Posted on 07/25/2009 8:04:47 PM PDT by bdeaner
***How do you know the bread and wine become “body and blood?” Gnostic knowledge of some kind? ***
Did I ever say that I know? Proofs, please.
You mean you're actually consistent??? It seems kosta50 has a Catholic counterpart on this forum after all.
***While I of course as a non-Catholic don’t accept the decrees of the First Vatican Council, I find it interesting that as a Catholic, neither do you.***
Which decree do I not accept?
Evidently the one about G-d being "the author of scripture," since any such assertion is gnostic knowledge devoid of any proof.
Considering the snide hypocrisy of most Catholics on this forum ("Jewish miracles never happened but chr*stian ones did"), I think I am right to be anti-Catholic. What fuels such inconsistency other than theological anti-Semitism?
That's nice, but how do I know that? If I say there are pink unicorns on Jupiter, will you assume that I believe or know that as a matter of fact? I would say the latter, because of the way I presented it matter-of-factly, and I should be prepared to offer some proof.
The idea that God is provable is contrary to faith
Agree, but scholasticism, the backbone of the Catholic theology, rests on the premise that God is provable even though he is not conceivable.
[Hebrews ii]:3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.”
The author is simply telling Hellenized Jews a neat amalgam of Jewish mythology mixed with Greek philosophy, is he not? God created the world with his word ("Let there be light"), and the world was made of atoms (uncuttable, indivisible, and invisible particles) the Greek philosophers were postulating since the 5th century BC (Indians philosophers actually beat them by a century and it's possible that this may have trickled to Greece from India).
This mixing of Hellenic and Jewish beliefs was a necessary requisite for pagan Greeks and Hellenized Jews to accept Pauline Christianity, as the Church in Israel was dying.
The word translated faith means...conviction of truth of anything...
Agreed. It is a very humble definition and anything but a matter-of-fact about it. But when I read
or
there is nothing humble or not matter of fact about these statements. I call that spiritual arrogance, especially since, as you argue correctly, God is not subject to proof, because assumptions cannot be proven.
In addition to that, with God, proof is made that much more impossible because we cannot define God. If we cannot define God, if God is "beyond everything," how can we know what is God? With another assumption?
Again, I am not interested in challenging or downplaying people's beliefs. People believe all sorts of things. I can't and won't argue over beliefs. But when stated as a matter of fact and not faith, I ask for proof because I am curious.
The wise fathers who composed the Nicene-Constantinopolean Creed (the Symnbol of Faith) made sure it started humbly with the words "We believe in one God..." and not "There is but one God..." (as the Muslims do). Where is that same humility in the quotes above regarding inerrancy of the Bible?
People forget that they believe in God, Mark. The boundry between fact and faith often becomes blurred. You are right to call it Gnostic when faith assumes a matter-of-fact character.
I can't speak for Mark, but I would venture to say he believes it.
I think there is a subtle difference between knowing and believeing that is often lost in translation...
That's not what he asked you. He asked you for a proof, and now you are trying to wiggle out of your assumption changing the subject.
MarkBsrn: Which decree do I not accept? ZC: Evidently the one about G-d being "the author of scripture," since any such assertion is gnostic knowledge devoid of any proof.
Well, can you provide the proof that God is the author of scripture?
Which Catholics deny (believeing) Jewish miracles?
What fuels such inconsistency other than theological anti-Semitism?
Is there any way to dismiss anything the Jews believe in without being labled anti-Semitic?
“Where is that same humility in the quotes above regarding inerrancy of the Bible?”
I can’t speak for Catholic doctrine. For Protestants, the truth of scripture is something that must be revealed to you. The individual chooses to believe it or not.
During the debate about canon, Catholics claim their church gave the Bible as true. bdeaner posted an article some time back where they claim the scriptures belong to them, to do with as they wish.
Along with most Protestants, I say the councils were RATIFYING what their individual churches and church members believed. Almost all of the Christians of the time accepted the gospels and pauline letters, and 1 Peter and some others, as scripture equal to the Old Testament - although there was debate on whether to accept the Jewish Canon or add some to it.
Other books, like 2 Peter and Hebrews, took longer. They had not been as well circulated, and the churches - individuals and individual congregations - hadn’t completely accepted them by consensus. With greater exposure to them, they did.
