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

[icamhif]

Tabor points out how odd and sometimes radical the writings of Paul really are. As he says on page 20, “Paul proved too radical, too apocalyptic, and too controversial even for the emerging Church in the second through the fourth centuries. He was domesticated, first by the author of Acts, as I have noted, but subsequently by letters written in his name, purporting to be from his hand, that are found in the New Testament. Paul was appropriated as a hero, a courageous preacher and a martyr, who was responsible for taking the gospel beyond the Jewish world, but the radical content of his message, and his view of his unique calling and mission, were lost to subsequent generations of Christians.”

What’s one example of such radical content?

 

[Thorolfr]

To be fair, the Resurrection account is not beyond question to most mainstream scholars, only the Crucifixion account.

True. Some mainstream scholars who were still believing Christians such as Marcus Borg did not believe in a literal physical resurrection of Jesus.

 

[PRmerger]

To be fair, the Resurrection account is not beyond question to most mainstream scholars, only the Crucifixion account.

I don’t think the scholars who question have thought their position through very well.

If it didn’t really happen, how did the story of the Resurrection get propagated?

Who spread the lie, and why?

And if it wan’t a lie, but just a misunderstanding, how did this occur? A whole bunch of folks went to their death claiming to have seen the Resurrected Christ but they actually were mistaken? No one recanted?

 

[PRmerger]

True. Some mainstream scholars who were still believing Christians such as Marcus Borg did not believe in a literal physical resurrection of Jesus.

As my favorite scholar, Dr. Peter Kreeft, often says, “I have verified over and over again the principle that there is only one thing needed for you to believe any of the 100 most absurd ideas possible for any human being to conceive: You must have a Ph.D.”

and another one of his quotes: “Most people—outside of asylums and graduate schools would consider it not only true, but certainly and obviously true.”

 

[icamhif]

I don’t think the scholars who question have thought their position through very well.

If it didn’t really happen, how did the story of the Resurrection get propagated?

Who spread the lie, and why?

And if it wan’t a lie, but just a misunderstanding, how did this occur? A whole bunch of folks went to their death claiming to have seen the Resurrected Christ but they actually were mistaken? No one recanted?

It’s not my place or yours to judge whether those scholars have “not thought things through.” It’s possible (in fact, quite probable) that they have heard all the arguments from conservative people like you and me, and have an alternate theory that hasn’t been disproven. Perhaps they don’t consider the Church Tradition that eleven of the Apostles were martyred as credible evidence that they were actually martyred. There is strong, documented evidence that at least three of them were martyred (Peter, Paul, and James), but the account for the others date to at least the mid-second century. That said, I think a strong case can be made that oral traditions are reliable, especially if they are less than 200 years ago. The analogy to the telephone game has its flaws.

 

[PRmerger]

It’s not my place or yours to judge whether those scholars have “not thought things through.”

Really?

If there were some scholars who asserted, “We believe that women are less intelligent than men” you wouldn’t judge them as not having thought their position through?

Really?

 

[mek42]

Because I don’t say, when questioned, “I am simply offering a possibility.”

My position is eminently defensible.

You cannot defend your position.

Perhaps you are thinking too one-dimensionally here.

There is a classical definition of “defense” that does not involve persecution. It involves being able to offer reasons for what you believe.

No one here ought to be offering some weird positions and then when asked pointed questions about the incoherence of the position, retreat with, “Well, I’m just offering a possibility that it could have happened this way.”

If you want to make an assertion, offer some defense of it.

Otherwise, it’s an inutile assertion.

Kind of like saying, “I believe it’s possible that Bruce Jenner is a reincarnation of John Lennon” and when the response is, “Holy cow! Where’d you get that idea? And why would you even consider it?”…

saying, “I read a book once. But stop asking me why I believe it’s possible.”[/Q=UOTE]

My position is that I do not know, probably cannot know, I am ok with not knowing, yet am, albeit slowly and arguably inconsistently, trying to learn and apply my own sense of reason. From my perspective, there are no assertions. For that matter, if you expected rigorous defense, you should have specified such a desire in your OP.

Also, I am frankly hesitant to assign my intellect to proffer a vigorous defense, as I take the millstone warning seriously and do not want the responsibility of leading someone astray if Christianity is correct. Along with that, right this second my own reason indicates modern Christianity is probably not correct. To express a vigorous defense that modern Christianity is incorrect would cause me to cross the line from probably not to is not. Is this really the direction a Catholic (or any Christian, for that matter) seeks to push someone toward?

Are you perhaps not able to understand that someone can accept uncertainty and be at peace with not knowing? That someone might not have a need to know?

 

[icamhif]

Because I don’t say, when questioned, “I am simply offering a possibility.”

