What is a false religion according to Catholicism?

[Kam_Fanaian]

I personally had a mystical experience of the crucifixion. So if it is indeed the most important event in history, everything that does not place Jesus’ passion as the center is just false.

One question to ask is who was Jesus, man or God? peterkreeft.com/topics/christ-divinity.htm/

Logic already tells you, but unless the heart is open logic cannot penetrate it.

If He is God you have to take His claims very seriously: like His claim that unless believed who He was they would die in sin, or how he was the only way to God.

Wow, reincarnation or resurrection, what a great question. The spirit comes and goes from the earth and back again to learn things, or the spirit is resurrected to eternal life in heaven after one journey as taught by orthodoxy.

In our present state and the natural blinders that surround us I don’t think anyone can really know which is true or not. We base what we believe on faith, on what we have in the teachings we have received. I think it’s that simple.

And you my friend, a convert to the faith? And from which other faith system - if any?

Hi Adonia

I guess you are correct in that there is a point after which you have to have faith. However, telling people to have faith that gravity does NOT exist, only for them to believe you and jump off a building can have grave outcomes, I am sure you will agree?

Assessing the current realities of life is critical, through reason and rational exploration, as already outlined by my dear friend, IbnFiktur. This will close the gap more and more between faith and certitude. Isn’t that a good approach to faith?

I have been a Baha’i for 23 years

God bless

Kam

 

[rinnie]

I have been recently interested in “false religions” amd “false prophets” (since so many in Catholicism consider the Baha’i Faith as a false religion)

My question is, what are the factors that make any religion a false religion, founded by a false prophet?

How does the Catholic community differentiate these factors that pronounce falsehood, from the verities of Catholicism itself? Why is Jesus not a “false prophet”?

Thankyou and God bless

Kam

Simple, You have 2 thing;s in this world history and reason.

History predicted in the O.T. that a savior would come and take away our sins.

He did. Many have testified to this truth.

Many testified that Jesus did indeed come, born of the Virgin Mary, died on the cross for our sins, and came back and walked the earth.

Jesus is not a false prophet because he is so much more then a mere prophet. He is God.

Who else ever said I AM the way the truth and the way, Take his bread and eat it, this is MY BODY which will be given up for you etc.

Every single thing that was predicted in the O.T. Jesus accomplished.

 

[InJesusItrust]

That’s all well and good, my friend. Would you then deny the dreams and visions of millions of other people who may have experienced Buddha, Muhammad, Baha’u’llah in a similar vein?

So, this part relates to Jesus “claiming” that He was the only way to God. Maybe this answers the question, for you, as to why you recognize Jesus as the truth. And I agree with you.

However, would you deny the other Divine Personages who have provided Revelation which has claimed similar “exclusivity” to God?

I guess what I am saying is, why ONLY Jesus?

Kam

There are devils, so others can have experiences too. I will trust my experiences because only the Catholic Church has many first class miracles. I prayed to God and He led me to Jesus Himself. If I am wrong I can ask God why, but if I am right and don’t go with the graces given it is an eternal loss.

If Jesus is God, and you know that for a fact, then you ought to believe Him when He claims exclusivity. If you are wrong, no loss to you. If you are right, but don’t follow the words of Christ, it is an eternal loss.

Only Jesus was very well prophecized.

Only Jesus claimed to be God and at the same time is traceable in human history.

Buddha is dead, Mohammed is dead, many people who claim to be divine or of God are dead, but Jesus rose from the dead.

 

[rinnie]

Thankyou my friend

May I ask you to go deeper? How do you know what is truth? How do you know which one is true, reincarnation or resurrection? Why choose one over the other?

God bless you!

Kam

Its kind of like choosing light over darkness. Christ told us he is the way the truth and the life whoever believes in me shall not die.

He proved to us resurrection. It is part of history, Many have testified to this truth. Where has reincarnation ever been taught in the word of God.

Where has anyone ever testified to reincarantion? The Resurrection people have.

 

[Kam_Fanaian]

There are devils, so others can have experiences too. I will trust my experiences because only the Catholic Church has many first class miracles. I prayed to God and He led me to Jesus Himself. If I am wrong I can ask God why, but if I am right and don’t go with the graces given it is an eternal loss.

If Jesus is God, and you know that for a fact, then you ought to believe Him when He claims exclusivity. If you are wrong, no loss to you. If you are right, but don’t follow the words of Christ, it is an eternal loss.

Only Jesus was very well prophecized.

Only Jesus claimed to be God and at the same time is traceable in human history.

Buddha is dead, Mohammed is dead, many people who claim to be divine or of God are dead, but Jesus rose from the dead.

Hi there

There are other Divine Figures who have claimed exclusivity. In fact, the Buddha, Krishna, Zoroaster, Muhammad, and Baha’u’llah have all claimed exclusivity in terms of the path to God only being through Them and Their guidance.

So, exclusivity claims cannot be an indicator to exclusive truth.

I think it’s reasonable, looking at things objectively, to say that exclusive claims cannot mean what the Christian world claims it means.

