- Status
F
fbl9
Guest
At one time i believed the Catholic Church was full of error and absolutely wrong.
I no longer have any doubts about the Truth of Catholicism, rather i doubt my own faithfulness now.
E
Emjay66
Guest
Thank you fbl. Can you talk a little more about what you mean by doubting your own faithfulness? I’m not sure what you mean by that. Thanks!
B
blanchardman
Guest
When Katrina blew through here we say at the front door and listened to the trees as they fell. After the storm we discovered that the pine trees were all there but the oak,pecan & hickory trees were all wdown. The difference? Deep roots.
E
Emjay66
Guest
That’s a nice story. Are you saying with that story that the deep-rooted person can indeed have doubts and uncertainties, but they are more likely to live through them?
P
PJM
Guest
If you added the word “Good” after “nothing” you’d be FAR closer to the truth
It is MY understanding that God will raise everyone, and give them a Now Glorified Body. That Body and Soul will THEN spend eternity if merited by ones life choices in heaven or in Hell. AMEN!
See above
P
PJM
Guest
I’m temped to say NO, but because of the words you chose, I’m not sure.
I would need the question rephrased and far more specif information to be able to give a blanket response as posted.
IF You’re asking Have I personally doubted ANY Catholic Church teachings on either Faith beliefs and or Moral, the answer is NO. I have not.
If, on the other hand you’re asking have I personally agreed with everything the Church has done or accepted OUTSIDE of Faith and Morals beliefs and practices; that too is NO!
I hope that answers your question?
God Bless you
Patrick
P
PJM
Guest
Thank you!
Not merely “rooted”, But educated, Informed, experienced in teaching, explaining and if necessary, defending what clearly and Biblically is GOD"S One true Faith.
God Bless you
Patrick
S
spiderweb
Guest
My Faith is that Jesus Christ is God. He proved it historically by rising from the dead. If that’s not true, then nothing he did or said matters and all Christianity is pointless. But if Jesus is God, then based on that one element on who Jesus is; Catholicism must be absolutely true because it is the only Church built by God for mankind. So for me, there is only one article of faith that is even an option to doubt and that is “Is Jesus God?” I don’t doubt that, so I don’t doubt any other article of the Faith.
Jesus founded one Church in which he promised to be with until the end of time. He sent the Holy Spirit to guide this Church into all Truth. And because of that, this Church is the pillar and ground of Truth. There is only one Church which historically can trace itself back to the Apostles and Jesus Christ and that is the Catholic Church. It is only through the work of the Catholic Church that we even have any form of professed Christianity today. It is because of the promise of Jesus that I know without any doubt the Truth of Catholicism. The dogmatic doctrines of Catholicism are absolutely true and error-free because of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, not because some man or Pope made a good apologetics based argument, or had a private revelation from God or an angel, or for any other reason.
Does that mean that I always understand these doctrines, or can explain them to others? Definitely not. Some things I just except as being beyond my personal understanding, even though I do not doubt that they are true. Because I trust in Jesus, I can know that the dogmatic teachings of the Catholic Church are true and error-free. Without Jesus building the Church, and the Holy Spirit guiding the Church, it would just be another man-made religion which may contain some (or a lot of) truth. But there would be no way of knowing what was true or not, it would just be opinions or interpretations of ancient writings or practices and my own opinion as to what I accept or reject or want to live by.
S
spiderweb
Guest
The “first resurrection” (Rev. 20:5) refers to baptism where we are “born again” and given new life through Christ Jesus (Titus 3:5, Col 2:12-13, Rom 6:4-11). This is a spiritual resurrection from sin and not a bodily resurrection. The second resurrection is the bodily resurrection. The first death is bodily death, the second death is spiritual death. If we have spiritual resurrection through Jesus, the second death has no power. There is only one bodily resurrection of the dead and that occurs at the second coming of Christ on the “last day” at the end of time (John 6:39, 40, 54; John 11:24, John 12:48, John 5:29).
