Do catholics believe previous lives exist

[Randy_Carson]

Again the problem is that you are using the events recorded in the Bible to prove what you are asserting is true. Please explain to me how you can prove that Joseph of Arimethia even existed without referring to the Bible.

That may not be possible. However, it is possible to establish that Jesus existed without the Bible.

This is exactly my point. You are doing exactly what I stated earlier. My book is true because it says it is true and all your arguments are based upon the unprovable assertion that the gospel accounts are absolutely true. You can believe they are true but it is absolutely impossible to prove that all the events in the Gospels are true. . There is not a single contemporary account of Jesus existence outside of the gospel accounts.

.

Yes, there are reputable references to Jesus outside of scripture.

No reputable scholar believes that any of the gospel accounts were actually composed by eye witnesses.

This is false. Matthew and John clearly were, and most scholars recognize this.

We do not possess a single original copy of Paul’s letters. They are all copies. I think the oldest fragment we have is about at least a century after Christ death. The same is true for the gospel accounts. We have copies of copies.

Thank you. Recognizing that we have copies of copies makes it so much easier to prove that we actually do know with a very high degree of certainty what the original documents actually said.

This is not admissible evidence in a court. It is considered multiple levels of hearsay and therefore not considered trustworthy or reliable as evidence. So no, there is absolutely no proof beyond a reasonable doubt or else there would not even be grounds for other forms of belief. It would be quite simple. But you keep wanting to refer to the book of your belief to prove the proof of your belief. This is absolutely no different than what the mormoms and Muslims claims. How is you stating something from the Bible as fact any different than Muslims citing the Koran as proof for their book. What is the point of even having faith if it is completely provable. That is for the secular world. Not the realm of faith.

There’s a lot more evidence than you apparently are aware of. Perhaps we should go through it.

 

[Gorgias]

Then I hope you will trust him when he returns. That will happen soon. Do not doubt him merely because he may not agree with every word of the Magisterium.

That’s an interesting assertion. Didn’t Jesus say that, whatever the apostolic teaching of the Church is here on earth, He would hold in heaven? (cf Mt 16:19). By definition, then, there’s no possibility that “he may not agree with… the magisterium”!

 

[tomberg]

That may not be possible. However, it is possible to establish that Jesus existed without the Bible.

.

Yes, there are reputable references to Jesus outside of scripture.

This is false. Matthew and John clearly were, and most scholars recognize this.

Thank you. Recognizing that we have copies of copies makes it so much easier to prove that we actually do know with a very high degree of certainty what the original documents actually said.

There’s a lot more evidence than you apparently are aware of. Perhaps we should go through it.

Also could someone please tell me how to use the multiquote function. I am new to internet forums and woefully inept at them. I will just have to address your arguments one by one.

1. It is not possible to establish that Jesus existed outside of the Bible. Please to not point out Josephus. I am more than familiar with the outside references and not a single one of them is a contemporary report of his existence. There is not a single independent reference from Jesus own time that he actually existed. Again I believe that Jesus did exist and I think Bart Erhman’s book is fairly convincing that a man named Jesus actually did exist. However, even Erhman does not claim to prove that Jesus did exist, however one can be reasonably certain that such a man exist.
2. No Matthew and John are not established as the writers. Some religious historians think they are, almost all secular scholars do not believe that they are. There is an immense amount of debate, and even the scholars who believe that they were written by them, can not conclusively prove that they were written by them, it is a belief based upon available evidence, but it is not factual proof. Without the original autograph, it is impossible to prove as a fact, that they were written by John and Matthew. Again the only contemporary reference to them exist in books claiming to be by them. This is no more proof than claiming that Homer actually wrote the Iliad because it says it was written by Homer.
3. For all my beliefs I read as much evidence from reputable scholars from both sides of a debate. I do not just read books that establish to prove what I already believe. I try to look at the best available evidence and make a decision based upon that evidence, I do not ever look to simply reinforce a preexisting belief, I always seek to challenge my beliefs. There are several Catholic Scholars who absolutely do not believe it is in any way possible to prove that Jesus existed, but that these things must be taken on faith. Is there some supporting historical evidence available, without a doubt. I do not dispute this, I just disagree with you as to how much that evidence actually proves. If there was proof that the Resurrection actually occurred, then of what value is our faith? For example, I can prove for a fact that 2 + 2 = 4 and no reasonable person anywhere in the world can rationally argue against it. However, reasonable men all over the world absolutely can argue and do argue reasonably and rationally against what is claimed by the Gospel accounts.