My position is eminently defensible.

You cannot defend your position.

Perhaps you are thinking too one-dimensionally here.

There is a classical definition of “defense” that does not involve persecution. It involves being able to offer reasons for what you believe.

No one here ought to be offering some weird positions and then when asked pointed questions about the incoherence of the position, retreat with, “Well, I’m just offering a possibility that it could have happened this way.”

If you want to make an assertion, offer some defense of it.

Otherwise, it’s an inutile assertion.

Kind of like saying, “I believe it’s possible that Bruce Jenner is a reincarnation of John Lennon” and when the response is, “Holy cow! Where’d you get that idea? And why would you even consider it?”…

saying, “I read a book once. But stop asking me why I believe it’s possible.”

No need to act like a debate-junkie. The only people who need to defend a position are those who are strongly opinionated about the position. Inquirers and everyone else who are uncertain don’t have that burden to carry. What you dismiss as “only a possibility” can be a considered a real, tenable position to an inquirer.

 

[benhur]

No, ben.

You’ve been here long enough that you shouldn’t be so poorly representing the Catholic position.

The Church has NEVER professed that she “has been perfectly led in all things on faith and morals by the Holy Spirit”.

That she has the fullness of truth is NOT the same thing as being “perfectly led”.

She may be imperfect, but she is still that which has the fullness of God’s revelation.

Hi PR,

Just read Contarinis post forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12969768&postcount=273 that may have a bearing . Yes infallibility is "narrow’’ (doctrinally-faith/morals). I thought my words implied that . But it seems you object to a broad application of infallibility (which i do not think i did). Really though your statement of the church never teaching perfect leading on faith and morals needs explanation. It would lead one to ask has the church been wrong, if even for a time, on faith and morals.

 

[icamhif]

Really?

If there were some scholars who asserted, “We believe that women are less intelligent than men” you wouldn’t judge them as not having thought their position through?

Really?

Until you address the points I made that you snipped out of my quote, I will dismiss your argument as a straw-man. Unlike your hypothetical scholar who made such a hypothetical assertion, I provided a case for how the Bible Scholars may have in fact thought things through.

 

[PRmerger]

My position is that I do not know, probably cannot know, I am ok with not knowing, yet am, albeit slowly and arguably inconsistently, trying to learn and apply my own sense of reason.

Excellent.

You should consider the questions being posed to you here and see what answers are forthcoming.

From my perspective, there are no assertions.

You are asserting possibilities.

For that matter, if you expected rigorous defense, you should have specified such a desire in your OP.

That is implicit in any discussion forum, mek.

You make an assertion (even if it’s only a possibility you’re considering) you need to offer apologia for it.

That’s what a discussion forum does, mek.

You should know that by now.

Also, I am frankly hesitant to assign my intellect to proffer a vigorous defense, as I take the millstone warning seriously and do not want the responsibility of leading someone astray if Christianity is correct.

What you seem to be doing is recoiling at being asked questions and being asked to defend your assertion.

I find that peculiar.

Along with that, right this second my own reason indicates modern Christianity is probably not correct.

Actually, your reason does not seem to have any answers for why you assert Christianity is probably not correct.

To express a vigorous defense that modern Christianity is incorrect would cause me to cross the line from probably not to is not.

That’s not true.

If you’re going to make an assertion that Christianity probably is not correct, then you need to offer reasons why it’s not.

And not recoil when asked to defend your position.

Are you perhaps not able to understand that someone can accept uncertainty and be at peace with not knowing? That someone might not have a need to know?

I am a scientist at heart so…I think saying, “It just is what it is” is completely unsatisfactory.

 

[Thorolfr]

That said, I think a strong case can be made that oral traditions are reliable, especially if they are less than 200 years ago. The analogy to the telephone game has its flaws.

I changed my mind about this after reading University of California historian Fawn Brodie’s book, No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith (Alfred Knopf, 1945). The fact that Joseph Smith was able to convince thousands of people in upstate New York and elsewhere that he was a prophet and had received golden tablets from an angel named Moroni was rather sobering for me. He even got 11 men to testify that they had seen the golden tablets before he returned them to the angel Moroni (no longer having the tablets was not a huge impediment to the growth of the Mormon faith). So, for someone to convince countless people that they witnessed miraculous things is apparently not as difficult as some might suppose. Smith lived less than 200 years ago and his followers now number more than 11 million.

 

[benhur]

As for the poster hoping I get off the fence, better to be uncertain than wrong, no?

