"Just have faith" vs evidence

  • Thread starter Thread starter D0UBTFIRE
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m a convert. My parents had nothing to do with my becoming Catholic. I read books, which lead me to Catholicism.

You’re loosing me here…what’s the point?
So, you went out and dug up fragments of the various greek NT texts, translated them and learned fragments about Jesus? And you asked your books and they baptized you and confirmed you and give you the Eucharist on Sundays?
No.
A real person right in front of you baptized you, confirmed you, gives you the eucharist. When you were baptized you were asked by a real person if you renounced all other allegiance and would have allegiance to this Body of Christ, the Church, and all its words to you (the Gospel it announces to you - living announcement by someone right in front of you).

You say at every Mass, “I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church” - so you are saying at mass that you believe what I wrote rather than believing your post about fragments.
 
Can you point me to where you find this information regarding who wrote the Gospels? Because the information I have directly contradicts the information you’re stating.
Well what information do you have that contradicts what I have?
 
Hi there,
Hey D0UBTFIRE 🙂
I’m in the “here is new evidence that I’ve never looked at before” camp.
Alright.
Basically, what started everything was reading StrangeNotions.com and reading through the comments written by atheist. One comment mentioned something that really bothered me - I posted about it a while back - it is regarding voluntary doubt and involuntary doubt, and what the Catechism says about it. Now, based on the responses I got to my post then, it seems that I was mistaken (although I never really managed to see how other than everyone seemed to think that the Church couldn’t possibly teach that involuntary doubt was sinful). But it was too late. I had already VIEWED it as the Church taught that involuntary doubt was sinful and I had gotten really upset about it because I felt like I was back in that cult of my childhood that didn’t allow you to really ask questions. So I started asking questions, so to speak. I started from scratch. I asked a question on the philosophical forums here about proving God through reason thinking lets start from scratch and see if I can still get to the same point that I was (orthodox Catholicism). That whole philosophy thing took a lot of reading, I read both sides of the arguments there online and in blogs, as many as I could find…and I actually never found it convincing that we could prove God - at least not as the Christian describes Him - through reason alone. Nonetheless, I accept the idea of God, almost strictly on my personal experience and faith, at least for now.
:hmmm: I was well and truly Catholic before I came across the apologetic’s I quoted in my previous post. I believe very much what C.S. Lewis once said “I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen, not because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” I believe many people fall into that trap trying to find God by trying to look at the sun, (which will end up blinding you so you can’t see anything) instead of looking around at all that the sun illuminates for us, thus the importance of spiritual reading such as the Gospels and the Saints etc (e.g. Diary of St. Faustina).

"35 Yet wisdom is justified by all her children.” - Luke 7:35 and just a qualifier 😉 “Never judge a philosophy by it’s abuse.” - St Augustine

I believe the real ‘proof’ so to speak, is in the pudding, as I have had doubts about certain writings before, but when I read those writings, those doubts immediately vanish, as the writings I believe speak for themselves.

For example, please read through my public message wall.
So I moved on. Next topic - Christianity. What makes Christianity true, I asked. Well, the Resurrection. So I started looking into arguments for and against that. And here’s the rub, I don’t know if these blogs on atheist websites just didn’t exist 7 years ago when I had originally started researching Christianity, or WHAT, but after taking the time to look through the arguments from both sides regarding the Resurrection, I have been more persuaded by the other side. I am not really eloquent enough to hash out all the arguments in my own words here, and I don’t know if I’m allowed to link to atheist blogs where these arguments against the Resurrection are found…so I won’t for now unless someone tells me otherwise.

Before I converted to Catholicism I read the Case for Christ, and was convinced by it. Maybe it was because I was younger or because they weren’t as easily found back then, but I never thoroughly studied the counterarguments that I now find so convincing. And let me be clear, I’m not saying that there is NO evidence for the Resurrection, I think there is enough there to make a case. I just don’t think that it’s enough or of enough unquestionable quality to be persuasive one way or the other. I would love to be convinced of one way or the other and not left in this: maybe it’s true, maybe it isn’t state that I find myself in now… but I haven’t seen the light yet.
Okay.

