Proofs that Christianity is the one true religion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Larry1700
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Larry1700

Guest
I have a son-in-law who doesn’t go to church. I’m not certain about where he stands regarding the existence of God (I’m pretty sure he believes there is a supreme being). He has agreed to start going to Mass with my daughter when they have kids (too late, IMHO).

Anyway, I sent him something about Islam being taught in the C-Scope curriculum. He says he doesn’t see anything wrong with it. He thinks all of the “5 major religions” should be taught in school, as part of teaching about cultures.

I replied that I would probably be okay with that, IF they were taught equally. However, I told him that there was a textbook which said something to the effect of “followers of Christianity **claimed ** that Jesus rose from the dead”, and “one night in 620 A.D. Muhammed **went **to heaven with the angel Gabriel and conversed with Abraham, Moses and Jesus”. (I don’t remember the exact quotes, but you get the picture. One is simply a claim, while the other is presented as fact.)

He replied that all religions are a matter of faith and can’t be proven, to which I replied that there are definite proofs.

One of my proofs is that my wife and her mother and siblings were reciting the Rosary in Mexico, and they heard someone else praying with them. When they paused and looked around, her mother told them not to worry, it was only her father (their grandfather) who had passed away in that house.

Another is the Shroud of Turin. I don’t remember all the research, but the Shroud of Turin Research Project’s findings were pretty convincing. With my son-in-law, though, the radiocarbon dating would probably trump everything, even though STURP says it was taken from a part that was exposed to a fire.

I would also point to the various Eucharistic miracles throughout history.

The last one I can think of is the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima, witnessed by hundreds as documented by a local newspaper.

Please provide further proofs, and/or critique the ones I’ve provided. He’s quite a skeptic!

Thanks!
 
All that being said, I have trouble with some of the parts of the Catechism. (I know, as a Catholic, I am obligated to believe it, so I try to do so, but I can’t help wonder if I’m misinterpreting it.)

Here are a few excerpts I’ll have to deal with when discussing the issue with my son-in-law:

841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: (161, 1257)

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation.
 
Jesus is the only avatar to claim to be God. Biblical and non biblical texts prove he was real.
 
This is a common situation for those who have been educated by the media. The short answer is there is no “proof” in one sense which is why it is called “faith”. Most who look for “proof” are just looking for a reason to not turn to God.

Here’s an exercise. Read John 3:36 “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides upon him.” (NASB). That is in the Bible. No room for interpretation, it is perfectly clear.

Now, the only question is whether this is true, or more accurately, whether the Bible is true. If it is, then there is nothing more important than bringing someone to knowledge of Christ and practice of the Christian faith. To not do so would condemn them to eternal damnation.

If it is not true, then we should purge society from such falsehoods as it would be cruel to place someone under such inhumane myths. The enemy knows this and works in our society to purge Christianity from the culture. Not because it isn’t true, but because if it is true, the consequences of how they are living are too horrible to face. They cannot live in the worldly manner they do and have hope of life, so the only solution is to convince people it’s not true in hope of them turning away from God.

It fits the pattern history. A country forms out of oppression, realizes God has freed them and thanks Him for it, it becomes prosperous and thinks they are all powerful, they turn away from God, then fall. We’re in that last stage. Don’t lose hope, God’s still in charge and we win in the end!
 
Secular sources wrote about Jesus. Including a man named Josephus:

(63) Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. (64) And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross [2], those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day [3], as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named for him, are not extinct at this day.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus
 
There is a good book “A Case for Faith” by Lee Strobel who was an athiest who set out to disprove Christianity. What he found was as much proof as could be found and he is now a Christian Apologist. He covers all the common objections to the Christian faith. Well worth the read.
 
ChurchSoldier said:
There is a good book “A Case for Faith” by Lee Strobel who was an athiest who set out to disprove Christianity. What he found was as much proof as could be found and he is now a Christian Apologist. He covers all the common objections to the Christian faith. Well worth the read.
Click to expand...
That is a good book he puts all the data in a easy to read way.
 
GreatergoodGod said:
Secular sources wrote about Jesus. Including a man named Josephus:

(63) Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. (64) And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross [2], those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day [3], as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named for him, are not extinct at this day.
Click to expand...
I just want to add that Josephus was a Jew of priestly descent and historian who lived from AD 37 to c. 100. 👍
 
Larry1700 said:
I have a son-in-law who doesn’t go to church. I’m not certain about where he stands regarding the existence of God (I’m pretty sure he believes there is a supreme being). He has agreed to start going to Mass with my daughter when they have kids (too late, IMHO).

Anyway, I sent him something about Islam being taught in the C-Scope curriculum. He says he doesn’t see anything wrong with it. He thinks all of the “5 major religions” should be taught in school, as part of teaching about cultures.