For example have you ever heard the statement that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”? There are literally hundreds of thousands of direct eyewitness accounts of people seeing Bigfoot. There is even some documentary footage of things that appear that they might be Bigfoot. Do eyewitness claims alone establish that Bigfoot exist? No, bigfoot is an extraordinary claim, which requires extraordianry levels of evidence to PROVE that it actually exist. The same can be said for Intelligent extraterrestrial life. Millions of eye witness accounts, tons of books written about them by people claiming to have seen them, even documentary footage. However, based upon this evidence, which is much more reliable from an evidentiary standpoint as we can actually question the eyewitness ourselves and the books are original reliable copies as things are no longer handcopied, we certainly can not PROVE, that ET’s actually exist. Are there grounds to believe that they exist, absolutely, there is a lot of evidence, but does that evidence prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that they do in fact exist, Absolutely not. It is also well known in law enforcement and in legal communities that eye witness testimony is incredibly unreliable and actually considered one of the weakest forms of evidence.

I forgot the exact quote but it goes something like “I do not believe in the truth proclaimed in the Gospels because it is rational, I believe in them because they are so irrational.” That is a statement of my belief.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Also could someone please tell me how to use the multiquote function. I am new to internet forums and woefully inept at them.

How to use the Catholic Answers Forum Quote Function

If you want to respond to something that someone else posted, you can simply hit the “Quote” button on the lower right…not the “Post Reply” button on the lower left. Simply begin typing after the text that the forum automatically copies for you. That’s what I did at the beginning of this post above.

If you want to insert your comments into the middle of something you are quoting, you have to manually insert square brackets. Here is the original passage I want to comment on:

Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was black as soot, and everywhere that Mary went, his sooty foot he put.

In order to show you what you need to do, I have to use a different set of brackets for illustrative purposes only. I’ll use { and } instead of and ] so that you can see where the brackets should be located, and I’ll insert my comments in red text. To begin a quote, you must insert {quote} at the beginning of the passage and {/quote} at the end. The / is the key to ending the quoted section. Here’s what it would look like:

{quote} Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was black as soot, {/quote} I’m inserting my comments here in red. {quote} and everywhere that Mary went, his sooty foot he put. {/quote} Hope this helps.

Remember, wherever you see the { or } you have to actually use a square bracket or ] so that the paragraph above comes out like this:

Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was black as soot,

I’m inserting my comments here in red.

and everywhere that Mary went his sooty foot he put.

Hope this helps.

One more thing: the quote function will automatically insert the name of the person to whom you are replying so that person can find your response more easily.

 

[Randy_Carson]

1. It is not possible to establish that Jesus existed outside of the Bible. Please to not point out Josephus. I am more than familiar with the outside references and not a single one of them is a contemporary report of his existence.

In that case, there are hundreds of people from antiquity that we must write off as myths since they don’t have “contemporary reports” of their existence, either. Is that how professional historians work? They just write off something if there is no contemporaneous documentation? I don’t think so.

Now, for the record, here is Josephus and more:

The Historical Jesus- Jewish, Roman and Pagan References

Josephus (c. 93-94 AD)

“At this time there was a wise man called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. Many people among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have reported wonders. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.” (Antiquities XVIII, 63 from Josephus: The Essential Writings by Paul L. Maier, page 264-265; this text is from An Arabic Version of the Testimonium Flavianum and Its Implications by S. Pines [Jerusalem, 1971]; another translation of above found in Van Voorst, page 97; for a different version of the text infamously interpolated by later Christian editors, see discussion in Van Voorst, page 85ff; also full discussion in A Marginal Jew, volume 1 by John P. Meier, pages 56ff)

• this text, which definitely mentions Jesus and his crucifixion under Pilate by a well-known Jewish historian of the first century, is hotly disputed because of possible later ‘Christian interpolation’ but the above is the Arabic text found without these ‘Christian’ additions;
• this version leaves the question of Jesus’ messianic status neutral (“perhaps the Messiah”);
• this is another piece corroborating a ‘neutral reconstruction’ of the Testimonium (which is the preferred view among scholars);
• the neutral reconstruction, which isolates and removes the later pro-Christian interpolations, makes good sense of the pattern of ancient Christian witnesses to Josephus (e.g. Van Voorst, page 95-97).

“Upon Festus’ death, Caesar sent Albinus to Judea as procurator. But before he arrived, King Agrippa had appointed Ananus to the priesthood, who was the son of the elder Ananus [or Annas of the Gospels]. This elder Ananus, after he himself had been high priest, had five sons, all of whom achieved that office, which was unparalleled. The younger Ananus, however, was rash and followed the Sadducees, who are heartless when they sit in judgment. Ananus thought that with Festus dead and Albinus still on the way, he would have his opportunity. Convening the judges of the Sanhedrin, he brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ, and certain others. He accused them of having transgressed the law, and condemned them to be stoned to death.” (Antiquities XX, 197; from Josephus, Maier, page 275-276; another translation in Van Voorst, page 83)

• we have a passing but clear reference to Jesus here, and to Jesus’ brother named James (cf. Gal 1:19);
• the overwhelming majority of scholars holds that the words ‘the brother of Jesus called Christ’ are authentic, as is the entire passage in which it is found;
• the passage fits in well with its own context;
• a Christian ‘interpolator’ would have used laudatory language to describe James and especially Jesus, calling him ‘the Lord’ or similar language.

