How can any of us respond to "show me the evidence", when it comes to believing in Jesus Christ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Telstar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
808Catholic said:
I’m not talking about faith; I’m talking about evidence.
Click to expand...
You stated that that “no evidence is required if you believe”.

That is absolutely NOT THE CATHOLIC POSITION.

We are not required to believe without evidence.

That’s blind faith.

And that’s a heresy in the Catholic faith.
 
ffg said:
The confusion is that love is something other than action.

Love is action.

You can tell someone until you are blue in the face that you love them, but if you don’t show it, it’s empty.

Those who keep a marriage going for a lifetime don’t ‘Feel’ loving all the time (the butterflies go away), but they might have to act when they don’t want to (a lot), that’s love…(sidenote: 15 years this year!)
Code: 
Evidence:

As I said in the other thread, which was buried in much too long of a post...

What in life experience is not evidence? 

A scientist experiences a day and writes notes.

An Apostle experiences a day and writes notes.

If you don't want to look that far back, history is full of evidences. Many folks have written about their lives and experiences.

I think the key is that the evidences for God are not the 'God particle' that can't be found because of what is in this thread already.

God will not force your hand to know, He LOVES you too much.

How? Where is his action? Most common and visible is the cross, but if one is interested in learning about other means, they have to listen to the evidences folks have for God's existence.

Which is in their life experience.

When people ask, I like to share.
Click to expand...
Understood, I was just speculating in that even though I cannot see into her mind, I have faith that my wife loves me, not because of her actions but by the faith in our love for one another. So whether she is across town or on the other side of the world, I know and have faith that she loves me.

And this is just pure speculation on my part regarding this topic and I may be totally off base, just trying to wrap my brain around it in terms that I understand
 
wmscott said:
Understood, I was just speculating in that even though I cannot see into her mind, I have faith that my wife loves me, not because of her actions but by the faith in our love for one another. So whether she is across town or on the other side of the world, I know and have faith that she loves me.

And this is just pure speculation on my part regarding this topic and I may be totally off base, just trying to wrap my brain around it in terms that I understand
Click to expand...
You’re not off base. Analysis takes all forms and comes from all angles. It’s a great point to bring up because in our world today feel, feel, feel is pumped down our throats. It’s a way to wash away the reality of ‘right and wrong’. But that’s for another thread.

Things that are difficult to explain, or don’t have a quick logical path for reason on the surface (like knowledge of the feelings of another) may seem like a ‘thing’ that just takes faith with no evidence.

I think that there is a way to identify evidence to the fact that love exists between two…

Driven through - life experience.

Experiences you have been through together (acts) are the evidences for the knowledge of the internal intent for the other.
 
The only physical evidence I can offer is myself. Before God gave me faith, I was a jerk. Now, I’m slightly less of a jerk through the grace given to me by the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 5:16

In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.
 
Micosil said:
I find this to have good arguments in favor of the Resurrection of our Lord. 😃
Click to expand...
:bowdown::clapping::clapping::clapping:

Thank you so much for this. I have bookmarked it. Outstanding argument by Peter Kreeft. This made my morning. 👍
 
PeaceInChrist said:
In Thomistic predestination, God gives sufficient grace to all, but efficacious grace to only some. Those who do not receive efficacious grace are not elected to glory, but are reprobated to damnation, ie allowed to die in their original or actual sin. There are articles that explain it more thoroughly online. Type in catholic predestination.
Click to expand...
Sorry, @PeaceInChrist, I researched this concept on the CA site and still don’t understand the point where you claim I committed heresy. Perhaps I’m confusing your response. Can your restate your objection to my original comment “To those with faith, no proof is required. To those without, no proof is sufficient.” Something like that. Thanks for encouraging me to research the topic of Predestination! I learned a lot today!🙂
 
Reasons to Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus

Fact 1:
After his crucifixion, Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in his personal tomb. This is significant because it would have been difficult for the disciples to make up the story of an empty tomb when everyone knew where the tomb was located.

