Kosta: And that makes it "right" by fiat? We need proof, not just mutual agreement. Patting ourselves on the back does not constitute proof, FK.
FK: I see. Well, then I'll agree with you that we should throw out the Consensus Patrum.
Consensus patrum refers to what is needed for the Church to teach as catholic faith. It's an internal ecclesiastical mechanism, a set standard and a system of checks-and-balances. It is not peddled outside the Church as universal truth to the non-believers.
That being said, the example showing Christ in the OT are relatively scarce given the volume of books involved and definitely not a black-and-white, consensus-forming, clearly and unambiguously agreed-upon truth.
The Muslims, for instance, find Mohammad in Isaiah! Does that mean it is true? If you are a Muslim, it is!
What proof do they offer?
For what? Their faith? By definition, people with faith need no proof and can't understand why the rest of the world doesn't believe as they do!
What, the writings of dead men from the second century are true, but the writings of dead men from the first century are forgeries?
The writings of the 2nd century dead men do not claim Christ all over OT. When Jesus says that Moses wrote about Him, He is talking in terms of the Jewish messiah, moshiach.
The Jews will tell you that the idea of the anointed done coming to establish the Kingdom of God on earth is not something invented by the prophets. They say that
"Belief in the eventual coming of the moshiach is a basic and fundamental part of traditional Judaism." [Judaism 101, "Moshiach"]
And the knowledge of the meshiach is to be found even in the Torah!
[T]raditional Judaism maintains that the messianic idea has always been a part of Judaism. The moshiach is not mentioned explicitly in the Torah, because the Torah was written in terms that all people could understand, and the abstract concept of a distant, spiritual, future reward was beyond the comprehension of some people.
However, the Torah contains several references to "the End of Days" (acharit ha-yamim), which is the time of the moshiach; thus, the concept of moshiach was known in the most ancient times. [Ibid.]
So, based on this, we can very easily see why Jesus would say that even "Moses wrote about me." It's just that it wasn't necessarily about the Christian Christ so to say.
In addition, the requirement for the laity to assent would also be moot. The laity offer no proof.
No proof is required. That's what "faith" means. It can be true or it can be a self-delusion. No one would ever know.
FK: I see. Well, then I'll agree with you that we should throw out the Consensus Patrum.
Consensus patrum refers to what is needed for the Church to teach as catholic faith. It's an internal ecclesiastical mechanism, a set standard and a system of checks-and-balances. It is not peddled outside the Church as universal truth to the non-believers.
That is, a system totally without proof, which is what you tell me you need. And I don't understand your last sentence. Is the internal truth of your faith not necessarily applicable to other people? When lost people inquire about Orthodoxy, do you tell them that your beliefs are not necessarily always true?
That being said, the example showing Christ in the OT are relatively scarce given the volume of books involved and definitely not a black-and-white, consensus-forming, clearly and unambiguously agreed-upon truth.
Does this mean that you would believe if there were more pages talking about Christ, "unambiguously", by your personal judgment, in the OT?
The Muslims, for instance, find Mohammad in Isaiah! Does that mean it is true? If you are a Muslim, it is!
I continue to find it strange that your side so often brings in Islam to discredit the Bible, AS IF, Islam has anything to do with Christianity. The point you all appear to be making is that SINCE there are some who get it SO 180 degrees wrong that MUST somehow be a reflection on the Bible itself. By your own standards then, there are billions who will have nothing to do with Orthodoxy or the patristic writings. THEREFORE they are wrong! Or, I and others have read some patristic writings and have seen some Reformed ideas. THEREFORE, those writings are wrong.
What proof do [Orthodox laity] offer?
For what? Their faith? By definition, people with faith need no proof and can't understand why the rest of the world doesn't believe as they do!
I am simply applying your own standards. You DEMAND proof, and you imply that my beliefs are not credible if I cannot give you proof to your satisfaction. What I'm driving at is that by your own standards there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that I should believe that Orthodoxy is the true faith since you can give me no proof. Your own tagline says Orthodoxy is "pure Christianity". Prove it. :)
So, based on this, we can very easily see why Jesus would say that even "Moses wrote about me." It's just that it wasn't necessarily about the Christian Christ so to say.
So again, you're saying that Jesus was lying. What other answer is there?