How can you literally believe...

[SoldierofChrist]

I would like to add this as well:

This is an excerpt from a man named John Martignoni:

Challenge/Response/Strategy

Evidence for the Existence of God

Why are you here? That was the question that was asked in a video you watched last week...“Why are you here?” And it wasn’t asking about why are you here in this room, it was asking why are you here...on this earth? Why are you alive? Why do you exist?

Very good questions, especially since high school is the time that most folks start thinking about such things. High school was the time when I started thinking about those things: Why am I here? What is the meaning of life? Does my life have a purpose?

Now being in a Catholic religion class, you guys are undoubtedly aware that the correct answer to those questions - or at least the answer you’re expected to believe - has something to do with God. According to the Catholic Church, the correct answer is that I exist...the purpose of my existence...is to know, love, and serve God in this life so that I may be with Him forever in the next. Essentially, the Church teaches us, that we were made...to be with God.

Again, that’s what, as Catholics, we are supposed to believe. And, I hope you do believe that. But, here’s the thing, in order to believe that the purpose of your existence is for you to be with God in Heaven forever, you have to first believe...IN God, right? I mean, before I can come to the conclusion that the reason I exist is to be with God, I have to first believe IN God.

Here’s the thing - we know what we believe, or what we’re supposed to believe - that God exists - but do we know why we believe that? [Ask questions: Why do you believe in God? Can you give me a reason for why you think God exists? What does science tell us about the existence of God?]

Here’s the thing, though: I don’t want you to believe in God just because your parents told you God exists, or because your priest told you so, or because that’s what we tell you is so here in the parish religion class. I want you to believe it because you have thought this whole existence of God thing through and come to the conclusion that believing in God is actually the most reasonable and logical and intelligent position to hold.

You see, if you haven’t already run into folks who don’t believe in God, you will be doing so very soon - there may even be some of you who have questioned the existence of God. And those of you who are about to go off to college are going to be running into a lot of folks who don’t believe in God - and a good number of those people will be your professors. If you let it be known that you believe in God, you are going to be challenged by atheists, secular humanists, materialists, relativists, and many others on this whole question of whether or not God exists.

And, if you are not prepared to respond to the arguments they make, then you run a great risk of losing your faith, or, at the least, having your belief in God greatly diminished. So, what I want to do here today, and in our next meeting, is give you a few different reasons for believing in the existence of God. I want to give you reasons based on common sense, on logic, and, believe it or not, on science.

So, why should you believe in God? And I know there was some discussion last week about creation and evolution or Adam and Eve vs. evolution or something along those lines, right? Well, I might touch on some of that today, but if I don’t, then just know that the next time I’m here we will cover that topic in great depth. Just suffice it to say, for now, that as Catholics, we are allowed to believe in evolution - with a few caveats, but we are also allowed to not believe in evolution. In other words, for the Catholic, believing or not believing in evolution is not a matter of faith.

But, again, I’ll talk more about that later. Right now I want to go back farther than evolution. I want to start where you should always start...in the beginning. Genesis chapter 1, verse 1: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Here is the first reason I want you to ponder in regard to the question of God’s existence: Why is there something...rather than nothing? Think about that. Why is there something, instead of nothing?

This is a question that no atheist can answer. Ask an atheist: “Why is there something instead of nothing?” See what they say. “I don’t know.” Or, “Just because.” Or, “Well, there is no reason, it just randomly happened.” Or, I’ve had one tell me, “Because of the Big Bang.”

Do you know what the Big Bang Theory is? Who knows what the Big Bang Theory is - and I’m not talking about the TV show. The Big Bang Theory essentially states that all the matter and energy in the universe was once condensed into a tiny little point known as a singularity. In the first few moments of its existence, this singularity exploded - the Big Bang - and caused matter and energy to expand into what we now know as...the universe.

Here’s a quote from National Geographic about the Big Bang Theory:

Before the big bang, scientists believe, the entire vastness of the observable universe, including all of its matter and radiation, was compressed into a hot, dense mass just a few millimeters across. This nearly incomprehensible state is theorized to have existed for just a fraction of the first second of time.

Big bang proponents suggest that some 10 billion to 20 billion years ago, a massive blast allowed all the universe's known matter and energy—even space and time themselves—to spring from some ancient and unknown type of energy.

Well, what are the problems here for an atheist who thinks the Big Bang created the universe? National Geographic - a magazine of science - says that all the matter and energy of the universe existed BEFORE the Big Bang took place. Furthermore, National Geographic says that all matter and energy, and even time itself, sprang from “some ancient and unknown type of energy.” “Ancient and unknown” type of energy, huh? Isn’t that interesting? I wonder what that “ancient and unknown” type of energy could be?

Okay, so if anyone ever tells you the Big Bang has something to do with the creation of the universe, then you know that they don’t know what they’re talking about. You can correct them by telling them that the Big Bang has to do with the expansion of the universe, but not its creation. The Big Bang deals with pre-existing matter.

Alright, why is that important for our purposes? Because the atheist, the secular materialist, still has to answer the question: “Why is there something instead of nothing?” The theist - those who believe in God - has an answer to the question. The atheist does not. Where did matter come from and why? The atheist has no answer. Science has no answer.

