How can you literally believe...

[Unification]

How can you believe things like a man coming back from the dead, bringing a corpse back to life, walking on water, instantly healing the sick and disabled, changing the weather, ascending to heaven (did he float up into the air or what?), etc. literally happened, as historical events?

Seriously. This perplexes me. If someone was literally doing that stuff, it would be the biggest thing in the history of the world. Corpses coming back to life and walking around! But the only writings about are mythological writings from Christians, decades later at best. No one else noticed? Everyone just forgot? That's just irrational. If you make the claims that those things literally happened, I would expect some rather amazing evidence. But, we have nothing. What's going on here?

Now, if you take these things as metaphor or otherwise non-literally, that's fine, but this thread isn't directed towards that crowd.

People believe what they will simply because they can and are free to do so. Knowledge is limited but imagination is unlimited.

 

[1137]

How can you believe things like a man coming back from the dead, bringing a corpse back to life, walking on water, instantly healing the sick and disabled, changing the weather, ascending to heaven (did he float up into the air or what?), etc. literally happened, as historical events?

Seriously. This perplexes me. If someone was literally doing that stuff, it would be the biggest thing in the history of the world. Corpses coming back to life and walking around! But the only writings about are mythological writings from Christians, decades later at best. No one else noticed? Everyone just forgot? That's just irrational. If you make the claims that those things literally happened, I would expect some rather amazing evidence. But, we have nothing. What's going on here?

Now, if you take these things as metaphor or otherwise non-literally, that's fine, but this thread isn't directed towards that crowd.

I'm guessing you left Catholicism again?

 

[RedDragon94]

I thought you never assumed anything.

Not assuming, observing.

You appear to think you're going to be charged by the letter or something. Yes...we are here. And there are various 'explanations' as to how that occurred. A literal, Christian God is merely one of them, so saying that 'we're here' says nothing about God or Gods. Even if it was a compelling argument for God, you're hardly a Deist, right?

I prefer Agnostic Christian. I realize there is no proof for God but I still believe.

Why?

Because I trust people who affirm the Bible, it's lasted +2,000 years. It has stood the test of time.

 

[Forever_Catholic]

lol - NOT the one found in your bible though - that one was not even written BY John AT ALL - not even written by ANYONE who knew John or Christ at all - not written in THAT form as YOU now have it, until as said Constantine had it MANUFACTURED TO ORDER for you and then forced it upon us all as the ONLY truth permitted

Now John himself - DID write an original gospel - one that he actually CLAIMS himself directly and states it is he himself now writing...And look, your bible version is NOT claimed by him at all, is it..?...NONE OF THEM ARE - and that is because none of them in the bible are the ORIGINAL gospels at all - but are as said bogus, manufactured to order to fit a specific stated intention to dominate you all under Romes authority...POLITICAL and not spiritual at all...

John DID write a gospel - very revealing intricately detailed account that tells Christ ORIGINAL truth plain for all to see.....For THAT gospel he wrote and the original legitimate truth it contains, your church made him a HERETIC and banned his gospel as herasy - they then MURDERED any and all who understood that truth and as said forced their own version upon us all..

See the blatant hypocrasy here...SAINT John they say so important they include his so called gospel as fully ordained canon -GODS WORD they say....But look close -saint John ALSO is now a HERETIC who wrote another CONTRARY gospel that is still banned As herasy even to this day - and so they say he is "satan spawn devil influenced" gnostic heathen who need to be silenced...

Again -we see we just can not trust these so called "authorities" so blindly - what they tell you is "gods truth found in the bible" turns out to be MANS TWISTED AGENDA given with a clearly stated intention to dominate through that religion....Just as He warned - the blind DO indeed lead the blind here - be warey Folks - dont swallow all they feed you so blindly

The irony in your argument is that it serves as a point-by-point illustration of your own theological error and misguided historical revisionism.

If you ever decide to study Church history, you will find that apostolic teaching has been entirely consistent within Catholicism since Christ first commanded the apostles to “teach all nations,” specifying that “whoever hears you hears me.” The apostles did not only preach to the people in general. They had disciples of their own. Many of these men were ordained by the apostles, and passed their teachings on both orally and in writing, which is where we get the term “Sacred Tradition.”

