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

  • Thread starter Thread starter PRmerger
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PRmerger said:
Do you believe that a man named Jesus walked on this earth?
Click to expand...
Several men named Jesus have walked this earth, but to answer the assumed question of the specific man named Jesus discussed in the NT, I believe it is highly likely that he existed and also likely to have said a majority of things abscribed to him.

And with this, I am to bed - offered so folks don’t think I’m ignoring a reply that may be posted presently.
 
dronald said:
My point is that Hebrews seems so obviously inspired to me based on history, the text, etc. You came to the belief that the CC is the One based on your own studies. So we all at first rely on our own logic and line of thought, and don’t submit to anyone at first.
Click to expand...
I don’t really agree with this. We are definitely given reason as a human gift, which we inevitably use. But a fundamental aspect of Catholicism, is that God moves man to know, choose and do good. I believe in Christ because His story reaches into the center of my heart. I first submit to Him. He has provided us with a Church built on His first Apostle Peter. This Apostolic Church prevailed with Peter’s office and continued administering the New Covenant commands and promises. Scripture was deemed as Scripture by this Church whom oporated with the office which Peter was given from Christ.

I first submit to the Holy Spirit which proceeded from Christ which I know by faith. I hear His voice and authority in this same Church whom He gave His Eucharistic body and blood to in the upper room.

But I still struggle against my own nature daily
 
mek42 said:
Several men named Jesus have walked this earth, but to answer the assumed question of the specific man named Jesus discussed in the NT, I believe it is highly likely that he existed and also likely to have said a majority of things abscribed to him.
Click to expand...
So he said that he was God, but he wasn’t?

And his followers said that he rose from the dead, but he actually didn’t?

Why would they do that?
 
dronald said:
Well, why don’t you tell me?
Click to expand...
Tell you how the text and history and “etc” explains that Hebrews is theopneustos?

Why, I haven’t the foggiest idea, ronald! I think it’s a very, very peculiar assertion, so why would I need to explain it when it’s YOUR position and it’s one I reject?

YOU need to tell me how the text and history and “etc” explains that Hebrews is theopneustos!

:hmmm:
 
PRmerger said:
So he said that he was God, but he wasn’t?

And his followers said that he rose from the dead, but he actually didn’t?

Why would they do that?
Click to expand...
One would be hard put to demonstrate that “Jesus said he was God” for a number of reasonable reasons.

To think that expressions like “Son of God” means Jesus was claiming to be the 2nd person of the trinity are risable. These are concepts completely beyond the ken of Jesus’s contemporaries because they took 3 centuries to develop amongst philosophers who argued so much that Jesus’s “divinity” was sincerely and heatedly debated until C4.

Certainly Jesus acted in such a way (he personally forgave sins for example) that his faithful followers eventually had to conclude he was of equal status with the OT God … but that connection was a long time in the making as it would initially have been regarded as an absurdly logically contradictory proposition amongst the scholarly.

It was inconceivable for Jewish converts to believe that their OT God of pure Spirit could ever be perfectly identified with a flesh and blood man. That is why Jesus was first identified with the expected Messiah, not with God himself.
 
PRmerger said:
Tell you how the text and history and “etc” explains that Hebrews is theopneustos?

Why, I haven’t the foggiest idea, ronald! I think it’s a very, very peculiar assertion, so why would I need to explain it when it’s YOUR position and it’s one I reject?

YOU need to tell me how the text and history and “etc” explains that Hebrews is theopneustos!

:hmmm:
Click to expand...
Well I don’t have the slightest evidence that anyone in the Bible, or any writing is inspired at all! I accept that the Church I attend got it right, as well as myself. To me it seems so clear that Hebrews was written by a close companion of Timothy, and has so much Theology that I accept that it wasn’t written by a liar but rather someone very important in the early Church.

In fact, I even believe some other things that non-Christians would think I’m nuts for. Besides the resurrection of Jesus, I also believe the books of the Bible (save John and Revelation) were all written before 90AD by who we claim wrote them.

People claim Timothy wasn’t even written by Paul, and yet I believe it had to be; because he says it is and I trust the words.

You see, I believe these things on Faith as you do. So now it’s your turn to explain how you know that the CC got it right? If you say because you believe the CC is the original Church, etc, then you’re just taking things on Faith as I have.
 
dronald said:
Apparently you chose a Church that includes Hebrews rather than one that does not. Is it because it makes sense that Hebrews belongs?
Click to expand...
No, ronald. It is because of Sacred Tradition.

That’s my point.

If you accept that Hebrews is theopneustos, it necessarily means:
  1. You are NOT Sola Scriptura.
  2. You believe in Sacred Tradition
  3. You give your tacit submission to the authority of the CC
  4. You believe that the charism of infallibility was given to the CC.
Re #4: the objection is that someone can be right without being infallible.

My response:
  1. how do you know that the canon is right, unless you had some other source which told you it’s right? (Your answer must be: I don’t have another source. I just say that the CC got it right because I am tacitly submitting to her authority).
  2. do you believe the Holy Spirit guided the Church to get the 27 book canon right? If so, then don’t you believe, then, that the Holy Spirit is able to guide some men to infallibility?
  3. how could different groups of men, over and over and over again, simply be “right” without the charism of infallibility? Were these different men simply lucky? That seems incredulous to me.
 
Blue_Horizon said:
One would be hard put to demonstrate that “Jesus said he was God” for a number of reasonable reasons.

