I
Ignatius
Guest
Yes, by the Athority of the Catholic Church conferred by Jesus Christ. Pope Damasus I declared it in 382 A.D. Subsequent Church Councils confirmed it.
- Status
A
agangbern
Guest
And what made you think that way?
T
tigers08
Guest
How do you know? The only reason you would believe that he had already risen and was divine is if you believe the bible is the word of God. So what makes you believe that?
T
tigers08
Guest
Mostly logical reasoning. And some research into various ideas about religion. I don’t believe that if our creator intentionally made us logical creatures that he would ask us to believe something with no proof. I also don’t see any way of determining which religion, if any, is right. I would have to think if God had really revealed himself to the world, the choice would be obvious.
T
tigers08
Guest
Then the obvious question that follows is: what makes you think that the Church is right?
D
davidv
Guest
Why do you think there is no proof? There is historical evidence, outside the bible, that Jesus was a real person who was born in Bethlehem, grew up Nazareth and was crucified in Jerusalem. If you deny this historical fact, do you also claim that Herod and Cesaer Augustus are also fictional characters?
If Jesus is who he said he is, God did, in fact, reveal himself to mankind. Yet, even provided with a living, breathing human, presented to them face-to-face, many failed to recognize him. Given human nature as I see it, circumstances today would not be any different. If God suddenly appeared in our midst there would be many who would deny it.
D
davidv
Guest
A track record of trustworthiness.
T
tigers08
Guest
Obviously he was a real person. I don’t think anyone denies that. There’s a big difference between Jesus being a real person and Jesus being the son of God.
Or maybe it wasn’t that they didn’t recognize him, but just that they had no reason to believe he was God. There’s a guy in Miami who claims to be Jesus, just because people don’t believe him doesn’t mean they are denying God’s existence. The big question is, how would you know if God was here? How could you tell the difference between a miracle and an illusion? It’s not that people deny God, it’s just that they aren’t naive and know that it takes some pretty big reasons to believe someone is God.
D
davidv
Guest
Agreed. There is a big difference. The witnesses to his life, death, resurrection and ascension were provided ample evidence to show that he was who he said he was.
More likely, those who chose not to believe or not to follow were threatened by the need to give up their self idolotry and be humble enough to be instructed by another.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Would this man in Miami let himself be put to an agonising & obscene & loathsome death for the good of his enemies ?
False Christs never have a cross - the true one does
More than that, the Cross is inseparable from Who & what Jesus is & does & says.Anyone can fake being God - not everyone can live a life consistently of such a quality that one can account for such a person only by recognising him as numinous - as holy. Most of us are not holy - that is what sets Jesus apart: His holiness; to be holy, is to be set apart. And this is met with in Luke 5, when Peter asks Jesus to leave him. Is your man from Miami like that ? Does he make people feel dirty, ashamed, confused, simply by being in their company ? Jesus does - & Isaiah is equally upset in Isaiah 6. So the Bible can defend itself - for passages like this show how upsetting the Holy God can be, when He confronts man who is sinful.
What would happen, do you think, if you met someone who was perfectly good ? I don’t know about you, but I suspect it would be a very uncomfortable experience. The** difference** between God Who gives the Bible, & us wretched creatures who receive it, is what makes one think the Bible is the Word of God. Goodness is not always attractive - people rejected Jesus, because what He was, showed up what they were. And so does the Bible: nothing can escape from it, because nothing can escape from Him. It too shows us up.
As you say, people should not be naive.
A
agangbern
Guest
Can you present here what you called your logical reasoning that lead you to that thinking referred to in the previous subject post of yours?
C
CalmDownWisWins
Guest
If you CAN “prove” to yourself that an “infallible statement of truth” is WRONG, then you’ve PROVEN (to yourself at least) that the statement-maker is NOT INFALLIBLE!
Therefore, PROVE that some supposedly infallible statement is WRONG!
Once you’ve done that, those “not infallible” statement-makers are highly suspect in claiming that their “infallible” statement that this book called “the bible” is what they claim it to be.
I choose to believe “the authority” of the Church until it is shown that they are not infallible (in the realm in which they claim infallibility) that their statement that the bible is in fact from God is true.
You may choose to believe that they aren’t infallible until they prove that they ARE infallible if you wish, but how does one prove that one is infallible in statements that one hasn’t made yet?
Anyone can claim infallibility, and the burden of proof that they AREN’T infallible is on those who test those “infallible” statements, not on the “infallible statement-maker”.
The “infallible statement-maker” is posing a TEST for an observer to perform everytime he makes an “infallible statement”.