Please continue to next post -
 
And like I mentioned before, there’s the polygenism thing that makes me question the Church’s teaching on Original Sin and how I’m really bothered about the encyclical that says that we as Christians can’t hold to polygenism (because I think it is obvious that that is what science teaches so telling me I can’t accept it is like dooming me to cognitive dissonance) So if the Church would update that and show how they reconcile things, sooner rather than later, I would feel much better about that detail, but as it stands, I’m left wondering if Catholicism and science don’t actually contradict. That line of reasoning started a little longer back before the whole involuntary doubt thing when I had gone from Creationism to accepting evolution. However at the time although I had the doubts I pushed them aside. But they’ve been there simmering for a while.
There is so much I want to say here, if only evolution wasn’t a banned topic. I would just like to say, I totally agree with your conclusion but I totally disagree with your premise. I believe there are many problems with theistic evolution.

I believe the following book (also linked in my signature) will help you greatly -
Unseen – New Evidence by Ron Tesoriero and Lee Han:
Unseen by Ron Tesoriero and Lee Han - loveandmercy.org/english-books/

In Buenos Aires in 1999, Pope Francis, then known as Archbishop Jorge Bergoglio, sought a scientific investigation into something very unusual. A Communion Host appeared to have inexplicably changed to what looked like flesh and blood. First published in “Reason to Believe” in 2007, and then presented to Pope Benedict XVI and geneticist Dr. Francis Collins, Director of the Human Genome Project in 2009, the startling scientific evidence inspired Ron Tesoriero, an Australian lawyer and documentary film producer, and co-author Lee Han, to follow where the evidence led. And where it led is remarkable. This new book, “UNSEEN – New Evidence” presents not only a convincing basis for the belief in the Real Presence in the Eucharist but is the most serious scientific challenge yet to contemporary thinking on the origin of life in the universe.
And I also liked this short answer from William Lane Craig regarding the subject - reasonablefaith.org/why-is-evolution-so-widely-believed

I would also like to share with you the following -

**Eucharistic Miracle of Poland, Sokólka, October 12, 2008 **

Sokólka, October 12, 2008 (Part 1) – (PDF: 1.41M)
Sokólka, October 12, 2008 (Part 2) – (PDF: 1.31M)
Sokólka, October 12, 2008 (Part 3) – (PDF: 1.41M)

**Eucharistic Miracles of Argentina, Buenos Aires, 1992 - 1994 - 1996 **

(Note: The scientific investigations into this Eucharistic Miracle were instigated and approved of by Pope Francis, then known as the Argentina Archbishop Jorge Bergoglio)

Buenos Aires, 1992 - 1994 - 1996 (part 1) - (PDF: 1.46M)
Buenos Aires, 1992 - 1994 - 1996 (part 2) - (PDF: 1.42M)
Buenos Aires, 1992 - 1994 - 1996 (part 3) - (PDF: 1.25M)

Eucharistic Miracle of Italy, Lanciano, 750 A.D.

Lanciano, 750 A.D. (part 1) – (PDF: 186k)
Lanciano, 750 A.D. (part 2) – (PDF: 194k)
Extract from the book linked in my signature 'Unseen - New Evidence by Ron Tesoriero and Lee Han':
Science has always claimed to champion impartial scrutiny of objective evidence. When research uncovers new evidence, and most especially physical observable evidence, it is assessed on it’s merits. Darwin concluded that, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

Into this heated debate comes the astonishing phenomena of the sudden existence of human heart tissue in Italy (Lanciano), Poland (Sokólka) and Argentina (Buenos Aires). They explicitly demonstrate that evolutionary biologists insisting on how the heart had to have come into existence are wrong. Not only were individual cells fully and instantaneously present as the tissue of a recognizable complex organ, a four chambered heart. Not only was that organ instantaneously ‘evolved’ but so too was the particular species to which it belongs, the most complex of all species, the human being. The cells clearly did not evolve in an ever increasing step-by-step process of gradual accumulated complexity. Neither did the heart. Neither did the human. This is an unequivocal demonstration that a complex organ exists, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications over billions of years. In the face of visible, not circumstantial, evidence and by his own admission, Darwin’s theory has absolutely broken down.
Please continue to next post -
 
Extract from the book linked in my signature 'Unseen by Ron Tesoriero and Lee Han':
No one can call the Hosts-to-Heart cases spiritual. They are 100% physical. But the fact that these transformations have all occurred in a Christian context cannot be avoided. And neither can the fact that they confirm the original and enduring doctrine of the ‘real presence’ of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.

