Why should we listen to you?

[ralphinal]

One would hope the Holy Spirit will guide you to the truth you need. However, I will not attempt to debate you into a recognition that I’m right as I don’t feel that’s a remotely effective form of apologetics.

OP’s motives are not irrelevant. This is a baiting thread. I tend to think a little more humility here (humility as opposed to compromise) might make for a more civilized and effective dialogue.

I agree with all of your answers.

Sometimes, I think that the questions that Jimmy raises are good ones. The intention may not be, and the delivery may not be, but some of these topics should be discussed in charity and humility

 

[Figaro_Jones]

As I said, I gave only one suggestion. The fact that the Bible transforms lives, has a unity of theme pointing to one Divine Author, and contains the testimony of Jesus Christ, are others. Timothy says that “all Scripture is inspired by God” (2 Timothy 3:16) and so Christians believe Scripture is the truth in it’s entirety, including Christ’s resurrection and the promise of our salvation, otherwise our faith is useless. Is this “proof?” We can have “proof” or we can have “faith.” :bible1:

I think believers in the Koran make much the same kinds of arguments, including your earlier prophecies-came-true one. Ah well.

 

[Triciacat]

I think believers in the Koran make much the same kinds of arguments, including your earlier prophecies-came-true one. Ah well.

What? Although there are similarities, Islam differs from Christianity by denying that Christ was crucified, and through His death and resurrection, we have eternal life. In other words, it refutes the whole basis of Christianity…

 

[Linda_Marie]

What I don’t see in there is the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church can trace its hierarchy all the way back to Peter, who was ordained by Christ Himself. Very early after the Resurrection, the Church was known as Catholic and was called such in Acts of the Apostles (9:31) although most English translations say ‘the church throughout’ rather than ‘the church universal’, but the words in Greek are **‘katho holos’ **- ie - Catholic.

Let’s take a step back. How do you know the Bible is the word of God in the first place?

I’ve been asking this for a while.

As I said, I gave only one suggestion. The fact that the Bible transforms lives, has a unity of theme pointing to one Divine Author, and contains the testimony of Jesus Christ, are others. Timothy says that “all Scripture is inspired by God” (2 Timothy 3:16) and so Christians believe Scripture is the truth in it’s entirety, including Christ’s resurrection and the promise of our salvation, otherwise our faith is useless. Is this “proof?” We can have “proof” or we can have “faith.” :bible1:

The Koran also transforms lives and has a unity of theme pointing to a divine author. Just one example, when Cat Stevens became a Muslim, he put away his career as a successful singer/songwriter because that lifestyle was not compatible with following Islam. I’ve seen people come back from the Hajj transformed by their experience, absolutely radiant with joy. Should we then consider the Koran to be Scripture inspired by God?

How do you know that the Bible contains the testimony of Jesus? Because it says it does?

Consider the rules of evidence in a court of law. If you want to enter a document into evidence, the words of the document itself are not sufficient to verify its authenticity. Anybody could have written it to say whatever they wanted. There must be another witness to the authenticity of the document.

It is the same with the Bible. We accept it as the Word of God because of the Authority of the Catholic Church who selected from the more than 400 documents circulating at the time which were authentically inspired and which were not. A grand total of 27 passed the tests and became the New Testament. Many of those rejected had been very popular and had been read with regularity in various chuches as part of their liturgy such as the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache and the Apocalypse of Peter.

As I said before, if you accept the New Testament, you have already accepted the Authority of the Catholic Church to declare those writings to contain authentic doctrine and to be divinely inspired.

What Authority do you have that I should listen to you when you tell me that my Church has it wrong and you have it right when we come to questions such as:

Is the Eucharist the Body and Blood of Jesus or merely a symbol?

Did Jesus establish His Church on Peter? and so on…

 

[Triciacat]

I think believers in the Koran make much the same kinds of arguments, including your earlier prophecies-came-true one. Ah well.

What?? Although there are similarities, Islam refutes the entire basis of Christianity by stating that Christians corrupted Scripture, that Christ did not die on the cross, and that His death is not necessary for our salvation…“Ah well???”