Hebrews 9:27 “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.”
Jude Verse 6 “And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.”
2 Peter 2:4 “For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment”.
I don’t think their holding place is in heaven according to scripture.
You raised so many points of disagreement in Post #804, they really need separate discussions.
True when speaking of “God” it could be any of the three persons, but we also use the term “Trinity” to somewhat define that unity of the three persons. When speaking of man, by default it means the whole being, but we can then break it down by specifying physical “flesh” versus the spiritual. But there are separate terms that can be used to specify the “whole” or the “part”.
If the unit of soul and spirit are one unit, then man really isn’t triune at all because there is no distinction in the “parts”.
What happens to the spirit when it returns to God?
If the spirit returns to God at death, where is the soul at death?
Can the soul be destroyed and the spirit still saved at the final judgment?
What does that mean for the “whole” human being at the resurrection of the dead?
E
Emjay66
Guest
Thank you Spiderweb. I appreciate your reply.
May I ask, how can you be really sure Jesus rose from the dead? I mean ‘sure’ as opposed to thinking it ‘likely’?
What prevents you doubting that Jesus’s resurrection is possibly mythological?
A
Abu
Guest
The historian Eusebius in his Church history, 4.3, 1.2, tells us that writing about 123 A.D., apologist Quadratus cited those in his day who had been cured or raised from the dead by Jesus of Nazareth – prime witnesses – long after the miracles, crucifixion and death of the Son of God. No other religious founder claimed to be God and proved it – not Mohammed of Islam, not in Hinduism, not in Buddhism, not in Taoism, not in Confucianism.
His miracles “were so frequent, the eyewitnesses so numerous, and the evidence so stark, that not even Christ’s enemies disputed the fact of their occurrence. Instead they ascribed them to the power of the devil, or defied Him to perform another one in His own favour.” (See Mt 12:24; 27:39-42;Jn11:47). Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, Sheehan/Joseph, Saint Austin Press, 2001, p 104].
The evidence of history which attests Christ as the Son of God, sent to redeem humanity, also attests, to this day, to His reality and His truths through the facts of the miracle of the Sun at Fatima, the medically attested miracles that take place at Lourdes, and the Eucharistic miracles.
E
Emjay66
Guest
Thank you Abu. Can I just check before we go down that line, that really is the evidence that convinces you? So if there were any doubt about that evidence you would doubt your faith?
A
Abu
Guest
The evidence which I have provided is a small part of the reality, and my faith is based on the reality of Christ Himself, His Resurrection, the foundation of His Catholic Church, the reality of His miracles, and the faith and morals which He taught and which His Church continues to teach throughout the world.
After His Resurrection from the dead, as recorded in the Sacred Scriptures, the Christ appeared over 40 days to:
- St Mary Magdalene and the holy women [Jn 20:11-18; Mk 16:9-11; Mt 28:1-10]
- Simon Peter (Cephas) [Lk 24:34; 1Cor 15-55]
- Cleopas and companion on the way to Emmaus [Lk 24:13-35; Mk 16:12-13]
- The Apostles and disciples in the Cenacle on Sunday evening (without Thomas)
[Jn 20:19-21; Lk 24: 36-43] - The Apostles next Sunday (with Thomas) [Jn 20:24-29]
- Seven disciples (Peter, Thomas, Nathaniel, James, John, and two others) [Jn 21:1-23]
- The Apostles in Galilee [Mt 28: 16-17]
- More than 500 of the brethren together [1 Cor 15:6]
- St James the Less [1 Cor 15-7]
- The Apostles on the day of the Ascension [Acts 1:4-11; Lk 24:50-51]
E
Emjay66
Guest
Thank you Abu.
For me there are two issues concerning your assertions of certainty of truth.
The first is about Eusebius. He was writing 300 years after the events we are talking about, so will be reporting on what the beliefs were at that point rather than being able to report on events close to their occurance. That is not to say he can’t be right, but I think it’s hard to base a claim of certainty on writings so distant in time from the events they describe.
