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

[MaryT777]

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 the 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.

 

[spedteacherita]

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

I know these are important to some Christians, but I shake my head at them because when Christ comes, He comes! That’s what I look for. Maybe I’m looking too simplistically at what is found in the Bible but I feel we get too bogged down in too much “end times” stuff we forget why He was here and why He’s coming back.

Sorry to take thread in a different direction as the OP.

God bless!

Rita

 

[PRmerger]

And how did they come to their conclusion of trinity ?

Through Sacred Tradition.

of course
and how and why do you do this ? Can one not duplicate the original process of first coiners of “trinity” ?

Sure. But then you’d not be a Sola Scriptura advocate.

You’d be deferring to the authority of Sacred Tradition.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

But you still haven’t provided an argument as to how you know that these Bible verses that allegedly support the Trinity actually belong in the Bible.

Who told you that the Gospel of Mark is theopneustos? Why do you believe it belongs in the Bible?

 

[Contarini]

Through Sacred Tradition.

Sure. But then you’d not be a Sola Scriptura advocate.

You’d be deferring to the authority of Sacred Tradition.

What exactly do you mean by “Sacred Tradition” in this context?

Because in fact, the so-called “Semi-Arians” seem, if anything, to have been the most in accord with the previous tradition. That is to say, they believed in a “logos Christology” in which Jesus was derivatively divine, and they were nervous about the “homoousios” formula precisely because it was entirely absent from the Tradition, and actually associated with heresy.

Now if by “Sacred Tradition” you mean a sort of ineffable “sensus fidelium”–and I don’t mean that entirely dismissively, because clearly Christians had been worshiping Jesus from the get-go and obviously this continuous, developing practice had a huge and legitimate influence on the Trinitarian debate–then you have a valid point.

Edwin

 

[PRmerger]

What exactly do you mean by “Sacred Tradition” in this context?

Because in fact, the so-called “Semi-Arians” seem, if anything, to have been the most in accord with the previous tradition. That is to say, they believed in a “logos Christology” in which Jesus was derivatively divine, and they were nervous about the “homoousios” formula precisely because it was entirely absent from the Tradition, and actually associated with heresy.

Now if by “Sacred Tradition” you mean a sort of ineffable “sensus fidelium”–and I don’t mean that entirely dismissively, because clearly Christians had been worshiping Jesus from the get-go and obviously this continuous, developing practice had a huge and legitimate influence on the Trinitarian debate–then you have a valid point.

Edwin

I mean the constant teaching of the Church, given once for all, to the saints. It was what was given to the Apostles, handed down orally as well as through the written word, to the successors of the Apostles.

 

[Contarini]

I mean the constant teaching of the Church, given once for all, to the saints. It was what was given to the Apostles, handed down orally as well as through the written word, to the successors of the Apostles.

I don’t think this does a good job of explaining the position of the Semi-Arians, who could reasonably claim that they were simply holding to the traditional position. Newman is helpful on this, although of course modern scholars would say that Newman understated just how innovative the “homoousios” theology was.

Edwin

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t think this does a good job of explaining the position of the Semi-Arians, who could reasonably claim that they were simply holding to the traditional position. Newman is helpful on this, although of course modern scholars would say that Newman understated just how innovative the “homoousios” theology was.

Edwin

You are confusing “traditional” with Sacred Tradition. That is, of course, understandable.

But they are not the same, Contarini.

 

[Peter_J]

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

Thank you. I would have said something like that (well, most of it, maybe not the Jesuit plot part ) but I’m pretty rusty on all those pre, post, etc distinctions.

 

[Contarini]

You are confusing “traditional” with Sacred Tradition. That is, of course, understandable.

But they are not the same, Contarini.

And hence my earlier question: what do you mean by Sacred Tradition?

If you mean “the constant teaching of the Church,” as you say, then I don’t think there is historical evidence for the idea that Tradition, so defined, was the decisive factor in making thoroughgoing Trinitarianism triumph over not only Arianism but even the moderate, conservative Semi-Arian position.

Of course you can always appeal to the “secret Tradition” idea and simply bypass the historical evidence. But you need to be clear that you are doing so, and that on this particular issue you don’t have history on your side.

Edwin

 

[PRmerger]

And hence my earlier question: what do you mean by Sacred Tradition?

If you mean “the constant teaching of the Church,” as you say, then I don’t think there is historical evidence for the idea that Tradition, so defined, was the decisive factor in making thoroughgoing Trinitarianism triumph over not only Arianism but even the moderate, conservative Semi-Arian position.

So what do you think was the “decisive factor”?

 

[Protestor]

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

Why would I submit to something I don’t agree with? So I do submit to things I believe, and some of these things that I believe I do not understand or understand fully.

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.

Sure, if that is how you want to present it. This is not how I would present how I came to believe in a triune God, but I don’t think it is worth arguing over or really even talking about. It is not like I am trying to deny that historical beliefs have nothing to do with my current beliefs.

 

[PRmerger]

Why would I submit to something I don’t agree with? So I do submit to things I believe, and some of these things that I believe I do not understand or understand fully.

Well, the Catholic way is you receive the Word, and then you conform your views to it.

What you are proposing is that you determine what is true, as it conforms to your personal view.

 

[PRmerger]

Sure, if that is how you want to present it. This is not how I would present how I came to believe in a triune God, but I don’t think it is worth arguing over or really even talking about. It is not like I am trying to deny that historical beliefs have nothing to do with my current beliefs.