Pliny the Younger (c. 112 AD)

“An anonymous accusatory pamphlet has been circulated containing the named of many people. I decided to dismiss any who denied that they are or ever have been Christians when they repeated after me a formula invoking the gods and made offerings of wine and incense to your image [or statue], which I had ordered to be brought with the images of the gods into court for this reason, and when they reviled Christ [Christo male dicere]. I understand that no one who is really a Christian can be made to do these things. Other people, whose names were given to me by an informer, first said that they were Christians and then denied it. They said that they had stopped being Christian two or more years ago, and some more than twenty. They all venerated your image and the images of the gods as the others did,and reviled Christ. They also maintained that the sum total of this guilt or error was no more than the following. They had met regularly before dawn on a determined day, and sung antiphonally a hymn to Christ as if to a god [carmenque Christo quasi deo decere secum invicem]. They also took an oath not for any crime, but to keep from theft, robbery and adultery, not to break any promise, and not to withhold a deposit when reclaimed.” (Letter 96:10; Van Voorst, page 25)

• Christ is mentioned three times in this letter to the emperor Trajan;
• the text of the two letters (Pliny’s Letter 96, and Trajan’s reply Letter 97) are well-attested and stable, and their authenticity is not seriously disputed;
• supposed ‘Christian interpolators’ would not have testified to Christian apostasy or speak disparagingly of Christianity calling it ‘madness’ (amentia), etc.
• Christ here is the divine leader of this religion, worshiped by Christians, so that cursing him is tantamount to rejecting Christianity (cf. 1 Cor 12:3).

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Tacitus (c. 116 AD)

“Therefore, to put down the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits and punished in the most unusual ways those hated for their shameful acts [flagitia], whom the crowd called ‘Chrestians.’ The founder of this name, Christ, had been executed in the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate [Auctor nominis eius Christus Tiberio imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat]. Suppressed for a time, the deadly superstition erupted again not only in Judea, the origin of this evil, but also in the city [Rome], where all things horrible and shameful from everywhere come together and become popular. Therefore, first those who admitted to it were arrested, then on their information a very large multitude was convicted, not so much for the crime of arson as for hatred of the human race [odium humani generis]. Derision was added to their end: they were covered with the skins of wild animals and torn to death by dogs; or they were crucified and when the day ended they were burned as torches. Nero provided his gardens for the spectacle and gave a show in his circus, mixing with the people in charioteer’s clothing, or standing on his racing chariot.” (Annals 15:44; Van Voorst, page 41-42)

• Christ is definitely mentioned here by a major Roman historian as being ‘the founder’ of Christianity and as ‘executed in the reign of Tiberius’ under Pontius Pilate;
• there are good reasons to conclude with the vast majority of scholars that the passage is fundamentally sound, despite some difficulties (e.g. compressed style);
• Christian forgers would not have made such disparaging remarks about Christianity;
• the only textual difficulty is the word Christians, Christianoi or Chrestianoi, with the latter being the ‘earliest reading’ although more difficult.

Seutonius (c. 120 AD)

“He [Claudius] expelled the Jews from Rome, since they were always making disturbances because of this instigator Chrestus [Judaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantis Roma expulit].”(Lives of the Caesars, book 5, Claudius 25:4; Van Voorst, page 30)

• Christ appears to be mentioned by this Roman historian under the name ‘Chrestus’;
• besides one textual variant that reads ‘Christ’ (instead of ‘Chresto’) the Latin text is sound;
• a Christian interpolator would more likely have spelled his name correctly, and would not have placed him in Rome in 49 AD or called him a ‘troublemaker’;
• the overwhelming majority of modern scholarship concludes this sentence is genuine, and that ‘Chrestus’ is indeed Christ.

Mara bar Serapion (c. after 73 AD)

“What advantage did the Athenians gain by murdering Socrates, for which they were repaid with famine and pestilence? Or the people of Samos by the burning of Pythagoras, because their country was completely covered in sand in just one hour? Or the Jews [by killing] their wise king, because their kingdom was taken away at that very time? God justly repaid the wisdom of these three men: the Athenians died of famine; the Samians were completely overwhelmed by the sea; and the Jews, desolate and driven from their own kingdom, are scattered through every nation. Socrates is not dead, because of Plato; neither is Pythagoras, because of the statue of Juno; nor is the wise king, because of the new laws he laid down.” (Letter in Syriac to his son; Van Voorst, page 54)

• while Jesus is not named, and ‘wise king’ is not a common Christological title, Jesus is doubtless meant by ‘their wise king’;
• Mara a Jew writing to his son, speaks of this ‘wise’ Jew as a king, and ‘king [of the Jews]’ is prominently connected to Jesus at his trial (e.g. Mark 15:26);
• the link between the destruction of the Jewish nation and the death of the ‘wise king’ is parallel in Christianity to the destruction of Jerusalem as a punishment for Jewish rejection of Jesus (cf. Matt 23:37-39; 24:2; 27:25; Mark 13:1-2; Luke 19:42-44; 21:5-24; 23:28-31);
• the mention of ‘the new laws he laid down’ is probably a reference to the Christian religion, especially its moral code;
• Mara probably doesn’t mention Jesus directly because it was the Romans who desolated and dispersed the Jews – he does not want to offend his captors, the people who hold his loved ones.