“I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world” John 6:51

If these words of Christ are true, these outrageously audacious, almost unthinkable words are true, these words uttered many thousands of times for thousands of years, every single day in every corner of the planet are true, that bread does become real flesh, then it certainly seems the height of folly to not soberly consider everything else this man had to say.
The Sacred Heart Image (St Margaret-Mary Alacoque) -

http://s7.postimg.org/4jx43bm1n/Christ_7.jpg

The revelation which took place in June 1675 when St Margaret Mary was before the Blessed Sacrament: "Behold this Heart, Which has loved men so much, that It has spared nothing, even to exhausting (Crucifixion) and consuming Itself, (Last Supper, Eucharist)** in order to testify to them Its love; and in return I receive from the greater number nothing but ingratitude by reason of their irreverence and sacrileges, and by the coldness and contempt which they show Me in this Sacrament of Love. **(how people treat His real presence in the Holy Eucharist). But what I feel the most keenly is that it is hearts which are consecrated to Me that treat Me thus. Therefore, I ask of thee that the Friday after the Octave of Corpus Christi be set apart for a special feast to honour My Heart, by communicating on that day and making reparation to It by a solemn act, in order to make amends for the indignities which It has received during the time It has been exposed on the altars. I promise thee that My Heart shall expand Itself to shed in abundance the influence of Its divine love upon those who shall thus honour It, and cause It to be honoured." (Please note the \results of the Eucharistic miracles above).
Jesus to Catalina:
The Holy Mass - loveandmercy.org/Eng-HM-Reg.pdf

The Last Supper was the moment of the greatest intimacy with My own. During that hour of love I instituted what in the eyes of mankind might be the greatest madness, to make Myself a prisoner of Love. I instituted the Eucharist. I wanted to remain with you until the end of time because My Love could not bear that you, whom I loved more than My Life, be left orphans…
Jesus to Catalina:
In Adoration - loveandmercy.org/Eng-IA-Reg.pdf

18) “My Presence can be noticed if you have open minds, hearts and souls. Whoever comes to Me receives the proofs of My Eucharistic Presence, since I cause that marvelous miracle, precisely in order to approach you, welcome you, and console you who suffer from the life that is passing.”
Jesus to Catalina:
The Passion - loveandmercy.org/Eng-TP-Reg.pdf

13) My children, poor sinners! Do not distance yourselves from Me. I wait for you night and day at the Tabernacle. I will not reproach you for your crimes; I will not throw your sins in your face. What I will do is to wash you with the Blood of My wounds. Do not be afraid; come to Me. You do not know how much I love you.
I hope this has helped 🙂

Please feel free to reply or refute anything said.

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh
 
Well what information do you have that contradicts what I have?
Regarding the authorship of the Gospels. From my understanding, it is agreed upon by the large majority of New Testament scholars that they are anonymous. In other words, St. Matthew did not write The Gospel of Matthew, St. Mark did not write the Gospel of Mark, etc.
 
So, you went out and dug up fragments of the various greek NT texts, translated them and learned fragments about Jesus? And you asked your books and they baptized you and confirmed you and give you the Eucharist on Sundays?
No.
A real person right in front of you baptized you, confirmed you, gives you the eucharist. When you were baptized you were asked by a real person if you renounced all other allegiance and would have allegiance to this Body of Christ, the Church, and all its words to you (the Gospel it announces to you - living announcement by someone right in front of you).

You say at every Mass, “I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church” - so you are saying at mass that you believe what I wrote rather than believing your post about fragments.
I’m sorry, I still don’t understand what you’re getting at… could you clarify the point you’re trying to make? It seems like you’re trying to say that the fact that someone else is telling me this somehow makes it true?
 