Well, then, Protestor, that makes you NOT a Sola Scriptura advocate, but an advocate of Sacred Tradition.

And it also means that you submit to the authority of the Catholic Church, which discerned this dogma for you and me.

And if you believe the CC got it right with the Trinity, why do you think she got it wrong with so many other things?

 

[Protestor]

If you accept the Bible literally, there are no Biblical contradictions as the message / story all fits… If you do not take the bible literally, then you must make up allegorical scenarios and the Bible appears to have interpretations that contradict other parts.

Isn’t there allegory in the bible? What do you mean take it literally? These contradictions, that you think do not exist, how do you explain them away from within a literal framework? Please, please tell me you are not a young earther (this is rhetorical)

 

[Contarini]

So what do you think was the “decisive factor”?

If there was a single decisive factor, I think it was the internal logic of “Logos Christology” as interpreted by Athanasius. Only God can save, and monotheism requires that there be no half-way gods. So Jesus must be fully divine.

If that’s what you mean by Sacred Tradition, then we agree. That is to say, there was a basic grammar of the Faith found in Scripture and Tradition already, and after much debate and wrangling and theological inquiry it became clear that only full-blown Trinitarianism did justice to that grammar, even though in some respects it went beyond anything that could be explicitly justified from Scripture or the previous tradition.

Edwin

 

[PRmerger]

If there was a single decisive factor, I think it was the internal logic of “Logos Christology” as interpreted by Athanasius. Only God can save, and monotheism requires that there be no half-way gods. So Jesus must be fully divine.

If that’s what you mean by Sacred Tradition, then we agree. That is to say, there was a basic grammar of the Faith found in Scripture and Tradition already, and after much debate and wrangling and theological inquiry it became clear that only full-blown Trinitarianism did justice to that grammar, even though in some respects it went beyond anything that could be explicitly justified from Scripture or the previous tradition.

Edwin

What role do you think the Holy Spirit played in this?

 

[rnmvrck]

What prophecies does 3 John fulfill?

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?

I have no idea about what you are talking about the prophecy in 3 John.

I stated there were 66 books in the BIble written by 40 authors over thousands of years. My statement had a simple typo error of 17 and should have said NT 27 which you get if subtract the 39 from the 66.

I mostly used the KJV version of the Bible and the NT was constructed over years based upon wrttings in the first and second centuries. You have the Gospels, actually Luke 1 and Luke 2 which latter became Acts, and original letters written by others. The absence of some very significant events between 60 - 70 AD may signify that the accounts are based upon actual eyewitness accounts who lived during the time of Jesus.

 

[rnmvrck]

Isn’t there allegory in the bible? What do you mean take it literally? These contradictions, that you think do not exist, how do you explain them away from within a literal framework? Please, please tell me you are not a young earther (this is rhetorical)

Of course there is allegory, metaphor, simile, … etc in the Bible. These are analogies, parables, and so on. for example, Jesus made a statement in Like when He wept over Jerusalem that states in
LUK E 13:34
**
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!**

Ezkiel described the rebirth of Israel as nation by using an assembly of dry bones coming together and being given life by God. Again, an allegory, analogy… etc.

Of course, you cannot take these literally. That would be pretty stupid and it is very obvious that no one would do that. Perhaps, I should have further explain what I mean by literal. You allegorize scripture incorrectly when you change the meaning of the message that God is conveying in scripture. God has provided man with “His content” and the Bible should be read and studied as to the content of what God states. When you allegorize a passage to a point where it changes the meaning of what God intended to convey is a travesty. and many do this.

My rule is that every scripture I read, I try to take as literally as possible to see if it makes sense within the context of the passage I am reading. In most cases, this is very easy to do. Before reading, I always make a mental note of ACTS 17-11 from Paul:
“These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”

This means you should nver believ what others tell you at face value, but go out and search the scriptures to make sure the things you are told are biblically sound. God expects you to read the Bible and search for the truth and what “fits”. The Bible is an integrated message system and both OT and NT need to fit without contradictions. God’s plan should make sense and all the pieces. I find that the pieces fit best when I look for a literal interpretation first unless there is obvious reason not to. This was not easy for me to see how things all fit together, but having studied scripture over the years, I feel comfortable.

 

[Contarini]

Of course, you cannot take these literally. That would be pretty stupid and it is very obvious that no one would do that. Perhaps, I should have further explain what I mean by literal. You allegorize scripture incorrectly when you change the meaning of the message that God is conveying in scripture. God has provided man with “His content” and the Bible should be read and studied as to the content of what God states. When you allegorize a passage to a point where it changes the meaning of what God intended to convey is a travesty. and many do this.

But this is putting the cart ahead of the horse. You can’t know if you are allegorizing contrary to God’s intention until you know God’s intention. So as a hermeneutical guide, this makes us go round in a circle. The point of interpreting Scripture is to figure out what God intends by a given passage.

Also, as I have recently suggested on this forum, the word “literally” is itself hard to interpret.

So your hermeneutic remains pretty obscure.

My rule is that every scripture I read, I try to take as literally as possible to see if it makes sense within the context of the passage I am reading.

But what do you mean by “as literally as possible”? Do you mean “according to the most common meaning of the English words that the translator chose to use here?” Or, if you know Greek and/or Hebrew, “according to what the lexicographers tell us, or our own linguistic experience leads us to believe, was the most common meaning of the word?”

This was not easy for me to see how things all fit together, but having studied scripture over the years, I feel comfortable.

Well, a lot of us have exactly the opposite experience, also having studied Scripture for years.

Edwin