A challenge for all

[planten]

This point has been raised before, and never really answered. Paar points out that they deserted him, but he does not say that they came back!! From what I have seen, Muslims stop the story where they want it to end, not where it actually ends.

I keep thinking about the words of the High Priest in Acts. He mentions that if this new faith (Christianity) is of men, it would vanish, but if it is from God, they should be careful lest they end up fighting God

**The above words of the high priest are very good. The new faith(Christianity) was not of men. It was from God. That is why it did not vanish. It was from God that is why they kept going and won the battle after about 300 years.

Same is the case of Islam. It did not take 300 years to show its signs that it is from God. Within 30 years it was well established faith in the world. Thanks for quoting the wise words of the high priest.

The question of Marco polo is a multiple question. It should be broken down into sections. May be there are more than one question in one sentence. We Muslims believe that the disciples were steadfast and they openly supported Jesus in word and deed. But the bible presents a very poor picture of them, deserting Jesus.
**

 

[De_Maria]

The above words of the high priest are very good. The new faith(Christianity) was not of men. It was from God. That is why it did not vanish. It was from God that is why they kept going and won the battle after about 300 years.

**

And still going strong in the Catholic Church.

Same is the case of Islam.

**Not true. True Islam no longer exists. There are variants of Islam in every country, but each country interprets the Quran as it wants. There is no Magisterium. The Prophet died and with him true Islam.

It did not take 300 years to show its signs that it is from God. Within 30 years it was well established faith in the world. Thanks for quoting the wise words of the high priest.

Certainly, people who call themselves Muslim who did their best to follow the Quran came to power. But this was not the Islam of the Prophet. In fact, that Islam is gone.

The question of Marco polo is a multiple question. It should be broken down into sections. May be there are more than one question in one sentence. We Muslims believe that the disciples were steadfast and they openly supported Jesus in word and deed. But the bible presents a very poor picture of them, deserting Jesus.

But they came back. Again, Islam tries to reinvent Christianity. Essentially rewriting our history and our Scriptures.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[ralphinal]

**The above words of the high priest are very good. The new faith(Christianity) was not of men. It was from God. That is why it did not vanish. It was from God that is why they kept going and won the battle after about 300 years.

Same is the case of Islam. It did not take 300 years to show its signs that it is from God. Within 30 years it was well established faith in the world. Thanks for quoting the wise words of the high priest.

The question of Marco polo is a multiple question. It should be broken down into sections. May be there are more than one question in one sentence. We Muslims believe that the disciples were steadfast and they openly supported Jesus in word and deed. But the bible presents a very poor picture of them, deserting Jesus.
**

If Islam is a true religion, why not allow missionaries into the Muslim lands ot preach other faiths? Why not allow Chrisitans to practice freely and openly? Why not allow Muslims ot convert?

 

[Ravyn_Guiliani]

is there any secular or historical evidence that any of the apostles ever really lived? (I am sincerely asking.)
If someone asked me this I would not know how to answer.

 

[planten]

If Islam is a true religion, why not allow missionaries into the Muslim lands ot preach other faiths? Why not allow Chrisitans to practice freely and openly? Why not allow Muslims ot convert?

**As far as I am concernd, you are welcome to preach to me any where. But remember the amount of denial and abuse of our religion is too much in the christians. That is not preaching. Abusing and calling bad names is not preaching. That cannot be allowed to any one.

We have to see some reasonable preaching here on this net without abuse. Then the christians will be entitled to do any preaching in other places. If you have anything good about your religion or something about my religion, you are welcome to ask about it.

Peaceful preaching should be allowed. But problem of the christians, so many sects and some have almost become atheists, they abuse the name of our religion and our prophet for some reason or other. That is not preaching. They should just remain to their own religion and should point out the good things of the bible to us. That would be good.**

 

[De_Maria]

is there any secular or historical evidence that any of the apostles ever really lived? (I am sincerely asking.)
If someone asked me this I would not know how to answer.

Sure. A bunch. They built churches, communities, we have their remains and people wrote about them. AND we have the Bible. But the problem is the way they phrase the question.

By asking for secular evidence, they mean to eliminate anything related to “religious” information. But religious information is eminently factual. It is in fact, more trustworthy than secular information. And it has been proven that the BIBLE is the most accurate historical book ever written.

Therefore, when asked the question I always answer, “Sure, we have the Bible which gives the testimony of the four eyewitnesses who lived side by side with Jesus. We have the buildings and communities they built. We have the Church. And we have the writings of the Fathers.”

