A middle ages question.

[Xeno.of.athens]

I wouldn't think it legitimate to simply assert it to be the case in the face of criticism.

Please, justify the claim then. Show us what you will say to prove it beyond the assertion that God inspired it.

 

[Fervent]

Please, justify the claim then. Show us what you will say to prove it beyond the assertion that God inspired it.

How I would justify it would be situational and depend on who I was trying to justify it to, but I would likely start by treating it as an ordinary historical document and work towards demonstrating that the simplest explanation that explains the resurrection event is a genuine resurrection(so long as we don't assume the resurrection to be impossible) and then argue that the resurrection proves the truth of Jesus' claims which I would then use the textual evidence of Jesus' words(as an ordinary historical account) to build the case that Jesus claimed to be God. From there it's a matter of showing that Jesus affirmed the OT as being from God. The authority of the NT then comes is a bit more difficult to demonstrate, but without it being God's word there remains an argument on the basis of the witness of historical Christianity and the process of canonization especially that disputes over the NT books were few, rare, and late developing. While it would certainly still be possible for the critic to object, that does not mean I cannot mount a defense of the authenticity and authority of the Bible independent from assuming it to be the word of God from the outset and asserting it to be the case. If all you have is an assertion, then there is no reason to even entertain your claim.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

How I would justify it would be situational and depend on who I was trying to justify it to, but I would likely start by treating it as an ordinary historical document and work towards demonstrating that the simplest explanation that explains the resurrection event is a genuine resurrection(so long as we don't assume the resurrection to be impossible) and then argue that the resurrection proves the truth of Jesus' claims which I would then use the textual evidence of Jesus' words(as an ordinary historical account) to build the case that Jesus claimed to be God. From there it's a matter of showing that Jesus affirmed the OT as being from God. The authority of the NT then comes is a bit more difficult to demonstrate, but without it being God's word there remains an argument on the basis of the witness of historical Christianity and the process of canonization especially that disputes over the NT books were few, rare, and late developing. While it would certainly still be possible for the critic to object, that does not mean I cannot mount a defense of the authenticity and authority of the Bible independent from assuming it to be the word of God from the outset and asserting it to be the case. If all you have is an assertion, then there is no reason to even entertain your claim.

But you know, I am sure, that such a procedure will not convince a well educated Muslim, atheist, Buddhist, or agnostic. It would be shown to be inaccurate on many specifics. And since your aim is to prove that the whole of the hoy scriptures are from God and true, you would need to contend with the many issues that arise when examining in detail the synoptic problem, the problems in Ezekiel's prophesies, and numerous other issues. You are reduced to making a claim without proofs, it is a claim and little more, unless you make the claim to one who already accepts its fundamental truth.

 

[Fervent]

But you know, I am sure, that such a procedure will not convince a well educated Muslim, atheist, Buddhist, or agnostic. It would be shown to be inaccurate on many specifics. And since your aim is to prove that the whole of the hoy scriptures are from God and true, you would need to contend with the many issues that arise when examining in detail the synoptic problem, the problems in Ezekiel's prophesies, and numerous other issues. You are reduced to making a claim without proofs, it is a claim and little more, unless you make the claim to one who already accepts its fundamental truth.

Whether or not it would convince a well-educated Muslim, atheist, Buddhist, or agnostic does not mean that the defense is unsound(or that I would have to resort to flat assertion that it is the case.) Certainly there is faith involved, as there is faith involved in any and every belief. But to retreat to an assertion is to concede the argument, as it is an admission that you have no answer for the present criticisms. You're entitled to believing that the Catholic Church are the keepers of Sacred Tradition, but you've given me no reason to accept your claim and given me cause to suspect you have no answer to the criticisms I have leveled at it. So again, I have no reason to consider your claim seriously since I have reasons to suspect its false and all you can furnish for accepting it is the assertion that it is the case.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Whether or not it would convince a well-educated Muslim, atheist, Buddhist, or agnostic does not mean that the defense is unsound(or that I would have to resort to flat assertion that it is the case.) Certainly there is faith involved, as there is faith involved in any and every belief. But to retreat to an assertion is to concede the argument, as it is an admission that you have no answer for the present criticisms. You're entitled to believing that the Catholic Church are the keepers of Sacred Tradition, but you've given me no reason to accept your claim and given me cause to suspect you have no answer to the criticisms I have leveled at it. So again, I have no reason to consider your claim seriously since I have reasons to suspect its false and all you can furnish for accepting it is the assertion that it is the case.

All this I say of the proposition I put; namely, that it is the Church that is the pillar and ground of truth, that the holy scriptures are a subset of holy tradition, and that holy tradition gives a framework for the proper interpretation of holy scripture. It is all provable to any who have faith, unless they are determined to reject it. Then it may as well be an argument with one who rejects your claim about the scriptures as you have them, 66 books in a worthy English translation.

We have been discussing Sacred Scripture as if we have an agreed definition of what it is, and I have, for the sake of civil argument, let that pass, but we both know that Sacred Scripture is not one thing for us, You have 66 books chosen in part by post crucifixion Judaism, I have 73 books chosen by the early Church and finally promulgated in dogmatic form in the 16th century. The content differs. We are on different cotenants as far as scripture is concerned; you on a Protestant one, I on a Catholic one.

 

[Fervent]

All this I say of the proposition I put; namely, that it is the Church that is the pillar and ground of truth, that the holy scriptures are a subset of holy tradition, and that holy tradition gives a framework for the proper interpretation of holy scripture. It is all provable to any who have faith, unless they are determined to reject it. Then it may as well be an argument with one who rejects your claim about the scriptures as you have them, 66 books in a worthy English translation.