Taken from:

CAF Member PhilVaz biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/JesusEvidenceHistorical.htm#Evidence

 

[Randy_Carson]

1. No Matthew and John are not established as the writers.

1. 
   *]The Gospels were written by eyewitnesses from internal evidence: the style of writing in the Gospels is simple and alive; the Gospels show an intimate knowledge of Jerusalem prior to its destruction in AD 70; the Gospels are full of proper names, dates, cultural details, historical events, and customs and opinions of that time;
   *]The stories of Jesus’ human weaknesses and of the disciples’ faults also bespeak the Gospels’ accuracy: the Gospels do not try to suppress apparent discrepancies, which indicates their originality; the Gospels do not contain anachronisms; the authors appear to have been first-century Jews who were witnesses of the events;
   *]The disciples must have left some writings, engaged as they were in giving lessons to and counseling believers who were geographically distant; what could these writings be if not the Gospels and epistles themselves;
   *]There were many eyewitnesses who were still alive when the books were written who could testify whether they came from their purported authors or not;
   *]The external evidence: extra-biblical testimony unanimously attributes the Gospels to their traditional authors; with a single exception, no apocryphal gospel is ever quoted by any known author during the first three hundred years after Christ; there is no evidence that any inauthentic gospel whatever existed in the first century in which all four Gospels and Acts were written.
   
   Matthew
   
   The early church unanimously held that the gospel of Matthew was the first written gospel and was penned by the apostle of the same name (Matt. 10:2-4). Lately, the priority of Matthew as the first written gospel has come under suspicion with Mark being considered by many to be the first written gospel. The debate is far from over.
   
   The historian Papias mentions that the gospel of Matthew was originally in Aramaic or Hebrew and attributes the gospel to Matthew the apostle.
   
   “Irenaeus (ca. a.d. 180) continued Papias’s views about Matthew and Mark and added his belief that Luke, the follower of Paul, put down in a book the gospel preached by that apostle, and that John, the Beloved Disciple, published his Gospel while residing in Asia. By the time of Irenaeus, Acts was also linked with Luke, the companion of Paul.”
   This would mean that if Matthew did write in Aramaic originally, that he may have used Mark as a map–adding and clarifying certain events as he remembered them. But, this is not known for sure.
   
   The earliest quotation of Matthew is found in Ignatius who died around A.D. 115. Therefore, Matthew was in circulation well before Ignatius came on the scene. The various dates most widely held as possible writing dates of the Gospel are between A.D. 40-140. But Ignatius died around A.D. 115, and he quoted Matthew. Therefore Matthew had to be written before he died. Nevertheless, it is generally believed that Matthew was written before A.D. 70 and as early as A.D. 50.
   
   Mark
   
   Mark was not an eyewitness to the events of Jesus’ life. He was a disciple of Peter, and undoubtedly it was Peter who informed Mark of the life of Christ and guided him in writing the Gospel known by his name. “Papias claimed that Mark, the Evangelist, who had never heard Christ, was the interpreter of Peter, and that he carefully gave an account of everything he remembered from the preaching of Peter.” Generally, Mark is said to be the earliest gospel with an authorship of between A.D. 55 to A.D. 70.
   
   (cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Luke

Luke was not an eyewitness of the life of Christ. He was a companion of Paul who also was not an eyewitness of Christ’s life. But, both had ample opportunity to meet the disciples who knew Christ and learn the facts not only from them but also from others in the area. Some might consider this damaging to the validity of the gospel but quite the contrary. Luke was a gentile convert to Christianity who was interested in the facts. He obviously had interviewed the eyewitnesses and written the Gospel account as well as Acts.

“The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2 until the day when He was taken up, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen. 3 To these He also presented Himself alive, after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days, and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God,” (Acts 1:1-3).

Notice how Luke speaks of “them”–of those who had personal encounters with Christ. Luke is simply recounting the events from the disciples. Since Luke agrees with Matthew, Mark, and John and since there is no contradictory information coming from any of the disciples stating that Luke was inaccurate and since Luke has proven to be a very accurate historian, we can conclude that Luke’s account is very accurate.

