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

[spedteacherita]

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.

My understanding of the inerrancy of the Bible has nothing to do with the men who wrote each segment but all to do with the Holy Spirit who inspired the writing. Using Paul as an example again - he would be the first to say that he was fallible but we must understand that it was the Holy Spirit from whom his writing came…that’s where the Bible becomes inerrant and inspired.

God bless all!

Rita

 

[Protestor]

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

Explain? I don’t understand.

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.

Sure, but God knows what it would take for me to believe and/or understand these commands/thing. I don’t think it is that hard for him to help a brother out.

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.

You could reason yourself into believing the trinity. Maybe not all that has ever been said about the trinity by the church. My friend has a whole bible hi-lighted with parts of scripture that reference the father son and hs just incase he runs into a JW. I am pretty sure that people do this in systematic theologies. I am about to start Pannenberg’s systematic so I can tell you in a few weeks. Of course I cannot divorce myself from history but I am not trying to.

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

This seems to be a common ? from you to me. Originally I think I said the spirit and the nature of the books has convinced me, and then I purely based it off history. Now I don’t think I can know if we are going to be requiring epistemological certainty, and as far as I am concerned neither do you. If we are talking about knowledge in the everyday sense then sure I can know through a combination of my first two reasons.

 

[Protestor]

Using Paul as an example again - he would be the first to say that he was fallible but we must understand that it was the Holy Spirit from whom his writing came…that’s where the Bible becomes inerrant and inspired.

Something I always wondered was when Paul says “not the spirit but I… but I am trustworthy” (not a direct quote obvi). Am I supposed to think that the spirit was inspiring him and he just didn’t know it? If so, why wouldn’t the HS have just made it known so it wouldn’t be confusing? Or was that a truth revealed by God, but not by the HS? Was it a truth that he reasoned to himself? I guess in general what exactly is the nature of this revelation?

 

[Picky_Picky]

My understanding of the inerrancy of the Bible has nothing to do with the men who wrote each segment but all to do with the Holy Spirit who inspired the writing. Using Paul as an example again - he would be the first to say that he was fallible but we must understand that it was the Holy Spirit from whom his writing came…that’s where the Bible becomes inerrant and inspired.

God bless all!

Rita

My understanding (which is feeble) of the belief was that Paul might be considered infallible *at the moment he wrote *what the Holy Spirit inspired (however fallible he might be at other times). If so it could be argued that in a similar way the Pope might be infallible in those circumstances when he declared the Holy Spirit’s intervention, however fallible he might be otherwise.

 

[Peter_J]

My understanding (which is feeble) of the belief was that Paul might be considered infallible *at the moment he wrote *what the Holy Spirit inspired (however fallible he might be at other times). If so it could be argued that in a similar way the Pope might be infallible in those circumstances when he declared the Holy Spirit’s intervention, however fallible he might be otherwise.

Hey! I wanted to say that!

 

[Picky_Picky]

Hey! I wanted to say that!

Well, go on then!

 

[PRmerger]

My understanding of the inerrancy of the Bible has nothing to do with the men who wrote each segment but all to do with the Holy Spirit who inspired the writing. Using Paul as an example again - he would be the first to say that he was fallible but we must understand that it was the Holy Spirit from whom his writing came…that’s where the Bible becomes inerrant and inspired.

God bless all!

Rita

Rita, the above is nothing but the Catholic definition of infallibility!

So if you believe that Paul was able to write without error, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, then…

1. You believe Man CAN be infallible
2. You have just taken one step closer to the Catholic Church.

 

[PRmerger]

Explain? I don’t understand.

When you submit only when you agree, then the one to whom you submit really is YOU.

You could reason yourself into believing the trinity.

Certainly. But the idea that God is a Triune God couldn’t have come to you from reason.

You would have had to have been presented it, and then considered it.

And who was it that presented it to you?

Answer: The Catholic Church.

Let’s take another example. Here’s a truth you don’t need to be presented with by another entity. You can just come to an understanding of its truth on your own: it is wrong to take another man’s wife.

You didn’t need God or a Church to tell you that, right? Human reason alone tells us that it’s always wrong to take another man’s wife as your own.