Okay, so what does all this have to do with God? Well, I think you know what it has to do with God, but you have to make an atheist put the clues together. Think about this. And have any atheists you might know think about this: Can something create itself...yes or no? No, right? A rock can't create itself, a bird can't create itself, a tree can’t create itself, and so on. Which also means, big picture, that matter cannot create itself.

So, something other than matter, must bring matter into existence. So, the non-material must bring the material into existence. Makes sense, right? Also, from science, we know that every effect has a cause. Cause and effect. So, if we start tracing each effect to its cause, and keep going farther and farther back in time, we have two possibilities, either: 1) there is a series of causes and effects that stretches back for an infinite amount of time - no first cause, or no beginning, in other words; or 2) there is at some point in the series of causes and effects, an uncaused cause from which all cause and effect emanate. Something that did not come into existence, but that has always existed.

Something that is, in fact, existence itself, which brought the universe into existence. Out of those two choices, the first one is actually impossible [Expand on this with examples]. You know, through common sense, that everything has to have a beginning. Plus, the series of causes and effects cannot go back for an infinite amount of time, because that would mean that it would never have gotten to where we are. We would not exist. So, logic tells us that the universe was begun by a non-material uncaused cause. That is what we call God.

So far so good. What else do we know about the “something” that brought the universe into existence? Well, it cannot have a cause. If it had a cause, then we are stuck with the same problem already discussed - you cannot have an infinite regression of causes and effects because, being infinite, it would never have arrived at where we are, and thus we would not exist. So, the cause of the universe was itself, uncaused. The uncaused cause of which Aquinas, and Aristotle before him, spoke of.

Also, judging from the order we find everywhere in the universe, one can rightly speculate that this “something” is something which has an ordered nature. I would also claim that this “something” seems to possess an intelligence by which it ordered the material universe. Can one explain such precision in the laws of physics, chemistry, math, and so on as just blind chance? I guess you could, but from a statistical standpoint, what are the odds of that?

I mean think about it - a million monkeys sitting in front of a million keyboards, typing away for a million years would never reproduce a Shakespearean play; nor even a Shakespearean sonnet; and probably not even a single line of a Shakespearean play or sonnet. Yet, the tiniest cell of any plant or animal is more complex, more amazing, more glorious, and more incredible than the greatest of Shakespeare’s works - and folks want me to believe it came into being because of the blind laws of the blind universe that came into being by blind chance? Sorry, not buying it. Logic points to an intelligence behind the ordering of the universe.

What else? This “something” that created the universe is not subject to time. How so? Well, time is a function of the material universe. Therefore, this “something,” not being material, is not subject to time and, therefore, is infinite in time. This “something” also has to be very powerful - after all, it created the entire universe.

So, let’s put it all together: there is “something” that is non-material, and which existed before the material universe, that caused the material universe to be brought into being, and which itself does not have a cause. This “something” is not subject to time - it is infinite. It is most likely ordered, and most likely intelligent. And, one other thing then, if it is intelligent, it undoubtedly has a will as it would have made the conscious decision to bring the universe into existence.

This non-material, uncaused, exceedingly powerful, probably ordered and intelligent, infinite, cause that caused the universe to come into being - you call it what you want, I call it God.

 

[james bond]

For some Christians, it is the Birth, for it is the day the promised Messiah entered the world for some other Christians it is the day of the Resurrection, and for some others all holidays are blasphemous.

Actually, they just came to realize there actually were no such beings living on Mount Olympus, and they faded from the daily lives of the Greeks.

Yes, really. If you make a claim, no one has to disprove it because you have to prove it.

Yes, it is. And eventually it too will be shelved like Zues, Thor, Amaterasu, and Quetzalcoatl.

Yes. For me, Easter is more important. Who says holy days are blasphemous? If so, then they can come work for me on their holidays. I'll whip them into shape.

Yes. There was no Mt. Olympus at the time.

I can disprove things from making your claim. I think the Christianity has warranted enough merit that our top schools teach Christianity as philosophy (not the same as going to church and receiving sermon).

It hasn't for how many "millions" (sarcasm) of years now ha ha?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Who says holy days are blasphemous?

Actually, quiet a few have. Jehovah's Witnesses, Puritans, many Calvinists, there are plenty of denominations that say holidays are blasphemous.
I was home schooled, and church history was one of my subjects. Trust me when I say you don't want to play this game. You already "lost" just by claiming you could "show how little I know."

Yes. There was no Mt. Olympus at the time.

There was a Mount Olympus. It was eventually realized there is no one living on top of it.

I can disprove things from making your claim.

I didn't make any claims in regard to the death/resurrection of Christ. You have.

I think the Christianity has warranted enough merit that our top schools teach Christianity as philosophy

What merit?

It hasn't for how many "millions" (sarcasm) of years now ha ha?

It helps to have states to force it and a red boogeyman to scare people. But Christianity is in gradual yet steady decline, even in America.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

What ecumenical councils would that be?

Pretty much any of the earlier ones, but pethaps Nicea and Chalcedon as examples. Throw in Constance as a later interesting example.

