The two thieves at Jesus’s crucifixion

[Pattylt]

I’ve often noticed that faith can mean hope or belief without evidence. It can sometimes be very confusing to discern which is which in context. Sometimes you can figure it out by substituting hope…sometimes that fails! :hugs:

 

[Michaelangelo]

God has mercy on whom He desires to have mercy, and we don’t believe only those with access to a Bible and information about Jesus will be saved.

That is not what I meant. I meant that the apostles and others were given strong evidence and were not just requested to have faith. They had a sufficiently strong reason to have faith because they had been presented strong evidence. I have not been presented with sufficient strong resons for me to have faith. Therefore you must have faith is a totally pointless claim.

I am not pointing this at you specifically, I am using it to show that Jesus condemns people who demand a sign to believe. God is outside time, things Jesus says to people are not only valid for those people 2,000 years ago. Yet that generation was especially condemned by Jesus because they failed to recognize God among them, even after many signs and miracles.

The difference between me and the targets for this quotation by Jesus, is that they were claiming to believeing in god and follow the Moasic law. I’m not.

Yes all generations have their wickedness, which is why we need a Savior.

I fail to see anything from which I need to be or want to be saved. I look forward to death.

I pulled it from the book The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel. Has some Protestant undertones but the factual evidence is untainted. Thallus originally did think it was a solar eclipse, Julias Africanus later disagrees because of the unusual nature of this darkness.

I’m sure you are aware that we can back track time and areas for solar eclipses waaaay longer back in history than 2000 years, with very high precision. Again, there is no contemporary verification for this “world wide” darkness. None! And that does not strike you as odd?

I am saying that the resurrection of Jesus is a true and unchangeable historical event.

Yes you do. But not the historians. Are you a more competent historian or are you imposing your faith upon the stories?

 

[Michaelangelo]

Yes true, Matthew 27:53 says “They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.” If someone today said they saw a dead relative appearing to them, would you believe this as a trustworthy “external source?” They may have been considered crazy I find it odd that if there was a Jewish family’s journal that told of this that you would believe it, yet you do not believe the gospels written by apostles.

If many independent sources describes the same event it greatly strengthens the story. Not one source independent from Matthew, even remotely, describe this event. Seriously you can’t be lacking such fundamental understanding of the methodology used by historians?

Michaelangelo:

There is not sufficient reason for me to trust this anecdote. (…) So no, you have not provided sufficient evidence that these anecdotes are true. And the claim that a god is involved seems like a weak one too.

The evidence is what it is, you gotta have faith, friend.

For the millionth time, and I’m really getting sick of having to repeat myself about this… I LACK SUFFICIENT REASON TO HAVE FAITH IN THESE STORIES.
The apostles were not required to only rely on weak stories, so why should I?

May I ask what you found by “digging in?” Is your doubt solely based on lack of evidence, or supported by actual conflicting evidence?

Stories filtered through many persons with very weak historical support, considering the magnitude of the claims in the stories. Example of conflicting evidence is that Genesis 1:1-19 conflicts directly with modern physics.

 

[Michaelangelo]

May I ask what you found by “digging in?” Is your doubt solely based on lack of evidence, or supported by actual conflicting evidence?

To be more specific about my background. I really tried to have faith. I was a Benedictine novice for quite some time, celebrated mass on a daily basis for a long period. I could gladly walk long distances every day to be able to celebrate mass. I followed the liturgy of the hour, chanted the gregorian way. I spent time with the blessed sacrament on a very regular basis and went to confession weekly. I became an acolyte. I did everything I was asked to do and I defended my faith and the doctrines of the church. Then I started to notice the influence of greek philosophy on church doctrine… And how the church still uses greek philosophy to explain doctrine, despite no existing support for the greek explanation, and direct contradiction by modern science. So I started to pull on that thread and the whole garment fell apart.

 

[christismylord]

The apostles were not required to only rely on weak stories, so why should I?

That is not what I meant. I meant that the apostles and others were given strong evidence and were not just requested to have faith . They had a sufficiently strong reason to have faith because they had been presented strong evidence.

If you believe that the apostles were shown strong evidence (which you claim, and which they truly were) then you believe in Jesus’s signs and miracles shown to them, which are evidence in themselves for you! Also, the mere fact that He had so many faithful followers by their own will proves He must have done some amazing things. In the case of Gandhi or Buddha, their character and philosophy may have attracted many. In the case of Muhammad with Islam, He forcefully spread it through military conquest. But in the case of Jesus, the gospels tell of miracles and signs no one else has performed.

(John 10:38) “But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."

I’m sure you are aware that we can back track time and areas for solar eclipses waaaay longer back in history than 2000 years, with very high precision.

Yes completely. This was not a natural solar eclipse because of the scientific nature and placement of the sun, but a supernatural event because God Incarnate was dying. Analyzing the patterns of the sun and history of the earth from a purely scientific view may not lead one to an explainable belief in this event.

are you imposing your faith upon the stories?