 

[Triciacat]

I’ve been asking this for a while.

The Koran also transforms lives and has a unity of theme pointing to a divine author. Just one example, when Cat Stevens became a Muslim, he put away his career as a successful singer/songwriter because that lifestyle was not compatible with following Islam. I’ve seen people come back from the Hajj transformed by their experience, absolutely radiant with joy. Should we then consider the Koran to be Scripture inspired by God? That’s great. They might be radiant with joy, but not necessarily saved.

How do you know that the Bible contains the testimony of Jesus? Because it says it does?

Consider the rules of evidence in a court of law. If you want to enter a document into evidence, the words of the document itself are not sufficient to verify its authenticity. Anybody could have written it to say whatever they wanted. There must be another witness to the authenticity of the document.

Agreed, so we have Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all verifying what occurred at the time…I suppose one could argue that they made everything up, though. Humans require proof, but God requires faith.

 

[fbl9]

Triciacat:
we also have one from Judas,Thomas and even Mary Madeglen(sic),how do you know these weren’t correct witnesses?

 

[brkn1]

That’s true, and it certainly does provide internal consistency for Scripture. However, to rely on fulfilled prophecy alone to verify that Scripture is the word of God is circular reasoning.

Speaking about “circular reasoning”, how about that infallible Pope Urban VIII making Galileo recant his foolish theory that the earth circles the sun? Now there’s some circular reasoning to make us trust whatever the RCC says is true.

 

[Angels_Unaware]

Speaking about “circular reasoning”, how about that infallible Pope Urban VIII making Galileo recant his foolish theory that the earth circles the sun? Now there’s some circular reasoning to make us trust whatever the RCC says is true.

Looks like someone hasn’t done their homework…tsk, tsk.

Do a search on these forums for that accusation against the Pope.

 

[Figaro_Jones]

What?? Although there are similarities, Islam refutes the entire basis of Christianity by stating that Christians corrupted Scripture, that Christ did not die on the cross, and that His death is not necessary for our salvation…“Ah well???”

My point was that Muslims would feel just as strongly as you that their scripture is inerrant, that its prophecies are accurate, that it transforms lives, that it is the word of God, etc.

 

[Triciacat]

My point was that Muslims would feel just as strongly as you that their scripture is inerrant, that its prophecies are accurate, that it transforms lives, that it is the word of God, etc.

OK, I understand your point.

 

[Triciacat]

Speaking about “circular reasoning”, how about that infallible Pope Urban VIII making Galileo recant his foolish theory that the earth circles the sun? Now there’s some circular reasoning to make us trust whatever the RCC says is true.

 

[NonCatholic]

Looks like someone hasn’t done their homework…tsk, tsk.

Do a search on these forums for that accusation against the Pope.

Pope Urban VIII (baptised 5 April 1568 – July 29, 1644), born Maffeo Barberini, was Pope from 1623 to 1644. He was the last Pope to expand the papal territory by force of arms, and was a prominent patron of the arts and reformer of Church missions. However, the massive debts incurred during his papacy greatly weakened his successors, who were unable to maintain the Pope’s longstanding political or military influence in Europe. He was also** involved in a controversy with Galileo and his theory on heliocentrism** during his time.

In astronomy, heliocentrism is the theory that the Sun is at the center of the Solar System. The word came from the Greek (ήλιος Helios = sun and κέντρον kentron = center). Historically, heliocentrism was opposed to geocentrism, which placed the earth at the center.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Angels_Unaware]

Pope Urban VIII (baptised 5 April 1568 – July 29, 1644), born Maffeo Barberini, was Pope from 1623 to 1644. He was the last Pope to expand the papal territory by force of arms, and was a prominent patron of the arts and reformer of Church missions. However, the massive debts incurred during his papacy greatly weakened his successors, who were unable to maintain the Pope’s longstanding political or military influence in Europe. He was also** involved in a controversy with Galileo and his theory on heliocentrism** during his time.

