My Questions about Christianity

  • Thread starter Thread starter lemondiesel
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
lemondiesel said:
If Jesus performed miracles like raising the dead (I think there were three resurrection stories if I remember correctly?) Why were his disciples surprised of his resurrection? I mean shouldn’t they have expected it if He has already done it before?
Click to expand...
We can easily dismiss or rationalize such things-fear itself will cause us to do so-and resurrections just aren’t that easy to accept-especially after witnessing a passion like that of Christ’s -with a body so broken. Their hero looked totally defeated, humiliated, mutilated, wrong, and dead.
lemondiesel said:
My views are that they were metaphorical. All of the miracles, walking on water, changing water to wine, resurrection, are impossible feats. If I was writing a story about someone, and I wanted his legacy to carry on and not be forgotten, why not write about him defying the impossible? Surely this would leave a lasting impression.
Click to expand...
I disagree with this. People claiming to do impossible things are fairly common but it doesn’t meant they’re remembered for anything- unless maybe as shams or a bit odd in any case. Doing the impossible, OTOH, will get you remembered.
lemondiesel said:
And even with his healing miracles, Jesus healed the illness, not the disease. Illness could be the mental problems associated with the disease and the disease being the actual sickness. Jesus healed the illness of the Lepra, not Lepracy. He made the individual overcome the illness, to overcome the suffering.

just my opinion i guess…
Click to expand...
I don’t understand this, I guess. Jesus healed out of compassion and to demonstrate His authenticity-producing faith in Gods love and power.
lemondiesel said:
Jesus revolutionized the Bible. We can see this from a savage God in the Old Testament to a loving, caring, and moral God who does not interfere in the New Testament.
Click to expand...
Yes, when time was ripe in human history-when humans became more ready to receive it-Jesus revealed the face of a God of unconditional love. We can do this during the course of our individual histories as well-as we’re ready to receive it.
 
tonyrey said:
In the meantime you could give a reason for your speculation…
Click to expand...
Take time out of your “busy” life and watch a well documented film.

then I will discuss it with you as in depth as you want.
 
lemondiesel said:
Feel free to answer any of the questions, these are some that I wrote down specifically to ask this forum :dancing:

1075 A.D. Pope Gregory VII proclaims:
“That he himself (the pope) may be judged by no one.”

**1. **Can we question his judgments?

Also on that Dictatus Papae;
“The Roman church has never erred;nor will it err to all eternity, the Scripture bearing witness.”

2. The Church claims to never make mistakes? What does it do with new scientific discoveries, does it amend to them?

“That he who is not at peace with the Roman church shall not be considered Catholic.”

3. So if we disagree with anything the church teaches are we not considered Catholic?

“That no chapter and no book shall be considered canonical without his authority.”

4. I am not trying to sound all “Da Vinci Cody” but doesn’t this suggest that there could possibly be Gospels and other stories after the time of Jesus that do not describe him as “Divine”

On the issue of Jesus and the Gospels:
**5. **Well my main question is, do Christians believe his miracles were true? Or are they more metaphorical? (not including the death and resurrection)

**6. ** Does Jesus 12 apostles parallel the Old Testament 12 Tribes?

7. ** Caesar Augustus was called Divine, Son of God, God, and God from God which is parallel to Jesus’ names of Lord, Redeemer, Liberator, and Saviour of the World.
I am not trying to prove anything, my question is; 8.** Is there a parallel between Jesus and Augustus? (Meaning did biblical writers take the names of an emperor and apply them to a destitute?)

9. Was the time that Jesus came significant? Why did he come at that moment in time?

I am wondering, because although I was baptized and confirmed Catholic, I just simply do not agree with much of the Church’s teachings. Maybe you guys can help me changed that 😃
Click to expand...
  1. Agree with an earlier poster - would like some context on the quote. As Christians we are not supposed to judge ANYONE (but it happens). As far as juding the pope, when he speaks ex cathedra this is infallible doctrine and therefore becomes the official church belief. However, I think Christians can take doctrine and hold it up against their consciences, the Bible, and reason to see if it fits. The Bible mentions the Bereans as doing this and seems to have no problem with it, so long as in the end you submit to ultimate authority, even if you don’t understand. I think that is what it means not to judge - don’t let your overthinking make you fall away.
  2. You assume that new scientific discoveries make previous statements by the Roman church wrong somehow. I cannot think of any - could you provide what you are thinking of? Yes, many times science appears to provide an explanation for what, in the Bible, was considered to be a miracle. However, does that make it any less miraculous for the people of the times? Cannot God still create a world through the literal seven days listed in the Bible or through evolution? If all the miracles that sent the Israelits packing from Egypt were the cause of a volcanic eruption, would it still not be miraculous that it was timed perfectly and allowed God’s children to go free? No, I have yet to see anything from science that the church would have to “amend.” On the other hand I believe that the Vatican does have a committee devoted to science and is very positive toward scientific advancement. (Actually, generally I see science as more of a confirmation of things I already believed).
  3. Would you want to be considered Catholic? If I stopped believing in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and redeemer of the world, would I want to be considered a Christian? If I broke with the Catholic church’s teaching on any doctrine, such as, say, transubstantiation, then no I would not be Catholic. I would be Protestant and I am sure I could find a Protestant church to fit my beliefts. There are so many. This question does not make sense to me - there are a lot of things you have to take on faith, but Catholics are not all just mindless zombies either. I converted and call myself Catholic, and that means I believe all the things the church teaches (it was part of my confirmation oath). Some things are harder to believe than others, but when I encounter them, I study, question, find mentors, and then take the rest on faith. And if I could still find no way in my heart to believe it then, no, I suppose I would not be a Catholic anymore but by that point I doubt I’d care.
 
