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

[PRmerger]

If it was that easy to say something is scripture why wait till 397AD?.

Can you articulate how it is that you believe Scripture came to be recognized by your pastor? Who does he trust to determine what belongs in the NT and what doesn’t?

And do you submit to the authority of your pastor for this, or do you defer to someone else’s authority? Or do you go by your own authority?

 

[jericho777]

Can you articulate how it is that you believe Scripture came to be recognized by your pastor? Who does he trust to determine what belongs in the NT and what doesn’t?

And do you submit to the authority of your pastor for this, or do you defer to someone else’s authority? Or do you go by your own authority?

This is not about what I believe. You are making claims and I’m asking you to explain the paradox present in your statement. Nothing more.

 

[PRmerger]

This is not about what I believe. You are making claims and I’m asking you to explain the paradox present in your statement. Nothing more.

Everything here is give and take, jericho. We are on the subject. I’m interested in what authority you submit to regarding the canon of the NT.

Can you please answer?

 

[jericho777]

Everything here is give and take, jericho. We are on the subject. I’m interested in what authority you submit to regarding the canon of the NT.

Can you please answer?

You have made statements and I’m asking you to explain the paradox you present. It’s that simple.

 

[PRmerger]

You have made statements and I’m asking you to explain the paradox you present. It’s that simple.

Fair enough.

And I have answered: they received what to say through Sacred Tradition. Sacred Tradition was eventually put to writ. At least, some of it. That became Sacred Scripture.

Now it’s your turn.

To what does your pastor appeal to as an authority for what belongs in the NT? And do you submit to the authority of your pastor on this issue? If not, are you your own authority? And if not, to whom do you appeal to determine what belongs in the NT canon?

 

[benhur]

That’s because the Mass came before Scripture, jericho.

And that’s because Sacred Tradition came before Sacred Scripture

So when the elder presided and said, “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.”, he was going by Sacred Tradition. That which was handed down to him by the apostles.

Scripture came later, with the Church declaring 2 Corinthians 13:13 to be inspired.

50/50

 

[rcwitness]

So when the congregation said, “Lord, I am not worthy to receive you” they were echoing…Sacred Tradition.

Which was later written down.

Are you sure about that? This was inspired by the centurians profession of faith, but when was it adopted into the liturgy? Are you saying this was immediately applied by the Apostles?

I would think not. But the Mass was not dependant on this phrase. The Mass always practiced reading Scripture just as in the synagogue, no?

Scripture did not “need” to be canonized in order to be the Word of God. But because of disputes regarding what was to be considered Scripture, the Church recognized a need to confirm those She deemed worthy. This was done in stages of necessary authority. First was through the early Fathers and ancient councils. Then again, after the massive division of the reformation, the Church gave its final seal of Confirmation on a canon.

 

[PRmerger]

Are you sure about that? This was inspired by the centurians profession of faith, but when was it adopted into the liturgy? Are you saying this was immediately applied by the Apostles?

Yes. That is my understanding.

I would think not.

Why?

But the Mass was not dependant on this phrase. The Mass always practiced reading Scripture just as in the synagogue, no?

Reading of the epistles, yes.

Scripture did not “need” to be canonized in order to be the Word of God. But because of disputes regarding what was to be considered Scripture, the Church recognized a need to confirm those She deemed worthy. This was done in stages of necessary authority. First was through the early Fathers and ancient councils. Then again, after the massive division of the reformation, the Church gave its final seal of Confirmation on a canon.

You are correct.

 

[Abu]

jericho777 #614
There was no scripture prior the council in 397. So how could the Mass contain scripture that did not exist? Who was declaring something to be scripture prior to that time? The OT was not set until that time either. Any proclamation of such would be an error and presumptuous.

False.

Of course the Gospels and Epistles were all written within some 50 years of the Resurrection. The works of Jean Carmignac, John A. T. Robinson, and Claude Tresmontant, mainly date the NT books prior to A.D. 70, with some of them written in the 30s. They were laboriously copied by hand.