As far as dating the gospel goes, Luke was written before the book of Acts; and Acts does not mention “Nero’s persecution of the Christians in A.D. 64 or the deaths of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65).” Therefore, we can conclude that Luke was written before A.D. 62. “Luke’s Gospel comes (Acts 1:1) before the Acts. The date of Acts is still in dispute, but the early date (about A.D. 63) is gaining support constantly.”

John

The writer of the gospel of John was obviously an eyewitness of the events of Christ’s life since he speaks from a perspective of having been there during many of the events of Jesus’ ministry and displays a good knowledge of Israeli geography and customs.

The John Rylands papyrus fragment 52 of John’s gospel dated in the year 125-135 contains portions of John 18, verses 31-33, 37-38. This fragment was found in Egypt. It is the last of the gospels and appears to have been written in the 80’s to 90’s. Most scholars say it was written in the early 90’s. This means that the time span between the original writing of John and its earliest copy (fragment) is approximately 35-45 years.

John does not mention the destruction of the Jewish temple in A.D. 70. Some say this is because John was not focusing on historical events. Instead, John focused on the theological aspect of the person of Christ and listed His miracles and words that affirmed Christ’s deity. This is a possibility; but like the reasoning used regarding Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the lack of significant historical markers is also evidence that it was written early on.

Though there is still some debate on the dates of when the gospels were written, they were most assuredly completed before the close of the first century and written by eyewitnesses or under the direction of eyewitnesses.

 

[tomberg]

Thank you for taking the time to post your response Carson. I have read all of those before and I agree, it is good grounds for believing Jesus did exist as a person, except for Josephus, as several of the the passages you quoted are believed to be a Christian forgery, many within the Catholic church even believe them to be a forgery. The other sources do indeed indicate that a man named Jesus existed, not a single one of those sources prove that Jesus was resurrected. For example, we can be reasonably certain that Alexander the Great existed, it is beyond reasonable dispute, because there are several contemporary accounts of his existence from several independent sources. However, this does not mean that everything written about Alexander is therefore true. For example, no one can prove that his mother was impregnated by Zeus. Herodotus tells us she was, but this does not make it a fact. I am not arguing over the existence of Jesus, I personally think it is silly to do so, though there are several determined Jesus Mythicist out in the world who will do so, but his existence in no way proves the resurrection occurred. We have much more reliable historical evidence that Muhammad was a real historical figure and pieces of the Koran were written during his lifetime and then assembled after his death. However, the mere historical existence of Muhammad does not in anyway make what is contained in the Koran true. It is faith that makes it true for Muslims, the same that makes belief in Christ true for Catholics.

I would also ask you to address my queries regarding the existence of Bigfoot and ET’s? Again there is much more contemporary and even ancient evidence (stories around the world about beings descending from the sky, powerful god’s with extraordinary powers, etc.) from literally hundreds of thousands of eye witness accounts and some documentary footage itself actually capturing these phenomena. Do you believe that this evidence PROVES that these things exist?

I truly appreciate your responses. God bless you.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Thank you for taking the time to post your response Carson. I have read all of those before and I agree, it is good grounds for believing Jesus did exist as a person, except for Josephus, as several of the the passages you quoted are believed to be a Christian forgery, many within the Catholic church even believe them to be a forgery. The other sources do indeed indicate that a man named Jesus existed, not a single one of those sources prove that Jesus was resurrected. For example, we can be reasonably certain that Alexander the Great existed, it is beyond reasonable dispute, because there are several contemporary accounts of his existence from several independent sources. However, this does not mean that everything written about Alexander is therefore true. For example, no one can prove that his mother was impregnated by Zeus. Herodotus tells us she was, but this does not make it a fact. I am not arguing over the existence of Jesus, I personally think it is silly to do so, though there are several determined Jesus Mythicist out in the world who will do so, but his existence in no way proves the resurrection occurred. We have much more reliable historical evidence that Muhammad was a real historical figure and pieces of the Koran were written during his lifetime and then assembled after his death. However, the mere historical existence of Muhammad does not in anyway make what is contained in the Koran true. It is faith that makes it true for Muslims, the same that makes belief in Christ true for Catholics.

I would also ask you to address my queries regarding the existence of Bigfoot and ET’s? Again there is much more contemporary and even ancient evidence (stories around the world about beings descending from the sky, powerful god’s with extraordinary powers, etc.) from literally hundreds of thousands of eye witness accounts and some documentary footage itself actually capturing these phenomena. Do you believe that this evidence PROVES that these things exist?

I truly appreciate your responses. God bless you.

