St Vincent of Lerins, and Vatican I – “with the same meaning and the same sense.”

In his book, Sources of Renewal Karol Cardinal Wojtyla (St John Paul II) wrote: “Vatican II, which, while preserving its pastoral character and mindful of the purpose for which it was called, profoundly developed the doctrine of faith and thus provided a basis for its enrichment." (Ibid, p 39).
 
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.
**
Good grief! Next you’ll be telling us that there’s development of doctrine!

(Sorry, couldn’t resist. And anyhow, you’ve been asking for it. :o)
 
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.
.
I only have my experience to go on but I look back throughout my life and I see a “continual” love given to me by God. I do look back and, except for my 1st year or two of becoming a Christian where I was so filled with God’s love and the Holy Spirit I see joy and happiness that I had never had in my life. When I started back out in the “real world” and out from the “bubble’” of Christian love that buffered against the problems of the world, I can see that my relationship with God was a slow progress, definitely filled with potholes and brick walls when I took my excursions away from His grace. At 58 I have a relationship with God that is wholeheartedly different from when I started teaching in Lutheran Schools. Those little excursions left me bruised and battered but I was healed as I came back to His love.
Given my experiences, I do see a continual growth in my relationship with God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

In His love,

Rita
 
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.
Yes, I worded it wrong. I meant a God existing as depicted in genocidal story.

I suppose you don’t believe in capital punishment either ?

Thank you for being honest.Sorry to see you don’t take scripture at face value.

Someone once questioned a scholar how could God hate Esau. The scholar replied that is not what puzzled him but what did is how could God love Jacob.

So the real question is why didn’t God genocide the Israleties also, and for that matter, all of us, as He did once before, deservedly so.

Yes genocide is extreme, as is His justice extremely demanding, but so was the remedy extreme, the Creator of the universe incarnating and dying to fix it all. Both the same Author and God . No need to edit.

Blessings Thorolf
 
Popular approval,
Well, that’s just another way to say Sacred Tradition. 🙂

And that proves my point: any Christian who claims to be Sola Scriptura is asserting an untenable and unsupportable position.

He knows what’s in the Bible through one way, and one way only: through Sacred Tradition…or, if you wish: the “popular approval” of the bishops of the Catholic Church.
nobody approved the Gospel of Truth but it was the most widely read Gospel according to Irenaeus. The only reason we didn’t have it until Nag Hammandi was because for several centuries it was a crime punishable by death to own a copy.
Not sure what your point is here, Cake.

Are you of the opinion that the gnostic gospels are theopneustos?
I believe the Epistles of Paul aren’t all written by him, a view shared by almost all Biblical Scholars.
Very Catholic, this.
Satanic? I don’t think so? Misguided on several points? Absolutley, you think we should round up and punish all the female Catholic theology teachers for speaking to men?
And you base the assertion that it’s “misguided on several points” on what? What is the kerygma to which you are comparing the text, to discern what’s true and what’s false?

:hmmm:
 
This is the same institution that said belief in the existence of Uranus (known then as “The Gregorian Star”) was a heresy for at least one hundred years. Pray excuse me if I take that with a pinch of salt.
You seem to be confusing the writings of some Catholics with the Catholic Church.

They are not the same.
 
Catholics interpret the Bible in a “literal” sense, while many fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and others interpret the Bible in a literalist sense.
Well, you are entirely wrong in claiming that evangelicals do not interpret Scripture in the first sense you give.
Did I say “all fundamentalists…” or “many fundamentalists…”?
 
Not only are you wrong to suggest that this is the standard approach of evangelical Protestants as a whole, but in the specific instance of the Eucharist the common Protestant approach is, in your sense, at least purportedly “literal,” while the popular Catholic line of argument is rather literalist (confusedly so, because transubstantiation is hardly a literal interpretation in any common sense of the term, but then all literalism is confused in my opinion). That is to say, Protestants typically argue that a contextual reading of “This is my Body” indicates a metaphorical or symbolic or spiritual sense for the phrase, while Catholics (and still more Lutherans) often speak as if the words themselves just automatically necessitate a “realist” interpretation.
Ironically, while many not all Protestants lean toward a literalist interpretation or reading of scripure, there are notable exceptions including most famously John 6, Matthew 16:18-19, etc. IOW, they get squishy about a literalist interpretation when that leads to Catholicism!

However, Catholics are NOT being literalists about those same verses. They are reading them in a literal way meaning that Catholics are reading John 6 in the way that John meant it and they read Mt. 16:18-19 in the way that Jesus meant it.
 
Firstly, no one was going around recording the words of Jesus. They were written decades later.
Surely there must have been someone there taking notes on a piece of papyrus 🙂
Actually, it might be the case that the disciples WERE taking notes…at least Matthew. In fact, I have read one source who speculated that Matthew was chosen for the very purpose of recording Jesus’ sermons and deeds contemporaneously.

And my own thought: in Luke 9 we read:

9 When Jesus had called the Twelve together, he gave them power and authority to drive out all demons and to cure diseases, 2 and he sent them out to proclaim the kingdom of God and to heal the sick. 3 He told them: “Take nothing for the journey—no staff, no bag, no bread, no money, no extra shirt. 4 Whatever house you enter, stay there until you leave that town. 5 If people do not welcome you, leave their town and shake the dust off your feet as a testimony against them.” 6 So they set out and went from village to village, proclaiming the good news and healing people everywhere.

What exactly were they preaching and proclaiming? Isn’t it possible that they had some notes taken from Jesus’ own talks from to which they might refer?

If you had followed Jesus around for three years, would you have written a few things down?

Just asking.
 
John 14:26 (RSVCE)

26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.
 
John 14:26 (RSVCE)

26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.
Amen.

But the skeptic argues that’s just the Bible supporting the Bible - circular reasoning.
 
Considering that most of Jesus’ disciples were fishermen, they probably couldn’t read or write 🤷
Matthew was a ‘publican’, which was a tax collector for Rome. Part of his profession was to write things down and keep tabs on who paid what, and when. Apparently, some of them also contracted construction projects, which might require them to write out material lists for bids, and maybe even instructions for the builders. So, there were definitely some among the twelve who were fairly well educated.

John and James also seem to have been quite capable of reading and writing. So, why do so many people believe that ‘most’ of the Apostles were completely uneducated? Some of them probably weren’t very well educated, but at least a few of them had to be. Jesus knew that they would have to write the Gospel down on paper at some point, to make sure that it was taught and passed on to others, correctly. I have no doubt that He would have made sure that enough of the Apostles were capable of doing that. 🤷
 
Probably. If I could write. Which I probably couldn’t have. 🙂
I think the Jewish culture valued education, and borrowed from other cultures. Kids during Jesus’s life went to school as our youngsters do today(age 6) and learned to read and write. Their textbook was scripture. Not sure if they learned in Greek or Hebrew even aramaic translation.

They also learned alphabets and memorizing(age 3) at home before school. They also were much better at memorizing than say writing. Very good at memorizing and that scripture.Very methodical.

But very few went beyond the basics like Paul, but there certainly was “higher education”. just that many went into trades or business (work,apprentice-age 12 -14 ?)).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top