Dat poster would be me. Yes, count all the costs before making any decision as Jesus wisely said. He also said those who are for me are not against me. The caveat is being for Him in truth and spirit. And if one is on the fence about that he is wrong already. So if one is wrong to begin with, he is still wrong when making the wrong decision. We all start out wrong. We are not born '‘right’ .

Also Jesus hates ambivalence or lukewarmness.He prefers hot or cold. See? The fence is a wrong place to be. For sure the Lord would not want you to go the wrong side but the right side. I also partly outlined the same desire for you and how to get there. I doubt it is by reading Tabor.

Blessings

 

[icamhif]

I changed my mind about this after reading University of California historian Fawn Brodie’s book, No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith (Alfred Knopf, 1945). The fact that Joseph Smith was able to convince thousands of people in upstate New York and elsewhere that he was a prophet and had received golden tablets from an angel named Moroni was rather sobering for me. He even got 11 men to testify that they had seen the golden tablets before he returned them to the angel Moroni. So, for someone to convince countless people that they witnessed miraculous things is apparently not as difficult as some might suppose. Smith lived less than 200 years ago and his followers now number more than 11 million.

Good point. I’m not sure how to respond.

 

[benhur]

I changed my mind about this after reading University of California historian Fawn Brodie’s book, No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith (Alfred Knopf, 1945). The fact that Joseph Smith was able to convince thousands of people in upstate New York and elsewhere that he was a prophet and had received golden tablets from an angel named Moroni was rather sobering for me. He even got 11 men to testify that they had seen the golden tablets before he returned them to the angel Moroni (no longer having the tablets was not a huge impediment to the growth of the Mormon faith). So, for someone to convince countless people that they witnessed miraculous things is apparently not as difficult as some might suppose. Smith lived less than 200 years ago and his followers now number more than 11 million.

Yes, not bad for a hillbilly who could divinate by looking into a hat with torn up written pages in it.

I believe Satan was mad for the revival that was happening in the country and in particular near where Smith lived (Palmyra/Rochester, N.Y.). Charles Finney led the revival there where many got saved and many bars actually closed down at the same time of Smith’s revelations.

 

[benhur]

Originally Posted by mek42 View Post]
As for the poster hoping I get off the fence, better to be uncertain than wrong, no?Dat poster would be me.forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13057922&postcount=1015

Yes, count all the costs before making any decision as Jesus wisely said. He also said those who are for me are not against me. The caveat is being for Him in truth and spirit. And if one is on the fence about that he is wrong already. So if one is wrong to begin with, he is still wrong when making the wrong decision. We all start out wrong. We are not born '‘right’ .

Also Jesus hates ambivalence or lukewarmness.He prefers hot or cold. See? The fence is a wrong place to be. For sure the Lord would not want you to go the wrong side but the right side. I also partly outlined the same desire for you and how to get there. I doubt it is by reading Tabor.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Dat poster would be me.forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13057899&postcount=1014

Yes, count all the costs before making any decision as Jesus wisely said. He also said those who are for me are not against me. The caveat is being for Him in truth and spirit. And if one is on the fence about that he is wrong already. So if one is wrong to begin with, he is still wrong when making the wrong decision. We all start out wrong. We are not born '‘right’ .

Also Jesus hates ambivalence or lukewarmness.He prefers hot or cold. See? The fence is a wrong place to be. For sure the Lord would not want you to go the wrong side but the right side. I also partly outlined the same desire for you and how to get there. I doubt it is by reading Tabor.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

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.

As you like to ask, what is the point, like OK and what about it ?

 

[rcwitness]

Hmmm… Só Joseph Smith’s falsehoods somehow discredits the Catholic Faith?

Am I missing something?

Oral Traditions which have been upheld as Sacred have been known in the Church since Apostolic times. They certainly wouldnt be 200 yrs old, unless it was around the yr 250 A.D.

Oral Traditions would be known by historical evidence and early (2nd or 3rd century) practices and Father’s in the faith.

 

[PRmerger]

No need to act like a debate-junkie.

Asking someone to support his position is a basic practice, icam.

The only people who need to defend a position are those who are strongly opinionated about the position.

Absolutely not.

Anyone who is on a forum should not be averse to answering questions based on what he’s posted.

Inquirers and everyone else who are uncertain don’t have that burden to carry.

Of course there is a burden.

The burden is to respond to what they have posted and where their post leads.

What you dismiss as “only a possibility” can be a considered a real, tenable position to an inquirer.

Egg-zactly. Thank you.

And they ought to be able to offer reasons for why they think it’s possible.

Don’t you think if someone says, “I think it’s possible that most 10 year olds could drive quite skillfully on our highways” they be asked to support why they think it’s possible?

You’re really fine with someone coming to a thread and posting that, and then recoiling when asked why he believes it’s possible?

Really?