Rational required evidence of Jesus Christ being the living God, consists of what? One would have to agree its rational first of all to believe in God or the supernatural, preternatural etc. Had that been the case they wouldn’t have killed Christ. Even if hundreds of witness accounts existed, he was found guilty by Rome and killed as a common criminal. Same situation as with Mohammed and so forth. The majority of historians don’t even contest the point they both existed. No person in history has been more written about or displayed in the arts and historically than Christ, and dating back 2000 years. Must have been lots of irrational people.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Thank you for taking the time to post your response Carson. I have read all of those before and I agree, it is good grounds for believing Jesus did exist as a person, except for Josephus, as several of the the passages you quoted are believed to be a Christian forgery, many within the Catholic church even believe them to be a forgery. The other sources do indeed indicate that a man named Jesus existed, not a single one of those sources prove that Jesus was resurrected. For example, we can be reasonably certain that Alexander the Great existed, it is beyond reasonable dispute, because there are several contemporary accounts of his existence from several independent sources. However, this does not mean that everything written about Alexander is therefore true. For example, no one can prove that his mother was impregnated by Zeus. Herodotus tells us she was, but this does not make it a fact. I am not arguing over the existence of Jesus, I personally think it is silly to do so, though there are several determined Jesus Mythicist out in the world who will do so, but his existence in no way proves the resurrection occurred. We have much more reliable historical evidence that Muhammad was a real historical figure and pieces of the Koran were written during his lifetime and then assembled after his death. However, the mere historical existence of Muhammad does not in anyway make what is contained in the Koran true. It is faith that makes it true for Muslims, the same that makes belief in Christ true for Catholics.

I would also ask you to address my queries regarding the existence of Bigfoot and ET’s? Again there is much more contemporary and even ancient evidence (stories around the world about beings descending from the sky, powerful god’s with extraordinary powers, etc.) from literally hundreds of thousands of eye witness accounts and some documentary footage itself actually capturing these phenomena. Do you believe that this evidence PROVES that these things exist?

I truly appreciate your responses. God bless you.

I had considered responding carefully to each of your points and posts, but I have decided not to do so. Previously, you wrote:

“I do not believe in the truth proclaimed in the Gospels because it is rational, I believe in them because they are so irrational.” That is a statement of my belief.

Let’s begin with the acknowledgement that faith itself is a gift from God. Therefore, if you have that faith, I accept that God has given it to you, and I hope that you reciprocate with regard to my faith. Beyond this, however, lies a big gulf of opinion.

You choose to believe the Gospel because it is irrational. I choose to believe the Gospel because it is the most rational explanation of the known facts.

I may be wrong, and I do not wish to presume or to put words into your mouth, but it seems to me that you sort of revel in the idea that nothing can be known with certainty or proven…and thus, the fact that you still believe despite the lack of evidence gives you comfort. It seems that you are intentionally remaining on the fence in order to demonstrate your great faith, and you read books by atheists and skeptics in order to carefully maintain this neutrality.

If correct, and please note that I did say “If”, that is incomprehensible to me. Scripture says:

Luke 1
1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[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. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Does that sound like Luke wanted Theophilus to wonder ambiguously about the Gospel?

John 20:31
31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

1 John 5:13
13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.

So, no, I’m not going to engage in a discussion weighing the relative merits of the Gospels and sightings of Bigfoot. Discussing the strengths and weaknesses of historical evidence with someone who prefers to live by faith without facts seems like a fool’s errand.

 

[tomberg]

Carson as I stated earlier I have read evidence that supports your position and the evidence that disagrees with your position. I think that rational men and women can make conclusions both ways and both have evidence to support their position. There are many Historians, Catholic and otherwise that do agree with your assertions. There are also many Catholic historians and theologians that support my position. However, there are many more Secular historians who tend to support my position, so I honestly think the weight of the evidence by disinterested scholars tips the balance in my favor. But overall it seems apparent that reasonable, intelligent, and thoughtful men, even men who believe in the Truths contained in the Gospel, seem to be able to make very persuasive arguments in favor of both positions. However, the fact that a reasonable, intelligent and thoughtful debate actually exist demonstrates that the events described in the Gospel accounts are not able to be “proved” conclusively as historical facts. Do I believe the Resurrection of Jesus occurred. Absolutely I do, it is essential part of my faith, but I can not prove this event actually occurred without reference to the Gospel accounts, nor do I feel the need to “prove” that this occurred in order to believe it. The Resurrection is a profession of our faith as Catholics, it is not a profession of historical fact.
That is why I stated earlier that it is indeed possible that I am possibly wrong in my faith and Muslims are indeed correct, possibly Mormons are correct, I am not arrogant to claim that my faith is without a doubt, 100% correct. I believe it is correct and it is my faith that it is correct, but of course I would never assert that I can prove that my faith is correct and other faiths are wrong. I can not even prove my faith is more likely to be true, but there is definitely evidence to back up my belief. Just like there is evidence to back up Jewish claims that Jesus was not the messiah. If the Resurrection was beyond dispute, then I doubt that any Jews would have remained Jews. There was obviously grounds for dispute, that is why the vast majority of Jews decided to remain Jews. One had to believe that the eyewitness was telling the truth and that their veracity was beyond question if one did not see it themselves. We as Christians believe those people who claim to have been eyewitnesses, but just like those that claim to see Bigfoot, eyewitness testimony definitely does not prove that something is real. That is where faith comes into place.

