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

[mek42]

Some? Which ones?

And why do you trust the didache?

And what about the rest of the words?

It is the earliest text I’m aware of, that came from the original Christian community. Therefore most likely to be truest to eyewitness accounts and less likely to be based on personal revelation.

I’m not expert enough to answer 1 and 3.

 

[icamhif]

Again, I am simply helping you connect the dots.

It’s as if you’re one of those people who are against vaccinating children.

You agree that the studies which show a link to autism are bogus.
You agree that vaccines in theory work.
You agree that there’s no conspiracy by the govt to create a new world order by vaccinating children.

But you still refuse to vaccinate your children.

You say, “We have our disagreements and I’ll leave it at that.”

That’s not a good model or reality to hold, icam.

Alright, that’s nice, PR…

 

[Blue_Horizon]

No, icam.

It is impossible–simply impossible–to “trust what the Bible says independent of what” the Catholic Church says.

If you trust what the Bible says, (at least, the 27 book NT) it NECESSARILY means that you trust the CC.

Hmmmn. I think you’ve slipped off the sharp point of the argument a little.

The Bible obviously has to be interpreted accurately by an outside authority.
Whether that authority can be accurately identified (or even exist) with certainty is another matter.

 

[adf417]

No, what I mean is that even the things we agree on become an argument. I suppose I just find that odd.

Catholics and Protestants are in pretty much full agreement over The Trinity, NT Canon and let’s say abortion. With so much to disagree over, I find it odd to argue over things we agree on.

Hi dronald,
With so many things to disagree on and therefore discuss, and with the sole authority being the bible or not, and with so many disagreements in doctrine like say abortion, what is wrong in finding the root of all the issues and discuss? Why would anybody not want to discuss this hard issue even within the protestant communities that don’t agree on lets say baptism?

Peace!!!

 

[rnmvrck]

How do you know that 3 John is inspired?

I thought you were asserting that we know that any book in the Bible is inspired when it contains a fulfilled prophecy.

I did not intend to convey that only the books that have a prophecy are inspired. I re-read what I wrote and would you be so kind to tell me where I said that. I believe the entire Bible is inspired by God, every one of the 66 books of both Old and New Testament:
2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

If you research the Greek word for “inspired” you will find that the message being conveyed is “God breathed” which then leads me to say that every word in the New Testament was given by God to the men He specifically selected for the job (Jer 1:5, Gal 1:15). They wrote EXACTLY what God wanted for His communication to the people, and through them, and to the world, and that you can confirm this through subtleties in the structure of the text given. Of course, whenever man comes in, the human transmission of the message may incur errors and loses and this is what we have to be sensitive about.

The Old Testament was written over thousands of years, the New Testament over just over a lifetime. Some of the NT writings were based on eye witness accounts so you had the Gospels first, actually Luke 1 and Luke 2 which actually became Acts, the Pauline Corpus, and other Epistles which were written and then copied to be passed around to the early Church. My point is that the NT is very contemporaneous to the time of Christ. Another argument that the original NT is contemporary to the first century is that many verysignificant events are absent and omitted from the writings and accounts which tells me these manuscripts were written prior to 62 AD. Significant events missing are Nero’s persecutions in 64 AD, Execution of James 62 AD (Head of church in Jerusalem), the Jewish revolt in 66 AD, and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

Relative to the current subject matter, one should believe the entire Bible as the Bible is truly the word of God which is confirmed by the fact that the Bible writes history in advance and the only way that can happen is if it was written outside of time by someone who knew the events that were to happen.

The Bible is an integrated message system and the package an integral whole, so everything should fit together, and amazingly it does. Show me a medical book from the 1800’s written by many doctors that comes across as a single integrated message. You must either accept the entire Bible or reject it; you should not selectively pick out what parts you choose to accept and those you wish to not accept. Of course, the human transmission problem is an issue that confuses many along with the many different translations, and some are better than others.