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.

You can see the winners of the various disputes as universally the 'correct' choice. In that sense I could understand your view. But 'never been a question'? That’s hard to swallow.

Idolatry?

Yep. But I had mybtime periods wrong. my memory is a fairly poor record these days. Western and Eastern churches were well andctruly distinct.

In case you're interested...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Iconoclasm

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.

Roman persecution is an interesting (if morbid) topic. Looked at merely in terms of Christianity, I find it less interesting, but add in other Jewish sects and the context is interesting. Various Jewish revolts played a role in this.

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.

Indeed. His mother helped a lot. She had a knack for discovering holy relics and played a role in establishing eastern primacy, at least temporarily.

I'd see him as the single most influential person in the rise of the church (possibly excluding Jesus). Do you know much of him in secular terms?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Yes, it is. And eventually it too will be shelved like Zues, Thor, Amaterasu, and Quetzalcoatl.

Let's not be rude to those who worship them. They never went anywhere. Shintoism is one of Japan's main religions, for example.

 

[Forever_Catholic]

YOU may call him a crackpot heretic writing anti christian bs - but look - OTHER SCHOLARS there also agree with him dont they..?...You know - those without any RELIGIOUS BIAS looked at all this and THEY agree with the history that YOU alone cannot accept....

On matters of faith, you can find scholars who say whatever appeals to you, but there is only one truth. Who would I believe, writers such you have mentioned, or writers such as those who were chosen by Christ Himself? If you think that words of the apostles and their disciples (like Mark and Luke), as we know them are not true, then you have too little faith in our Lord. He explained how the truth would be preserved in his Church; that the Holy Spirit would always guide it, reminding us what Jesus taught, and that Jesus would also be with the Church until the end of time.

Even your Catholic religion itself fully admits its dubious origins - those other quotes I present come directly from the CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA itself...lol and they FULLY ADMIT as said first, there own ELDEST copies of canon date ONLY to the mid 4th century - it does NOT EXIST ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD BEFORE THIS TIME - and the CATHOLICS say they have the eldest anywhere and they ARE indeed mid 4th century....That Nicea meeting is when your bible is conceived and the process begins.....Further supporting evidence comes from the main man - aide to Constantine himself - given direct instructions how to proceed - and this man Eusibius, then records it all for us in his own words - hes not religious, no bias - and he tells us clearly what ACTUALLY happened and what Constantine ACTUALLY gave as instruction and reasons for this....It is as said - Constantine told HIM - a NONE BELIEVER - not "christian" at all - and had HIM pick and choose what this "religious truth" should now be....its a FARCE -a narrative cobbled together from all those hundreds of scared texts - pieced together by a group of scholars who had NO AFFILIATION to any religion involved - it was an exercise in "crowd control" - domination and nothing more and that intent was also clearly stated by Constantine - there shall be NO MORE WAR FOR RELIGIONS SAKE was HIS agenda - let it sink in..........

I didn't even try to find what you quoted as being from the Catholic Encyclopedia to see the context in which it appears, if it appears at all. Everything you're pushing is misinformation.

There is more than one Catholic Encyclopedia, but no encyclopedia is the voice or authority of the Church. If you want to know Catholic doctrine, then study the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is readily accessible online.

Or do as CHRIST ADVISED - seek the "narrow gate" which He said is found WITHIN the Self

Found within the self?! Did you make that up on your own or read it one of those books you study?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Let's not be rude to those who worship them. They never went anywhere. Shintoism is one of Japan's main religions, for example.

I'm not being rude, I'm being realistic. Globally, religion is in decline. Eventually, we are going to hit a point, collectively, were we realize there is no reconciling the god of Abraham with our daily lives. I have no doubts we will still have forms of spirituality and metaphysical approaches and answers, but every Evangelic that gives an LBGT youth nightmares of Hell and every Muslim radical that blows themselves and others up is making religion look less appealing every day, especially as we learn more and more about the the world, the universe, and ourselves.

 

[Forever_Catholic]

Roman Catholic means Roman Universal.

Coder, I've been meaning to point out that "Roman Catholic" is not an official term. It was never a term at all until about the time of Martin Luther (who may have invented it). Since then, it has been used by different people to mean different things. Here's a web page with some interesting info, if you're interested in looking at it.

http://religion.wikia.com/wiki/Roman_Catholic_(term)

The Catholic Church is not Roman. Jesus established it for the whole world, as we know. Rome has played a major role since the very beginning, of course, for better and for worse. Christ was crucified by Romans, and Christians were persecuted by them. Saint Peter, the visible head of the Church on earth, was the first Bishop of Rome, (which is why most successive popes have resided there).

Eventually, to God's glory, Rome became our Lord's first nation after he gave the commandment to "teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

"Roman Catholic" is a handy term to easily distinguish us from the Eastern Catholic Churches. Otherwise, it does not mean anything. Japanese Catholic, Nigerian Catholic, German Catholic, and every other Latin rite Catholic are the same Universal Church.

 

[Coder]

Hi,

"Roman Catholic" is a handy term to easily distinguish us from the Eastern Catholic Churches. Otherwise, it does not mean anything. Japanese Catholic, Nigerian Catholic, German Catholic, and every other Latin rite Catholic are the same Universal Church.