  1. *]Jesus’ burial is attested in the very old tradition quoted by Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians.
    *]“For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve.” (1 Co 15:3-5)
    *]Paul “received” this account from Peter within the first five years of Jesus’ crucifixion making the possibility of legend or myth very unlikely.
    *]The account of the burial is part of very old source material used by Mark in writing his gospel. The passion narrative, in particular, is thought to be from an even earlier account that was used by all of the gospel writers.
    *]As a member of the Jewish court that condemned Jesus, Joseph of Arimathea is unlikely to be a Christian invention.

    No competing burial story exists.
    **
    Fact 2:**
    On the Sunday following the crucifixion, the tomb of Jesus was found empty by a group of his female followers.

    1. *]The empty tomb story is part of the very old source material used by Mark.
      *]The old tradition cited by Paul in 1 Corinthians implies the fact of the empty tomb.
      *]Mark’s story is simple and lacks signs of legendary embellishment.
      *]The fact that women’s testimony was worthless in first century Palestine strengthens the case that women were the first to discover the empty tomb. Why would any account use the suspect testimony of women if it were not an accurate recounting of what really happened?
      *]The earliest Jewish allegations that the disciples had stolen Jesus’ body presupposes that the tomb was empty.

      Fact 3:
      On multiple occasions and under various circumstances, different individuals and groups experienced appearances of Jesus alive after his death.

      1. *]The list of eyewitnesses to Jesus’ resurrection appearances (which is quoted by Paul and vouchsafed by his personal acquaintance with many of the people involved), guarantees that such appearances occurred. These included appearances to Peter, to the Apostles, to 500 people at one time, and to James.
        *]The appearance traditions in the gospels provide multiple, independent attestation to these appearances.
        *]Researchers have noticed signs of historical credibility in the specific appearances; for example, the unexpected activity of the disciples’ fishing prior to Jesus’ appearance by the Lake of Tiberius or the otherwise inexplicable conversion of James.

        Fact 4:
        The disciples believed that Jesus was risen from the dead despite having every reason not to believe it.

        1. *]Their leader was dead, and Jews had no belief in a dying (and rising) Messiah.
          *]According to Jewish law, Jesus’ execution as a criminal showed him to be a heretic and a man literally under the curse of God.
          *]Jewish beliefs about the afterlife precluded anyone’s rising from the dead before the general resurrection at the end of the world.

          Fact 5:
          The Jews who followed Jesus abandoned the Sabbath and chose the first day of the week, Sunday, as their holy day.

          1. *]Why would Jews abandon the Sabbath day instituted by God unless something very significant had happened on Sunday?

            Fact 6:
            The Apostles began to preach the resurrection of Jesus in Jerusalem where He had been killed.

            1. *]They did not return to Galilee and begin preaching to people who had no knowledge of the facts concerning Jesus’ crucifixion; they began preaching right under the noses of those who were responsible for His death.
              *]Anyone wanting to disprove the resurrection would only have to open the nearby tomb to display the corpse or skeleton.
              *]No one on either side of the issue denied that Jesus’ tomb was empty; as state previously, the Jews claimed that the disciples stole the body.

              The historical resurrection of Jesus is the best explanation of these facts.
 
808Catholic said:
Sorry, @PeaceInChrist, I researched this concept on the CA site and still don’t understand the point where you claim I committed heresy. Perhaps I’m confusing your response. Can your restate your objection to my original comment “To those with faith, no proof is required. To those without, no proof is sufficient.” Something like that. Thanks for encouraging me to research the topic of Predestination! I learned a lot today!🙂
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, but I never used the word heresy at all. Maybe you’re thinking of prmergers post. I merely meant that I’ve seen people convert because of signs or visions or mystical experience, so I don’t find your quote to be 100% true. Rather, God opens the eyes of those that he wills, and doesn’t open others, for no other reason than he chooses to do so.

In other words, some didn’t believe, and proof was sufficient. Which contradicts the quote from Aquinas.
 
PeaceInChrist said:
I’m sorry, but I never used the word heresy at all. Maybe you’re thinking of prmergers post.
Click to expand...
Yes. That was me, PRmerger.

I said that it is a heresy to deny the use of our human reason to come to a knowledge of Truth. That is called Fideism–blind faith.