I will soon reply to your other comments about what a mean as "literal’ …

 

[PRmerger]

I did not intend to convey that only the books that have a prophecy are inspired. I re-read what i wrote and would you be so kin to tell me where I said that. I believe the entire Bible is inspired by God, every one of the 66 books of both Old and New Testament:
2 Tim 3:16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

But how do you know that 3 John is inspired? And Hebrews? And that the Didache is not?

Who told you which books belong in the NT and why do you believe that they got it right?

 

[PRmerger]

Hmmmn. I think you’ve slipped off the sharp point of the argument a little.

The Bible obviously has to be interpreted accurately by an outside authority.
Whether that authority can be accurately identified (or even exist) with certainty is another matter.

I am not talking about interpretation, Blue.

I am talking about knowing what belongs in the Bible.

 

[PRmerger]

Alright, that’s nice, PR…

It would be nice if you tried to connect the dots, icam.

And it would be nice if you tried to engage in discussion. After all, that’s what a forum is for!

 

[icamhif]

And it would be nice if you tried to engage in discussion. After all, that’s what a forum is for!

Alright, I’ll bite. How do you know that what the Church teaches is true?

 

[mek42]

The Old Testament was written over thousands of years, the New Testament over just over a lifetime. Some of the NT writings were based on eye witness accounts so you had the Gospels first, actually Luke 1 and Luke 2 which actually became Acts, the Pauline Corpus, and other Epistles which were written and then copied to be passed around to the early Church. My point is that the NT is very contemporaneous to the time of Christ. Another argument that the original NT is contemporary to the first century is that many verysignificant events are absent and omitted from the writings and accounts which tells me these manuscripts were written prior to 62 AD. Significant events missing are Nero’s persecutions in 64 AD, Execution of James 62 AD (Head of church in Jerusalem), the Jewish revolt in 66 AD, and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

Tabor presents a case where the Pauline writings were written well before the Gospels and that the Gospels echo Pauline theology moreso that the theology of the Apostles. Electing not to write about something does not imply anything more than possibility about when something was written. Was everything published in 2002 or later that does not contain a reference to 9/11 actually written before September 2001?

 

[mek42]

Alright, I’ll bite. How do you know that what the Church teaches is true?

We can’t. It is part of the act of faith. Or semantic difference regarding the definition of knowledge.

 

[dronald]

Alright, I’ll bite. How do you know that what the Church teaches is true?

Hey! You took my follow up question.

 

[Peter_J]

Can I just chime in for a second and say how sad our state of being is when we as Christians have so much we disagree on, and yet when we find a couple things to agree on (The Trinity, NT Canon) it can still become an argument?

Well, if you must. But then I’m gonna say two things. First, a funny thing about arguments is that, generally speaking, it takes two (or more) persons … a pretty simple fact, and yet one that a lot of Protestant posters don’t seem to get at all. (Please note that I didn’t say “all Protestant posters”. I in no way deny that some Protestant posters – including yourself, I reckon – do get it; I just wish that more did.) If I were a psychologist, I guess I’d say that they have some sort of defensiveness / self-esteem issue.

Second, your comment reminds of something I related on another thread (so forgive me if I’m double-dipping):

I recently went to a talk by the Catholic professor/author/speaker/TV personality Scott Hahn.

Don’t worry, I won’t relate all the parts of the talk that I took notes on , but I would like to mention one small part.

Hahn described a conversation with an old Protestant friend, which I’ll repeat in part (this isn’t an exact quote of course as my memory isn’t perfect):

…** I decided, rather than launching into counter-arguments, to start with areas of agreement.** So I said, “I agree with you that Calvary was a sacrifice and the Lord’s Supper is a meal.”

After a moment’s pause I heard a sigh.** He said, “Wow that’s a relief, because for a while there I thought you had really become a Catholic.”**

 

[rcwitness]

Alright, I’ll bite. How do you know that what the Church teaches is true?

History, Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture all attest to the primacy of the office which Peter was given. This is an office which is able to confirm the faithful in matters of faith and morals in all the Church.