Yes, that makes sense, but using "Roman" as an adjective, they are "Roman" Catholic in that they share the original doctrines of the early church of the Roman Empire. In fact, you have a split with Orthodox including over a belief about authority and an aspect of the Trinity doctrine. An example of the insistence on "narrowness" that I am referring to, especially over a doctrine that I have provided evidence to show that it does not "fit" today due to its adaptations to other prior religious beliefs and a domineering Roman Empire. As I have also mentioned, I don't blame anyone for some compromise/adaptations under those circumstances, but today, we don't have to believe in an errant doctrine because of adaptations for other beliefs that no longer exist or were part of an empire that was domineering.

The Catholic Church is not Roman.

Not Roman any longer in geography of Roman Empire? Agreed. However, I'm referring to Roman in doctrine. I have shown why I think that the Catholic Church is adapted in doctrine to Roman beliefs and it was very much identified with the Roman Empire for many centuries (Holy Roman Empire, Roman Missal in worship). That's all understandable to some extent, but it's very hard for a huge church to correct doctrines and interpretations of Scripture whose purpose was originally to relate the truth about God to a huge and primarily Greek/Roman/pagan population and/or unite an empire.

Pope Francis: "Christian doctrine is not a closed system incapable of generating questions, doubts, interrogatives -- but is alive, knows being unsettled, ...., it has a soft flesh..."
https://www.ncronline.org/news/vati...cis-forcefully-tells-italian-church-gathering
Are you sure he's Catholic?

Rome became our Lord's first nation.

Christianity appears to have had a generally civilizing/moralizing effect including in the Roman Empire over the centuries and the Catholic Church has been a significant factor in that. There are some glaring exceptions in history that we all know about, including how our Jewish brothers and sisters have been treated which has been improved, thank God.

However, as far as the truth of Catholicism as a religion is concerned, based on my understandings of motivations of groups in the early Roman Empire including the Romans themselves, I even do wonder if Jesus may be a mythical figure or if Christianity is a compilation/promotion of multiple Jewish teachers/activists including St. Paul that was adapted to and accepted by the Roman Empire. I know you're tired of hearing about the Roman Empire, but I keep trying to tell you that "Roman" Catholicism is related to the Roman Empire. It's discussed in Christian Scriptures and I think some Scriptures have a Roman Empire "spin". Wouldn't it fit an Empire in opposition to Judaism to show Jewish men being told by their Messiah that He did not come to deal with Rome, render unto Caesar, and turn the other cheek? Wouldn't it fit an Empire in opposition to Judaism to show a Jewish zealot (Saul) being struck off a horse and then writing Scriptures that say to basically abandon Judaism and obey the Roman Empire and pay taxes? In Rome, public crucifixion was displayed as an example of what can happen if you cause too much trouble in the Empire. How do we know that some sociopathic Roman Emperor(s) liked and promoted the display of the symbol of the cross not so much for religious belief but because it served the purpose of a subtle (or not so subtle) reminder of what happens to people when they cause too much trouble in the Empire? To a Roman Emperor - "a religion with a symbol of what happens to a Jewish person if they cause trouble? - yes I'm in support of that". In traditional Christian doctrine/practice, there's just too much about it that plays into the hands of the Roman Empire to ignore (to me and many scholars/historians).

A good thing in traditional Christianity is what of Judaism (e.g. Ten Commandments) and Jewish wisdom is shining through, including in the honorable lives of so many Catholics and other Christians (like yourself, I'm sure). I am seeking to understand Christianity from the perspective of Jewish wisdom and faith and I have shown indications that the Catholic Church is doing the same to some extent.

God Bless

 

[Forever_Catholic]

Pope Francis: "Christian doctrine is not a closed system incapable of generating questions, doubts, interrogatives -- but is alive, knows being unsettled, ...., it has a soft flesh..."
https://www.ncronline.org/news/vati...cis-forcefully-tells-italian-church-gathering
Are you sure he's Catholic?

I'll say this: I miss Pope Benedict XVI.

 

[keiyhy58]

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.

 

[keiyhy58]

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.

 

[Forever_Catholic]

Indeed. His mother helped a lot. She had a knack for discovering holy relics and played a role in establishing eastern primacy, at least temporarily.

Yes, Helena -- she's among the saints in heaven also. It was his mother Helena, as I recall, who went to Jerusalem and led the actual work of verifying the location of Christ's tomb. It's interesting that she converted to Christianity before he did. I'd guess she must have had some influence on his conversion, but the great and final motivation was the vision and message written in the sky.

I'd see him as the single most influential person in the rise of the church (possibly excluding Jesus). Do you know much of him in secular terms?

That's funny, I was just pondering a similar thought before I saw your post. I see Constantine the same way.

I have researched him a bit as he relates to the Church, but never really studied his life in depth. Maybe you've motivated me now to do that. I have read that he was a very competent military leader and a skillful political leader as well.