  1. I think there were. To sound “DaVinci codish” I think you would have to give those other gospels the same weight and precedence as the Gospels in the canon. I believe that the DaVinci Code discusses a kind of conspiracy that the church Fathers invented the idea that Jesus was God only in the 4th century, and that the earliest Christians just thought he was a great prophet. For a good source of apologetics on the canon of the Gospels, I suggest the book, “The Case for Christ.” The book is about Jesus (and not really Catholic per se) but I do remember a chapter or two entirely devoted to the legitimacy of the books selected to be the Gospels, and it’s fascinating! I would also suggest some of C.S. Lewis’s works because they address how he came to believe that Jesus could be none other than God, because otherwise he would be a liar or a madman. I like this question because it hits on why I became Catholic. But seriously, if you were to grab some gnostic or “other” gospels and read them, I am sure you would find a great inconsistency with the gospels we have and an unrecognizeable Jesus. One that would not fit with the rest of the Canon (epistles) of scripture, tradition, or the general understanding of Jesus today. I would also not give those other gospels as much weight as the canonical ones because I am living in the year 2010 and the canon was composed in the 300’s. I don’t know what gives us the right to look back 1700 years and judge what was going through the minds of men who were trying to compile events from 300 years before that. I am sure they had a lot more information on the Gospels and on those other gospels than we do now, which aided in their choice. I am sure there were “good” Gospels that just weren’t divinely inspired as well as bad and gnostic gospels that actually promoted heresy.
  2. True. I personally believe they were true, but, as I said before, if they were just coincidences or Jesus knowing something about how to heal a certain disease we didn’t, I don’t think they would be any less miraculous. In the book the Robe, the soldier says that perhaps the miracle of the loaves and fishes wasn’t actually one where Jesus created food out of nothing, but that he changed people’s hearts so that they began to share the lunches they had been hiding before. Either way, the point is not whether God DID do something incredibly miraculous, but that He could. But I do believe that the miracles Jesus performed were real and not parlour tricks. And as far as why the disciples were suprised he raised from the dead, I agree with many posters here. I would also add, that raising yourself from the dead just seems a LITTLE harder than raising someone else (assuming you have the ability to do it). I mean, a surgeon can perform open heart surgery on someone and save their life, but we would all be pretty amazed if he did it on himself. Not sure that any of Jesus’ other miracles were performed while he was asleep, let alone dead. A conscious, living Jesus was the person the disciples had seen performing all the miracles, I am sure that when He died they figured all his powers had gone away. He had not saved himself from death - they didn’t understand, they were scared, and perhaps they thought he had seen of his powers.
  3. 12 is an important number in the Bible and shows up a lot - more than just the 12 tribes.
    7/8 I don’t think the Bible writers were doing any such thing. You listed words that describe God or a god. The people believed, and the Emporer had declared, that he was a god. Jesus WAS God. Why would not the words used be similar? I doubt that the Emporer would have been happy to allow himself to be called “somethign like a god” or “someone really cool and almost godly.” And it would have been interesting to see the gospel writers come up with new words to describe God just because the emporer was already using the ones that came to mind first.
  4. Jesus’ birth had been foretold for hundreds of years before it happened, although I’m sure God could have arranged it to be any time in history. There were lots of good answers here by other posters. I have often wondered it myself, why God chose that time. But I wonder a lot of things. I wish He were here now, though, instead, but I am glad he came so long ago so that I could have the opportunity to learn about Him.
 
Marc_Anthony said:
It’s not claiming it never makes mistakes per se, it’s claiming that when it makes an infallible declaration then that infallible declaration cannot be wrong. The statement they make must be understood to be official and infallible. If it is neither, then it can be changed.
Click to expand...
Question. In the history of the Catholic Church, has any papal decree ever been rescinded?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top