Calvin argued YOU determine Scripture. If you accept Catholic doctrine, then you must accept their list. If not, then you have to determine on your own what books are God-breathed. The vast majority of Christians today accept what the churches decided 1600-1900 years ago.
In discussions here between Protestants and Catholics, you’ve seen the difference. A Catholic will quote from the Apocrypha and 8 Church Fathers, and the Protestant will reply, “So what?” When I debated Mormons years ago, we could debate based on the Bible, which they SORT OF accepted, or we could not debate, since I didn’t recognize the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price etc as scripture.
“If I say there are pink unicorns on Jupiter, will you assume that I believe or know that as a matter of fact? I would say the latter, because of the way I presented it matter-of-factly, and I should be prepared to offer some proof.”
Depends on what you mean by proof. Proof in a mathematical sense, no. Proof in the sense of ‘Is it probable or plausible?’, yes. Proof means different things in mathematics, biology, criminal court and civil court.
How are you using it?
You know, I once attended an 'Aish HaTorah Discovery Seminar. The speaker said "Faith is wrong." The reason is that the Torah commands Israel to know these things.
Well, can you provide the proof that God is the author of scripture?
This argument about "believing" vs. "knowing" whether or not G-d is the author of Scripture is a bit silly considering that you don't even "believe" that G-d is the author. Shoot, you may not even "believe" that G-d exists since the "authentic chr*stianity" to which you subscribe is by your own admission a "fourth century" construct whose "truth" lies exclusively in the fact that it "changes lives."
However, it can be (and has been) proven statistically that the author of the Torah is not a human being but had supernatural knowledge of the future from the references encoded in it at ELS's of which are statistically far beyond mere coincidence.
Which Catholics deny (believeing) Jewish miracles?
Every Catholic who insists that "new testament" miracles "really happened" while "old testament" ones are mythology. A bit dishonest on your part since you don't believe in miracles at all.
Knowldge by command, hmmm. The book says so. It must be true.
This argument about "believing" vs. "knowing" whether or not G-d is the author of Scripture is a bit silly considering that you don't even "believe" that G-d is the author
It's not an argument. If you say you believe it, that's fine with me. I can't argue with people's beliefs any more than I can argue with their tastes. But if they claim they know something for a fact, then I ask for proof.
The burden is not on me. The burden is on the one making extraordinary claims. priori assumed as something objectively real is irrelevant.
However, it can be (and has been) proven statistically that the author of the Torah is not a human being but had supernatural knowledge of the future from the references encoded in it at ELS's of which are statistically far beyond mere coincidence
Well, apparently, that too is not something we cite as proof very often is it? because there are flaws in that proof, right? It's not like a proof of gravity (that no one doubts), is it?
Every Catholic who insists that "new testament" miracles "really happened" while "old testament" ones are mythology
I have never met a devout Catholic (or any other Christian) who doubted any of the alleged miracles in the Old Testament. In fact, most of the prophesies believed true in the New Testament are stitched together from various parts of the Old Testament. So, I am not sure where you are getting this notion from.
Based on what?
During the debate about canon, Catholics claim their church gave the Bible as true. bdeaner posted an article some time back where they claim the scriptures belong to them, to do with as they wish
Again, the books accepted by the Church reflected what the Church already believed. This is like going to a book store with the intent of finding books of your favorite hobby, as you see it. You will selectively accept and reject books that either show what you want to see, or reject those that don't. The Bible was assembled based on that a priori belief, in a biased and exclusive manner, based on human interpretation.
And since we do not know a human who is perfect and does not err (excluding the belief in Christ's humanity), we will be hard pressed to "prove" that this process of choosing biblical canon was somehow God-inspired. In fact, the Bible diversity in itself suggests that no such divine intervention took place, or else the canon would have been set long before and remained unchanged. After all, isn't perfection also changelessness—unless of course we assume that the Bible is subject to corruption as well?