This process of faithfully passing on to each generation what Christ taught has continued unchanged to this day through an unbroken succession of bishops. Heretical efforts throughout the centuries to co-opt the bible or rewrite history for the purpose of redefining the faith have not changed the truth.

 

[rusra02]

I think the impact Jesus Christ has had on mankind IS dramatic. Millions today consider Jesus Christ the greatest man who ever lived, many centuries after his death. Millions alive today are willing to follow his teachings, whatever the cost. To claim miracles can't happen because they are..well...miraculous is a poor reason to disbelieve, IMO. Many of Jesus miracles were done before large crowds, and there were hundreds of eye witnesses to Jesus resurrection. These witnesses were so convinced Jesus was resurrected, they were willing to die rather than deny the Christ.

 

[columbus]

I'm guessing you left Catholicism again?

You don't often leave Mother Church.
Even when I was a devout atheist I still had a C engraved on my heart.
Tom

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I prefer Agnostic Christian. I realize there is no proof for God but I still believe.

Hmm...I don't think my brain is wired to truly understand that choice. But I do understand what you mean.

Because I trust people who affirm the Bible, it's lasted +2,000 years. It has stood the test of time.

But it's not possible to believe in all ancient religions or philosophies. Judaism and Islam bracket Christianity in age, even if we exclusively limited ourself to Abrahamaic religions.

Is Stoicism truth?
Confucianism?
Judaism?
Islam?

You see my point I guess.
In terms of how it's survived. Well, it's a very interesting journey, although I somewhat limit which periods of time I study in any depth.

I tend to find some of the earlier historically impactful periods most interesting (500 ad and earlier)

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The irony in your argument is that it serves as a point-by-point illustration of your own theological error and misguided historical revisionism.

If you ever decide to study Church history, you will find that apostolic teaching has been entirely consistent within Catholicism since Christ first commanded the apostles to “teach all nations,” specifying that “whoever hears you hears me.” The apostles did not only preach to the people in general. They had disciples of their own. Many of these men were ordained by the apostles, and passed their teachings on both orally and in writing, which is where we get the term “Sacred Tradition.”

This process of faithfully passing on to each generation what Christ taught has continued unchanged to this day through an unbroken succession of bishops. Heretical efforts throughout the centuries to co-opt the bible or rewrite history for the purpose of redefining the faith have not changed the truth.

I'll bite. In your terms, what does 'apostolic teaching' refer to? Are you referring specifically to Apostolic Christianity, or simply in general terms to the testimony of the apostles.

And what do you mean by 'Catholicism' since Christ's commandment to teach the nations?

Piqued my interest.
I'm no type of theologian, but I have a smattering of classical history, including Byzantine.

 

[Shad]

The Gospel of Saint John was written during his own lifetime.

No according to modern scholarship. You are repeating a tradition, nothing more

There is no record indicating that any of his students/disciples or fellow clergy members ever questioned its validity or that the Church ever questioned it.

So. There lack of scrutiny and the fact that they already accept this claim as true does not make it true.

Other than having been disputed by a few early heretics, It was never seriously questioned at all until the late 18th century, when new heretical scholars began challenging its authorship as a means of challenging its content.

Yes this is called modern scholarship. Have you heard of it?

People of a faith that does not include believing in the Divinity of Jesus Christ or in God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have a particular issue with Saint John for having stated these things as directly as he did.

Irrelevant and empty claim

If any modern scholars have proven or disproven anything new, then tell me about it.

Take a New Testament program at a secular university

 

[james bond]

No, you just proved you have no idea how a debate works. If you make a claim, and in this case it is the claim that Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead, you have to provide evidence to support this claim. I don't have to disprove anything.

I didn't start this thread. You did and made a claim, but you can't disprove it so it's just opinion. I can't debate opinion. Moreover, you do not even know one thing about Christianity and I can prove that in front of all these people here. Now, what is the most important holiday for Christians?

 

[Forever_Catholic]

I'll bite. In your terms, what does 'apostolic teaching' refer to? Are you referring specifically to Apostolic Christianity, or simply in general terms to the testimony of the apostles.

Apostolic teaching as a continuing practice in the Church is to teach always what the apostles taught, which is known in what they wrote. It is also known in what they taught orally, as far as it was recorded by their disciples. And what they taught is just what Jesus gave them to teach.