The Sacred Heart Image (St Margaret-Mary Alacoque) -

http://s7.postimg.org/4jx43bm1n/Christ_7.jpg

The revelation which took place in June 1675 when St Margaret Mary was before the Blessed Sacrament: "Behold this Heart, Which has loved men so much, that It has spared nothing, even to exhausting (Crucifixion) and consuming Itself, (Last Supper, Eucharist)** in order to testify to them Its love; and in return I receive from the greater number nothing but ingratitude by reason of their irreverence and sacrileges, and by the coldness and contempt which they show Me in this Sacrament of Love. **(how people treat His real presence in the Holy Eucharist). But what I feel the most keenly is that it is hearts which are consecrated to Me that treat Me thus. Therefore, I ask of thee that the Friday after the Octave of Corpus Christi be set apart for a special feast to honour My Heart, by communicating on that day and making reparation to It by a solemn act, in order to make amends for the indignities which It has received during the time It has been exposed on the altars. I promise thee that My Heart shall expand Itself to shed in abundance the influence of Its divine love upon those who shall thus honour It, and cause It to be honoured." (Please note the \results of the Eucharistic miracles above).

I hope this has helped 🙂

Please feel free to reply or refute anything said.

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh
All I can say is that I love your dedication, conviction, patience, and kindness.
 
Do you believe in Jesus and if so, who is He to you?
Yes, I think Jesus was a real person. I don’t know what he is/was, though.

This is my problem. I’m stuck on “I don’t know”. I refuse to say “It must be that he was ____” because how can I say for certain? I can’t. If it was certain there wouldn’t be so much wide spread disagreement.

This is where trust/faith comes in. Lots of people try to tell me who Jesus is. Who should I trust? How should I know? I certainly didn’t live back in ancient Israel so I can’t know firsthand, that much we all agree. So there are people who are religious that worship Jesus that say he was the Son of God. And then there are Jesus mythisist who say he never even existed. And then there are New Testament scholars who study the documents written about Jesus who have different things to say regarding the reliability of those statements. Then there is the Jesus Seminar people. Then there are the Muslims who say he was a prophet. Then there are the crazies that say he was an alien. I have no actual way of knowing who of these people are right, other than intuition. I don’t trust my bias and my intuition to make the right choice.

I deeply care about not affirming something to be true unless I’m comfortable saying it is certainly true. I could accept Catholicism as something provisional - kinda in the “well, I don’t know if this religion is completely true, but perhaps it’s the closest to the Truth that I will find, and I don’t agree with everything it teaches, but most of it is benign so I will embrace it and use it as a path towards God, even if it’s not the only path, even if it’s not the most perfect path, it will at least help me be a better person and bring me closer to God.” I could TOTALLY do that. HOWEVER, based on things I’ve read on websites like these forums here, I get the feeling that this type of view is not welcomed. That I either have to accept it all or nothing. And since I can’t in good conscience accept it all, I feel like I can no longer remain Catholic.
 
“Just have faith” is incorrect if it means don’t try to understand.
“Just have faith” is correct if it means trusting the one you are with to explain all things to you (over time, each piece at a time).
The Church is “Jesus with you”. If you ask “Him” he will explain to you all things to your satisfaction.

When I became Catholic, it was not because I understood all things Catholic; in fact I still wondered how they could say some of the things they said. But I did believe that this was the Church that was established by Jesus to Peter and the Apostles, and I could not get back to 1st century Galilee to be with Him, but I could be with those he appointed and sent (the Catholic Church). He could make all things plain, and therefore they could also.
So, I asked them to let me be a part of them, with the expectation that whatever I did not know, they would make plain to me to the point of knowing or understanding it as truth and as Good.
That is what I expect for my “faith in the Church”, with no compromise.

So, when there is something where I do not understand how it can be as they say, my words to the Church (to whoever is saying it in the Church) are, “I believe what you tell me is truth, because it is you telling me; but I do not understand it. How is this true? What does it mean?” The expectation is that the Holy Spirit will lead me into all truth via his Church.

I have not been disappointed, and I expect answers to very difficult questions, and so my current Teacher in the Church is Thomas Aquinas. I turn to him as to a master, hearing all he says, looking into myself to see myself exactly as he describes, and I reason through ideas using his reasoning. I do not read him as an outsider to try and understand the thought of Aquinas, but as an apprentice learning the craft of thinking like Aquinas. And I find my answers. I does not have to be Thomas who a person asks to explain, but it requires that you believe that person, that Church, is True, is a member of Christ who does not lie in matters of faith and life.