Scripture is a most high record of the revelation of God’s new and everlasting Covenant. History testifies the Canon of Scripture was confirmed through a Church which was united and recognized a primary function of the Bishop of Rome.

This may bring up the whole topic of the great schism and the debate over what is the Sacred Tradition regarding the role of the Bishop of Rome and his authority and limitations.

 

[dronald]

History, Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture all attest to the primacy of the office which Peter was given. This is an office which is able to confirm the faithful in matters of faith and morals in all the Church.

Scripture is a most high record of the revelation of God’s new and everlasting Covenant. History testifies the Canon of Scripture was confirmed through a Church which was united and recognized a primary function of the Bishop of Rome.

This may bring up the whole topic of the great schism and the debate over what is the Sacred Tradition regarding the role of the Bishop of Rome and his authority and limitations.

But how do you know any of that is true? Many historians consider the Bible as malarky in terms of reliability.

So how do you know?

 

[rnmvrck]

But how do you know that 3 John is inspired? And Hebrews? And that the Didache is not?

Who told you which books belong in the NT and why do you believe that they got it right?

All the books of the NT is complete because each book listed in the NT is confirmed by Early Church leaders and scholars in the first and second century to verify the books of the NT. Each book had to be the work of an inspired apostle i( or a scribe who did so at the direction of an apostle) including 3 John. The Early Church leaders, for example, the School of Jerusalem, identified which of these early writings were apostolic in nature. There were forgeries of course, but forgeries were easily identified as they contradicted the acknowledged and genuine apostolic writings. As I stated earlier, the NT books were all contemporary to the time of Jesus, well known in the first century and verified as being the Canon of the Church. There ae many references to Early Church leaders that I can cite in addition to the School of Jerusalem That are competent scholars who studied and confirmed the Books of the NT. The apostolic writings did not become known as the NT until the end of second century. In the first and second century there was very little argument about what books were to be included in the NT.

In reference to the Didache I have no issue with as it is the teachings of the apostles that dates back to 40 ad to 60, which agrees with my own research. The Didache was first mentioned by in 324 AD by a scholar whose name is Eusebius, a Roman historian. Actually, the Roman Catholic Church did not exist during the time the Canon of NT was determined as the RCC came along after the Edict of Toleration issued by the Roman Emperor Constantine who found it unproductive and economically draining to continue the persecution of Christians. Stopping the persecution and then enlisting the support of persecuted Christians helped to prolong an empire that was under duress and turn them into productive and obedient citizens of Rome. Even after 324, Constantine continued to practice the worship of pagan gods in addition to fostering the Roman Catholic Church who he proclaimed to be the head of. Many may not realize, this but the Christmas birth of Christ was set by Constantine as it coincided with the winter solstice and celebration of the Roman pagan gods. More likely, competent scholars put the birth of Jesus as being sometime between Sept 20 and Sept 28 although I have not found this conjecture to be as important as others to my walk with God in the Bible.

I guess as I really do not understand your importance of where the NT books come from other than the NT is contemporary to Christ and was well established, confirmed, and validated by the end of second century. There has been very little disagreement of the books of NT since the first and second century where it pretty much flushed as to what was apostolic and what was not.

Do you have a different opinion on how we got the NT? Why do you think it is the inspired word of God? Do you believe that God says what he means and means what he says?

 

[GKC]

All the books of the NT is complete because each book listed in the NT is confirmed by Early Church leaders and scholars in the first and second century to verify the books of the NT. Each book had to be the work of an inspired apostle i( or a scribe who did so at the direction of an apostle) including 3 John. The Early Church leaders, for example, the School of Jerusalem, identified which of these early writings were apostolic in nature. There were forgeries of course, but forgeries were easily identified as they contradicted the acknowledged and genuine apostolic writings. As I stated earlier, the NT books were all contemporary to the time of Jesus, well known in the first century and verified as being the Canon of the Church. There ae many references to Early Church leaders that I can cite in addition to the School of Jerusalem That are competent scholars who studied and confirmed the Books of the NT. The apostolic writings did not become known as the NT until the end of second century. In the first and second century there was very little argument about what books were to be included in the NT.