If they retort, “well that’s all religious!” “Well” I answer, “do you doubt that Philo existed? All we have is his own writings, in fact, that is the case for most first century personages. Why do you hold the Apostles to impossible standards which no other people of the first century can meet?”

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[CTA1967]

Sure. A bunch. They built churches, communities, we have their remains and people wrote about them. AND we have the Bible. But the problem is the way they phrase the question.

By asking for secular evidence, they mean to eliminate anything related to “religious” information. But religious information is eminently factual. It is in fact, more trustworthy than secular information. And it has been proven that the BIBLE is the most accurate historical book ever written.

Therefore, when asked the question I always answer, “Sure, we have the Bible which gives the testimony of the four eyewitnesses who lived side by side with Jesus. We have the buildings and communities they built. We have the Church. And we have the writings of the Fathers.”

If they retort, “well that’s all religious!” “Well” I answer, “do you doubt that Philo existed? All we have is his own writings, in fact, that is the case for most first century personages. Why do you hold the Apostles to impossible standards which no other people of the first century can meet?”

Sincerely,

De Maria

In addition, there is a Catholic Answers article that addresses part of this issue: catholic.com/library/Was_Peter_in_Rome.asp

 

[De_Maria]

**As far as I am concernd, you are welcome to preach to me any where. **…

You are alone amongst Muslims. All Muslim nations of which I’m aware forbid the teaching of any religion save Islam.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[Ravyn_Guiliani]

Sure. A bunch. They built churches, communities, we have their remains and people wrote about them. AND we have the Bible. But the problem is the way they phrase the question.

By asking for secular evidence, they mean to eliminate anything related to “religious” information. But religious information is eminently factual. It is in fact, more trustworthy than secular information. And it has been proven that the BIBLE is the most accurate historical book ever written.

Therefore, when asked the question I always answer, “Sure, we have the Bible which gives the testimony of the four eyewitnesses who lived side by side with Jesus. We have the buildings and communities they built. We have the Church. And we have the writings of the Fathers.”

If they retort, “well that’s all religious!” “Well” I answer, “do you doubt that Philo existed? All we have is his own writings, in fact, that is the case for most first century personages. Why do you hold the Apostles to impossible standards which no other people of the first century can meet?”

Sincerely,

De Maria

sigh. so then your answer is ‘no’- there is no secular/non-religious evidence? your answer can satisfy a Christian but not a non-Christian who gives no authority to your sources. This is exactly what the OP was asking in the first place.

I have many non-Christian friends and I find them impossible to answer without Bible or Church. The Apostles are held to higher standards because it is thru the Apostles that One True religion is being claimed. Your average first century Joe-Schmoe never claimed to have the only salvation available to mankind.

 

[De_Maria]

sigh. so then your answer is ‘no’- there is no secular/non-religious evidence?

No. My answer is that secular people label all objective evidence having to do with religious subjects as religious in order to discount them.

your answer can satisfy a Christian but not a non-Christian who gives no authority to your sources. This is exactly what the OP was asking in the first place.

Non-Christian does not mean unreasonable. If you explain to non-Christians that it is unreasonable to label all evidence having to do with religious subjects as “religious” and therefore subjective and untrustworthy.

I have many non-Christian friends and I find them impossible to answer without Bible or Church.

Then try history and science.

The Apostles are held to higher standards because it is thru the Apostles that One True religion is being claimed. Your average first century Joe-Schmoe never claimed to have the only salvation available to mankind.

The first step is to teach them that the Apostles were average Joe Schmoes who were given and extraordinary mission.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[Ravyn_Guiliani]

Then try history and science.
De Maria

that’s what I was asking for. Where is the history and science to prove the Apostles even existed?
I understand what you are saying but I have already used those arguments and they do not work with people who have completely rejected the Bible and the Church. The OP’s original ?? was how to prove a Holy Book is telling the truth without using the Holy Book to do it. I do not believe it is possible. Faith has to be cultivated first. Without faith it is impossible to prove.

 

[paarsurrey]

that’s what I was asking for. Where is the history and science to prove the Apostles even existed?

Hi

Maybe she means the religious history written by theologians for Catholicism; that might be much different of what the secular/independent historians would write.

Thanks

 

[De_Maria]

that’s what I was asking for. Where is the history and science to prove the Apostles even existed?