However, with the Trinity, you would never, ever, have come to the idea, “There is One God with 3 divine Persons, coeternal, coequal, all uncreated and omnipotent” except that…

the Church told you so.

And then you considered it…

and found you could accede to it.

 

[PRmerger]

This seems to be a common ? from you to me.

It’s a good question, isn’t it?

Originally I think I said the spirit and the nature of the books has convinced me,

What does this mean?

and then I purely based it off history.

And what does this mean?

And did you do this with all the other non-canonical ancient Christian texts?

 

[rnmvrck]

The Bible, not just what Jesus said is 100% true, and I know this because the Bible is an integrated message system written outside of time that authenticates itself by writing history in advance. For example, the EXACT day that Jesus rode that donkey down the mountain and the only time He publicly declared himself to be the Messiah, then killed, although he did no crime, was given to Daniel by the angel Gabriel in the Book of Daniel some 650 years B.C. and we all know the Book of Daniel was translated into Greek 150 years prior. The start / end dates were given in terms of the Jewish calendar and the math to convert to the Gregorian calendar and come to be the EXACT day (palm Sunday) of His arrival as the messiah was verified by the London Bureau of Statistics. Even more, Jesus held the Jewish people accountable when He wept of Jerusalem saying You Did Not recognize this thy day of your Visitation (Matthew, Luke) and then went on to say that their city and temple would be destroyed and they would be blinded to the coming of their Messiah, a blindness that has lasted over 2,000 years, but will be removed very soon as prophesied by Paul to the Romans ('when the fullness of the Gentiles comes in"). The exact day Jesus was to show as the messiah is but one of about 500 specific, literal, and prophetic prophecies in the OT.

If you accept the Bible literally, there are no Biblical contradictions as the message / story all fits. In the Bible there is no mention of “denominations” whatsoever yet there are all these many churches with different belief system. the only authority is the Bible and Paul in the Book of Acts 17-11 says " These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so". Your authority should be the Bible and I encourage you all to read the Bible daily as it is “like an onion” with many layers and to take things literally as possible as all the prophecies of the Old testament came through literally and all the prophecies that Jesus spoke in the New testament came true literally. If you do not take the bible literally, then you must make up allegorical scenarios (oh, the Bible did not really mean this, but it means that) and the Bible appears to have interpretations that contradict other parts. I was raised catholic, Dominican Nuns, Benedictine monks (HS), and Jesuit priests (college) and even have a minor in Theology.

 

[PRmerger]

The Bible, not just what Jesus said is 100% true, and I know this because the Bible is an integrated message system written outside of time that authenticates itself by writing history in advance.

Firstly, welcome to the forums, rnmvrck!

Now, let’s take a step back and figure out what you’re saying.

What do you mean by the Bible “authenticates itself by writing history in advance”?

And how do you know what books belong in the NT?

 

[rnmvrck]

By authenticate, I mean verifies, validates, proves, substantiates, and so on… let me give you just 8 of the prophecies in the old testament that authenticates who Jesus is since the probability that one person could fulfill all 8, never mind the taking the whole 300 prophecies, is 1 in 10 to 28th power, a number that makes it impossible that Jesus was not who he said he was: Micah 5:2 (Born in Bethlehem), Zechariah 9:9 (King on a donkey), Zechariah 11:12 (30 pieces of silver), Zechariah 11:13 (Temple, Potter), Zechariah 13:16 (wounds in the hands), Isaiah 53:7 (innocent, no defense), Isaiah 53:9 (died with the wicked, grave with rich), Psalm 22:16 (Crucified). The Bible is authenticated because God’s plan is presented in advance of the events that actually take place. And these prophecies are very detailed and specific (e.g. the exact day Jesus would present and declare Himself to His people and then be put to death as innocent blood). And there are many future specific events in the Bible that are yet to happen. As some examples, Jesus authenticates Moses as the writer of the Tenach, and Jesus authenticates Daniel as a Prophet.

The Bible is an integrated message system (by design and purpose) of 66 books written by 40 authors over thousands of years. In the OT 39 books in my Bible, and 17 in the NT. Every word in the NT was chosen by God, the message transmitted to man. The content of the Bible is 100% inerrant and infallible as the content comes from God, but there could be inerrancies due to the transmission of the message to man. That said, less than 1% of the Scriptures are under competent dispute and fortunately no doctrine depends upon any of the disputed passages.