The second is on the use of religious texts as proof. That seems always to require special pleading, as I doubt you would allow a Muslim, for example, to cite the Q’ran as proof of Islam, or a Hindu to quote the Bhagavad Gita as proof of Hinduism. We can usually quite clearly see the mythological nature of other religions’ sacred texts, and yet it seems much harder to accept the possible mythological nature of our own favoured relgious texts. That, again, does not mean the bible can’t be factual, but surely we should allow some room for the possibility that it, like other religious texts, may contain key elements of mythsos.
As you can see it is the certainty of truth I struggle with, as it seems to rely on favouring texts in a way that other religions must be denied.
But thank you for explaining yourself.
For me there are two issues concerning your assertions of certainty of truth.
The first is about Eusebius. He was writing 300 years after the events we are talking about, so will be reporting on what the beliefs were at that point rather than being able to report on events close to their occurance. That is not to say he can’t be right, but I think it’s hard to base a claim of certainty on writings so distant in time from the events they describe.
The second is on the use of religious texts as proof. That seems always to require special pleading, as I doubt you would allow a Muslim, for example, to cite the Q’ran as proof of Islam, or a Hindu to quote the Bhagavad Gita as proof of Hinduism. We can usually quite clearly see the mythological nature of other religions’ sacred texts, and yet it seems much harder to accept the possible mythological nature of our own favoured relgious texts. That, again, does not mean the bible can’t be factual, but surely we should allow some room for the possibility that it, like other religious texts, may contain key elements of mythsos.
As you can see it is the certainty of truth I struggle with, as it seems to rely on favouring texts in a way that other religions must be denied.
But thank you for explaining yourself.
A
Abu
Guest
It is not a question of mere “texts”, and the attitude of evading the reality of history is quite common. Beliefs stem from all sorts of situations, but only the Catholic Church has what God, through his Son, Jesus, has mandated, and has demonstrated in reality through the miracle of the Sun at Fatima, the medically attested miracles that take place at Lourdes, and the Eucharistic miracles.
So there is the certainty of Christ’s Truth through His Church.
Christ said He would rise from the dead: “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.” [Jn 2:19,21]. After His Transfiguration, He told Peter, James and John: “Tell no one the vision, until the Son of Man is raised from the dead.” [Mt 17:9].
All other “religions” are man-made.
E
Emjay66
Guest
Thank you Abu,
But something concerning the resurrection makes me read scripture not as reliable or at least strictly factual. I’m sure many will be familiar with this, but I wonder how you keep to the Gospels being totally reliable histories given the following…
In Matthew’s Gospel the disciples are told by Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (who meet an angel but not Jesus after finding the tomb empty) to go straight to Galilee to see the resurrected Jesus. This they do (while the guards went into the city to report on events, so this is straight away). This is 70 miles away. They then meet Jesus in Galilee on the mountain.
In Mark, we have no direct resurrection description (all bibles note that the two resurrection endings are later additions) - the Gospel ends abruptly with the empty tomb.
In Luke the women are told by two angels to tell the disciples that Jesus has risen. Jesus then appears to two people on the road to Emmaus while the disciples are waiting in Jerusalem (not going to Galilee like in Matthew). Jesus then appears to them in Jerusalem (not Galilee) and then the ascension takes place in Bethany (close to Jerusalem). Indeed in ACts Luke tells us that Jesus tells the disciples not to leave Jerusalem while he is with them (quite different to Matthew’s account of them going to Galilee).
In John Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene by the tomb. Mary is not told to tell the disciples to go to Galilee and Jesus appears to the disciples in the upper room in Jerusalem. The disciples receive the Holy Spirit direct from Jesus on that occasion (different to Luke/Acts where they receive the Holy Spirit later). Jesus appears again a week later in Jerusalem and finally (not straight away) is seen in Galilee.