Your NEED to have someone prove to you that they prove that all future statements will be “correct” is unreasonable, and merely an excuse not to step up to the challenge of testing all the claimed “infallibly true” statements made through history.
C
CalmDownWisWins
Guest
Faith is NOT believing someone else. That is “gullibility”. Faith REQUIRES that you internally test that which is proposed as a thing to have faith in.
The proof of faith comes from the internal experience of “fitting” the proposed “article/item of faith” into one’s belief structure and dealing (via willful reason and humble inspiration) with how the fit fits.
If you think “faith” means “blind acceptance” then you are correct.
Since “faith” means “tested and internally proven acceptability” then the question is HOW an article of faith “fits” into one’s belief system and how that affects one’s behavior in “real life”.
You seek to be RIGHT! That is good, but without the capacity to determine what is actually “right” (true) you’re left in an insolvable quandry.
Those who DEMAND of themselves that they be RIGHT but don’t demand of themselves that they do the hard work of discerning what “right” means doom themselves to the hell of “destination nowhere”.
C
CalmDownWisWins
Guest
“Catholics” are people, and are not to be confused with the Church.
The Church never contradicts itself.
You have fallen into the most common trap out there, which is to confuse people with truth.
Once it dawns on you that humans are never good representatives of principles (truths) your “relativism” will start to wane, and the fog of indifferentialism will begin to clear.
C
CalmDownWisWins
Guest
Your last sentence is the key to your thinking.
God doesn’t punish people based on things outside of their control.
A moslem who, after exposure (in a meaningful way) to the Church, chooses to obey his errant-culture instead of actual truth must deal with that choice, both during life and eternally.
Even islam has some elements of truth, and if those items of truth are followed would lead a truly “searching” moslem to the fullness of the truth, which is the Church.
Do you believe that their IS (exists) an actual “truth”, such as that which the Church professes to teach?
C
CalmDownWisWins
Guest
You have therefore ruled out ALL actual religions which profess ANY mysteries (materialistically unsolvable situations).
Curiously, you must also rule out any “scientism” which uses any axiomatic presumption as a basis for any proposition, as axioms are always irreducible “beliefs” (your “unknowable truths”) which you say explicitly that you “can’t know”.
As long as you hold that truth cannot be known you are doomed to wander toward your sincerely heartfelt desire for “truth” by a random walk in the infinite fog and ever changing “sign” of your want.
E
exoflare
Guest
If God were to, let’s say, inspire an elementary mathematics textbook, He decided to include something like this… they are two different story problems:
*Noah took 4 sheep into the ark. Before the flood, one escaped and was lost. How many sheep remained on the ark during the flood?
ANS: 3
Noah’s ark had 2 sheep and 2 goats on board during the flood. What was the combined number of sheep and goats on the ark during the flood?
ANS: 4*
But wait! Wouldn’t God know how many sheep were REALLY on the ark during the flood? First He says there were 3 sheep on board during the flood, and then there were only 2! Does it really make the math (what the book would be actually trying to communicate) any less true? The only way someone could reach that conclusion is if they started reading the book without first bothering to check what kind of book it was.
People have mentioned it before, but I’m not sure it’s really sinking in… you’re looking at what you WANT the different books of the Bible to say and not what they are actually saying.
A
agangbern
Guest
Personal experience with the risen Christ Himself. Just as you will not believe that St. Paul personally encountered the risen Christ in the road to Damascus, you surely would not believe also if I tell you of my personal experience with the risen Christ. That personal experience is something a gift from God. That personal experience simply confirms that the bible is true. God’s generosity is without measure for those He foreknew would ultimately use their free will to choose Him instead of Satan.
A
Abbadon
Guest
Honestly i don’t know. And i unfortunately do not have an unshakable faith in man that would allow me to believe so. There are far to many problems with the texts for me to take them as divine scripture…
If i had faith this wouldn’t be a problem and i would faithfully believe that it was the word inspired by god.
If i had faith this wouldn’t be a problem and i would faithfully believe that it was the word inspired by god.
C
CalmDownWisWins
Guest
“And i unfortunately do not have an unshakable faith in man that would allow me to believe so.”
That’s why we don’t have faith in men, but only in God.
You attribute scripture to man instead of it’s actual source, then incorrectly discount scripture because of your correct interpretation of your incorrect identification of the source of scripture.
Why is it you can capitalize the “i” in “If” in your last sentence, but not the “i” in “I” next to it?
To believe in God is to believe more sensibly and respectfully in man, and without God man is a beast, and as one of them (a human) we give ourselves not an “I” but an “i”.
- Status