You wrote, "Yes, I think Jesus was a real person. I don’t know what he is/was, though. "
Using my method just stated, my words to the Church (to a Priest, fellow parishioner, or Catholic author) would be, “Jesus was real, and you say you represent him. I believe you do, and I wish to participate with Jesus. But I don’t know what he was or is, nor exactly what you are. I want you to let me know you, who you are, what you are, so that in the end I will say with all certainty that I understand exactly who and what you are (and what I am in my participation with you)” Then ask your first question, perhaps, “How is it that you say Jesus is the Son of God?”, or “What is the Trinity?” or whatever question.

An example of what I found out, what I understand as true can be found at my site, softvocation.org/2013/12/27/the-trinity/

Be an apprentice to Jesus / the Church. Walk along as trusting your master craftsman will make you a master of what you know and understand as true.
 
“Just have faith” is incorrect if it means don’t try to understand.
“Just have faith” is correct if it means trusting the one you are with to explain all things to you (over time, each piece at a time).
The Church is “Jesus with you”. If you ask “Him” he will explain to you all things to your satisfaction.

When I became Catholic, it was not because I understood all things Catholic; in fact I still wondered how they could say some of the things they said. **But I did believe that this was the Church that was established by Jesus to Peter and the Apostles, **and I could not get back to 1st century Galilee to be with Him, but I could be with those he appointed and sent (the Catholic Church). He could make all things plain, and therefore they could also.
So, I asked them to let me be a part of them, with the expectation that whatever I did not know, they would make plain to me to the point of knowing or understanding it as truth and as Good.
That is what I expect for my “faith in the Church”, with no compromise.

So, when there is something where I do not understand how it can be as they say, my words to the Church (to whoever is saying it in the Church) are, “I believe what you tell me is truth, because it is you telling me; but I do not understand it. How is this true? What does it mean?” The expectation is that the Holy Spirit will lead me into all truth via his Church.

I have not been disappointed, and I expect answers to very difficult questions, and so my current Teacher in the Church is Thomas Aquinas. I turn to him as to a master, hearing all he says, looking into myself to see myself exactly as he describes, and I reason through ideas using his reasoning. I do not read him as an outsider to try and understand the thought of Aquinas, but as an apprentice learning the craft of thinking like Aquinas. And I find my answers. I does not have to be Thomas who a person asks to explain, but it requires that you believe that person, that Church, is True, is a member of Christ who does not lie in matters of faith and life.

You wrote, "Yes, I think Jesus was a real person. I don’t know what he is/was, though. "
Using my method just stated, my words to the Church (to a Priest, fellow parishioner, or Catholic author) would be, **“Jesus was real, and you say you represent him. I believe you do, **and I wish to participate with Jesus. But I don’t know what he was or is, nor exactly what you are. I want you to let me know you, who you are, what you are, so that in the end I will say with all certainty that I understand exactly who and what you are (and what I am in my participation with you)” Then ask your first question, perhaps, “How is it that you say Jesus is the Son of God?”, or “What is the Trinity?” or whatever question.

An example of what I found out, what I understand as true can be found at my site, softvocation.org/2013/12/27/the-trinity/

Be an apprentice to Jesus / the Church. Walk along as trusting your master craftsman will make you a master of what you know and understand as true.
It seems your thoughts presuppose that I believe the Church is right about what it says it is. But I don’t. I can’t assume that the Church is what it says it is unless certain things line up first… one of them being the Resurrection. If the Resurrection didn’t happen, then the Church is definitely not what it says it is, and I would have no reason to believe in it or to think that it represents Jesus or God.
 
To the OP

There are several concerns that you are bringing up in this post, and I will try to address them the best I can.

You say that you are struggling with the faith because you require some sort of “proof” for various things: the resurrection, the writers of the Gospels, I think I saw earlier you wanted documentation on the Apostles’ deaths.

This is all well and good and they are worthy pursuits, but this is not what faith is based in. To get to the crux of your current dilemma you need to ask yourself, “Why would a God that could reveal Himself to us every minute of every day choose not to?”

Everyone that has given you any sort of evidence for any one of your concerns you have brushed off with claims of either having evidence to the contrary, which you have not provided, or declaring those claims outlandish, without explaining why they are outlandish.

