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

[benhur]

I don’t think I understand this question. Is the premise that in order to believe that the bible is the inspired word of God, you have to trust the catholic church?

Hi QL

I think the premise is that if you do believe in the "red letters’’, you* have *trusted in the Catholic Church and rest on her foundation (Tradition and Scripture). It also premises that indeed the writers were “Catholic” as were the receivers, the keepers, and canonizers, and copiers etc., (the Catholic Church).

The question then becomes why have you ceased trusting her, especially from her mindset of infallibility and promised eternal guidance. The reformation (protestantism) by its very nature suggests to a Catholic the inconceivable, that God’s* perfect *guidance with compilation of scripture and properly defending Christology and other fundamental doctrine thru centuries somehow ended.

That is the chasm that must be bridged in truth and in love. What may help is remembering that whatever reformers may think went wrong with the “Church”, we are to beware of the same pitfalls ( and some would say new ones also) for any "reformed’’ Church.

Blessings

 

[Picky_Picky]

LOL!

What you have described is nothing but the Catholic definition of infallibility.

So…if you believe that a fallible man (Paul) can write something that has no errors, due to the guidance of the Holy Spirit…

you believe in…

the charism of infallibility.

Well I can’t testify to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but I know that a fallible man can write something that has no errors even without Her assistance.

 

[benjohnson]

Can you really say that these passages in Paul’s letters do not describe women in an inferior position?

Taken out of context - and wholly forgetting to mentioning the duty of the men, it may look to modern egalitarian eyes like it’s unfair.

To counter such a modern notion - we have to take into account that we have examples of women in he bible acting contrary to the culture of the times - Prisilla taught Apollos about Christ. Lydia evangelized.

But let’s get back to Paul - In Christian life, the roles of males and females are different and unique - Fathers are not Mothers and vice versa. It’s a good thing too - children thrive best with strong fathers and strong mothers.

It’s true that we only get one life here - and it can be frustrating that we don’t have the time and ability to do all things. I think it would be fascinating to be a mother - to have new life. But I’m male.

We may lament that it’s unfair that the Theotokos was female or that it’s unfair that the Word made flesh is Male.

But If so, then we need to rejoice in unfairness - for God’s give to us of faith and salvation are deeply unfair.

If Christianity was constantly fair, we would be in trouble, as we deserve and merit death.

 

[PRmerger]

Well I can’t testify to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but I know that a fallible man can write something that has no errors even without Her assistance.

Do you think the epistles of Paul were written without the assistance of the Holy Spirit, Picky?

 

[Thorolfr]

We may lament that it’s unfair that the Theotokos was female or that it’s unfair that the Word made flesh is Male.

It’s my belief that the Word made flesh could just as easily have been Female. But since it only happened once, it just happened to be male but this does not mean that it absolutely could not have been female. We can’t draw that conclusion from the evidence before us. And if we had had a Daughter of God instead of a Son of God, we wouldn’t have anyone saying that women can’t be ordained.

 

[GKC]

It’s my belief that the Word made flesh could just as easily have been Female. But since it only happened once, it just happened to be male but this does not mean that it absolutely could not have been female.

It just happened to be male, like it followed a flip of the coin?

 

[spedteacherita]

It’s my belief that the Word made flesh could just as easily have been Female. But since it only happened once, it just happened to be male but this does not mean that it absolutely could not have been female. We can’t draw that conclusion from the evidence before us. And if we had had a Daughter of God instead of a Son of God, we wouldn’t have anyone saying that women can’t be ordained.

I’m not sure, Thorolfr. Given that until the late 20th century our world was very patriarchal. I did not make a thorough study of the Old and New Testaments to be sure but He did do some teaching in the synagogue which would never have happened within His life time as He taught those interested participants within the Temple and many time on the Sabbath. I think God knew what He was doing at the time by sending His son as the Messiah.

Rita

 

[Protestor]

If you don’t trust the authority of the Catholic Church, how do you know what Jesus said, as recorded in the Bible, is true?

So first I would say that I do trust the CC but not in every and all circumstances. Can she have kept the a mostly accurate recording of Christ’s words? I think yes.