No Catholic can embrace blind faith and reject human reason.
 
PeaceInChrist said:
I’m sorry, but I never used the word heresy at all. Maybe you’re thinking of prmergers post. I merely meant that I’ve seen people convert because of signs or visions or mystical experience, so I don’t find your quote to be 100% true. Rather, God opens the eyes of those that he wills, and doesn’t open others, for no other reason than he chooses to do so.

In other words, some didn’t believe, and proof was sufficient. Which contradicts the quote from Aquinas.
Click to expand...
My apologies, @PeaceInChrist. I was mistaken about you and the “heresy” comment. I will fall back to my belief that God desires us all to be saved. Why some people have epiphanies and others don’t is a mystery that only God knows the reason. Perhaps, He revealed the truth to them and they just didn’t want to accept it. 🙂
 
PRmerger said:
Yes. That was me, PRmerger.

I said that it is a heresy to deny the use of our human reason to come to a knowledge of Truth. That is called Fideism–blind faith.

No Catholic can embrace blind faith and reject human reason.
Click to expand...
Agreed. 🙂
 
Telstar said:
I think the title is pretty self explanatory. What should we say to someone who asks us why we believe what we believe? Can we offer any real proof for what we believe about the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ? I’d appreciate answers from both sides of the aisle, either from Catholics or non-Catholic Christians. How would you respond?
Click to expand...
I would recommend you take a look at the following YouTube video, by a cold case detective who used to be a hard case atheist, but who on applying his cold case techniques to the NT has become a Christian:

youtu.be/nkllFXIsV6M
 
Mount_Carmel said:
I would recommend you take a look at the following YouTube video, by a cold case detective who used to be a hard case atheist, but who on applying his cold case techniques to the NT has become a Christian:

youtu.be/nkllFXIsV6M
Click to expand...
I remember watching that a while ago. What stood out to me was how he said that the minor differences in details between the gospel accounts were sort of how it actually happens in real life among truthful eyewitnesses. If they’re too precise in all minor details, then it looks suspicious and fabricated.
 
Mount_Carmel said:
I would recommend you take a look at the following YouTube video, by a cold case detective who used to be a hard case atheist, but who on applying his cold case techniques to the NT has become a Christian:

youtu.be/nkllFXIsV6M
Click to expand...
I’m a big fan of TV shows like NCIS, CSI, Bones and others, where they scientifically examine the evidence in homicide cases from a police perspective. This guy in the video specifically knows how to examine evidence in ‘cold cases’, to be able to solve old unsolved murders. So, he just used those same skills to make his case for the truth of the Gospels. That was excellent! I loved it!

Thank you very much! 👍
 
Sy_Noe said:
Faith can’t be proven.
Click to expand...
Our Catholic faith is eminently reasonable. That is, it can be proven.

Our Catholic faith always has an apologia–a defense for what we believe.

If it couldn’t be proven, then why would our first pope, in one of his encyclicals, enjoin us to “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have”?
 
The evidence is overwhelming and clear.

It is only the Catholic Church established by God Himself in the person of Jesus the Christ that has the evidence as God’s Church.

Apart from the New Testament’s recorded miracles of Jesus Himself, and those of His appointed Chief Vicar St Peter, we have the doctor-attested miracle cures at Lourdes, the attested miracle of the Sun at Fatima and other attested cases of miracles such as the recurring liquefaction (becoming liquid) of the blood of St Januarius (Gennaro) which is an extraordinary miracle of the Church that has been occurring up to 18 times each year for the past 600 years.
miraclesofthechurch.com/2010/10/blood-miracle-of-st-januarius-gennaro.html

The miracle of Lanciano took place in the little Church of St. Legontian and St. Domitian, as a divine response to a Basilian monk’s doubt about Jesus’ Real Presence in the Eucharist. It is the first and greatest Eucharistic Miracle of the Catholic Church. This Eucharistic miracle happened in the year 700 A.D.
infallible-catholic.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/eucharistic-miracle-of-lanciano-italy.html
catholiceducation.org/en/culture/catholic-contributions/the-miracle-of-lanciano.html?hc_location=ufi
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top