At one point you mentioned that you had a problem with the fact that The Church teaches Involuntary Doubt as a sin, which it does. But you need to ask yourself WHO explained the parameters of this sin. Is it not a sin to question and seek knowledge when it comes to the Church, and this is not Involuntary Doubt. Involuntary Doubt, according to the Catechism, is, “hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity.” This means that when you approach a question you have expecting not to get a sufficient answer, you are setting yourself up to fall into deeper doubt.

For instance, the climate change debate. If you want to find any number of people proclaiming it true, you will. If you want to find any number of people proclaiming it false, you will. In all actuality, despite what our unerring faith in any science might tell us, we do not know what is going to happen tomorrow. Our understanding of the universe is in constant flux and what is taken as general scientific fact today will be adjusted, tuned, or outlawed and ridiculed tomorrow.

I was looking into your polygenism problem, and honestly I see no problem with it. A better understanding of the book of Genesis along with the fact that there are claims to counter the polygenism theory both say this is nothing to fret about when it comes to faith. It does not challenge the Bible in the least. Even if it does hold up, there is no problem with it and the Bible unless you are a creationist, which the Catholic Church is not.

If you believe in God (which you have claimed), that is where you start. Nothing that man can produce to you in the way of proof, or evidence, or even knowledge will ultimately give you what you are seeking. This is the sin of doubt, that man should be able to serve God up on a silver platter for all to see.

The people of these posts have suggested authors like Chesterton and Lewis because when you come to understand what love really is, Christianity holds the acts and commandments that best reflect that love and has the one Man in history who lived it out completely.
 
To the OP

There are several concerns that you are bringing up in this post, and I will try to address them the best I can.

You say that you are struggling with the faith because you require some sort of “proof” for various things: the resurrection, the writers of the Gospels, I think I saw earlier you wanted documentation on the Apostles’ deaths.

This is all well and good and they are worthy pursuits, but this is not what faith is based in. To get to the crux of your current dilemma you need to ask yourself, “Why would a God that could reveal Himself to us every minute of every day choose not to?”

Everyone that has given you any sort of evidence for any one of your concerns you have brushed off with claims of either having evidence to the contrary, which you have not provided, or declaring those claims outlandish, without explaining why they are outlandish.

At one point you mentioned that you had a problem with the fact that The Church teaches Involuntary Doubt as a sin, which it does. But you need to ask yourself WHO explained the parameters of this sin. Is it not a sin to question and seek knowledge when it comes to the Church, and this is not Involuntary Doubt. Involuntary Doubt, according to the Catechism, is, “hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity.” This means that when you approach a question you have expecting not to get a sufficient answer, you are setting yourself up to fall into deeper doubt.

For instance, the climate change debate. If you want to find any number of people proclaiming it true, you will. If you want to find any number of people proclaiming it false, you will. In all actuality, despite what our unerring faith in any science might tell us, we do not know what is going to happen tomorrow. Our understanding of the universe is in constant flux and what is taken as general scientific fact today will be adjusted, tuned, or outlawed and ridiculed tomorrow.

I was looking into your polygenism problem, and honestly I see no problem with it. A better understanding of the book of Genesis along with the fact that there are claims to counter the polygenism theory both say this is nothing to fret about when it comes to faith. It does not challenge the Bible in the least. Even if it does hold up, there is no problem with it and the Bible unless you are a creationist, which the Catholic Church is not.

If you believe in God (which you have claimed), that is where you start. Nothing that man can produce to you in the way of proof, or evidence, or even knowledge will ultimately give you what you are seeking. This is the sin of doubt, that man should be able to serve God up on a silver platter for all to see.

The people of these posts have suggested authors like Chesterton and Lewis because when you come to understand what love really is, Christianity holds the acts and commandments that best reflect that love and has the one Man in history who lived it out completely.
Well, that’s some food for thought.

I think I’m kinda done with these threads for now… I’m not getting anywhere personally so I don’t see anything else to discuss. I was hoping I could get some insights that might lead me one way or the other but I think I’m still in the same place I was when I started the thread.

