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:
There were 500 witnesses. No one retracted, even under torture.

And no one has given a good answer as to why these 500 folks lied about seeing Him Resurrected?

As apologist Trent Horn likes to say: if you were Jewish and you followed a messiah, but he ended up dead or killed, you simply went home and found another leader. That was the m.o.

No one ever before claimed that their messiah had risen from the dead.

Except for one guy.

#theeventthatchangedeverything
Click to expand...
How do you know that there were 500 witnesses?
 
Peter_J said:
Good post. 🙂
Click to expand...
Thanks, Peter J 🙂
I was just thinking of an anecdote in FMG’s talk, in the Orientale Lumen Conference: she was speaking with a fellow Orthodox and the topic of “development” came up. He gave the example of how Orthodox now pray for “those who travel by sea, air, and land”. She decided that the man probably wasn’t prepared to hear about her own experiences with “development” – she was in the ECUSA before becoming Orthodox. :o
Click to expand...
This is, of course, a poor condensed version. 🙂
Click to expand...
Lol that was quite a nice twist on the word.
 
benhur said:
Yes, the inerrancy of scripture, much like Moses, and Jeremiah, and Isaiah.
Click to expand...
The** text** is inerrant.

What word would you use to describe the inspired authors? Were they not infallible in what they wrote? Yes?
 
PRmerger said:
What is the point of this, ben?

At any rate, Barnabas was an important figure in the early Church. Do you believe his texts are theopneustos?

No?

Why not?

Answer: because the CC told you it’s not.

There is no other answer, ben.
Click to expand...
You mean it has to be decided only once and can never be ascertained, double or even triple checked for the next 1700 years ? God allowed only revelation on the matter only once, to one man or one pope or one council ? Another "only’’ proposition ? The method of illumination on the matter dissolving in the past ?

Anything good comes from without so I have given credit in the past when due and much
is due to your church but not soley to your politicized view of church. Sorry.

Blessings
 
PRmerger said:
A historical text says so.

Remember, I am not claiming it is inspired.

I am simply looking at it as a historical document.
Click to expand...
So then you can trust the Scriptures as a historical document and come to conclude that Christ Resurrected, without the need to presuppose that the Church is infallible?
 
benhur said:
You mean it has to be decided only once and can never be ascertained, double or even triple checked for the next 1700 years ? God allowed only revelation on the matter only once, to one man or one pope or one council ? Another "only’’ proposition ? The method of illumination on the matter dissolving in the past ?

Anything good comes from without so I have given credit in the past when due and much
is due to your church but not soley to your politicized view of church. Sorry.

Blessings
Click to expand...
Actually, no. This was discerned and affirmed and re-affirmed and affirmed again over centuries, with multiple bishops over multiple councils.

But you still haven’t answered how you know that Barnabas’ writings were not inspired, even though he’s an important figure in the early church.
 
benhur said:
Inspired authors…Two words.
God wrote infallibly thru them.
Click to expand...
Well, that’s nothing but the Catholic definition of infallible.

God uses men to write infallibly.

See? You do believe that men can be infallible!

You always thought in the past that it meant that men were infallible (and perhaps impeccable) of their own accord.

Now you realize that God can use men to be infallible. 👍
 
PRmerger said:
How, then, do you know that Hebrews belongs in the NT and that the epistles of Clement do not?
Click to expand...
icam: I’ve answered about 50 billion of your questions, and you have not yet responded to this question I asked pages ago.

Could you please respond?
 
icamhif;12960243] Perhaps for the same reason you believe that the Catholic Church has the authority to teach God’s truth infallibly: I trust that the New Testament documents and the writings of the Early Church Fathers (i.e. the traditions of the early Church) are reliable and accurate accounts of the teachings of Christ
Click to expand...
Statement by icamhif;12960243:-
Click to expand...
I am a Christian who is trying to decide between converting to the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church, or the Assyrian Church of the East.
Click to expand...
Why not be content to be (by your own confession)…"… a Christian…" and allow the Holy Spirit to guide you into a denomination, where you may …"…grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen." …2 Peter 3:18

Protector.
 
benhur said:
PRmerger;13060758:
Why ? Why does an infallible church and infallible writers and infallible scripture need re affirming ?
Click to expand...
The canon didn’t “need” re-affirming.

It simply was re-affirmed.

And re-affirmed.

And re-affirmed.

But numerous men.

Over a multitude of years.

And you submit to their authority each and every time you quote from the NT as theopneustos.
Click to expand...
 
PRmerger said:
icam: I’ve answered about 50 billion of your questions, and you have not yet responded to this question I asked pages ago.

Could you please respond?
Click to expand...
I did answer that in post #981:
icamhif said:
If one knows a lot about Church History, and if he wants to be confident that the complete NT canon is the present one, he has to place at least some confidence in the testimony of the early Christians (at least the first four centuries.)

…
Click to expand...
 
benhur said:
And if the process is still available to us to affirm or not affirm, then how is it soley that we know thru* only* thru* your* church or your council and your bishops or pappas ? Is the method closed say to Methodists or Lutherans or the Orthodox ? Can they not reaffirm what the CC did a millennia before? If so, does not *sole *affirmation by CC cease to exist ?
Click to expand...
Well, ben, your paradigm apparently is that you don’t need a Church to tell you what’s theopneustos.

So that means that if you don’t need the Church, neither do these folks:

lasttrumpet.org/paul_false_apostle.htm

They claim that the epistles of Paul are NOT theopneustos.

Do you believe they have the authority to do so?
 
Protector said:
Why not be content to be (by your own confession)…"… a Christian…" and allow the Holy Spirit to guide you into a denomination, where you may …"…grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen." …2 Peter 3:18

Protector.
Click to expand...
I am content with being a Christian. The question of what denomination teaches the fullness of God’s truth, though, is another issue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top