Yes, and you are also imposing your doubt upon them. We all look at life through a lens. Yours may be one demanding evidence formed by personal experience. Mine is that a God must exist, and a Holy God can not coexist with imperfection, so because humans are sinful we need a Savior. Jesus perfectly embodies all that was promised in the Old Testament. Put two and two together plus the signs performed, plus God giving me faith, I believe.

Example of conflicting evidence is that Genesis 1:1-19 conflicts directly with modern physics.

The Church allows Genesis to be taken figuratively. God transcends the human idea of time and 2 Peter 3:8 says “With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.” So the human writing of it taking “a day” could very well mean time far beyond what we could imagine.

 

[christismylord]

Your pursuit of Catholicism is amazing. The only thing I could say (bear with me for just a second just try to imagine that you believe what the Bible says for the purpose of this response) is that no matter how hard we “try”(by our own efforts) to have faith (which it sounds like you truly went all out and poured so much into it)

We cannot come to God on our own. “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day.” (John 6:44) (We can assume the Father draws us through the Holy Spirit who “leads us to all truth”)

I’ve had times where I go through the motions out of fear of Hell or because I feel it’s an obligation, and certainly moments where I doubt. (I am not saying this is you at all, only me personally) This will not lead to faith, my effort may please God, but only He can draw me to Him and allow me to believe.

I’ve given up, stopped praying, and tried to walk far away from God. I felt like I did everything I could (praying hours on end, fasting, sleeping on the ground, spreading the word each day, etc) and yet I felt I made no progress spiritually and I wanted to give up and wished I never even heard about God. And some of the doctrines confused me and it seemed to make no sense, as well as the endless amount of beliefs out there, how is mine correct? Every time, after however long God allows me to try to hide from Him, I can truly feel the Holy Spirit pulling me back. It’s a gentle love as if saying “I am here, and you must persevere because even when you can’t feel it I am holding you up and I will not let you go. If you leave me, you have no hope, but I want to save you” I’m not making it up, truly, if I had my way, I would not even believe right now, I have tried to get away from God so many times and find “better” things living my own way.

He will not let His children fall away permanently (even though we may all have our moments of doubt and try to run away like Jonah , even perhaps for years, He will always welcome us back) because He loves us. Jesus says “All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.“ (John 6:37) We must sincerely ask Him for faith. He does not want us to disbelieve and He does not want to send us to Hell. He may wait awhile and let us go through rough times before answering our prayer, but in the end He will not refuse us salvation if we come to Him and plead with Him. It says this in His Word, He will not drive us away and deny us.

 

[christismylord]

Anyways, this post above was all personal testimony, you don’t have to believe me, and you don’t have to believe how someone in the Church chooses to explain things unless it is declared infallibly. Ultimately, the truth is the Bible. I say ultimately because we can walk away for now but ultimately we will have to answer to God. I believe you that perhaps the Church’s explanation for some things has some Greek roots, I’m not too educated on that. Not every explanation is infallible, only when declared by the Church infallibly. But this does not take away from the original ideas in the Bible and make the Bible false, only their attempted explanation. My brain hurts I’ll pray for you, wish you the best and may God bless you.

 

[Michaelangelo]

If you believe that the apostles were shown strong evidence (which you claim, and which they truly were) then you believe in Jesus’s signs and miracles shown to them, which are evidence in themselves for you! Also, the mere fact that He had so many faithful followers by their own will proves He must have done some amazing things. In the case of Gandhi or Buddha, their character and philosophy may have attracted many. In the case of Muhammad with Islam, He forcefully spread it through military conquest. But in the case of Jesus, the gospels tell of miracles and signs no one else has performed.

No I don’t believe the apostles saw these miracles. I don’t believe these stories, period. Of course I would not fully believe that the gospels are correct and still demand the same miracles in order to believe. If that is what you thought I meant, then I’m sorry to have lead you to believe that.

Yes completely. This was not a natural solar eclipse because of the scientific nature and placement of the sun, but a supernatural event because God Incarnate was dying. Analyzing the patterns of the sun and history of the earth from a purely scientific view may not lead one to an explainable belief in this event.

No solar eclipse can cover the entire planet. So no, I don’t think they referred to a solar eclipse. No solar ecplipse would last that long for that matter. And since no other culture on the whole planet have recorded a three hour darkness event during that time. I don’t believe that story at all.

Yes, and you are also imposing your doubt upon them. We all look at life through a lens.
Yours may be one demanding evidence formed by personal experience.

A god who apparently did not even bother to preserve the original texts but woke dead, turned water to wine and so on… Naaah! I don’t buy that.

Mine is that a God must exist, and a Holy God can not coexist with imperfection, so because humans are sinful we need a Savior. Jesus perfectly embodies all that was promised in the Old Testament. Put two and two together plus the signs performed, plus God giving me faith, I believe.

I have no problem with death, pain or the existence of evil and have no need to be saved from that. And the Jews do disagree with you on the embodiment of the promises.

The Church allows Genesis to be taken figuratively. God transcends the human idea of time and 2 Peter 3:8 says “With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.” So the human writing of it taking “a day” could very well mean time far beyond what we could imagine.