I do have one more question that all of you might be able to answer for me though…

I hear some people say that faith is a matter of the will, not the intellect. Is that true? What does that mean? Is it like saying that evidence can’t give you an answer when it comes to matters of faith, that you have to just will yourself to believe? I’m not sure, but that is what it sounds like.
 
Well, that’s some food for thought.

I think I’m kinda done with these threads for now… I’m not getting anywhere personally so I don’t see anything else to discuss. I was hoping I could get some insights that might lead me one way or the other but I think I’m still in the same place I was when I started the thread.

I do have one more question that all of you might be able to answer for me though…

I hear some people say that faith is a matter of the will, not the intellect. Is that true? What does that mean? Is it like saying that evidence can’t give you an answer when it comes to matters of faith, that you have to just will yourself to believe? I’m not sure, but that is what it sounds like.
Like what I said before, you can find people that give good arguments against the Faith, or who explain aspects of the Church in a negative light. Just like you can find people that argue about climate change. Anything can fall to doubt. Can you, for instance, prove that you exist to me? How can you show me that you are not simply a figment of my imagination? In this kind of extreme doubt, at some point, I have to accept what I understand to be my reality and move forward otherwise everything that I experience is called into question and my ability to learn anything or act on it is rendered futile (it’s all my imagination anyway, right?). I would be completely static, which is the opposite of what God wants for us. God wants growth, and that means the seed has to first believe that there is in fact a sun that will nourish it before it begins to poke its bud from out of the earth and actually SEE the sun.

What you call “Hearsay” the Church would refer to as the “Heritage of Faith” that has been handed down to us over the ages from God.

You can find what the Catechism has to say about Faith here: vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PX.HTM

This is the final paragraph, and my personal favorite:

165 It is then we must turn to the witnesses of faith: to Abraham, who “in hope… believed against hope”;51 to the Virgin Mary, who, in “her pilgrimage of faith”, walked into the "night of faith"52 in sharing the darkness of her son’s suffering and death; and to so many others: “Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of our faith.”

There is a Truth, and it holds up against inquiry. But the thing is, once you face It, It will demand change from you. The Truth is NOT easy, being Christian is NOT easy, but it is a blessing and one that leads on a path to true happiness, the least of which is discovering who you truly were made to be.

The decision needs to be made, what is the priority: comfortable static or aggressive growth?
 
It seems your thoughts presuppose that I believe the Church is right about what it says it is. But I don’t. I can’t assume that the Church is what it says it is unless certain things line up first… one of them being the Resurrection. If the Resurrection didn’t happen, then the Church is definitely not what it says it is, and I would have no reason to believe in it or to think that it represents Jesus or God.
Oh.
Well, I am glad I was able to make my point this time and you appear to understand my thoughts.
For the “resurrection” part, not to convince you, but to show the “logic” of the Church.
There was only “one set of eyewitnesses” (apostles), and the Church maintains that is all that is needed for anyone’s certainty of it (even us today).

One set of eyewitnesses was absolutely necessary to counter claims that it was some merely spiritual reality. In other words I would have to call Peter, James, John, etc. liars to say it did not really happen or to say it was just symbolic or whatever. But, by the same token, I would have to approach them as “truth-tellers” to say the resurrection is true. Either way, there is not one shred of evidence for me to be some kind of eyewitness myself and know it from experiencing the sight of it. If I were St. Luke, who wrote the third Gospel and Acts, I would be no closer to knowing it than anyone living today, even though he travelled with Paul, knew Mary and talked to her, and many of the other apostles. All he had was their word on it. Of course he did see their lives. And he did want what they had, that self-understanding of themselves as “the People”, “The Way”. So, he took up to “sojourn with them” and let their truth be his truth, only because of them; he did become an apprentice.

The fact is, really, you are putting your life in the hands of a person other than yourself - you do become a sheep trusting a shepherd to lead you to green pastures and still waters.
 
Regarding the authorship of the Gospels. From my understanding, it is agreed upon by the large majority of New Testament scholars that they are anonymous. In other words, St. Matthew did not write The Gospel of Matthew, St. Mark did not write the Gospel of Mark, etc.
And yet Christians were were ascribing the authorship to these men from almost the very beginning. St. Irenaeus (120 AD - 202 AD) was among several in the second century who attributed the authorship of the Gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. His master, the man who taught him everything, was a bishop by the name of Polycarp. St. Polycarp had been a disciple of St. John the Apostle. So Irenaeus was in a unique position to know the authorship of at least one of the Gospels.