Here’s an example:
allaboutjesuschrist.org/history-of-the-apostles-faq.htm

But the Apostles built churches, communities, traveled to many lands and most of these travels can be documented OUTSIDE the Bible.

I understand what you are saying but I have already used those arguments and they do not work with people who have completely rejected the Bible and the Church.

Then why do you continue speaking to them? There is such a thing a free will. If they refuse to acknowledge truth in one form, they will refuse to acknowledge it in another. It is their right to do so. Even God does not coerce free will.

The OP’s original ?? was how to prove a Holy Book is telling the truth without using the Holy Book to do it. I do not believe it is possible.

Neither do I. Did you read my posts? You must be able to read the document any document to verify its veracity. If someone makes a claim of Divine origins for a book, then we must be permitted to compare the contents of that book to the verifiable facts and truth.

Jblake made an excellent post on the matter:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3131919&postcount=126

Faith has to be cultivated first. Without faith it is impossible to prove.

I agree.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[Ravyn_Guiliani]

But the Apostles built churches, communities, traveled to many lands and most of these travels can be documented OUTSIDE the Bible.
De Maria

where? you keep saying it but all the references you give use religious sources.

 

[De_Maria]

where? you keep saying it but all the references you give use religious sources.

In your previous message to me, you said:
I understand what you are sayingbut I have already used those arguments and they do not work with people who have completely rejected the Bible and the Church.

That is all I care about.

If you have some need to persuade unreasonable people who will not be persuaded no matter what you say, I’ll repeat Christ’s admonition:

*Matthew 7

• 6 Give not that which is holy to dogs; neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest perhaps they trample them under their feet, and turning upon you, they tear you.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[Ravyn_Guiliani]

forget it De Maria you will never get it that there are lots of other people in the world who do not give flying rat’s ptooey about the Bible’s or Christianity’s inherent authority.

You answered the OP’s question beautifully. But the answer is not what you might think it is. And I do not appreciate you calling my friends swine. It is this arrogance of Christianity that has turned them off all things supposedly sacred. Perhaps a specific course in apologetics targeted to non believers would be in order. Faith is not an automatic given among humans. It is a gift of God—what happens if God does not give this gift to everyone? (And obviously He does NOT or else the whole world would be Catholic…)

So I am assuming that the other Holy Books do not have any objective secular proof either?

Then we all need to pray for a big dose of faith in the world!

 

[De_Maria]

forget it De Maria you will never get it that there are lots of other people in the world who do not give flying rat’s ptooey about the Bible’s or Christianity’s inherent authority.

It is you who doesn’t get it. There are people in this world who keep charging that we Christians claim some sort of inherent authority in order to obfuscate the truth. The truth being that our evidence is just as objective and factual as any which they present.

You answered the OP’s question beautifully.

Thank you.

But the answer is not what you might think it is. And I do not appreciate you calling my friends swine.

You never said they were your friends. You described people who unreasonably rejected any evidence presented by believers. The verse presented is precisely about people who do not want your pearls of faith. If you believe your friends fit that description it is you who have made the association, not me. I don’t even know them.

It is this arrogance of Christianity that has turned them off all things supposedly sacred.

Not so. It is their own pride and arrogance which has turned them against anything that disagrees with their worldview.

Perhaps a specific course in apologetics targeted to non believers would be in order.

There are many. And because I was an unbeliever for at least 15 years, I believe I have the lodown on the matter. When I was an atheist the last thing I wanted was somebody pushing their faith on me. If any of my friends thought they were doing me a favor by doing so, I quickly lost them.

The only evangelizing I appreciated was evangelizing by example. My conversion of heart, as far as I know was directly by God. One day I was atheist, the next I knew that God existed.

Faith is not an automatic given among humans. It is a gift of God—what happens if God does not give this gift to everyone? (And obviously He does NOT or else the whole world would be Catholic…)

You just hit upon it. Yet you seem to want to force your FRIENDS to believe as you do. Even God honors people’s free will. You should also.

And apparently now, you want to take your frustrating failures out on me. Sorry, I have nothing to do with your friends being atheist and neither do you. You want to be their friend? Respect their free will. If they ask you for your reasons for hope. Tell them gently. If they don’t honor or respect your ideas, then they aren’t very good friends.

So I am assuming that the other Holy Books do not have any objective secular proof either?

There is a great deal of objective proof in the Bible and in history. If you and your friends don’t want to recognize that FACT, that is your problem.