But this only addresses a certain aspect of your question. I think at least in part your question is asking that without the CC how can we know what Jesus said was true. I think I have said something like this on here before, but Jesus’s words stand or fall on their own. The things he said are not made true or false because any person or group of persons claim that they are. I apologize if you were not implying this.

if this was already discussed please tell me approximately where so I might catch up to where you are.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Do you think the epistles of Paul were written without the assistance of the Holy Spirit, Picky?

That’s a question I shall not answer. Forgive me, I don’t intend to be rude, it’s simply inappropriate that I should answer. But my point remains. Paul’s epistles might be error-free without Paul being infallible.

 

[Peter_J]

Someone who is fallible can write something that is not erroneous.

Correct. Someone who unrisable cannot write anything that is free from error (and is automatically fallible), but it is possible for someone who is both risable and fallible to write something that does not contain errors. (Either one may also be risible, but that’s beside the point.)

 

[PRmerger]

So first I would say that I do trust the CC but not in every and all circumstances.

Then what is the canon you use to determine when she is right and when she is wrong?

But this only addresses a certain aspect of your question. I think at least in part your question is asking that without the CC how can we know what Jesus said was true. I think I have said something like this on here before, but Jesus’s words stand or fall on their own.

I don’t know what you mean.

So, let’s say there’s a quote attributed to Jesus that says, “Men shall marry women only twice, should one precede him in death.”

How do you know whether this is true or not? Does it “stand or fall” on its own?

 

[PRmerger]

That’s a question I shall not answer. Forgive me, I don’t intend to be rude, it’s simply inappropriate that I should answer. But my point remains. Paul’s epistles might be error-free without Paul being infallible.

Meh, this is the most otiose of comments then.

What’s the point of making an assertion on a discussion forum, then refusing to engage in dialogue about where this assertion takes you?

 

[Protestor]

I don’t know what you mean.So, let’s say there’s a quote attributed to Jesus that says, “Men shall marry women only twice, should one precede him in death.” How do you know whether this is true or not? Does it “stand or fall” on its own?

Excuse my turn of fraise “stand or fall”

Canon I don’t use a canon or I at least do not think I use it. I accept or evaluate cogency of arguments or the veracity of claims. I interpret based of life experience and sometimes historicity.

Not sure why we wouldn’t use a quote that is actually attributed to Christ, but whatever. Do you mean that a man can only remarry if his wife dies and that this can only be done once in his lifetime? “Shall” in certain circumstances actually implies that should or can or must which further makes this statement perplexing.

When you say “true or not” do you mean wether Christ actually said it or if this is a moral command or if this is actually morally good or the morally best action? I would not use true in the way that you are. Okay maybe I would if I was thinking about this scenario like your quote was a premise.Then I could assign a truth value to it, and if there was a whole argument I could access it’s cogency.

What I was trying to get at was that the strength of a “truth” claim is not linked to who said it. Also if the CC tm said that your hypothetical quote was true it would not strengthen the argument for it being true.

Here is the rub. I try hard not to use fallacious arguments. Your argument borders on the appeal to authority fallacy. I will allow you to appeal to a divine authority, because I am a christian, but you are going to have to back it up with some divine swagger.

Anyway it’s getting late more tm or more technically for me later today.

 

[PRmerger]

Excuse my turn of fraise “stand or fall”

Canon I don’t use a canon or I at least do not think I use it. I accept or evaluate cogency of arguments or the veracity of claims. I interpret based of life experience and sometimes historicity.

Then your canon is yourself and your life experiences. Or historicity.

All canon means is the measuring stick by which you judge other things.

What I was trying to get at was that the strength of a “truth” claim is not linked to who said it.

Well…

Firstly, you wouldn’t know if Jesus said it were it not for the CC.

Secondly, if Jesus said it, even if it sounds wonky, you would have to believe it, wouldn’t you?

 

[Peter_J]

Excuse my turn of fraise “stand or fall”

Nice phrase actually. Now I wish I had used “standable” and “instandable” in my last post instead of “risable”. (Of course I’ll stick with “fallible” and “infallible” on the other side.)