So we have four Gospels and four resurrection accounts that can’t be fully aligned. Now, that is not to say the resurrection did not or could not occur, but don’t you think such differences allow for a possibility that these narratives are coming out of slightly different lines of transmission with each developing their own details. We have at least some development of mythology here in at least one of the Gospels. This must cast some doubt on the Gospels as history. I think it at least shows they can’t all be exact descriptions of what really happened. Either one or all are wrong in their details (except Mark who doesn’t describe a resurrection).
I appreciate the strength of your faith. But how do you deal with such clear discrepancies between Gospels on something as critical as the descriptions of the resurrection?
But something concerning the resurrection makes me read scripture not as reliable or at least strictly factual. I’m sure many will be familiar with this, but I wonder how you keep to the Gospels being totally reliable histories given the following…
In Matthew’s Gospel the disciples are told by Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (who meet an angel but not Jesus after finding the tomb empty) to go straight to Galilee to see the resurrected Jesus. This they do (while the guards went into the city to report on events, so this is straight away). This is 70 miles away. They then meet Jesus in Galilee on the mountain.
In Mark, we have no direct resurrection description (all bibles note that the two resurrection endings are later additions) - the Gospel ends abruptly with the empty tomb.
In Luke the women are told by two angels to tell the disciples that Jesus has risen. Jesus then appears to two people on the road to Emmaus while the disciples are waiting in Jerusalem (not going to Galilee like in Matthew). Jesus then appears to them in Jerusalem (not Galilee) and then the ascension takes place in Bethany (close to Jerusalem). Indeed in ACts Luke tells us that Jesus tells the disciples not to leave Jerusalem while he is with them (quite different to Matthew’s account of them going to Galilee).
In John Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene by the tomb. Mary is not told to tell the disciples to go to Galilee and Jesus appears to the disciples in the upper room in Jerusalem. The disciples receive the Holy Spirit direct from Jesus on that occasion (different to Luke/Acts where they receive the Holy Spirit later). Jesus appears again a week later in Jerusalem and finally (not straight away) is seen in Galilee.
So we have four Gospels and four resurrection accounts that can’t be fully aligned. Now, that is not to say the resurrection did not or could not occur, but don’t you think such differences allow for a possibility that these narratives are coming out of slightly different lines of transmission with each developing their own details. We have at least some development of mythology here in at least one of the Gospels. This must cast some doubt on the Gospels as history. I think it at least shows they can’t all be exact descriptions of what really happened. Either one or all are wrong in their details (except Mark who doesn’t describe a resurrection).
I appreciate the strength of your faith. But how do you deal with such clear discrepancies between Gospels on something as critical as the descriptions of the resurrection?
A
Abu
Guest
The persistent attempts to discredit the reality that is Christ and His Church starkly reveal the inability to discredit the miracles which occur to this day which testify to the divinity through His Church.
A series of identical accounts of the same event would indicate that the witnesses conferred, or were trained so as to agree in all respects, whereas divergences are quite natural where different people recount memories as occurred with these accounts. Recognising that each account is not claiming to present the whole picture, that they differ, they are not mutually exclusive, but supplementary to each other.
The testimony of incredulous but honest witnesses, the success which attended the preaching of the Apostles reflect the reality that Christ claimed to be God, that He foretold that he would rise from the dead – He did – which proves His claim.
E
Emjay66
Guest
Well, if you go down the proof-by-miracle route every faith claims ‘verified miracles’, so I tend to see scripture as much stronger than miracle claims.
No, I think scripture must be the bed-rock of Christianity. And if we see some significant variation in accounts in scripture then I think that must at least open up the possibility that we can’t be absolutely certain abut things.
P
PJM
Guest
THE REPLY
I have been following this very well done dialog with great interest; might I ask of question for consideration?
Emjay
It it reasonable that countless martyrs, including ALL of the apostles {except John on a failed attempt} willingly gave there lives in brutal way’s, IF, IF they did not believe in the Resurrection. And yes, there is evidence of this: GOOGLE the Roman catacombs.
God Bless you,
Patrick thanks for allowing me in interject
- Status