 

[tomberg]

I had considered responding carefully to each of your points and posts, but I have decided not to do so. Previously, you wrote:

“I do not believe in the truth proclaimed in the Gospels because it is rational, I believe in them because they are so irrational.” That is a statement of my belief.

Let’s begin with the acknowledgement that faith itself is a gift from God. Therefore, if you have that faith, I accept that God has given it to you, and I hope that you reciprocate with regard to my faith. Beyond this, however, lies a big gulf of opinion.

You choose to believe the Gospel because it is irrational. I choose to believe the Gospel because it is the most rational explanation of the known facts.

I may be wrong, and I do not wish to presume or to put words into your mouth, but it seems to me that you sort of revel in the idea that nothing can be known with certainty or proven…and thus, the fact that you still believe despite the lack of evidence gives you comfort. It seems that you are intentionally remaining on the fence in order to demonstrate your great faith, and you read books by atheists and skeptics in order to carefully maintain this neutrality.

If correct, and please note that I did say “If”, that is incomprehensible to me. Scripture says:

Luke 1
1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[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. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Does that sound like Luke wanted Theophilus to wonder ambiguously about the Gospel?

John 20:31
31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

1 John 5:13
13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.

So, no, I’m not going to engage in a discussion weighing the relative merits of the Gospels and sightings of Bigfoot. Discussing the strengths and weaknesses of historical evidence with someone who prefers to live by faith without facts seems like a fool’s errand.

**Please read this as this is what I meant by being irrational. **
You believe the Catholic Faith is rational, it is the most irrational of all beliefs. It makes the amazing assertion that God, the creator of everything, chose to not only incarnate as a limited human being, but voluntarily choose to suffer and die a humiliating and gruesome death as a free expression of his love for us. He did not incarnate as a angel, or as a god-king, or even as a human king. God creator of the entire universe, a universe more wonderful and vast than anything we can possibly conceive of, choose to incarnate as a human being in a poor, unknown, Jewish family, in an insignificant part of the Roman empire. Then he choose to minister, not to the wealthy and prestigious of the Roman world, not even of the Jewish world, no G-D itself decided to minister to the poor, the sick, the prostitutes, the outcast of the ancient world. Those who were considered outside of god’s favor. Then he choose not be to celebrated and recognized for his greatness and love, no he choose to be persecuted and suffer an outrageous, humiliating, and lonely death where all those who claimed to follow him completely abandoned him. G-d, the most powerful entity that could ever possibly exist, did this voluntarily out of nothing but love for us!!! This is by far the most outrageous, irrational story ever told in the history of humanity. Stories about Buddha, that makes some sense. Sure maybe a person can through intense meditation discover some principle in the Universe that relieves them of suffering. Islam, that God spoke through a prophet telling them what God wanted them to do, and then that prophet displaying his obvious favor with God goes on to establish a worldly and kingly empire. Sure that makes some amount of sense, not so different than an updated version of what Moses claimed to be true.

But G-D itself actually incarnating in human form, not as a demigod like Greek religion, or an avatar like Hindu religion, but as a full human being, absolutely ridiculous. Absurd said all the rational philosophers. Absurd said the Jews. A G-d who is weak, suffers, and dies a horrible death out of love for his creation. Quite possibly the most insane and ridiculous story about G-D every put forward by humanity. It is also the most beautiful expression of love ever told and I personally believe that Christianity is the most perfect expression of love ever advanced, because it is entirely irrational. Love those who hate and persecute you? Pure folly in the world, completely irrational. If you do not think Christianity is irrational you definitely do not understand Christianity.

 

[GaryTaylor]

This is by far the most outrageous, irrational story ever told in the history of humanity

There you have the complexity of Christianity. Its a wonder the story is “still” around. I see they are “still” attempting to rid the world of it.

 

[tomberg]