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass existed from the beginning from the words of Our Lord to His Apostles at the Last Supper: “Do this in remembrance of Me.”

The use of the Sacred Scriptures at Mass developed with the Church as She came out of the catacombs.

Even Adolf von Harnack, a rationalist historian of high repute among Rationalist and Protestants, wrote that the Synoptic Gospels were written before 70 A.D. – before the fall of Jerusalem, and accepted the tradition that St Luke derived his information on the infancy of Jesus from Mary His Mother. Theologische Quartalsch, Tubingen 1929, IV, p 443-4].
[See *Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, Sheehan/Joseph, St Austin Press, 2001, p 89, 93]

 

[rcwitness]

Why?

Well, I obviously dont know. Its just my guess that the earliest yrs of the Liturgy did not adopt that particular tradition. Its possible the Apostles applied it. I just have the impression that the early Masses were quite primitive in the sense of not a whole lot of Liturgy built into the celebration.

But I could be wrong. Does the Church Teach anything this specific?

 

[PRmerger]

Well, I obviously dont know. Its just my guess that the earliest yrs of the Liturgy did not adopt that particular tradition. Its possible the Apostles applied it. I just have the impression that the early Masses were quite primitive in the sense of not a whole lot of Liturgy built into the celebration.

But I could be wrong. Does the Church Teach anything this specific?

Well, let’s be clear, then. When I am speaking of the Mass, I am speaking of the Liturgy–the liturgy in its entirety. Not the “Mass” on the road to Emmaus. Nor the Mass at the Last Supper.

 

[Thorolfr]

Even Adolf von Harnack, a rationalist historian of high repute among Rationalist and Protestants, wrote that the Synoptic Gospels were written before 70 A.D. – before the fall of Jerusalem, and accepted the tradition that St Luke derived his information on the infancy of Jesus from Mary His Mother. Theologische Quartalsch, Tubingen 1929, IV, p 443-4].
[See *Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine

, Sheehan/Joseph, St Austin Press, 2001, p 89, 93]

Biblical scholarship has advanced quite a lot since the days of Adolf von Harnack (1851-1930). His scholarship is probably a little out of date.

 

[icamhif]

The NT documents are reliable? But not the inspired Word of God?

There is a substantial difference between asking, “How do I know that the Scriptures are inspired” and asking “How do I know the words of Jesus are true?” (which was your original question.) It is possible for one to believe in Jesus and the Resurrection, based merely on the premise that the Scriptures are reliable. I already answered here that I cannot know for sure which ancient documents are inspired Scripture, without some appeal to Sacred Tradition. If one knows a lot about Church History, one has to, to at least some degree, trust the testimony of the Early Christians in order to be very confident about the complete canon of the NT. That I don’t dispute.

Where I disagree on is, to put in benhur’s words, your all-or-nothing way of discerning the veracity of Christianity, as you have elaborated here:

If you don’t trust the Church, you can’t trust the Scriptures.

And if you can’t trust the Scriptures and the Church, you can’t know that Christ resurrected.

And if you can’t know that Christ resurrected, you can’t know that Christ was God.

And if you can’t know that Christ was God, you can’t be a Christian.

The first premise is flawed for two reasons:

1. The statement “trust the Church” is a little vague. As Contarini pointed out, one can trust the witness of the Church without necessarily believing in the Catholic/Orthodox understanding of infallibility. One can, for example, believe that the Church had a lot of historical continuity in faith and practice, without necessarily believing that they got everything 100% right.
2. One can also trust the teachings of Christ recorded in Scriptures, without necessarily believing that they are inspired and infallible, just as a historian can trust the historical accounts written in an ancient document without believing in all the mythical elements that are added to it. (I understand that Sola-Scriptura requires one to believe that the Scriptures are more than reliable, making it a hard, if not impossible, position to defend with logical consistency. That, I don’t dispute. Where I disagree on is the argument that I can’t trust the Scriptures, at all.) .