Coins that were minted during his reign and afterwards included an image of the Chi-Rho, as on my avatar. Is it a monogram formed from the first two Greek letters in "Christ" (Kristos as transliterated). This is the symbol that he had all of his soldiers paint on their shields just prior to the battle of Milvian Bridge after he saw the vision of a Chi-Rho in the sky, or a cross in some accounts, with words written under it saying "With this sign you will be victorious." The message he saw was in Greek, which was the language of the Church at that time, and the Chi-Rho was a more common symbol of Christianity than the cross, which was offensive to many early Christians. In any case, his conversion to Christianity was immediate and permanent.

There was a dark period in his life involving his second wife, Fausta. According to one of varying accounts of a tragic situation, Fausta falsely accused Constatine's son Crispus, from his first marriage, of having seduced her, knowing that such an offense would have severe consequences for Crispus. She wanted him out of the way so that one of her own sons might have an opportunity for advancement in the Roman government that would otherwise be given to Crispus. Constatine had Crispus arrested at some place away from Rome where he had some sort of political position. -- Don't remember the specific details of what I read, and not gonna look it up right now -- Anyway, Constantine learned the truth, that Fausta had plotted against his son and made a false accusation. He sent an order to have Crispus freed, but it did not arrive in time to save him from being unjustly executed. Fausta was executed also for what she she had done.

One curious thing about Constantine is that even though he had become a committed and faithful Catholic, he put off being baptized until very late in life. Having learned that baptism wipes away all sin, he wanted to be as pure as possible at the time of his death.

 

[PeteC-UK]

Hi Folks..

ForeverCatholic; Ah my friend - just HOW can we show you the errors clearly..??... They really got you good didnt they..??.....Ok - lets see......

On matters of faith, you can find scholars who say whatever appeals to you, but there is only one truth.

yes that is so - but do you see the problems arise (for you) when you only allow those with a BIAS TOWARD YOUR RELIGION to give you that truth..??.. If you go look at other scholars who have no religious affiliation at all, and who just seek legitimate truth, then they will tell you very different indeed...

Who would I believe, writers such you have mentioned, or writers such as those who were chosen by Christ Himself?

Listen - just because your church authority TOLD you these were "chosen by Christ" doesn not make it so -and I have already PROVEN your premise to be absolutely false -for as said NONE of those religous leaders gathered together by Constantine, had ANY actual say as to what the new bible would contain.....The actual CONTENT of the new teastamant is picked, chosen and carefully EDITED to fit an agneda, and it WAS Constantines personal aide that did this as ordered...HE WAS NOT A CHRISTIAN and neither were his team of scholars who MANUFACTURED your "holy book"....NONE of them had any clue at all as to the truth of Christ...They were ROMAN MILITARY MEN with an agenda for "crowd control" and a major issue of civil unrest to quell - CLEARLY STATED that this was the intent and ONLY intent...

If you think that words of the apostles and their disciples (like Mark and Luke), as we know them are not true, then you have too little faith in our Lord.

lol....No disciple that is supposedly writing in the bible new testamant is ACTUALLY writing their at all..lol...That IS beyond any doubt whatsoever...The canon is not written by the disciples themselves or by ANYBODY who knew either them or Christ - that IS impossible for as proved already, the canon does not even exist until near 400 years after they have all doed....lol.... Look - I do hate to do this - but here -I will show you BIBLE scripture itself that absolutely proves Iam correct and will show you clearly and undeniably that it is not the disciple himself writing and can NOT be....LOOK - here first then is your CANON Mark - look closely..

The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah,a]">[a] the Son of God,b]">[b] 2 as it is written in Isaiah the prophet:

OK - so take note -THERE IS NO CLAIM OF AUTHORSHIP !!! And that applies ot ALL the canon -NO AUTHORS CLAIM THEIR BOOKS !!! It does not even state who is writing does it..??...It certainly DOES NOT SAY IT IS MARK - does it..????....That si because indeed it IS NOT MARK WRITING - not at all ....This person writing here is an unknown scholar - one of Eusibius team of scholars...It doesnt even pretend to be Mark...lol.....All the way through it is written in the 3rd person perspective - and then right at the end we see clearly it is not Mark or ANY disciple writing and there is clear admission that this is so...LOOK :

After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God. 20 Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it.

The writer here is NOT AMONG THE DISCIPLES !! he says THEY went out to preach as instructed...NOT I - the writer does not say "I went out as instructed" - does he..?...NO - but clearly -THEY the disciples went preaching - this writer here DID NOT and that is because this writer is NOT one of the disciples !!! Similarly, it says the Lord worked with THEM - but again it does not say the Lord worked with "me" - does it..??...So again we see THIS writer was not even among the group that the Lord "worked with" - and again this is clearly because this writer here is NOT ONE OF THE DISCIPLES and by his own words all the way through we see it clearly and undeniably....The writer here does not even claim to be Mark at all - at no place - and yet your church authority tries to pass this off ad authentic first hand account which it clearly is NOT and that is beyond logical dispute.....More such proof is available Im sure - lets go look at your other example - Luke, shall we..??...

1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilleda]">[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.