Happy to explore this if people wish

Kam

 

[Kam_Fanaian]

Its kind of like choosing light over darkness. Christ told us he is the way the truth and the life whoever believes in me shall not die.

He proved to us resurrection. It is part of history, Many have testified to this truth. Where has reincarnation ever been taught in the word of God.

Where has anyone ever testified to reincarantion? The Resurrection people have.

I think you may find Buddhist history to be of interest to answer your question Rinnie. Unless of course you take the words of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John to be of more reliability than Buddhist accounts?

Either way, the question for you to consider is this:

Is the resurrection of Jesus the only reason why you believe in Jesus as God over another Divine Figure in history?

Kam

 

[Contarini]

Wow, reincarnation or resurrection, what a great question. The spirit comes and goes from the earth and back again to learn things, or the spirit is resurrected to eternal life in heaven after one journey as taught by orthodoxy.

No, that’s not orthodoxy, nor is it in fact resurrection.

Both body and spirit are raised. That’s where the conflict with reincarnation (or, in Paul Griffiths’ definition, “metempsychosis”–he uses reincarnation more broadly and argues that resurrection is a form of reincarnation) arises. The “spirit” can’t just be plugged into different bodies, because both body and soul constitute the human person. Different body, different person.

Granted, there are very difficult philosophical questions concerning what it means to have “the same” body, particularly in the case of eschatological resurrection when most people’s bodies will have disintegrated. . . .

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Absolutely agree with you there, my friend. Anyone who denies the Divinity of Jesus Christ is speaking falsehood…

So when you say “anyone who does not place Jesus’ passion as the center is just false.”, are you talking about Jesus as a physical body, or Jesus as the name, or the Divinity of Jesus which is an eternal Entity beyond the full comprehension of mere mortals like you and I?

Kam

The “passion” refers to Jesus’ death on the Cross.

For Christians, the person of Jesus (which includes body and soul–a real, historical person who was born, died, and rose again) is at the center of all human history and all truth.

I do not agree that this means we should label all religions simply “false.” I find it odd that people claim that not to do so is “misleading,” when in fact it’s the label “false” that is misleading (even though true if properly defined).

Edwin

 

[Kam_Fanaian]

For Christians, the person of Jesus (which includes body and soul–a real, historical person who was born, died, and rose again) is at the center of all human history and all truth.

Edwin

Hi Edwin,

Why do you believe “Jesus is at the center of all human history and all truth.”

Kam

 

[InJesusItrust]

Hi there

There are other Divine Figures who have claimed exclusivity. In fact, the Buddha, Krishna, Zoroaster, Muhammad, and Baha’u’llah have all claimed exclusivity in terms of the path to God only being through Them and Their guidance.

So, exclusivity claims cannot be an indicator to exclusive truth.

I think it’s reasonable, looking at things objectively, to say that exclusive claims cannot mean what the Christian world claims it means.

Happy to explore this if people wish

Kam

“Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way is a thief and a robber.”

“All who ever came before me were thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them.”

Jesus called everyone else a thief and Himself the Good Shepard. Christianity is centered around Jesus. Without Him there is no Christianity. Some other random guy could teach Buddhism, and some other random guy could teach Islam, but Jesus taught with authority and centered His teachings around Himself and His divinity.

Others cannot be traced to human history or do not claim to be God. What evidence is there that Krishna is not just a myth? All others are dead, but Jesus rose from the dead and proved He was God. Only God can undo the effect of death.

Either Jesus was a lunatic, a liar, or God Himself. If He is God you take His claims seriously.

 

[Contarini]

I think you may find Buddhist history to be of interest to answer your question Rinnie. Unless of course you take the words of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John to be of more reliability than Buddhist accounts?

From a purely secular, historical point of view there are very good reasons to do so. The Gospels were written well within a century of the events they describe–probably about 30-40 years for Mark, more like 50 for Mark and Luke, and perhaps as much as 70 for John.

In the case of Buddhism, some scholars think that some Buddhist texts may go back to less than a century after Buddha’s death, but that’s a conservative view–I’ve also seen an estimate of the third century B.C. (2-300 years after Buddha), and some scholars affirm confidently that the canon didn’t start to be put together until more like the first century A.D. In other words, there’s a much wider range of scholarly opinion than in the case of Christianity, and the consensus seems to be that there was a much bigger time lapse in the case of Buddhism. Furthermore, the earliest Buddhist texts aren’t lives of Buddha (this is true in Christianity too, but again the time scale is one of decades rather than centuries), so even if some texts do go back early, no one argues that lives of Buddha (that is to say, of Gautama Siddhartha–there are “jataka” texts dealing with his previous lives) are among them.

In spite of all this, there’s a pretty strong consensus that Buddha was a real person and most scholars think that we can know certain things about him. But there’s no intellectual difficulty whatever in dismissing miraculous stories about Buddha–they could easily be later pious legends. It’s a bit harder to dismiss the resurrection narrative and some of the other miracle stories about Jesus, given their early date and the agreement of independent sources (Paul, Mark, and John, for instance).

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

“Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way is a thief and a robber.”