In astronomy, heliocentrism is the theory that the Sun is at the center of the Solar System. The word came from the Greek (ήλιος Helios = sun and κέντρον kentron = center). Historically, heliocentrism was opposed to geocentrism, which placed the earth at the center.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sorry, that doesn’t count.

I said search the forums. There is another side to that story.

 

[Chris258]

Pope Urban VIII (baptised 5 April 1568 – July 29, 1644), born Maffeo Barberini, was Pope from 1623 to 1644. He was the last Pope to expand the papal territory by force of arms, and was a prominent patron of the arts and reformer of Church missions. However, the massive debts incurred during his papacy greatly weakened his successors, who were unable to maintain the Pope’s longstanding political or military influence in Europe. He was also** involved in a controversy with Galileo and his theory on heliocentrism** during his time.

In astronomy, heliocentrism is the theory that the Sun is at the center of the Solar System. The word came from the Greek (ήλιος Helios = sun and κέντρον kentron = center). Historically, heliocentrism was opposed to geocentrism, which placed the earth at the center.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1. I’m not sure why you’ve emphasized the existence of the Papal States with your bolding. I don’t believe anyone seriously denies that the Papacy, for a very long time, possessed an easily corrupting secular power. The relevant question concerning those times is whether or not the corruption – both secular and that of personal life – of a pope disintegrates his inherent teaching authority as successor of Peter (I am assuming the Eastern Orthodox/Catholic concept of sacramental Apostolic Succession, obviously). Some believe said corruption to be evidence of the absurdity of sacramental Apostolic Succession; others believe that personal sins cannot touch the grace inherited in Apostolic Succession. At best, to the latter fellow, such a pope is remembered as an embarrassment to the Catholic and Christian faith for his flagrant disregard for the calling of his Baptism but also that he was an unexpendable link in the unbroken chain of successors following the Apostle Peter. This is only relevant to our discussion insofar as it is concerned with how the Church’s authority (whose existence some in this thread question, anyhow) is preserved and perpetuated.
2. Recalling Pope Urban VIII’s dispute with Galileo – which has a bit more to it than most would believe; read more about it, sometime – and his obviously false understanding of the structure of the physical cosmos does not really shine much light on the Infallibility question. Asserting that any of Pope Urban VIII’s declarations concerning Heliocentrism undermine Papal Infallibility is essentially the same as asserting the undermining of Papal Infallibility if Pope Benedict XVI were to (rather stupidly) declare tomorrow to the world that plant photosynthesis actually produces uranium along with oxygen and glucose. If you believe such situations do undermine Papal Infallibility, you are misunderstanding the concept as the Catholic Church teaches it. I’m sure you can find an Orthodox member of CAF who can lay out the real arguments against the actual Papal Infallibility for you, if you wish.

 

[NonCatholic]

2. Recalling Pope Urban VIII’s dispute with Galileo – which has a bit more to it than most would believe; read more about it, sometime – and his obviously false understanding of the structure of the physical cosmos does not really shine much light on the Infallibility question.

It was a political issue with a disgruntled Bishop or Cardinal that had influence on the Pope.

Urban VIII saw to it that the Barberini family benefited from his papacy. His brother and two nephews were made cardinals and given high church offices. Other family members were helped by the Pope in the acquisition of property and titles . He even went so far as to make war on Parma, Tuscany, Modena, and Venice over a matter of protocol involving his nephew-cardinals. Pope Urban strengthened fortifications and armaments in the papal territories.

Maffeo Barberini was an accomplished man of letters, who published several volumes of verse. Upon Galileo’ s return to Florence, in 1610, Barberini came to admire Galileo’ s intelligence and sharp wit. During a court dinner, in 1611, at which Galileo defended his view on floating bodies, Barberini supported Galileo against Cardinal Gonzaga. From this point, their patron-client relationship flourished until it was undone in 1633. Upon Barberini’ s ascendance of the papal throne, in 1623, Galileo came to Rome and had six interviews with the new Pope. It was at these meetings that Galileo was given permission to write about the Copernican theory, as long as he treated it as a hypothesis. After the publication of Galileo’ s Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief Systems of the World (earth revoles around sun versus sun around the earth), in 1632, the patronage relationship was broken. It appears that the Pope never forgave Galileo for putting the argument of God’s omnipotence (the argument he himself had put to Galileo in 1623) in the mouth of Simplicio, the staunch Aristotelian whose arguments had been systematically destroyed in the previous 400-odd pages. At any rate, the Pope resisted all efforts to have Galileo pardoned.