Then we all need to pray for a big dose of faith in the world!

The one thing you’ve said that makes sense. Yes. A great deal of prayer.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[Mr.Bee]

:banghead:

Okay okay… I’m not sure how to say this, so I’ll come right out and say it.

I personally would really love for somebody to show me concrete evidence, irrefutable proof for the existance if Jesus. But there isn’t any. I wish there was.

I read that “Case for Christ” book. I wasn’t convinced, (much to the disappointment of my wife) It’s all heresay.

We all seem to be a little sensitive about the whole evidence issue, which make me wonder…

But there isn’t any. It’s all gone. Dust. There wasn’t any forensic science back then, They didn’t have video phones, there was no internet 2000 years ago. They don’t get the news accurate NOW, what makes anyone think they were better at it back then?

Or, maybe the whole point is we’re not supposed to base our faith on physical evidence, and books that have been translated and interpreted to the point of absurdity.

Have I missed something??

 

[porkscratchings]

Mr. Bee - u haven’t missed anything:thumbsup: It’s just that the religious types don’t have any external way of verifying the truth of their scriptures.

Anyways,

I thought i’d repeat my post from another thread -

I don’t think u’ve missed anything here:thumbsup:

God does not exist because:

1. While science can show that there are patterns in the universe - fibonacci sequences in plants, laws of physics etc. none of this proves that this occurs as part of creation, nor that there is a creator.
2. There are many holy books that claim to come from God, despite it being pretty obvious these originate from a specific time period dealing with specific issues within a specific community. If there’s a God, why would he concern himself with minor matters of a small group of Jews? Also - which of these books should we accept as God’s word? And why doesn’t God let the world know which of these books he actually wrote/inspired so we can end the confusion?
3. Prophecy is coming true is not proof of God. Most holy books use circular reasoning - they make a prophecy and then interpret it later on to show that it came true. As with the case of the Nostradamus predictions, people usually pick an event and make it fit the prophecy or vice versa. This means than any prophecy can be made to seem as if they have come true many years down the line. Nostradamus predicted Hitler - I don’t think so.

point 2 and 3 is relevant to this thread.

Addendum to point 2 - there is a lack of external evidence (evidence not connected to the religion in question in any way) to prove the claims of miracles and God’s actions cited in the holy texts.

I do not believe in God or claims of any holy book (they’re all the same to me). To convert me, it is necessary for any theist to prove there is a God, not for me to prove to them there isn’t a God. After all, if I had sufficient proof that God exists, I wouldn’t be an atheist.

This goes for claims that the Bible/Koran contains God’s revelation for mankind.

 

[Mr.Bee]

Mr. Bee - u haven’t missed anything:thumbsup: It’s just that the religious types don’t have any external way of verifying the truth of their scriptures.

Anyways,

I thought i’d repeat my post from another thread -

I don’t think u’ve missed anything here:thumbsup:

God does not exist because:

1. While science can show that there are patterns in the universe - fibonacci sequences in plants, laws of physics etc. none of this proves that this occurs as part of creation, nor that there is a creator.
2. There are many holy books that claim to come from God, despite it being pretty obvious these originate from a specific time period dealing with specific issues within a specific community. If there’s a God, why would he concern himself with minor matters of a small group of Jews? Also - which of these books should we accept as God’s word? And why doesn’t God let the world know which of these books he actually wrote/inspired so we can end the confusion?
3. Prophecy is coming true is not proof of God. Most holy books use circular reasoning - they make a prophecy and then interpret it later on to show that it came true. As with the case of the Nostradamus predictions, people usually pick an event and make it fit the prophecy or vice versa. This means than any prophecy can be made to seem as if they have come true many years down the line. Nostradamus predicted Hitler - I don’t think so.

point 2 and 3 is relevant to this thread.

Addendum to point 2 - there is a lack of external evidence (evidence not connected to the religion in question in any way) to prove the claims of miracles and God’s actions cited in the holy texts.

I do not believe in God or claims of any holy book (they’re all the same to me). To convert me, it is necessary for any theist to prove there is a God, not for me to prove to them there isn’t a God. After all, if I had sufficient proof that God exists, I wouldn’t be an atheist.

This goes for claims that the Bible/Koran contains God’s revelation for mankind.

I didn’t say God doesn’t exist.

I said the is no physical proof of it. At least proof that would hold up in court.

But that’s not saying much either.