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

[Lily_Bernans]

Or you could choose neither. Why do you choose one at all? Why choose Church over non Church?

Because Christ instituted the sacraments and gave them to his Church. Today, we meet the living and risen Christ in the sacraments of his Church. Don’t you want to meet him and spend time with him physically? To do so, you have to attend Church.

 

[SyCarl]

As a Christian we have 2 choices: Protestant and Catholic (or EO, which is essentially Catholic for this discussion)

I find the Church that can historically be traced back to the time of Christ.

And that is documented here: ranker.com/list/complete-list-of-popes/coffee-junkie?var=3&utm_expid=16418821-119.rk_BoRtrRJWlKfF9iZbujQ.2&utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F

No other Protestant Church can trace its roots to Christ.

This does not explain how you know what the Catholic Church says is true. How do you know the form required for the Church or how you know it cannot teach error. The fact that a church may have existed from the start does not mean that it cannot teach error.

 

[SyCarl]

For the sake of this discussion regarding Sacred Tradition, there is no difference.

Then I assert again that you are NOT Sola Scriptura and give your tacit submission to the authority of the CC, at least as far as the canon of the NT goes.

There certainly a difference. You have two churches, each accepting Tradition, yet they do not agree in their teaching. Following Tradition does not result in uniformity of belief.

 

[dronald]

Because, ronald, when you connect the dots, you need to submit to the authority of a Church in order to know what Jesus said.

Is there some other way you would know what Jesus said? What other entity would you use to let you know what was God’s Revelation?

But why are you even Christian? Why not just believe in nothing?

 

[PRmerger]

There certainly a difference. You have two churches, each accepting Tradition, yet they do not agree in their teaching.

Everything is essentially agreed upon except the primacy of the vicar of Christ, Sy.

 

[PRmerger]

But why are you even Christian? Why not just believe in nothing?

Because reason tells me that something can’t come from nothing.

I find the Kalaam Cosmological argument so profound in its simplicity:
Whatever begins to exist must have a cause.
The universe exists, therefore it has a cause.

 

[PRmerger]

This does not explain how you know what the Catholic Church says is true. How do you know the form required for the Church or how you know it cannot teach error. The fact that a church may have existed from the start does not mean that it cannot teach error.

Reason tells me that if Christ founded a Church, then it cannot err, Sy.

Do you not think this would be so?

 

[PRmerger]

How do you know what the Catholic Church says is true? You can’t use Scripture because according to your argument we don’t know it is true until someone tells us it is.

Just to tweak the above a bit: I am asserting that we don’t know it’s *theopneustos *until someone tells us it is.

We can look at the Bible merely as a historical text and accept it with the same critical modus that we use for any other document of antiquity.

 

[PRmerger]

Many historians consider the Bible as malarky in terms of reliability.

I don’t think this is true. I think almost every historian (Contarini? Where are you?) acknowledges that the NT writings are at least accurate historically.

They may not accept that it’s the Word of God, but I haven’t read that “many historians” consider the Bible to be unreliable historically.

 

[PRmerger]

I believe the original writings that comprise the NT are “God breathed” (see my previous post quoting 2 Tim 3-16.

But you still haven’t answered how you know that Hebrews belongs in the NT but that the Shepherd of Hermas doesn’t.

How do you know what the table of contents of the NT is?

 

[PRmerger]

Change the way you phrase this it seems wrong and I do not know how to respond.

Ok. So let’s say your son comes home and says, “George Washington was married to Martha.”

You say, “You are right, son”.

You know he’s right because you have already received this info…from your history book, for example…so you can compare his statement to that which you already know is correct.

And that’s how you know he’s right.

Now, with the CC, you say that the CC got it right with the 27 book canon of the NT.

Where is the info that you already received to tell you that the CC got it right?

 

[PRmerger]

Again the Word of God as far as I know is Christ. You seem to be implying that it is the bible and/or anything God says.

The Catholic answer is: both/and.

If it is possible can you provide a source for this belief. I literally have never heard of it.

Sure.

Here is the source for our teaching that Word of God is Christ:

For this reason the apostles confess Jesus to be the Word: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”; as “the image of the invisible God”; as the “radiance of the glory of God and the very stamp of his nature”. CCC 241
scborromeo.org/ccc/para/241.htm

And here is our source for our teaching that the Word of God is the Bible:

“The Sacred Scriptures contain the Word of God and, because they are inspired, they are truly the Word of God” (DV 24). CCC 135 scborromeo.org/ccc/para/135.htm

 

[SyCarl]

Everything is essentially agreed upon except the primacy of the vicar of Christ, Sy.

I think that there is more than that such as original sin.

 

[PRmerger]

I think that there is more than that such as original sin.

Nope. The differences are merely a difference in semantics.

For example, they won’t call it “purgatory” but they do believe in a purging or cleansing that is required before entering the Throne of Heaven.

They won’t call it “transfiguration”, but they do believe in a metaphysical reality that changes the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.

They won’t call it the Immaculate Conception, but they do believe that Mary was preserved from OS from the moment of her existence.

 

[PRmerger]

Because the CC said so is not valid premise.

Then you will have to explain how you know that Hebrews is inspired and the Epistle of Barnabas is not.

Divorce and remarriage is not adultery in all cases.

Firstly, does your pastor refuse to marry divorced folks unless they are part of the “exception clause” in Matthew?

Secondly, you do realize that this “exception clause” is a mistranslation, right? Because if Jesus gave an out for folks to divorce if they commit adultery, all a good Christian husband has to do, if he wants to divorce his wife, is to cheat on her, yes?

Because, according to your reasoning, “the Gospel of Matthew says that divorce and remarriage isn’t allowed, except if there was a case of adultery”. So Husband wants a divorce. He commits adultery. Now he can say, “Bingo! Jesus said I can divorce you and marry my new honey!”

Does that make sense?

 

[SyCarl]

Reason tells me that if Christ founded a Church, then it cannot err, Sy.

Do you not think this would be so?

No I don’t think this would be so. God did not give an infallible authority to Israel and they were still expected to obey Him.

 

[PRmerger]

I thought that PRmerger told me that I can’t trust the Scriptures at all, without presupposing that the Church is infallible.

I didn’t say that.

I said you can’t know what’s the inspired Word of God, except by accepting that the Church told you what’s inspired, and what’s not.

 

[PRmerger]

No I don’t think this would be so. God did not give an infallible authority to Israel and they were still expected to obey Him.

Jesus founded a Church.

Do you agree with that?

 

[PRmerger]

I would say that the Apostle’s Creed contains the necessary beliefs but again this is my opinion.

How about if I give you a list of beliefs, and you tell me if they are “necessary” or not, and the Bible verse that tells you if it is necessary.

And please note: I am not asking for the Bible verse which supports the belief. ** I am asking for the Bible verse that tells you that it’s necessary or secondary.**

If you can’t cite that, then your list of essential beliefs comes from the Church or Sacred Tradition.

And that, again, makes you NOT a BIBLE ALONE advocate.

Are you willing to do this?

 

[icamhif]

I didn’t say that.

I said you can’t know what’s the inspired Word of God, except by accepting that the Church told you what’s inspired, and what’s not.

Okay. Sorry for the misunderstanding.