We have been discussing Sacred Scripture as if we have an agreed definition of what it is, and I have, for the sake of civil argument, let that pass, but we both know that Sacred Scripture is not one thing for us, You have 66 books chosen in part by post crucifixion Judaism, I have 73 books chosen by the early Church and finally promulgated in dogmatic form in the 16th century. The content differs. We are on different cotenants as far as scripture is concerned; you on a Protestant one, I on a Catholic one.

You presume far too much about what I believe to be true.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

You presume far too much about what I believe to be true.

Then inform me, I admit that I guessed. If you think differently then say so and in what ways.

 

[Fervent]

Then inform me, I admit that I guessed. If you think differently then say so and in what ways.

My view of Scripture is far less rigid than having a fixed canonical number. I know there are at least 66 books which no Christian group disputes, but the canonicity of the deuterocanon I am open to so I do not know if the "true" canon is 66, 73, or even the Ethiopian 81. At the very least the disputed books are of extremely high value to instruction in Christian doctrine and it's unfortunate that their being moved to an appendix by Luther and his compatriots resulted in them being removed from protestant Bibles altogether. I don't believe we can neatly separate tradition from Scripture, and so in a sense reject an overly rigid claim of sola Scriptura. The only thing I reject is the Roman claim of clerical authority, because it doesn't seem to accurately portray what we can confirm about history and in truth neither tradition nor Scripture are the authority for the Catholic church as it sees its officers as the authority over both.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

My view of Scripture is far less rigid than having a fixed canonical number. I know there are at least 66 books which no Christian group disputes, but the canonicity of the deuterocanon I am open to so I do not know if the "true" canon is 66, 73, or even the Ethiopian 81. At the very least the disputed books are of extremely high value to instruction in Christian doctrine and it's unfortunate that their being moved to an appendix by Luther and his compatriots resulted in them being removed from protestant Bibles altogether. I don't believe we can neatly separate tradition from Scripture, and so in a sense reject an overly rigid claim of sola Scriptura. The only thing I reject is the Roman claim of clerical authority, because it doesn't seem to accurately portray what we can confirm about history and in truth neither tradition nor Scripture are the authority for the Catholic church as it sees its officers as the authority over both.

I, a pew filler, know better than to doggedly follow the prelates, they need to be credible before they can ask to be believed. But I will listen to them and check what they say, and since none of them seem to be doing ex-cathedra declarations I am on safe Catholic ground with such an attitude.

 

[Fervent]

I, a pew filler, know better than to doggedly follow the prelates, they need to be credible before they can ask to be believed. But I will listen to them and check what they say, and since none of them seem to be doing ex-cathedra declarations I am on safe Catholic ground with such an attitude.

As a general rule, sure. But what we're discussing goes beyond the trustworthiness of individual priests and pastors. I have many reasons from Scripture, history, and reason to suspect that the Catholic claims of authority are not true and that what is labeled "Sacred Tradition" in Rome cannot be traced as far back as they claim it to be, with the earliest developments coming in the middle of the 2nd century rather than being present from the beginning. You're entitled to your faith, but if it is only defensible to those who already believe it to be true then there is no point in engaging with discussions involving people skeptical of the claim.

 

[Diamond72]

Who do we trust now?

We trust the Holy Spirit of God to guide and lead us into all truth.

 

[Diamond72]

I have many reasons from Scripture, history, and reason to suspect that the Catholic claims of authority are not true

They put a lot of work and effort into seeking the truth. Of course, there is a discussion on what is and what is not true. People need to read the catechism and make an effort to follow the teachings as best as they can.

 

[Diamond72]

Having a bible is part of the problem, the bible needs to be interpreted and leaving that task to individuals to do for themselves leads to aberrations in faith.

All we have to do is pray and ask the Holy Spirit to help us understand. We do not need man to teach us.

 

[Fervent]

They put a lot of work and effort into seeking the truth. Of course, there is a discussion on what is and what is not true. People need to read the catechism and make an effort to follow the teachings as best as they can.

My statement wasn't meant to be a slight against Catholics, I'm sure there are many who are fully convinced from their studies that Catholicism truly is the truth. The problem is a lot of what they claim to be true isn't reflected in the historical evidence, and the entire basis for the Catholic church being the keepers of sacred tradition is the Catholic church saying they are. Which if the issue being debated/discussed is the legitimacy of the authority of the Catholic church simply begs the question.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

We trust the Holy Spirit of God to guide and lead us into all truth.

If by "us" you mean "the Church" I agree.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

All we have to do is pray and ask the Holy Spirit to help us understand. We do not need man to teach us.

But you do need human beings to teach you, you couldn't read without human teachers, nor have a bible to read without human publishers, and if you wish to interpret the holy scriptures then you need help from others who have walked with the Lord longer than you.

 

[Diamond72]

if you wish to interpret the holy scriptures then you need help from others

No you don't. The Holy Spirit is the only teacher we need. We need others to worship God. We need others to pray with. I have actually taken four teacher training classes at the Bible College. But I did that in an effort to learn how to better communicate. They did not teach us doctrine, they taught us how to communicate with others.

I believe the atonement is two fold. We are reconciled with God the Father and we are reconciled with each other.

 

[Diamond72]

If by "us" you mean "the Church" I agree.

Jesus did make it clear, the measure of our love for God is the love we have for each other.

 

[Diamond72]

The problem is a lot of what they claim to be true isn't reflected in the historical evidence

I know there are a lot of Catholic bashers out there. They just do not convince me.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

No you don't. The Holy Spirit is the only teacher we need.

Well, look around you at all the groups and free-lance individuals who think that and it is evident that the Holy Spirit isn't teaching everyone the same things; everyone has their own spin on scripture and their own doctrinal twists. They all claim that the Holy Spirit and their bible is all they need for doctrine, clearly they need more because they cannot agree.