Also…in regards to the Gospel of Mark, Papias, who was a disciple of St. John, tells us in one of his letters the following:
“When Mark became Peter’s interpreter, he wrote down accurately, although not in order, all that he remembered of what the Lord had said or done.”
Papias wrote those words early in the second century, more than likely within the first decade. So this belief over the authorship of the Gospels goes back to almost the very beginning of Christianity itself. Which is why I scratch my head when so-called New Testament scholars say that the authorship of these works are in dispute. We have it from Irenaeus, Papias, and several others who wrote in the second and third centuries that these gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. I’d place more value on their words, as they were closer to the time in which these books were written, than some New Testament scholar who is writing 2,000 years removed.
 
Yes, I think Jesus was a real person. I don’t know what he is/was, though.

This is my problem. I’m stuck on “I don’t know”. I refuse to say “It must be that he was ____” because how can I say for certain? I can’t. If it was certain there wouldn’t be so much wide spread disagreement.

This is where trust/faith comes in. Lots of people try to tell me who Jesus is. Who should I trust? How should I know? I certainly didn’t live back in ancient Israel so I can’t know firsthand, that much we all agree. So there are people who are religious that worship Jesus that say he was the Son of God. And then there are Jesus mythisist who say he never even existed. And then there are New Testament scholars who study the documents written about Jesus who have different things to say regarding the reliability of those statements. Then there is the Jesus Seminar people. Then there are the Muslims who say he was a prophet. Then there are the crazies that say he was an alien. I have no actual way of knowing who of these people are right, other than intuition. I don’t trust my bias and my intuition to make the right choice.

I deeply care about not affirming something to be true unless I’m comfortable saying it is certainly true. I could accept Catholicism as something provisional - kinda in the “well, I don’t know if this religion is completely true, but perhaps it’s the closest to the Truth that I will find, and I don’t agree with everything it teaches, but most of it is benign so I will embrace it and use it as a path towards God, even if it’s not the only path, even if it’s not the most perfect path, it will at least help me be a better person and bring me closer to God.” I could TOTALLY do that. HOWEVER, based on things I’ve read on websites like these forums here, I get the feeling that this type of view is not welcomed. That I either have to accept it all or nothing. And since I can’t in good conscience accept it all, I feel like I can no longer remain Catholic.
Do you believe what is is written as Jesus’ words are true, like what He taught?
 
Well, thank you for understanding. 🙂

As for the Case for Christ, I read it before converting to Catholicism and it was in part what persuaded me to do so. The problem I’m having now is the counterarguments. I find them quite compelling in the sense that we don’t really have enough reliable evidence to go by to say this really happened…
I understand even if I don’t fully agree. Oh, you know who else is a good one. Dr. Stephen Barr. I read his book Modern Physics, Ancient Faith a while back. His talks are good too. I’m sure you could find them on youtube or as MP3s.
 
Regarding the authorship of the Gospels. From my understanding, it is agreed upon by the large majority of New Testament scholars that they are anonymous. In other words, St. Matthew did not write The Gospel of Matthew, St. Mark did not write the Gospel of Mark, etc.
I hope you don’t mind if I share with you an extract out of Timothy Keller’s book “The Reason for God” on the Historical Accuracy of the Gospels that I believe will help you -

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
All I can say is that I love your dedication, conviction, patience, and kindness.
Thank you 🙂

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh
 
Well, that’s some food for thought.

I think I’m kinda done with these threads for now… I’m not getting anywhere personally so I don’t see anything else to discuss. I was hoping I could get some insights that might lead me one way or the other but I think I’m still in the same place I was when I started the thread.

I do have one more question that all of you might be able to answer for me though…

I hear some people say that faith is a matter of the will, not the intellect. Is that true? What does that mean? Is it like saying that evidence can’t give you an answer when it comes to matters of faith, that you have to just will yourself to believe? I’m not sure, but that is what it sounds like.
Spiritual reading (Gospels, Saints etc) and prayer, I believe are truly the answer. “I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen, not because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” C.S. Lewis

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top