There are tens of thousands of Christian and not-quite Christian denominations today. Most of them are spin-offs of spin-offs, but all of them originate with someone breaking away from the Catholic Church, rejecting its teaching authority as given to the apostles. Among these churches, there are none in agreement with the Catholic Church and no two that quite agree with each other. Outside of Catholicism there is a wide variety of Christian theological concepts that differ from, dispute, or flat-out contradict what the apostles said.

And what do you mean by 'Catholicism' since Christ's commandment to teach the nations?

The Catholic Church is the one and only church established by Christ, and was the only Christian Church until around 1500.

 

[Forever_Catholic]

Take a New Testament program at a secular university

I asked you to tell me about some proof or disproof, but you didn't. You did give this advice, though, and it cracked me up, so thanks for including it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

IMO it also hints that Jesus was never meant to be taken as a literal, historical person.

I doubt Jesus as the Biblical character existed, however, when we read the story what we do find is someone who basically fills the role of a shaman, and we even have plenty of modern-day examples of people who preached peace and met violent ends, I don't doubt there was a real person who inspired the character, a character that had a religious/messianic spin attached to it.

I didn't start this thread. You did

I didn't start the thread.

and made a claim

I made no claims. You claimed there was a resurrection, thus you must prove it. This is the most basic and simple of rules for debate. The resurrection doesn't need disproven, it needs proven.

Moreover, you do not even know one thing about Christianity

Assume much, do we?

I can prove that in front of all these people here.

And you would fail...utterly, totally, and completely.

 

[Coder]

The Catholic Church is the one and only church established by Christ, and was the only Christian Church until around 1500.

How many times I have said the same thing.

What is the point of the Good Samaritan story? Jesus is recorded as speaking of freedom. I believe the real split came when a Christian movement became intolerant of other Christians beliefs and began insisting that only certain doctrines were acceptable and "if you don't believe that way then you're not an apostolic Christian" (heretic). I think that such a narrow way of defining Christianity and insisting on it, is itself wrong and was based largely on needs/fears/superstitions of the Roman Empire. How did the forceful "this way" come about? The council was called by a Roman Emperor.

Who knows what Christianity really is and who has the right to define it? How does one know what Bible passages may have Roman political-religious influences?

I think that the Roman Catholic Church is the Roman Empire "branch" of Christianity and its doctrines and beliefs are Roman such as prayer to others than God, (saints, from patron gods in Roman religion), and three Persons of God (based on Jupiter "father in the sky" and son of Saturn, and other father-son gods). It's one thing to ask other Christians to be tolerant of Roman Empire-based beliefs, it's quite another to insist that beliefs are "the way" just because the might and force of the Roman Empire got behind these beliefs. In fact, is not that approach un-"Christian"?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Apostolic teaching as a continuing practice in the Church is to teach always what the apostles taught, which is known in what they wrote. It is also known in what they taught orally, as far as it was recorded by their disciples. And what they taught is just what Jesus gave them to teach.

There are tens of thousands of Christian and not-quite Christian denominations today. Most of them are spin-offs of spin-offs, but all of them originate with someone breaking away from the Catholic Church, rejecting its teaching authority as given to the apostles. Among these churches, there are none in agreement with the Catholic Church and no two that quite agree with each other. Outside of Catholicism there is a wide variety of Christian theological concepts that differ from, dispute, or flat-out contradict what the apostles said.


The Catholic Church is the one and only church established by Christ, and was the only Christian Church until around 1500.

Thanks, appreciate you giving me more info on your position.

Aren't you discarding the ecumenical councils a little too quickly in favour of establishing an unbroken continuum?

And even apart from that formalisation, issues such as what constituted idolatry were actually major public talking points, with official doctrine changing based on church leadership.

Politics definitely played a role in this.

There are plenty of examples from later in church history, but I guess I'd be interested in your opinion on the church around the time of Constatine (give or take a century) initially.

 

[RedDragon94]

Hmm...I don't think my brain is wired to truly understand that choice. But I do understand what you mean.

There are times (like right now) when I'm not sure I believe it. Not because of our conversation, just, idk. I guess I'm an Agnostic at heart.

 

[kaoticprofit]

How can you believe things like a man coming back from the dead, bringing a corpse back to life, walking on water, instantly healing the sick and disabled, changing the weather, ascending to heaven (did he float up into the air or what?), etc. literally happened, as historical events?