**A little more so please read. This actually means a lot to me. **

That is exactly why i believe Christianity to be true, it is absolutely so ridiculous, so outrageous to our everyday methods of thinking, so contrary to every single religious tradition in the ancient world, that is absolutely must have come from God himself, because absolutely no one would be able to make up such a story if they were trying to create a religion. Could the ideas of Islam come from the mind of a man, I personally think so, their is definitely precedent for them. Same with the ideas of Buddhism, same with Hinduism. These notions of God and religion are all much more rational to me. The gods are actually Gods and have god like powers and act like gods, or at least act like divine rulers. Jesus has no historical precendents that I have ever encountered in all my reading of philosophy and in the history of religions. It stands apart, it is irrational and absurd with its claims about god’s love for humanity. The Gods of the Greeks were either concieved as supernatural strong humans, or as the ineffable absolute. Those both make sense. The god of the Jews, they claim they are God chosen people, but that god is one and absolute. Somewhat similar to the Ancient greek idea of the absolute but still very tribal in nature. G-d incarnating as a weak and suffering human to a poor Jewish family out of love for the entire world, not just a particular people. Unheard of. Irrational to the highest extent possible. We take the truths of Christ for granted now because they are so common and we entirely miss out on how magnificent the story actually is. We reduce god’s love by trying to show how reasonable and rational our Christian faith is, we simply take it for granted, the story is old and stale to our ears. When truly examined with fresh eyes and ears, Christianity is the most absurd conception of God possible, it is also the most inspiring, loving, and heart breaking idea ever put forward. To me such an idea is outside of the human ability to concoct, it is so contrary to our humanity, so irrational, that it absolutely had to come directly from G-d. That is the beauty of my faith, of the Christian faith.

 

[tomberg]

Not only is Chrisianity irrational and absurd, but the Catholic Faith is the most irrational and absurd of all Christian religions and have been criticized by almost all other Christian sects for our belief in the supernatural. We actually believe that The Eucharist is transformed from a piece of bread into the actual body and blood of Jesus, God itself, through transubstantiation. We believe that Jesus can forgive our sins and lead to everlasting life. That is completely irrational. Karma makes a lot of sense. Complete forgiveness based upon love makes no sense at all. We believe in the power of Saints to intercede for Us, the power of Holy Relics to heal and work the miraculous. If this is not irrational in the very best sense of the word, I have no idea what would be considered irrational.
I don’t believe in Jesus because it is rational to do so, that is for the secular world. I believe because it is entirely, majestically, totally, unqualifiedly, irrational and beyond the ability of the human mind to invent. If you want your faith to be rational, secular humanism makes much more sense. Can I prove any of this is true. Definitely not, that is what makes it faith.

 

[tomberg]

Well off to Mass. Back later. My wife is always running late. LOL.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Not only is Chrisianity irrational and absurd, but the Catholic Faith is the most irrational and absurd of all Christian religions and have been criticized by almost all other Christian sects for our belief in the supernatural. We actually believe that The Eucharist is transformed from a piece of bread into the actual body and blood of Jesus, God itself, through transubstantiation. We believe that Jesus can forgive our sins and lead to everlasting life. That is completely irrational. Karma makes a lot of sense. Complete forgiveness based upon love makes no sense at all. We believe in the power of Saints to intercede for Us, the power of Holy Relics to heal and work the miraculous. If this is not irrational in the very best sense of the word, I have no idea what would be considered irrational.
I don’t believe in Jesus because it is rational to do so, that is for the secular world. I believe because it is entirely, majestically, totally, unqualifiedly, irrational and beyond the ability of the human mind to invent. If you want your faith to be rational, secular humanism makes much more sense. Can I prove any of this is true. Definitely not, that is what makes it faith.

But this to someone who believes in the supernatural and preternatural, then it is rational to the extent of comprehension. To me there is nothing more rational than the sacraments of Christ thus His Church, As I said earlier it is baptism that marks us as God’s people and gives us the grace, the strength, the ability to attain salvation and fight the devil. Fight the devil being another imperative understanding of which the Catholic belief is ultra imperative. You become responsible to it and your salvation is dependent on it. How you believe in Christ is imperative. If fact St Paul explains it well.

God did extraordinary miracles through Paul, 12so that even handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched him were taken to the sick, and their illnesses were cured and the evil spirits left them.

13Some Jews who went around driving out evil spirits tried to invoke the name of the Lord Jesus over those who were demon-possessed. They would say, “In the name of the Jesus whom Paul preaches, I command you to come out.” 14Seven sons of Sceva, a Jewish chief priest, were doing this. 15One day the evil spirit answered them, “Jesus I know, and Paul I know about, but who are you?” 16Then the man who had the evil spirit jumped on them and overpowered them all. He gave them such a beating that they ran out of the house naked and bleeding…

Not hard to tell which Church Paul was in, the same one using the same exorcism practice. Not to get off track with exorcism, but baptism and so forth and the Church.

Its not a question of other religions who most for example believe in exorcism, I do not discount other religions, God works through all faiths and all who earnestly seek Him. But the very real need to be accountable to belief, your help is contingent on your belief in which the help comes, in regards to salvation and even spiritual safety and the very real issue of sin and mans fallen nature. .

 

[openmind77]

… By definition, then, there’s no possibility that Jesus may not agree with… the magisterium"!

Good luck!

 

[GaryTaylor]

Note:

In this way the word of the Lord spread widely and grew in power.

2000 years, same sacraments, still fighting the same evil. So thats to say, all this surely must be included in the preponderance of the supernatural of evidence.