I replied that I would probably be okay with that, IF they were taught equally. However, I told him that there was a textbook which said something to the effect of “followers of Christianity **claimed **that Jesus rose from the dead”, and “one night in 620 A.D. Muhammed **went **to heaven with the angel Gabriel and conversed with Abraham, Moses and Jesus”. (I don’t remember the exact quotes, but you get the picture. One is simply a claim, while the other is presented as fact.)

He replied that all religions are a matter of faith and can’t be proven, to which I replied that there are definite proofs.

One of my proofs is that my wife and her mother and siblings were reciting the Rosary in Mexico, and they heard someone else praying with them. When they paused and looked around, her mother told them not to worry, it was only her father (their grandfather) who had passed away in that house.

Another is the Shroud of Turin. I don’t remember all the research, but the Shroud of Turin Research Project’s findings were pretty convincing. With my son-in-law, though, the radiocarbon dating would probably trump everything, even though STURP says it was taken from a part that was exposed to a fire.

I would also point to the various Eucharistic miracles throughout history.

The last one I can think of is the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima, witnessed by hundreds as documented by a local newspaper.

Please provide further proofs, and/or critique the ones I’ve provided. He’s quite a skeptic!

Thanks!
Click to expand...
Even with all the proofs in the world, the person who does not want to believe and change their life will never be swayed. Nothing helps conversions like prayer!

With that said, I still wanted to share this. It is taken from Ven. Fulton J. Sheen’s book “Life of Christ” and I have found it to be extremely helpful with my own faith and with others.

web.singnet.com.sg/~kelvchia/jesus.html

Ps. This is not my site.
 
ChurchSoldier said:
There is a good book “A Case for Faith” by Lee Strobel who was an athiest who set out to disprove Christianity. What he found was as much proof as could be found and he is now a Christian Apologist. He covers all the common objections to the Christian faith. Well worth the read.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I had forgotten about that one. I’ve read the book, and I think I still have it. (I often loan my books, and unfortunately they sometimes don’t get returned.)
 
Credo_in_Deum said:
Even with all the proofs in the world, the person who does not want to believe and change their life will never be swayed. Nothing helps conversions like prayer!

With that said, I still wanted to share this. It is taken from Ven. Fulton J. Sheen’s book “Life of Christ” and I have found it to be extremely helpful with my own faith and with others.

web.singnet.com.sg/~kelvchia/jesus.html

Ps. This is not my site.
Click to expand...
Thanks very much for the link. That was a great synopsis of the all the various “pointers” towards Christ which preceded His birth. I have never read Bishop Sheen’s book, “Life of Christ,” although I intended to.
 
Larry1700 said:
All that being said, I have trouble with some of the parts of the Catechism. (I know, as a Catholic, I am obligated to believe it, so I try to do so, but I can’t help wonder if I’m misinterpreting it.)

Here are a few excerpts I’ll have to deal with when discussing the issue with my son-in-law:

841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: (161, 1257)

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation.
Click to expand...
Can anyone help me properly understand this? To me, it sounds like:
  1. It doesn’t matter what religion you are, as long as you try to be a good person, and never hear about Christ and His Church.
  2. It is the mission of the Catholic Church to inform everyone about Christ and His Church.
I know I’m misunderstanding something here.
 
I had a college textbook that claimed that Jesus never said He was divine. I guess the author hadn’t read the Gospel of John.
 
Larry1700 said:
Can anyone help me properly understand this? To me, it sounds like:
  1. It doesn’t matter what religion you are, as long as you try to be a good person, and never hear about Christ and His Church.
  2. It is the mission of the Catholic Church to inform everyone about Christ and His Church.
I know I’m misunderstanding something here.
Click to expand...
This isn’t the same as saying it doesn’t matter.

First, note that the catechism says “may” achieve salvation. In other words, we don’t know. We do know that all good comes from God, all truth comes from God, and that those seeking truth are showing something of God in them. We know that God is merciful, so it is rational to think He would choose to save someone who, through no fault of their own, did not know of Him or His Church. So those who seek truth “may” be saved, and those who have never heard about Jesus through no fault of their own may be saved. (Think of those in the “New World” before Christians were here, as an example. In the centuries after the death of Jesus and the advent of Christians here to spread the word, would a merciful God just consign all those people to hell?)

But truth matters. God is a God of truth. So He wants everyone to know truth. It is better to learn of Jesus, to worship God, to have the advantages of the Sacraments and everything else the Church has to offer.

However, if you understand that the Church offers the fullness of truth, that it is the path to salvation, and in that knowledge you still reject the Church, then you are rejecting God.

So…yes, it matters to evangelize. It matters to show people the truth. But if someone doesn’t know the truth or is unable to comprehend it, through no fault of their own, it seems in the nature of God that He would, in His mercy and justice, allow for salvation for those individuals as well. Especially as the desire for truth comes from God, so those seeking truth are responding to His call.
 
