What is the CENTRAL Truth of Christianity?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jkiernan56
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dameedna said:
Have you seen Jesus get up and walk around after he died? And not only did you see it, but are you able to replicate it with the same conditions and observations over and over again?

Or did you “read a book” that made a claim that humans witnessed an event.

I know what empirical evidence is. If some-one tells me eating a pig foot cured cancer, and that THEY SAW this, I wouldn’t believe it anymore than I believe a 2000 year old book that claims a human incarnated as a god and got up and walked around.

Unless it could be verified. A book, cannot verify itself.

IE…I do not believe everything I am told 🙂
Click to expand...
I am just trying to get you to admit … that it was possible that there actually were some people historically that had EMPIRICAL evidence of the Resurrected Christ … even though you and I weren’t there at the time …
 
I don’t know how anyone can maintain that the evidence for a person rising from the dead 2000 years ago is so overwhelmingly obvious that all should believe based on that alone. The fact that I believe in spite of the fact I can’t prove it is a proof of sorts to me, however. IOW, if we could see, and so prove it, it would not be credited to us as faith to begin with.
 
jkiernan

Or is it the truth that Christ is Risen that validates WHO He is and WHAT He accomplished through his free choice of allowing Himself to be put to death on the cross?

God is love. God wants us to love Him and each other. He proved His love by giving us redemption on the cross and hope in the Resurrection. These are all wrapped around each other. Is it necessary to try to separate them from each other and hold one any higher than all the others?
 
jkiernan56 said:
I am just trying to get you to admit … that it was possible that there actually were some people historically that had EMPIRICAL evidence of the Resurrected Christ … even though you and I weren’t there at the time …
Click to expand...
It is possible that a human witnessed a frog give birth to a unicorn that flew into the sun. Proof is not about possibilities or claims, It is about replicating an occurance and observing it to try and understand the truth about the universe we live in.

You are right. No-one can prove a human 2000 years ago got up and walked around after he died. Most of us skeptics…really don’t need to. We deal with the current world of brain matter that dies after 2 hours without oxygen, not the world of sun gods, human sacrfice and virgin births. I don’t actually come onto these forums to debate things I already understand.

I was just trying to explain the two main different group that respond to christianty, as it has been presented to me.

That’s all.
 
Dameedna,
Is your last name Hume and your first name: does it begin with the letter “D?”
A reading of the first part of the Catechism says (I sure hope I am correct here,someone corrrect me if I am wrong) that it is possible to believe in God emperically and rationally. The numbers are too overwhelming for there not to be an outside controlling force, and the rational is extremely compelliing: where does our conscious come from? BUT, BUT the Catechism (to me) says hard and soft rational is not enough, IT must be revealed to us. And to go from a belief in “An outside controlling Force” to it being manifested in Jesus Christ and part of The Trinity takes grace. And I thank God every day for that grace and ask those who are “believers” to keep in mind that “Those who seek find.” But you, Kiernan, if you who are trying to share the Gospel or do apologetics are caustic in your manner God will not bless your efforts.

Your method Kiernan, I am assuming, is due to your strong faith. Thank God for it. But it is true, emperically speaking, there is not enough evidence; Again, thank God Almighty for letting us in!
 
GodLovesTheSpek said:
Jesus.
Click to expand...
The teachings of Jesus.

One of the things that allows me to relate to Jesus so well is that he was a cultural dissident, just like me. He challenged the dominant culture of the time and showed everyone that we could choose to live a different way ~ a gentler, kinder and more mindful way.

~*
 
Hamlet123 said:
Dameedna,
Is your last name Hume and your first name: does it begin with the letter “D?”
A reading of the first part of the Catechism says (I sure hope I am correct here,someone corrrect me if I am wrong) that it is possible to believe in God emperically and rationally.
Click to expand...
Was going to respond but would derail the thread.

cheers
 
Dameedna

A 2000 year old book, that say’s “People saw THIS”…means absolute nothing to the individual who is interested in proof. Proof…has nothing to do with what peole claimed they saw, many, many years ago. It has only to do with what we can verify today.

Well, a miracle is something that by definition occurs only once, or if more than once, rarely and only under the conditions prescribed by God, not by a lab technician.

So it’s true you have no reason to believe testimony of something said about someone in whom you do not believe there was any divine power, and especially testimony that is two thousand years old, which does not allow us to test the veracity of the the witness(es). This was the problem Thomas had, who was surely in a better position to believe than we are today, yet he doubted.

I think it is too easy for atheists to deny miracles … they even would like to deny the miracle of the Big Bang (as Einstein tried but failed to do) if science had not already held their feet to the flame.
 
Dee

I must tell you what you wrote here is something I will put in my book of quotes:

you wrote
“… think it is too easy for atheists to deny miracles … they even would like to deny the miracle of the Big Bang (as Einstein tried but failed to do) if science had not already held their feet to the flame.”

Especially, “they even would like to deny the miracle of the Big Bang (as Einstein tried but failed to do)…”

I am a Catholic, but I love Hugh Ross. I know you would as well. I am not sure you don’t already read him. Do if you don’t.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
I think it is too easy for atheists to deny miracles … they even would like to deny the miracle of the Big Bang (as Einstein tried but failed to do) if science had not already held their feet to the flame.
Click to expand...
How did Einstein try to deny a miracle and fail?

Are you saying he struggled to accept a scientific theory of his time because he could not completly understand it or reconcile it with his theory or relativity? God forbid a scientist…or any human infact does not accept something that is a theory and has yet to be proven.

Shame on Einstien for doubting God…no wait…sorrry…quatum mechanics.