No other religious book from the Book or Mormon, to the Quran, to the ancient Hindu writings can authenticate (or prove the truthfulness of writings) other than the Bible. You either accept the Bible a whole as the inerrant and infallible word of God or you (anyone) can chose to believe something else and many people and churches chose to believe something other than what the Bible clearly states. You are then choosing to believe yourself rather than God. The Christian Gospel is actually contained in the old testament concealed (i.e. have Biblical references). In the NT the Christian gospel is revealed. Every page of the Bible Old and New testament is about Jesus Christ.

I am not sure what the Catholic Church views are towards the Bible as there was a controversial article by the media that has been circulating by Ruth Gledhill, “Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible,” The Sunday Times, October 5, 2005. What people write may not necessarily be the truth and the objective is to create sensationalism by taking things out of context.

Thank you for your comments and hope I answered your questions by what I wrote.

 

[PRmerger]

By authenticate, I mean verifies, validates, proves, substantiates, and so on… let me give you just 8 of the prophecies in the old testament that authenticates who Jesus is since the probability that one person could fulfill all 8, never mind the taking the whole 300 prophecies, is 1 in 10 to 28th power, a number that makes it impossible that Jesus was not who he said he was: Micah 5:2 (Born in Bethlehem), Zechariah 9:9 (King on a donkey), Zechariah 11:12 (30 pieces of silver), Zechariah 11:13 (Temple, Potter), Zechariah 13:16 (wounds in the hands), Isaiah 53:7 (innocent, no defense), Isaiah 53:9 (died with the wicked, grave with rich), Psalm 22:16 (Crucified). The Bible is authenticated because God’s plan is presented in advance of the events that actually take place. And these prophecies are very detailed and specific (e.g. the exact day Jesus would present and declare Himself to His people and then be put to death as innocent blood). And there are many future specific events in the Bible that are yet to happen. As some examples, Jesus authenticates Moses as the writer of the Tenach, and Jesus authenticates Daniel as a Prophet.

What prophecies does 3 John fulfill?

The Bible is an integrated message system (by design and purpose) of 66 books written by 40 authors over thousands of years. In the OT 39 books in my Bible, and 17 in the NT.

There are 17 books in your NT? Really?

Almost every other Christian denomination I know has 27 books.

Can you please tell me which 17 books belong in your NT? Which 10 are excluded?

 

[Contarini]

By authenticate, I mean verifies, validates, proves, substantiates, and so on… let me give you just 8 of the prophecies in the old testament that authenticates who Jesus is since the probability that one person could fulfill all 8, never mind the taking the whole 300 prophecies, is 1 in 10 to 28th power, a number that makes it impossible that Jesus was not who he said he was: Micah 5:2 (Born in Bethlehem), Zechariah 9:9 (King on a donkey), Zechariah 11:12 (30 pieces of silver), Zechariah 11:13 (Temple, Potter), Zechariah 13:16 (wounds in the hands), Isaiah 53:7 (innocent, no defense), Isaiah 53:9 (died with the wicked, grave with rich), Psalm 22:16 (Crucified).

This line of argument does not work. To take your examples:

1. There is no proof outside the NT that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Even in the NT, Jesus is identified mostly as being from Nazareth, and Matthew and Luke have rather different ways of explaining how he was born in Bethlehem but grew up in Nazareth. Both these birth narratives are viewed quite skeptically by most people who approach the NT purely as a historical document. So you are arguing in a circle here. You can’t use this prophecy to prove the Bible, because the only adequate reason to trust the Bethlehem birth narratives is that we believe the Bible is divinely inspired.
2. There’s good reason to think that Jesus deliberately fulfilled the Zechariah prophecy. This is not cynical–Jesus was sending a signal to the people of Jerusalem that he claimed to be the one foretold. But it makes no sense to say that this proves anything supernatural. There’s nothing necessarily supernatural about reading an ancient book and then finding yourself a donkey to ride into the city on.
3. The other two Zechariah prophecies are very odd. In their original context, they don’t look Messianic at all and seem to be talking about false prophets and Israel’s rejection of God. I believe that they do apply to Jesus (since Jesus was God incarnate and rejected by his people, and since the Jewish leaders treated Jesus as if he were a false prophet, so that Jesus took on himself this very particular aspect of the sins of his people). But it’s a stretch to argue that they prove anything about the supernatural nature of the Bible.
4. The Isaiah and Psalms prophecies are powerful witnesses to Jesus, true. But not really of the sort that you are implying. They can be explained as having meaning in their own day, and lots of people were innocent victims and were crucified.