Sources: New Catholic Encyclopedia

Little bit of a rabbit trail from the main thread topic.

 

[Chris258]

It was a political issue with a disgruntled Bishop or Cardinal that had influence on the Pope.

Sources: New Catholic Encyclopedia

Little bit of a rabbit trail from the main thread topic.

Always good to see a more in-depth picture of these matters. Thanks for posting that.

Any thoughts that might have to do with this incident that would poke the central thread issue, Christian spiritual authority in matters of doctrine and such?

What faith tradition or worldview do you bring to the thread? It’s difficult to tell beyond non-Catholic; I would guess agnostic from your profile?

 

[Linda_Marie]

Originally Posted by Linda Marie

How do you know that the authors of these Gospels are Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They never once say who the author is. How do we know who they are? How do we know that John is ‘the disciple Jesus loved’? How do we know that they can testify to the truth of the Gospel?

Mind you, I am fully convinced that it is the Gospel. I am just saying that the Bible cannot testify to itself as to its veracity and authencity. There are many other so-called holy books that others take for gospel truth. Millions of Muslims believe what the Koran has to say. Hindus prefer the Bhagavad Gita and say that holds the truth.

The reason Christians hold the Bible to be The Holy Book containing the Word of God is because the Catholic Church determined that those books contained within the covers of the Bible were divinely inspired and contain no heresy.

It is still possible to read Scripture and misinterpret it. The Baptists and the Catholics have the same New Testament. We read that Jesus commanded us to "Eat His Body and Drink His Blood’ or we would not have life within us. (John 6) Then at the Last Supper, He held up the Passover bread and said, “Take this all of you and eat it. This is My Body which will be given up for you.” "when supper was ended He took the cup. Again He gave You thanks and praise. He gave the cup to His diciples and said, “Take this all of you and drink from it. This is the cup of my blood. The blood of the new and everlasting convenant. It will be shed for you and for all men so that sins may be forgiven. Do this as a memorial sacrifice for me.”

Catholics know that He was teaching us that the Eucharist really is in truth His Body and Blood. A miracle performed by the Holy Spirit at every Mass through the power passed on from the Apostles which was given to them by Christ. Baptists hold that the Lord’s Supper was merely a symbol to remember what He did for us.

You say all you need to do is go to Scripture, but here we both have read what Scripture has to say and come up with very different interpretations. What Authority do you have to say that the Eucharist is not the Body and Blood of Christ?

Do you really think that God left us to flounder about on our own trying to figure out what Scripture means? No, He built the Catholic Church on Peter and gave Her the Authority to preserve the Deposit of Faith, His Gospel, which consists of more than what was written in the New Testament and promised to protect Her from ever teaching error.

 

[Triciacat]

Yes, I fully understand the argument that all religions each consider their writings inspired and have many reasonable claims as to why this is true. I find it interesting how Islam denies the very idea upon which Christianity is based, the death and resurrection of Christ, leading to our salvation, as my human mind cannot comprehend why God would hand us such ideologies, polar opposites of each other, then give us reason to believe both are His Word.

Interestingly, I am currently reading a book written by a Catholic priest, where lay spirituality is discussed. He comments that the Bible is not merely a book of rules and regulations, but given to us so that we might learn how God thinks, and, therefore, how we are to think–a much broader perspective on things. Even if this were true and we decide to draw parallels with the similar writings of other religions there’s still the question of how, among the similarities, there can be such differences as well.

 

[Jimmy_B]

You will never get a good answer for that one Jim! But I do know of one person who may answer. I won’t mention any names, but I bet they will want a prize!

There is a Catholic and Biblical answer to this question.