Larry1700 said:
I have a son-in-law who doesn’t go to church. I’m not certain about where he stands regarding the existence of God (I’m pretty sure he believes there is a supreme being). He has agreed to start going to Mass with my daughter when they have kids (too late, IMHO).

Anyway, I sent him something about Islam being taught in the C-Scope curriculum. He says he doesn’t see anything wrong with it. He thinks all of the “5 major religions” should be taught in school, as part of teaching about cultures.

I replied that I would probably be okay with that, IF they were taught equally. However, I told him that there was a textbook which said something to the effect of “followers of Christianity **claimed ** that Jesus rose from the dead”, and “one night in 620 A.D. Muhammed **went **to heaven with the angel Gabriel and conversed with Abraham, Moses and Jesus”. (I don’t remember the exact quotes, but you get the picture. One is simply a claim, while the other is presented as fact.)

He replied that all religions are a matter of faith and can’t be proven, to which I replied that there are definite proofs.

One of my proofs is that my wife and her mother and siblings were reciting the Rosary in Mexico, and they heard someone else praying with them. When they paused and looked around, her mother told them not to worry, it was only her father (their grandfather) who had passed away in that house.

Another is the Shroud of Turin. I don’t remember all the research, but the Shroud of Turin Research Project’s findings were pretty convincing. With my son-in-law, though, the radiocarbon dating would probably trump everything, even though STURP says it was taken from a part that was exposed to a fire.

I would also point to the various Eucharistic miracles throughout history.

The last one I can think of is the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima, witnessed by hundreds as documented by a local newspaper.

Please provide further proofs, and/or critique the ones I’ve provided. He’s quite a skeptic!

Thanks!
Click to expand...
Jesus and Mohammed both lived and died.

Only one of them came back from the dead. If anyone else has done that, we will rethink our position!

Pretty simple, really
:cool:
 
Deconi said:
Jesus and Mohammed both lived and died.

Only one of them came back from the dead. If anyone else has done that, we will rethink our position!

Pretty simple, really
:cool:
Click to expand...
You and I know that it’s true, but what about those that don’t believe Jesus rose from the dead?
 
Incomplete said:
This isn’t the same as saying it doesn’t matter.

First, note that the catechism says “may” achieve salvation. In other words, we don’t know. We do know that all good comes from God, all truth comes from God, and that those seeking truth are showing something of God in them. We know that God is merciful, so it is rational to think He would choose to save someone who, through no fault of their own, did not know of Him or His Church. So those who seek truth “may” be saved, and those who have never heard about Jesus through no fault of their own may be saved. (Think of those in the “New World” before Christians were here, as an example. In the centuries after the death of Jesus and the advent of Christians here to spread the word, would a merciful God just consign all those people to hell?)

But truth matters. God is a God of truth. So He wants everyone to know truth. It is better to learn of Jesus, to worship God, to have the advantages of the Sacraments and everything else the Church has to offer.

However, if you understand that the Church offers the fullness of truth, that it is the path to salvation, and in that knowledge you still reject the Church, then you are rejecting God.

So…yes, it matters to evangelize. It matters to show people the truth. But if someone doesn’t know the truth or is unable to comprehend it, through no fault of their own, it seems in the nature of God that He would, in His mercy and justice, allow for salvation for those individuals as well. Especially as the desire for truth comes from God, so those seeking truth are responding to His call.
Click to expand...
Interesting. I have always taken the usage of “may” in this paragraph as something akin to “able to” or “can.” For example, if your child asks if he can leave the dinner table you would say “Yes, you may.” I had never considered the alternative possibility.

Here’s the Merriam-Webster online dictionary entry, which shows both your understanding and mine:

1a archaic: have the ability to

b: have permission to : be free to <a rug on which children may sprawl — C. E. Silberman> —used nearly interchangeably with can

c—used to indicate possibility or probability ; sometimes used interchangeably with can <one of those slipups that may happen from time to time — Jessica Mitford> ; sometimes used where might would be expected <you may think from a little distance that the country was solid woods — Robert Frost>
 
The person that demands proof of one religion over another is not being intellectually honest. The reason they are called religions or Faiths, is that it REQUIRES faith. There is NO proof (in the empirical scientific sense.) There is however probability. And in fact, we operate daily on the premise of probability. We can believe that something is SO probable, that in our minds it is CERTAIN. This is the “proof” that some claim they have for whatever probability they are discussing.

Therefore, what constitutes proof for one person, may not be so convincing to another. That is why Faith is called a gift from GOD. We need the Divine help. We can’t reason our way to the infinite and transcendent with “proofs.” A thoughtful person would understand this in the first place.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top