Along with most Protestants, I say the councils were RATIFYING what their individual churches and church members believed. Almost all of the Christians of the time accepted the gospels and pauline letters, and 1 Peter and some others, as scripture equal to the Old Testament - although there was debate on whether to accept the Jewish Canon or add some to it
It wasn't just blanket ratification, because if it were there would have been no need for canonization. They were arguing and horse trading with each other. And, while by the end of the 4th century, with thee Ecumenical Councils already establishing official Christian teachings behind them, the North African Council agreed on which books to INCLUDE and, more imortantrly, which books to EXCLUDE from various church canons, because many Churches that agreed on Gospels and epistles and deuterocanonicals also included many commonly used books that did not survive this 'ratification' (i.e. the Book of Enoch, the Epistle of Barnabas, the the Apocalypse of Peter, the Shepherd of Hermas, etc.).
Christianity was in the process of becoming "orthodox" in a long process from the first century heterodoxy in its origins. The canon therefore represents the Catholic 'choice' for the lack of a better term, which all Protestants accept save for the OT deuterocanonicals. But regardless of who makes the canon it is always based on human beliefs, convictions and absolutely void of any objective truth—the Bible is a man-made book.
Other books, like 2 Peter and Hebrews, took longer. They had not been as well circulated, and the churches - individuals and individual congregations - hadn’t completely accepted them by consensus. With greater exposure to them, they did.
I don't buy that. There were not that many churches. They were in Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antrioch, Rome and later in Constantinople. We really don't know how many local churches existed and they were all under bishops of the four/five apostolic sees.
The Greek Church, for example held Revelation as 'questionable' until the 9th century, and even to this day never reads liturgically from that book.
Calvin argued YOU determine Scripture.
That's consistent with the Protestant approach, denying the authority of the Church (a bunch of men and their tradition), while accepting her authority when it comes to the Bible, and making yourself the pope and vicar of Christ on earth, as if that is not of men and tradition of men! Was he that stupid to know it's the same thing? Or just plain egotistical?
In discussions here between Protestants and Catholics, you’ve seen the difference. A Catholic will quote from the Apocrypha and 8 Church Fathers, and the Protestant will reply, “So what?” When I debated Mormons years ago, we could debate based on the Bible, which they SORT OF accepted, or we could not debate, since I didn’t recognize the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price etc as scripture.
But these disagreements are simply based on a man's a priori assumptions treated as objective and absolute (!) truths. Seems pretty silly, doesn't it? Might as well argue how many angles can be fitted on the head of a pin!
Depends on what you mean by proof. Proof in a mathematical sense, no. Proof in the sense of ‘Is it probable or plausible?’, yes. Proof means different things in mathematics, biology, criminal court and civil court. How are you using it?
Proof removes all doubt. Something probable or plausible does not. Proof establishes something as undeniably true, and objectively real. It is universal. No other possibilities exist. Accepting something on an a priori assumption may lead one to believe there is no other possibility, but it is not a proof. Proof requires definition. What are we proving?
If we want to prove that God exists, how do we define God? There is no universal consensus what God is. Humanity as a whole does not know what God is and therefore cannot prove God. We can't prove something if we don't know what it is. On a train from Tokyo to Hiroshima, I asked a lady next to me (who spoke fluent English) what is God, and she said "Nature." And when I asked her who/what created nature, she said no one, "it was always there".
I then asked her "how do you know that." And she just shrugged her shoulders and said "I don't know." But it sure "made sense" to her or else she would not have believed it.
Well, it is a religion of mitzvot rather than "faith," and it is a mitzvah to believe in G-d.
It's not an argument. If you say you believe it, that's fine with me. I can't argue with people's beliefs any more than I can argue with their tastes. But if they claim they know something for a fact, then I ask for proof.
Here's a riddle for you (one with a correct answer). There are two sections in the Torah that list the species of animals that Jews may and may not eat. Chickens are not mentioned in either list as either permitted or prohibited. Yet Jews know (not "believe") that they are permitted to eat chicken. How do they know this?
The burden is not on me. The burden is on the one making extraordinary claims. priori assumed as something objectively real is irrelevant.
If you say so . . . soliton.
I have never met a devout Catholic (or any other Christian) who doubted any of the alleged miracles in the Old Testament.
So you don't consider yourself a chr*stian? What's your word for yourself?
In fact, most of the prophesies believed true in the New Testament are stitched together from various parts of the Old Testament.