I don’t mean the days or time periods in genesis. The story claims that the whole planet and water existed before light, which is totally impossible with our understanding of physics. Then light was created, and day was separated from night. But the sun and all the other stars were not created until after that. So what was the source of this daylight before the sun?

 

[christismylord]

So what was the source of this daylight before the sun?

Revelation 22:23 talks of the new earth to come, “The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp” We can assume that the source of light was God and His glory. But this requires faith in the Bible.

(I also don’t know the stance of the Church about this, it may be acceptable to believe that stars were created first)

 

[EndTimes]

Since you ignore my question, I will ignore you. Even Steven!

You’ve said that same thing a dozen times now and yet you keep returning

1. For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand signs […] but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews

Please don’t let that stop you from going on and on demanding empirical evidences…

_

 

[christismylord]

@EndTimes, he does not claim to be Jewish or to believe in the authority of scripture

(I understand what you are trying to say, though, and I agree that we must have faith)

 

[EndTimes]

he does not claim to be Jewish or to believe in the authority of scripture

He doesn’t have to be Jewish or believe IN Jesus…

Nonetheless that Truism from Scriptures puts demanding Signs to rest.

Anyone who has Faith - knows that the 'kind" of evidences God gives -
are never ever never ever related to ‘empirical science’ …

 

[christismylord]

Nonetheless that Truism from Scriptures puts demanding Signs to rest.

Yes that is true

 

[Michaelangelo]

Your pursuit of Catholicism is amazing. The only thing I could say (bear with me for just a second just try to imagine that you believe what the Bible says for the purpose of this response) is that no matter how hard we “try”(by our own efforts) to have faith (which it sounds like you truly went all out and poured so much into it)

Then according to you, I did not receive the gift of faith for some reason. I must have done something wrong

I’ve had times where I go through the motions out of fear of Hell or because I feel it’s an obligation, and certainly moments where I doubt. (I am not saying this is you at all, only me personally)

Don’t worry I did not think you meant me
But no I have never had any fear of hell because the very idea of hell I’ve been presented have always sounded totally wrong.

We must sincerely ask Him for faith. He does not want us to disbelieve and He does not want to send us to Hell.

Ahaaa! So I did not ask for faith in a correct way. Was that the problem?
I’m not laughing at you. Please don’t take it as if I do. Because I truly know what it is to think like you do.

 

[christismylord]

So I did not ask for faith in a correct way. Was that the problem?

I don’t know your story or your personal relationship with God…all I know is that He loves us and will welcome us when we turn to Him…and He desires all to be saved

 

[EndTimes]

I did not receive the gift of faith for some reason.

A) You have no Faith because by seeking Signs that auto-blocks Faith.

 

[Michaelangelo]

Revelation 22:23 talks of the new earth to come, “The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp” We can assume that the source of light was God and His glory. But this requires faith in the Bible.

(I also don’t know the stance of the Church about this, it may be acceptable to believe that stars were created first)

But the story tells that the planet was in darkness then light was created as in “let there be light”. So, according to you, god created the planet but he wasn’t there. Since if he is light but everything was in darkness, he could not have been there. Because if he is light it would automatically have been light right from the start and thus no need for the “let there be light”. So he created but wasn’t there?

The real problem is that no atom can exist without light. So how could the planet exist before light?

 

[Michaelangelo]

Michaelangelo:

I did not receive the gift of faith for some reason.

A) You have no Faith because by seeking Signs that auto-blocks Faith.

When you answer my question I will answer you. Until then, nope!

 

[christismylord]

But the story tells that the planet was in darkness then light was created as in “let there be light”. So, according to you, god created the planet but he wasn’t there. Since if he is light but everything was in darkness, he could not have been there. Because if he is light it would automatically have been light right from the start and thus no need for the “let there be light”. So he created but wasn’t there?

The real problem is that no atom can exist without light. So how could the planet exist before light?

Haha that is a very interesting interpretation! No that is not what I meant! God was there, He always has been! I see it as “Let there be light” is when He created light outside Himself (sun/stars/etc.) Anything is possible with God. Also, when this was studied by humans, there was already light for the atoms to have and exist with. Now if we studied those atoms before light was created (which is impossible because humans didn’t exist yet) then we may be able to see how they exist without light.

 

[Michaelangelo]

Haha that is a very interesting interpretation! No that is not what I meant! God was there, He always has been! I see it as “Let there be light” is when He created light outside Himself (sun/stars/etc.) Anything is possible with God. Also, when this was studied by humans, there was already light for the atoms to have and exist with. Now if we studied those atoms before light was created (which is impossible because humans didn’t exist yet) then we may be able to see how they exist without light.

Just read the story.

1. Heaven and earth is created and it is pitch black. Yet somehow atoms and molecules exist.
2. Let there be light.
3. Day and night was spearated. (despite no pointlike lightsource was created yet so how could orbital day and night exist?)
4. Then on the third day the sun and other stars were created.

And nice as your defence is, light is the very glue holding atoms together. No light, no glue, no atoms, no molecules, no planet.