Jesus called everyone else a liar or a thief

Jesus called those who “came before him” thieves and liars–presumably referring to earlier claimants to be the Messiah.

Either Jesus was a lunatic, a liar, or God Himself.

If the Gospels, including John, contain the actual words of Jesus, and even then there’s a little more nuance and qualification than you’re giving, and the claim is often implicit.

But certainly the Jesus of the Gospels claims to be much more than just another great teacher or prophet.

The big question is how reliable the Gospels are. The “trilemma” is often misused by Christian apologists in a way that ignores this important issue.

Edwin

 

[Kam_Fanaian]

“Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way is a thief and a robber.”

“All who ever came before me were thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them.”

Jesus called everyone else a thief and Himself the Good Shepard. Christianity is centered around Jesus. Without Him there is no Christianity. Some other random guy could teach Buddhism, and some other random guy could teach Islam, but Jesus taught with authority and centered His teachings around Himself and His divinity.

Others cannot be traced to human history or do not claim to be God. What evidence is there that Krishna is not just a myth? All others are dead, but Jesus rose from the dead and proved He was God. Only God can undo the effect of death.

Either Jesus was a lunatic, a liar, or God Himself. If He is God you take His claims seriously.

InJesusItrust, are you interpreting that verse from Christ as meaning Moses was a thief and a liar??

I think a re-think is required.

Spectacular and outlandish statements based on personal interpretations are not conducive to progress here…

Kam

 

[Contarini]

Hi Edwin,

Why do you believe “Jesus is at the center of all human history and all truth.”

Kam

First of all because it is the faith that has been delivered to me, which I therefore accept unless and until I can be shown something better.

And in fact it seems highly plausible to me historically–something new and weird happened with Jesus. The blending of Jewish monotheism with claims that look in many ways like pagan myths; the radical ethic which enabled slaves to live in a way thought possible in the pagan world only for a few philosophers; the transformative impact of Christianity on human history; even the atrocities that have resulted from Christianity when wrongly interpreted and applied; and the intellectual resilience of orthodox Christianity, which is able to take on board what is good and true in other religions while subordinating these other elements to the central narrative about what God has done in Jesus–these are just a few of the admittedly impressionistic considerations that lead me to remain faithful to the central tenets of the faith I was taught by my parents and grandparents.

Edwin

 

[InJesusItrust]

Well, anyone can try that way. Did Mohammed really teach what was attributed to him? Did Buddha?

People are able to accept things attributed to them as their words but squirm when it comes to Jesus.

What was the point of the apostles teaching and dying for such nonsense? Why does the Torah call Jesus a wizard? There would be no first Christians if they did not witness His or the apostle’s miracles because the gospel is nonsensical and unbelievable without seeing miracles.

 

[InJesusItrust]

InJesusItrust, are you interpreting that verse from Christ as meaning Moses was a thief and a liar??

I think a re-think is required.

Spectacular and outlandish statements based on personal interpretations are not conducive to progress here…

Kam

Jesus talked to Moses so no. Either you can try to understand how insane Jesus had to be or you believe Him.

 

[Contarini]

However, would you deny the other Divine Personages who have provided Revelation which has claimed similar “exclusivity” to God?

I guess what I am saying is, why ONLY Jesus?

What other such “Personages” are there?

Muhammad clearly didn’t claim to be divine. As C. S. Lewis said, if you asked him, “Are you Allah?” he would have first rent his clothes and then cut your head off. . . . Muhammad claimed (if Islamic sources are correct, and they’re the only ones we have) to be the final prophet bringing an uncorrupted revelation which completed and reaffirmed previous ones.

Buddha clearly didn’t claim to be divine, but someone who had “awoken” and could teach others how to “awake.” Buddhists like to quote his saying that his followers should be “lamps to themselves.”

I admit that I know fairly little about Bahai, and if you say that Baha’ullah made the same kinds of claims about himself that the NT records for Jesus, then that’s a serious point. I thought he just claimed to be a messenger from God. But with all due respect, I am not aware of any particular reason to accept this claim, even if Baha’ullah made it.

Perhaps what you are actually saying is that Baha’ullah claimed to be what you think Jesus claimed to be, not what we Christians believe about Him. That’s obviously somewhat different!

Edwin

 

[Kam_Fanaian]

I will try and compile a list of factors that contribute towards true claims of Divinity, as outlined by posters on this thread. We can all then review the list as the thread progresses, alter it if needed, and reach a consensus:

1. Makes an exclusive claim of Divinity.
2. Speaks with authority and centers His teachings around Himself and His Divinity.

…to be continued…

 

[InJesusItrust]

1. Unlike other figure, He rose from the dead in accordance with His claims.

 

[Kam_Fanaian]

Jesus talked to Moses so no. Either you can try to understand how insane Jesus had to be or you believe Him.

No I totally believe Him, but the question is, do you fully understand His blessed Words?

I have no doubt in my mind that what Jesus was referring to in the verses you quoted was about the false Messiahs roaming the streets at that time, and NOT, I repeat not about Buddha or Zoroaster, who came before Him.

Kam