OH LOOK - this is even MORE clear and precise - most damning to your position here - as this author also is clearly NOT the disciple Luke that is claimed to be....See this author also say right up front that he is NOT Luke is NOT a disciple at all and that these things he now records - look closely - WERE HANDED DOWN TO HIM from the beginning - in succession, started by others who he takes to be the legitimate eye witnesses...THIS AUTHOR is NOT an eye witness at all to either Christ or disciple - clearly stated and undeniable..That is because again THIS author here is another scribe from Eusibius team and this canon version is being manufactured here - he is ACTUALLY writing here - like 350 years AFTER the events - hence the author here says explicitly this has been "handed down" to him.....Do try to let it sink in - and perhaps admit finally - you have been fully deceived by your "catholic authority"....

Still need proof..??...OK - lets fast forward then to the end of this canon Luke - to see yet another clear and unmistakable admission that this is not, can not be the disciple Luke - again read it properly and it will become undeniably clear :

50 When he had led them out to the vicinity of Bethany, he lifted up his hands and blessed them. 51 While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into heaven. 52 Then they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy. 53 And they stayed continually at the temple, praising God.

Ok - it says when Christ led THEM to Bethany - yes..??....the author here writing is NOT AMONG THEM - it does not say "Christ led US" - it does NOT say "Christ led ME" - it does CLEARLY say though HE led THEM - and that tells us beyond any logical doubt - once again -THIS author is not even present as this happens... it says Christ blessed THEM - but this author received no such blessing did he..?..he doesnt claim it - doesnt say "Christ blessed US " - doesnt say "Christ blessed ME" - and again we see this author received no such blessing at all and that is because THIS author WAS NOT EVEN PRESENT and is not the disciple Luke... Likewise the legitimate disciples it says then went on to Jerusalem and the temple - but again we see THIS author was not among THEM as he himself states clearly... The author does NOT claim to go to Jerusalem with the disciples - does NOT say "WE went" - does not say "I went" - but again clearly states THEY went and so we see again no way is THIS author among the group of disciples.....Now I could show you also the other canon so called disciple gospels - but Im afraid you would just be seeing more of the same lies deception and twisting of truth...NONE OF THEM are written BY the disciples directly - and every avenue we explore leads firmly to that conclusion alone...Sorry my friend - but they HAVE DECEIVED YOU and still continue to do so even to this day....

You say I have "little faith in our Lord" - but I will just tell you blatantly I know Him intimately in a way that the religon can never give you I and trust HIM fully because of those personal encounters - what I do not trust though is the man made confusion that was done on purpose to us , indeed, just as Christ Himself repeatedly warned WOULD be done...I could say, and it would seem to be entirely true - that it is YOU who have little faith in Our Lord - and that is because you now blindly follow MAN - blindly follow the BLIND again , just as He warned...

 

[Ordinary Bloke]

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.

Hi There, your description above was pretty much my starting point years ago. The bit that perplexed me was that as you say "how can you believe...."....when you look around the planet, an awful lot of pretty sane and ordinary people do believe, and that made me scratch my head. There was enough of me that thought for one minute, burning bushes, parting seas etc....if this stuff was all real, even if there's only a small chance it's pretty big news, so I really should investigate further. Then I spent years researching historical records and data, science presented by both athiests and theists to try an understand why people do believe it. When you actually start to ask serious questions and look at whats available, versus just going by the media or what you find on line one of as google search....it became mind blowing and my previous belief systems all started to crumble. There is too much to even begin to list what I've found....but even looking at the big bang.....everybody, athiests and theists alike now agree that the universe started from nothing with a large explosion around 13.7Bn years ago to produce the universe we live in today.....at no other time in known history has 'something' been made out of 'nothing'.....or on top of that, something living been created out of non living matter. On top of that, look at what now exists, the order in the universe and on this planet is of unbelievable complexity and order....the anology is often given that if you drop a bomb on a scrap yard, you wouldn't expect to get a fully assembled boeing 747, right! Anyway, my brief conclusion for you is that when you start to peice together actuall historical records, scientific facts and finally the experiences reported by millions of bible believing Christians, there is an undeniable coherence that just doesn't exist with any other world view I could see or find....just saying

 

[Robert Landbeck]

Can they be both literal and metaphorical? For example, The Resurrection as event might be considered God's unambiguous demonstration of His intention to intervene into the natural world for those obedient to divine will. As metaphor, it would represent out our own return, the 'rising up' from our 'fallen' state. One that takes a direct intervention to confirm the covenant between God an man. That existing tradition cannot offer a path to a direct and unambiguous experience of transcendent power may simply means they have nothing to do with God? That true religion has yet to begin!

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.

 

[Mary Blackchurch]

Hi Folks..



lol - wait - let me stop laughing....Ok thats better..lol..Look - it practically IS the "biggest thing in the world".. 2000 years later and the world is still debating it arguing it fighting over it none stop...probably will be for a long itme to come....lol..NOTHING in our entire history has affected the world more than this one event....


BUT - I assure you (all) - encounter your actual nature - in the way Christ alone revealed - and as He promises all these mysteries will indeed be DIRECTLY revealed to you

Mohammed and the Hadith are also mulled over after 1500 years. Islam is the fastest growing religion. So what?
Thanks for the assurance.