Seriously. This perplexes me. If someone was literally doing that stuff, it would be the biggest thing in the history of the world. Corpses coming back to life and walking around! But the only writings about are mythological writings from Christians, decades later at best. No one else noticed? Everyone just forgot? That's just irrational. If you make the claims that those things literally happened, I would expect some rather amazing evidence. But, we have nothing. What's going on here?

Now, if you take these things as metaphor or otherwise non-literally, that's fine, but this thread isn't directed towards that crowd.

As far as evidence goes it's difficult. The reason all the things you mention CAN occur is because of the different administrations of the seven spirits of God. Not easy to explain, but I can try later if you want.

 

[Forever_Catholic]

I believe the real split came when a Christian movement became intolerant of other Christians beliefs and began insisting that only certain doctrines were acceptable and "if you don't believe that way then you're not an apostolic Christian" (heretic).

And then the heretics left to start their own churches.

I think that such a narrow way of defining Christianity and insisting on it, is itself wrong and was based largely on needs/fears/superstitions of the Roman Empire.

Would this be a “narrow way of defining Christianity”?
"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." (Matthew 7:13-14)

"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6) Jesus did not say that the path to salvation is whatever you think it should be. He didn’t tell anyone to develop their own spiritual truth or to establish their own church. He gave us all of that.

How did the forceful "this way" come about? The council was called by a Roman Emperor.

Yes, a Roman Emperor who had a miraculous conversion and freely united his will with God’s will. (But calling the council would most probably have been in coordination with Pope Sylvester I.) And it is entirely obvious to me that the conversion of Rome under Emperor Constantine was God’s plan. How could it not have been?

Who knows what Christianity really is and who has the right to define it? How does one know what Bible passages may have Roman political-religious influences?

Jesus Christ knows what it is and has the right to define it, and he did. Speculate all you want, there is no link between bible passages and Roman political-religious anything.

I think that the Roman Catholic Church is the Roman Empire "branch" of Christianity and its doctrines and beliefs are Roman such as prayer to others than God, (saints, from patron gods in Roman religion), and three Persons of God (based on Jupiter "father in the sky" and son of Saturn, and other father-son gods). It's one thing to ask other Christians to be tolerant of Roman Empire-based beliefs, it's quite another to insist that beliefs are "the way" just because the might and force of the Roman Empire got behind these beliefs. In fact, is not that approach un-"Christian"?

You will never understand Catholicism if you insist on trying to paint it as something that it is not.

 

[Shem Ben Noah]

You don't often leave Mother Church.
Even when I was a devout atheist I still had a C engraved on my heart.
Tom

I guess I'm unusual then... I left ASAP which was when I moved out of my parents house.
Forty years on, still no regrets on that, never looked back.

 

[Forever_Catholic]

Aren't you discarding the ecumenical councils a little too quickly in favour of establishing an unbroken continuum?

What ecumenical councils would that be? There has never been ordination in the Catholic Church other than as conferred by a Catholic Bishop through the Sacrament of Holy Orders. It has been the same laying on of hands procedure that Christ established for the apostles to ordain and transfer authority. There was never a question that the succession of bishops is an unbroken continuum.

And even apart from that formalisation, issues such as what constituted idolatry were actually major public talking points, with official doctrine changing based on church leadership.

Idolatry?

There are plenty of examples from later in church history, but I guess I'd be interested in your opinion on the church around the time of Constatine (give or take a century) initially.

My observations on that are very simple. Christianity was illegal in ancient Rome until the Edict of Toleration was issued by Emperor Galerius in 311. Prior to that time, Christians were heavily persecuted in Rome, as we all know, sometimes with extremely brutal and sadistic enthusiasm.

Under Constantine the Great, far greater progress was made on behalf of Christians. The Edict of Milan, issued in 313, went beyond the legalization of Christianity to require that Christians be treated with benevolence, and Constantine himself, who had converted in 312, was extraordinarily benevolent. He returned properties to Christians that had been confiscated by the state. He built churches and basilicas all over the empire. He even built the Church of the Holy Sepulchre over Christ’s tomb in Jerusalem, the most sacred place on earth to Christians. He permitted Christians to hold state positions to give them a role in Roman government. He actively and continuously supported, protected, and expanded the Church. He enabled and assisted it in evangelisation, systematically drawing pagans to the One True Faith until Rome was transformed into the first Christian nation.