Prophecy, in short, doesn’t work the way you think it does. The statistical argument is silly, because each prophecy can be explained away taken individually. OT prophecy of Jesus is vitally important because it shows how Jesus sums up the long history of God’s dealings with his people and fulfills ancient hopes and expectations, not because it proves that the Bible was “written outside of time.” It’s about fittingness, not mathematical proof.

And these prophecies are very detailed and specific (e.g. the exact day Jesus would present and declare Himself to His people and then be put to death as innocent blood).

That’s a bold claim which you make without presenting any evidence. If this were true, people would have been sitting around waiting for someone to do this on the day appointed.

I am not sure what the Catholic Church views are towards the Bible as there was a controversial article by the media that has been circulating by Ruth Gledhill, “Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible,” The Sunday Times, October 5, 2005. What people write may not necessarily be the truth and the objective is to create sensationalism by taking things out of context.

Thank you for your comments and hope I answered your questions by what I wrote.

This is probably the best starting point for the official Catholic view of the Bible (esp. chapters 3-6).

Edwin

 

[Peter_J]

… let me give you just 8 of the prophecies in the old testament that authenticates who Jesus is since the probability that one person could fulfill all 8, never mind the taking the whole 300 prophecies, is 1 in 10 to 28th power, a number that makes it impossible that Jesus was not who he said he was.

Are you Kirk Cameron?

 

[benhur]

You could reason yourself into believing the trinity. Maybe not all that has ever been said about the trinity by the church. My friend has a whole bible hi-lighted with parts of scripture that reference the father son and hs just incase he runs into a JW. I am pretty sure that people do this in systematic theologies. I am about to start Pannenberg’s systematic so I can tell you in a few weeks. Of course I cannot divorce myself from history but I am not trying to.

That is right .To be scriptural is quite traditional (historical).

 

[benhur]

the Church told you so.

And how did they come to their conclusion of trinity ?

And then you considered it…

of course

and found you could accede to it.

and how and why do you do this ? Can one not duplicate the original process of first coiners of “trinity” ? Are you acceding to the the previous church ? only ? Are you acceding to the present, personal teaching by the Holy Spirit thru scripture primarily but not only ?

 

[benhur]

Are you Kirk Cameron?

Actually, do not recall a single thread on future prophetic differences. For instance, is it true the CC does not teach the same as P’s on the rapture ? Will there be a thousand year reign first ? Etc. etc.

 

[Contarini]

Actually, do not recall a single thread on future prophetic differences. For instance, is it true the CC does not teach the same as P’s on the rapture ? Will there be a thousand year reign first ? Etc. etc.

What do you mean “same as P’s”? The “rapture” isn’t the traditional Protestant view either. In fact, I’ve run into some anti-Catholic Protestants who claim that dispensationalist eschatology is a Jesuit plot to blind Protestants to the true meaning of Revelation, which is that it’s all about Catholicism!

Catholics reject millennialism, although I’ve argued that the language in the Catechism seems to be directed primarily against post-millennialism. Premillennialism (non-dispensational) was, after all, the view of Christians in the early centuries, and so it would seem odd to condemn it.

Edwin

 

[rcwitness]

That is right .To be scriptural is quite traditional (historical).

To be Scriptural or not to be Scriptural… that is NOT the question!

The question is… What is to be Scriptural?

To be Scriptural IS to rely on WHO Confirms what constitutes Scripture in the first place. This is not one person or even a group of people in a given time only, but rather IS God’s appointed leaders whom He set as stewards of the Covenant. They are visible and heirs of the ministry of the Body and Blood of Jesus. As individuals, they may or may not be wise and faithful stewards. As appointed leaders, they have the authority to distribute the food to His flock. And as members, we have an obligation to remain in Communion with them.