Shame on a human , who had doubt, without proof. You’ve got to be kidding me.
 
Dameedna

Are you saying he struggled to accept a scientific theory of his time because he could not completly understand it or reconcile it with his theory or relativity? God forbid a scientist…or any human infact does not accept something that is a theory and has yet to be proven.

He could not reconcile the BB with his theory of relativity because he had decided before his theory of relativity that the universe is infinite and eternal. Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian mathematician (and Jesuit priest), had to bring out the error in Einstein’s math which showed the idea of an expanding universe that began from some primordial atom (now called “singularity”). Subsequently, after Lemaitre mathematical proof was substantiated by Hubble’s telescope, Einstein began to see the light of the Big Bang.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Dameedna

Are you saying he struggled to accept a scientific theory of his time because he could not completly understand it or reconcile it with his theory or relativity? God forbid a scientist…or any human infact does not accept something that is a theory and has yet to be proven.

He could not reconcile the BB with his theory of relativity because he had decided before his theory of relativity that the universe is infinite and eternal. Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian mathematician (and Jesuit priest), had to bring out the error in Einstein’s math which showed the idea of an expanding universe that began from some primordial atom (now called “singularity”). Subsequently, after Lemaitre mathematical proof was substantiated by Hubble’s telescope, Einstein began to see the light of the Big Bang.
Click to expand...
sigh…yes I could continue the debate. Let’s agree that the OP deserves their thread and let it be.

Shame on us for the derail.
 
Great answer Charlemagane II

One who “decides” before he get the emperical evidence is not being scientific.
 
Hamlet123 said:
Dameedna,
Is your last name Hume and your first name: does it begin with the letter “D?”
A reading of the first part of the Catechism says (I sure hope I am correct here,someone corrrect me if I am wrong) that it is possible to believe in God emperically and rationally. The numbers are too overwhelming for there not to be an outside controlling force, and the rational is extremely compelliing: where does our conscious come from? BUT, BUT the Catechism (to me) says hard and soft rational is not enough, IT must be revealed to us. And to go from a belief in “An outside controlling Force” to it being manifested in Jesus Christ and part of The Trinity takes grace. And I thank God every day for that grace and ask those who are “believers” to keep in mind that “Those who seek find.” But you, Kiernan, if you who are trying to share the Gospel or do apologetics are caustic in your manner God will not bless your efforts.

Your method Kiernan, I am assuming, is due to your strong faith. Thank God for it. But it is true, emperically speaking, there is not enough evidence; Again, thank God Almighty for letting us in!
Click to expand...
I actually do TRUST the witness and evidence of the Apostles who did actually see Christ … I think that is EMPIRICAL evidence … that I trust … and I have experience Christ being Alive in my own life as well … Christ is not alive to me just because someone else told me about him historically …
 
Hence SOME reliogens and SOME reliogious

A premise: one will never find a dogma of the Catholic Church that violates science. One will not find a dogma of the Catholic Church that contradicts science.

To prove this premise one will have to go through all of the Catechism and be understanding of all science. That is not me. But I have not found otherwise; and I have done a lot of searching.
 
Dameedna said:
Have you seen Jesus get up and walk around after he died? And not only did you see it, but are you able to replicate it with the same conditions and observations over and over again?

Or did you “read a book” that made a claim that humans witnessed an event.

I know what empirical evidence is. If some-one tells me eating a pig foot cured cancer, and that THEY SAW this, I wouldn’t believe it anymore than I believe a 2000 year old book that claims a human incarnated as a god and got up and walked around.

Unless it could be verified. A book, cannot verify itself.

IE…I do not believe everything I am told 🙂
Click to expand...
No, I do not have firsthand empirical evidence … nor do i need to have firsthand empirical evidence to know that something can be true … even if I have not personally witnessed it myself … just as I do not have firsthand empirical evidence that the Grand Canyon exists … I trust the experience and witness of others … just as those before the digital age … had to rely on the observation, experience, and witness of others to verify that other places in the world really did exist … I do believe the Apostles had Empirical evidence … just as my own personal experience(s) have confirmed for me the TRUTH of His Resurrection 🙂
 
Hamlet123 said:
Great answer Charlemagane II

One who “decides” before he get the emperical evidence is not being scientific.
Click to expand...
Do you always have to have firsthand empirical evidence to know that something or someplace is true? I hope you are more rational than that …
 
fhansen said:
I don’t know how anyone can maintain that the evidence for a person rising from the dead 2000 years ago is so overwhelmingly obvious that all should believe based on that alone. The fact that I believe in spite of the fact I can’t prove it is a proof of sorts to me, however. IOW, if we could see, and so prove it, it would not be credited to us as faith to begin with.
Click to expand...
Oh, but I bet you know what Christ meant when He said that those who follow Him will have the “Light of Life.” 🙂
 
jkiernan56 said:
I’m curious to know what other people think is the central TRUTH of Christianity.

A better question I would like to ask is … “How do you know it is the central truth of Christianity from your own life experience?”

I will start by saying that I think the central truth of Christianity is the Resurrection of Christ. St. Paul says that if Christ did not rise from the dead, you are still in your sins and that we are the “greatest of fools.” Since we believe and know that Christ is Risen and Alive … through His love and grace He is changing people’s lives …is changing my own life for the good.

Too many people get lost in the forest because of all trees. This central truth of Christianity I believe is the center and starting point of our faith. Some people might say the central truth is knowing who Christ is as a Person … I’m just interested what others might say on this matter.

And to answer the second question about how I know this is the central truth of Christianity from my own personal life experience … that Christ is Risen … that He is Alive … I would like to think and reflect on this a little more before I respond to it.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top