To think that expressions like “Son of God” means Jesus was claiming to be the 2nd person of the trinity are risable. These are concepts completely beyond the ken of Jesus’s contemporaries because they took 3 centuries to develop amongst philosophers who argued so much that Jesus’s “divinity” was sincerely and heatedly debated until C4.

Certainly Jesus acted in such a way (he personally forgave sins for example) that his faithful followers eventually had to conclude he was of equal status with the OT God … but that connection was a long time in the making as it would initially have been regarded as an absurdly logically contradictory proposition amongst the scholarly.

It was inconceivable for Jewish converts to believe that their OT God of pure Spirit could ever be perfectly identified with a flesh and blood man. That is why Jesus was first identified with the expected Messiah, not with God himself.
Click to expand...
Why would Jews want to stone someone for claiming to be the “expected Messiah”?

:confused:
 
PRmerger said:
They won’t call it the Immaculate Conception, but they do believe that Mary was preserved from OS from the moment of her existence.
Click to expand...
They don’t accept the Immaculate Conception because they reject that anyone is subject to original sin. They have a different concept of the results of the fall.

That is my understanding although if an Orthodox poster disagrees I will stand corrected.
 
PRmerger said:
No, ronald. It is because of Sacred Tradition.

That’s my point.

If you accept that Hebrews is theopneustos, it necessarily means:
  1. You are NOT Sola Scriptura.
  2. You believe in Sacred Tradition
  3. You give your tacit submission to the authority of the CC
  4. You believe that the charism of infallibility was given to the CC.
Re #4: the objection is that someone can be right without being infallible.

My response:
  1. how do you know that the canon is right, unless you had some other source which told you it’s right? (Your answer must be: I don’t have another source. I just say that the CC got it right because I am tacitly submitting to her authority).
  2. do you believe the Holy Spirit guided the Church to get the 27 book canon right? If so, then don’t you believe, then, that the Holy Spirit is able to guide some men to infallibility?
  3. how could different groups of men, over and over and over again, simply be “right” without the charism of infallibility? Were these different men simply lucky? That seems incredulous to me.
Click to expand...
It does not mean submission to the authority of the Catholic Church and it doesn’t mean the Catholic Church is infallible.

The Reformed confessions set out what the canon is. After reading the Bible the Holy Spirit convinces me that they got it right. That does not mean that they got everything right.

It is possible to get something right without the need to be infallible in all teachings.
 
dronald said:
Well I don’t have the slightest evidence that anyone in the Bible, or any writing is inspired at all! I accept that the Church I attend got it right, as well as myself.
Click to expand...
Well, you should ask your church how they know that the 27 book canon of the NT is correct.

And their answer is going to have to be: because we submit to the authority of the CC.
To me it seems so clear that Hebrews was written by a close companion of Timothy,
Click to expand...
What makes you say that?

And why is the fact that it was written by a close companion of Timothy important?
So now it’s your turn to explain how you know that the CC got it right? If you say because you believe the CC is the original Church, etc, then you’re just taking things on Faith as I have.
Click to expand...
Firstly, I am not taking it on faith that the CC is the original Church. I already gave you hard data which demonstrates this.

Secondly, I can know that the CC got it right because the Church, being the Body of Christ and ensouled with the HS, simply cannot err. Unless you believe that Christ can err? Or you don’t believe that the Church is the Body of Christ?
 
“Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have youthat he might sift youlike wheat,32but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.”

Jesus prayed for Peter alone, that he will strengthen (or confirm) the other’s in the faith!

Why did He not just pray for all of them? Why does He establish Peter as a means of confirmation?
 
PRmerger said:
It depends on how you define Church. If you mean all those we truly believe in Jesus then it will always persevere. If you mean a particular visible institution like the Catholic Churc, yes it can err.

There is a difference between the true body of Christ and the visible organization. Augustine recognized this by indicating that the true body or the true Church were those who would be with Christ in heaven. This group was not the same as the visible organization, albeit Augustine felt the true body was contained in the organization called the Catholic Church. The truth would be that the true body can be found in many visible institutions.
Click to expand...
 
PRmerger said:
Well, you should ask your church how they know that the 27 book canon of the NT is correct.

And their answer is going to have to be: because we submit to the authority of the CC.

What makes you say that?

And why is the fact that it was written by a close companion of Timothy important?

Firstly, I am not taking it on faith that the CC is the original Church. I already gave you hard data which demonstrates this.

Secondly, I can know that the CC got it right because the Church, being the Body of Christ and ensouled with the HS, simply cannot err. Unless you believe that Christ can err? Or you don’t believe that the Church is the Body of Christ?
Click to expand...
It depends on how you define Church. If you mean all those we truly believe in Jesus then it will always persevere. If you mean a particular visible institution like the Catholic Church, yes it can err.

There is a difference between the true body of Christ and the visible organization. Augustine recognized this by indicating that the true body or the true Church were those who would be with Christ in heaven. This group was not the same as the visible organization, albeit Augustine felt the true body was contained in the organization called the Catholic Church. The truth would be that the true body can be found in many visible institutions.
 
Could Peter err?

Why does Jesus tell us to bring disputes to the Church? What good is doing that if the Church can err?

What good are keys to the kingdom if they don’t work?
 
Eric_Hilbert said:
That would be it, but ya’ll seem to be enjoying the discussion, so I’ll just let go on for a bit longer.
🙂
Click to expand...
Sorry I wasn’t exactly helping to bring it to closure.

I have enjoyed this thread. It’s a thought provoking aspect of the relation which Scripture has to our unity with non-Cats.

The very resource which protestant Christians use to justify rejecting the fullness of the Catholic faith relied on the Catholic hierarchy to define and confirm.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top