Medical scientists have been teaching cancer patients to you use their mind to help fight the disease for a very long time - particularly with children who are inflicted. Studies have shown the mind to be very powerful when it comes to healing. It's scientific (as we are all stardust) and since it's happened many times, it's not a miracle. It's just a really good "trick."

 

[Coder]

...CONTENT of the new testament is...EDITED to fit an agenda, ....ROMAN ...with an agenda for "crowd control" and a major issue of civil unrest to quell...

Yes, I think there were aspects like that involved. God gives truth. Men (especially those in political/religious power) can sometimes tend towards deception/dishonesty. I'm just trying to figure out to what extent such aspects were involved.

 

[viole]

I would like to add this as well:

This is an excerpt from a man named John Martignoni:

Challenge/Response/Strategy

Evidence for the Existence of God

Why are you here? That was the question that was asked in a video you watched last week...“Why are you here?” And it wasn’t asking about why are you here in this room, it was asking why are you here...on this earth? Why are you alive? Why do you exist?

Very good questions, especially since high school is the time that most folks start thinking about such things. High school was the time when I started thinking about those things: Why am I here? What is the meaning of life? Does my life have a purpose?

Now being in a Catholic religion class, you guys are undoubtedly aware that the correct answer to those questions - or at least the answer you’re expected to believe - has something to do with God. According to the Catholic Church, the correct answer is that I exist...the purpose of my existence...is to know, love, and serve God in this life so that I may be with Him forever in the next. Essentially, the Church teaches us, that we were made...to be with God.

Again, that’s what, as Catholics, we are supposed to believe. And, I hope you do believe that. But, here’s the thing, in order to believe that the purpose of your existence is for you to be with God in Heaven forever, you have to first believe...IN God, right? I mean, before I can come to the conclusion that the reason I exist is to be with God, I have to first believe IN God.

Here’s the thing - we know what we believe, or what we’re supposed to believe - that God exists - but do we know why we believe that? [Ask questions: Why do you believe in God? Can you give me a reason for why you think God exists? What does science tell us about the existence of God?]

Here’s the thing, though: I don’t want you to believe in God just because your parents told you God exists, or because your priest told you so, or because that’s what we tell you is so here in the parish religion class. I want you to believe it because you have thought this whole existence of God thing through and come to the conclusion that believing in God is actually the most reasonable and logical and intelligent position to hold.

You see, if you haven’t already run into folks who don’t believe in God, you will be doing so very soon - there may even be some of you who have questioned the existence of God. And those of you who are about to go off to college are going to be running into a lot of folks who don’t believe in God - and a good number of those people will be your professors. If you let it be known that you believe in God, you are going to be challenged by atheists, secular humanists, materialists, relativists, and many others on this whole question of whether or not God exists.

And, if you are not prepared to respond to the arguments they make, then you run a great risk of losing your faith, or, at the least, having your belief in God greatly diminished. So, what I want to do here today, and in our next meeting, is give you a few different reasons for believing in the existence of God. I want to give you reasons based on common sense, on logic, and, believe it or not, on science.

So, why should you believe in God? And I know there was some discussion last week about creation and evolution or Adam and Eve vs. evolution or something along those lines, right? Well, I might touch on some of that today, but if I don’t, then just know that the next time I’m here we will cover that topic in great depth. Just suffice it to say, for now, that as Catholics, we are allowed to believe in evolution - with a few caveats, but we are also allowed to not believe in evolution. In other words, for the Catholic, believing or not believing in evolution is not a matter of faith.

But, again, I’ll talk more about that later. Right now I want to go back farther than evolution. I want to start where you should always start...in the beginning. Genesis chapter 1, verse 1: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Here is the first reason I want you to ponder in regard to the question of God’s existence: Why is there something...rather than nothing? Think about that. Why is there something, instead of nothing?

This is a question that no atheist can answer. Ask an atheist: “Why is there something instead of nothing?” See what they say. “I don’t know.” Or, “Just because.” Or, “Well, there is no reason, it just randomly happened.” Or, I’ve had one tell me, “Because of the Big Bang.”

Do you know what the Big Bang Theory is? Who knows what the Big Bang Theory is - and I’m not talking about the TV show. The Big Bang Theory essentially states that all the matter and energy in the universe was once condensed into a tiny little point known as a singularity. In the first few moments of its existence, this singularity exploded - the Big Bang - and caused matter and energy to expand into what we now know as...the universe.

Here’s a quote from National Geographic about the Big Bang Theory:

Before the big bang, scientists believe, the entire vastness of the observable universe, including all of its matter and radiation, was compressed into a hot, dense mass just a few millimeters across. This nearly incomprehensible state is theorized to have existed for just a fraction of the first second of time.

Big bang proponents suggest that some 10 billion to 20 billion years ago, a massive blast allowed all the universe's known matter and energy—even space and time themselves—to spring from some ancient and unknown type of energy.

Well, what are the problems here for an atheist who thinks the Big Bang created the universe? National Geographic - a magazine of science - says that all the matter and energy of the universe existed BEFORE the Big Bang took place. Furthermore, National Geographic says that all matter and energy, and even time itself, sprang from “some ancient and unknown type of energy.” “Ancient and unknown” type of energy, huh? Isn’t that interesting? I wonder what that “ancient and unknown” type of energy could be?