The second premise is also flawed because one does not necessarily have to believe that the Scriptures are inerrant or infallible or order to see it as a trustworthy account of Christ and His teachings. By the premise of reliability alone, one can believe in the Resurrection (and thus, believe that Christ is God.)

Thus, your argument that logical consistency requires one to be either a Catholic/Orthodox or a non-Christian is a slippery-slope fallacy. It is tempting to use the rhetoric that one has to believe everything one Church teaches in order to be sure about anything at all, but in the end, we all have to find the truth based on your own fallible reasoning, including our reasons for deciding which Religion or Church is infallible.

 

[PRmerger]

There is a substantial difference between asking, “How do I know that the Scriptures are inspired” and asking “How do I know the words of Jesus are true?” (which was your original question.) It is possible for one to believe in Jesus and the Resurrection, based merely on the premise that the Scriptures are reliable.

Fair enough.

I already answered here that I cannot know for sure which ancient documents are inspired Scripture, without some appeal to Sacred Tradition.

Excellent.

So that makes you NOT a Sola Scriptura advocate.

And that leads to the next question: do you believe that Sacred Tradition can err?

 

[Abu]

icamhif #628
As Contarini pointed out, one can trust the witness of the Church without necessarily believing in the Catholic/Orthodox understanding of infallibility. One can, for example, believe that the Church had a lot of historical continuity in faith and practice, without necessarily believing that they got everything 100% right.

First, the Orthodox don’t have the true meaning of infallibility which is why they reject Christ’s Supreme Vicar and thus have fallen into error.

Second, you cannot sincerely believe the Christ “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven” and still reasonably “believe” that His Church teaches error in faith and morals to be believed by all the faithful.

…we all have to find the truth based on your own fallible reasoning, including our reasons for deciding which Religion or Church is infallible

.
When you really listen to the Christ there is no room for disbelieving Him in founding His Church with His authority to teach.

 

[Peter_J]

You are still confusing me. There was no scripture till 397AD. That seems like you are trying to have it both ways with scripture. If it was that easy to say something is scripture why wait till 397AD? There in lies the paradox.

I’m not so sure that Contrarini said that. But if he did, then he deserve a wrist-slap (if you’re into that).

 

[icamhif]

And that leads to the next question: do you believe that Sacred Tradition can err?

To be honest, I don’t know for sure. That said, in light of the historical continuity of teaching I’ve seen through a study of Church History, I can reasonably give the Sacred Traditions the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Peter_J]

We are told time and time again here there was no scripture until the Catholic Church canonized it in 397AD.

Knowing the Internet (better than I wish I did) I’m willing to believe that you have been.

But then, I’ve been told – time and again – by Roman Catholics that my Church is really not a Church but a “Rite”. Does that make it true?

 

[PRmerger]

To be honest, I don’t know for sure. That said, in light of the historical continuity of teaching I’ve seen through a study of Church History, I can reasonably give the Sacred Traditions the benefit of the doubt.

Fair enough.

So you’re not sure that the 27 books of the NT are theopneustos, then.

That’s a curious position for a Christian to embrace.

How do you know your sins are forgiven then? How do you know that reincarnation isn’t true? How do you know that Jesus was born of a virgin? How do you know that God is a Triune God?

 

[icamhif]

Fair enough.

So you’re not sure that the 27 books of the NT are theopneustos, then.

That’s a curious position for a Christian to embrace.

How do you know your sins are forgiven then? How do you know that reincarnation isn’t true? How do you know that Jesus was born of a virgin? How do you know that God is a Triune God?

Like I said, I give the testimony of the Early Church Fathers (including their teachings on the Virgin Birth, the Trinity, etc.) the benefit of the doubt, in light of the historical continuity. Do I need to have 100% certainty in everything, in order to have faith? I don’t think so.