In reference to the Didache I have no issue with as it is the teachings of the apostles that dates back to 40 ad to 60, which agrees with my own research. The Didache was first mentioned by in 324 AD by a scholar whose name is Eusebius, a Roman historian. Actually, the Roman Catholic Church did not exist during the time the Canon of NT was determined as the RCC came along after the Edict of Toleration issued by the Roman Emperor Constantine who found it unproductive and economically draining to continue the persecution of Christians. Stopping the persecution and then enlisting the support of persecuted Christians helped to prolong an empire that was under duress and turn them into productive and obedient citizens of Rome. Even after 324, Constantine continued to practice the worship of pagan gods in addition to fostering the Roman Catholic Church who he proclaimed to be the head of. Many may not realize, this but the Christmas birth of Christ was set by Constantine as it coincided with the winter solstice and celebration of the Roman pagan gods. More likely, competent scholars put the birth of Jesus as being sometime between Sept 20 and Sept 28 although I have not found this conjecture to be as important as others to my walk with God in the Bible.

I guess as I really do not understand your importance of where the NT books come from other than the NT is contemporary to Christ and was well established, confirmed, and validated by the end of second century. There has been very little disagreement of the books of NT since the first and second century where it pretty much flushed as to what was apostolic and what was not.

Do you have a different opinion on how we got the NT? Why do you think it is the inspired word of God? Do you believe that God says what he means and means what he says?

I would guess folks might have a different opinion on a couple of points here, likely.

 

[stewstew03]

…
If you research the Greek word for “inspired” you will find that the message being conveyed is “God breathed” which then leads me to say that every word in the New Testament was given by God to the men He specifically selected for the job (Jer 1:5, Gal 1:15). They wrote EXACTLY what God wanted for His communication to the people, and through them, and to the world, and that you can confirm this through subtleties in the structure of the text given. Of course, whenever man comes in, the human transmission of the message may incur errors and loses and this is what we have to be sensitive about.
… emphasis added

Of course, we don’t have an original manuscript – so, does that mean you believe our canon is fallible? And if not, why not?

.

 

[rnmvrck]

Tabor presents a case where the Pauline writings were written well before the Gospels and that the Gospels echo Pauline theology moreso that the theology of the Apostles. Electing not to write about something does not imply anything more than possibility about when something was written. Was everything published in 2002 or later that does not contain a reference to 9/11 actually written before September 2001?

I would certainly expect any history book that looked at the time period where 9-11 to occur to mention this important historical fact. Any book … of course not. I would expect the early Church leaders who wrte about matters that affected the early church to write about them in their letters. There are a lot of eveidence that the NT is contemporary to teh time of Jesus and wriiten in the first century. I certainly would hang my hat on this one observation. i am sure you can research and find a lot evidence to support the contemporary nature of the NT writings …

 

[rnmvrck]

Of course, we don’t have an original manuscript – so, does that mean you believe our canon is fallible? And if not, why not?

.

I believe the original writings that comprise the NT are “God breathed” (see my previous post quoting 2 Tim 3-16. These writtings comprise the books of the NT and were basically determined, confirmed and widely accepted by the end of the second century. It is my understanding the RCC accepts the same canon and confirmed that in one of their council meetings. The only errors that would occur come from the transmission of God’s message to man and the translation of the original writtings to all the translated versions. The entire content of God’s message is in the original writtings deemed to be apostolic and inspired … the scripture declares its divine origin and integrity - see 1 Cor 4:1, 2 Cor 5:20, 1 Thess 2;13, Rev 1:1-3, 22:9-10, Rev 18 and Jesus pre-approved the role of the Holy spirit Jon 14:26.
God specifically chose and prepared the men (Jer 1:5, Gal 1:5) and they wrote EXACTLY what God wanted to communicated and you con confirm this therough subleties of the coding structures.

I do not know the canon of RCC although I was a catholic for years and even studied Theology at at jesuit college.