Yeah, agreed. The whole NT's a rip-off.
So, I am not sure where you are getting this notion from.
From all the chr*stians on this forum who are denying the historicity of the Hebrew Bible and then getting on their little child-like knees to believe every miracle of chr*stianity, natch! I've been arguing with you lot for years.
******How do you know the bread and wine become “body and blood?” Gnostic knowledge of some kind? ***
Did I ever say that I know? Proofs, please.
You mean you’re actually consistent??? It seems kosta50 has a Catholic counterpart on this forum after all. ***
ZC; we have spoken before and I have always made it quite plain that I believe. Why would I be inconsistent?
***
***While I of course as a non-Catholic don’t accept the decrees of the First Vatican Council, I find it interesting that as a Catholic, neither do you.***
Which decree do I not accept?
Evidently the one about G-d being “the author of scripture,” since any such assertion is gnostic knowledge devoid of any proof.***
Go a step further and see what that ‘authorship’ actually means. Luke says it in the first words of his Gospel.
***Given your posts here, would you not say anti Catholic?
Considering the snide hypocrisy of most Catholics on this forum (”Jewish miracles never happened but chr*stian ones did”), I think I am right to be anti-Catholic.***
Which Jewish miracles do Catholics not believe?
Everything in the first eleven chapters of Genesis to start with. And probably Balaam's she-ass speaking as well.
This being the case, perhaps you should refrain from accusing Fundamentalist Protestants of "gnosticism" because they also believe something . . . even if it is something that you do not.
***I can’t speak for Mark, but I would venture to say he believes it.
I think there is a subtle difference between knowing and believeing that is often lost in translation...***
And I thank you for an accurate response. It is indeed that I believe. I am a believer in Christ. It is a reason, too that I recite the Creeds, in order to stay faithful to the Faith of the Church, and not going wandering far afield, as Origen, Tertullian, and even Augustine (for a while). Along with the Reformers and their successors.
“roof establishes something as undeniably true, and objectively real. It is universal. No other possibilities exist. “
There is the problem. Proof such as you desire exists in mathematics. It is NOT the standard used in court. It is also not the standard you use for any of your decisions. Nor have I ever met anyone who thinks God or any religious belief can be proven like that. There is a reason religions are called ‘faiths’.
So we get back to our discussion on a previous thread - you ask for proof, and I’m telling you that you cannot have it. End of discussion.
***Which Jewish miracles do Catholics not believe?
Everything in the first eleven chapters of Genesis to start with.***
Everything? Last time I looked, we strongly believe that God created the heavens and the earth and everything in it on and on it. Quite a sweeping statement. How about picking out the first 20 and we’ll compare your beliefs to the Catholic ones.
***And probably Balaam’s she-ass speaking as well.***
There are lots of her descendents in politics in the United States today.
***ZC; we have spoken before and I have always made it quite plain that I believe. Why would I be inconsistent?
This being the case, perhaps you should refrain from accusing Fundamentalist Protestants of “gnosticism” because they also believe something . . . even if it is something that you do not.***
Your Catholic schooling was even more remiss than I had thought. I think that an understanding of Gnosticism might be in order. I don’t think that you’re using the term correctly.
Gnosticism
Comments
Email This
Printer-Friendly
The doctrine of salvation by knowledge. This definition, based on the etymology of the word ( gnosis “knowledge”, gnostikos , “good at knowing”), is correct as far as it goes, but it gives only one, though perhaps the predominant, characteristic of Gnostic systems of thought. Whereas Judaism and Christianity, and almost all pagan systems, hold that the soul attains its proper end by obedience of mind and will to the Supreme Power, i.e. by faith and works, it is markedly peculiar to Gnosticism that it places the salvation of the soul merely in the possession of a quasi-intuitive knowledge of the mysteries of the universe and of magic formulae indicative of that knowledge. Gnostics were “people who knew “, and their knowledge at once constituted them a superior class of beings, whose present and future status was essentially different from that of those who, for whatever reason, did not know.
from http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=5209
Therefore your statement about me is incorrect. I do not accuse those who claim belief of Gnosticism. I accuse those who claim quasi-intuitive knowledge as the driving force, the means or the path to their personal salvation as Gnostic. Do you see the difference?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.