 

[Telstar]

Excuse my turn of fraise “stand or fall”

Nice phrase actually. Now I wish I had used “standable” and “instandable” in my last post instead of “risable”. (Of course I’ll stick with “fallible” and “infallible” on the other side.)

Some people might like to turn a fraise aux chocolat, but they usually fall, cuz they’re not standable, at all. I’m not a big fan, anyway.

 

[Protestor]

Then your canon is yourself and your life experiences. Or historicity. Firstly, you wouldn’t know if Jesus said it were it not for the CC.
Secondly, if Jesus said it, even if it sounds wonky, you would have to believe it, wouldn’t you?

I try and use logic and reasoning, but yes I am the one who has to do it. So “yourself and your life experiences” can be a correct characterization of how I form my beliefs. I was trying to use that phrase for interpretation, but whatever.

First sure I don’t dispute that.

Second, I guess, as long as being “wonky” doesn’t mean that he breaks one of the 3 basic laws of logic. Like I said I allow for divine authority, but unless your name is Yeshua or Elohim or you are divinely inspired like the authors of the Bible. You are going to have to demonstrate your authority.

I revised my post a few times and I actually had something like this in it. There are some things that have to be accepted or presupposed. I cannot get around it and quite frankly no one can. These are either things that cannot be proven like the three basic laws of logic, or things that I do not have strong proofs for or things like my experiences of God. The latter, if I told them, would sound rather nominal, but my experience of them was awesome and completely life changing.

Peter J I had to look that word up by the way Google does not recognize “risable” it changed the word to risible. Which basically means laughable.

 

[Peter_J]

Correct. Someone who unrisable cannot write anything that is free from error (and is automatically fallible), but it is possible for someone who is both risable and fallible to write something that does not contain errors. (Either one may also be risible, but that’s beside the point.)

Peter J I had to look that word up by the way Google does not recognize “risable” it changed the word to risible. Which basically means laughable.

Yeah, my tablet tried to change it to “risible” too (which is what inspired the end comment “Either one may also be risible, but that’s beside the point.”).

I think that goes to show something: perhaps Google doesn’t recognize the word because it is taken for granted that human beings, even if fallible (capable of being in error) are nevertheless risable (capable of being correct, aka standable). And internet discussion forum is practically the only place where such a thing even needs to be said.

 

[PRmerger]

I try and use logic and reasoning, but yes I am the one who has to do it. So “yourself and your life experiences” can be a correct characterization of how I form my beliefs. I was trying to use that phrase for interpretation, but whatever.

First sure I don’t dispute that.

This is, Protestor, creating a god after one’s own image then.

If there is a God then He is going to reveal things, command things, declare things which are not what you have believed or understood.

That’s the logical conclusion with believing God exists.

As such, you cannot decide, “Well, I cannot reason myself into declaring that there can be 3 persons in One God, therefore it can’t be true.”

See where that takes you?

You believe in the Trinity for one reason only: God revealed it and used the Catholic Church to tell you this.

Second, I guess, as long as being “wonky” doesn’t mean that he breaks one of the 3 basic laws of logic. Like I said I allow for divine authority, but unless your name is Yeshua or Elohim or you are divinely inspired like the authors of the Bible. You are going to have to demonstrate your authority.

So can you tell me how you know that the Epistle to the Hebrews is theopneustos but the Shepherd of Hermas is not?

 

[Picky_Picky]

Meh, this is the most otiose of comments then.

What’s the point of making an assertion on a discussion forum, then refusing to engage in dialogue about where this assertion takes you?

Sorry, PR, it’s just that I glimpse the forum rules ahead and, otiose though that may make me, I intend trying to keep the right side of them (or the left, given that I’m driving in the UK).

I hope this, while not answering your question, is less otiose:

1 It would be illogical to say (a) that Paul was infallible when writing the epistles but (b) that I don’t believe any man can be infallible.

2 Some people hold the entire Bible to be inerrant. If that were true it would not prove that the authors, editors and collators of the Bible were infallible, but it would certainly strengthen the case. Someone arguing that the whole Bible is inerrant but that no man can be infallible certainly has some explaining to do.