Okay, so if anyone ever tells you the Big Bang has something to do with the creation of the universe, then you know that they don’t know what they’re talking about. You can correct them by telling them that the Big Bang has to do with the expansion of the universe, but not its creation. The Big Bang deals with pre-existing matter.

Alright, why is that important for our purposes? Because the atheist, the secular materialist, still has to answer the question: “Why is there something instead of nothing?” The theist - those who believe in God - has an answer to the question. The atheist does not. Where did matter come from and why? The atheist has no answer. Science has no answer.

Okay, so what does all this have to do with God? Well, I think you know what it has to do with God, but you have to make an atheist put the clues together. Think about this. And have any atheists you might know think about this: Can something create itself...yes or no? No, right? A rock can't create itself, a bird can't create itself, a tree can’t create itself, and so on. Which also means, big picture, that matter cannot create itself.

So, something other than matter, must bring matter into existence. So, the non-material must bring the material into existence. Makes sense, right? Also, from science, we know that every effect has a cause. Cause and effect. So, if we start tracing each effect to its cause, and keep going farther and farther back in time, we have two possibilities, either: 1) there is a series of causes and effects that stretches back for an infinite amount of time - no first cause, or no beginning, in other words; or 2) there is at some point in the series of causes and effects, an uncaused cause from which all cause and effect emanate. Something that did not come into existence, but that has always existed.

Something that is, in fact, existence itself, which brought the universe into existence. Out of those two choices, the first one is actually impossible [Expand on this with examples]. You know, through common sense, that everything has to have a beginning. Plus, the series of causes and effects cannot go back for an infinite amount of time, because that would mean that it would never have gotten to where we are. We would not exist. So, logic tells us that the universe was begun by a non-material uncaused cause. That is what we call God.

So far so good. What else do we know about the “something” that brought the universe into existence? Well, it cannot have a cause. If it had a cause, then we are stuck with the same problem already discussed - you cannot have an infinite regression of causes and effects because, being infinite, it would never have arrived at where we are, and thus we would not exist. So, the cause of the universe was itself, uncaused. The uncaused cause of which Aquinas, and Aristotle before him, spoke of.

Also, judging from the order we find everywhere in the universe, one can rightly speculate that this “something” is something which has an ordered nature. I would also claim that this “something” seems to possess an intelligence by which it ordered the material universe. Can one explain such precision in the laws of physics, chemistry, math, and so on as just blind chance? I guess you could, but from a statistical standpoint, what are the odds of that?

I mean think about it - a million monkeys sitting in front of a million keyboards, typing away for a million years would never reproduce a Shakespearean play; nor even a Shakespearean sonnet; and probably not even a single line of a Shakespearean play or sonnet. Yet, the tiniest cell of any plant or animal is more complex, more amazing, more glorious, and more incredible than the greatest of Shakespeare’s works - and folks want me to believe it came into being because of the blind laws of the blind universe that came into being by blind chance? Sorry, not buying it. Logic points to an intelligence behind the ordering of the universe.

What else? This “something” that created the universe is not subject to time. How so? Well, time is a function of the material universe. Therefore, this “something,” not being material, is not subject to time and, therefore, is infinite in time. This “something” also has to be very powerful - after all, it created the entire universe.

So, let’s put it all together: there is “something” that is non-material, and which existed before the material universe, that caused the material universe to be brought into being, and which itself does not have a cause. This “something” is not subject to time - it is infinite. It is most likely ordered, and most likely intelligent. And, one other thing then, if it is intelligent, it undoubtedly has a will as it would have made the conscious decision to bring the universe into existence.

This non-material, uncaused, exceedingly powerful, probably ordered and intelligent, infinite, cause that caused the universe to come into being - you call it what you want, I call it God.

I am sorry, this a very long post. In which God do you believe exactly? I just managed to read that you do not get it from your family or priests, so who is Him for you? Someone like a God we never heard of?

Ciao

- viole

 

[SoldierofChrist]

I am sorry, this a very long post. In which God do you believe exactly? I just managed to read that you do not get it from your family or priests, so who is Him for you? Someone like a God we never heard of?

Ciao

- viole

I assume you didn't see that this was an excerpt from a man named John Martignoni; not me. But, in so being, I whole-heartily agree with him. Who's the God I believe in? The only one who ever actually both claimed and demonstrated and form of God-hood; Jesus Christ. No other religions even attempt to make either claim. Buddha said; "I have found a way, let me show you." And Mohammed said; "I am merely a messenger." But Jesus said; "I AM the Way, the Truth and the Life." Pretty bold claim there, I don't hear anyone else in any other religions making it. Also, He proved his God-hood through His miracles and Resurrection. If you would like to see the argument I made for said Resurrection, look back a page or so. And know this; just because there are alot of ideas if God, doesn't mean that He does not in fact exist. On the contrary, it only helps prove his existence, because it shows how humanity has an innate idea of God imbedded within us that we seek validation for.