Why Catholicism is worthy of a closer look

  • Thread starter Thread starter EZweber
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Are you seeking reasons to disbelieve? That is very common in our culture. The flat earth society still exists. Are they worth citing? Someone, somewhere shouted “Fire!” in a theater. Should they be accorded credibility? I think your methodology is flawed.

As to the subject of the thread: Faith. There are 1.2 billion reasons not to believe in the Catholic Church and I am one of them. There is only a single reason for belief:

Our risen Lord Jesus Christ.

Too well attested to. Too contrary to human nature. Too many observed miracles. Too much influence on humankind. Too much, well, of everything to be purely human.
 
I’m not looking for reasons to disbelieve. I already disbelieve. I occasionally look for reasons TO believe but then realize, once again, it’s futile.

What I do enjoy is others reasons that they believe. I try to understand it. At times I envy your belief but I am mostly very satisfied in my unbelief. I came to it honestly. I examined it thoroughly and I am at peace with it.
 
Something calls you here. Is it that nagging suspicion that there might be more - there must be more? Somewhere?

If you think we are quaint or anachronistic, that is fine. Excellent, actually. If you are counter-cultural by nature, then being atheist (or the whitewashed term “agnostic”) means that you are not instep with the times or your mindset. Belief in something outside of the self is the new revolution. It’s like, wow man.
 
Last edited:
Actually there is at least one thing to add to “the Guadeloupe painting.” The image of Our Lady of Guadalupe is on a tilma, which is made of “ayate” fibers that deteriorate after 20 years. The tilma was impressed with its image in 1531. That was 488 years ago.
 
Hi @EZweber,
The first problem with the Gospels is they were written approximately 40 years after the death of Jesus. (The resurrection is theological so I won’t deal with it here). These good news stories were written by unknown authors to sell a religion. That certainly makes them very biased. They weren’t personal witnesses of Jesus’s death, they were reporting the oral stories they heard. This view of the Gospels is held by almost every historical scholar…most all of whom are Christian and Catholics.

There are inconsistencies from the get go. There are contradictions in the Synoptics. Mark wrote first and large percentages were copied…some verbatim. Johns’ Jesus is very different from the Synoptics and was written more than 20 years after Marks. When letting each author tell his own story and not mashing them into a fifth gospel that tries to harmonize them, each story has problems with the others. Marks’ Jesus is not quite the same as Luke’s Jesus. When copying the same story, Matthew and Luke change things…often just stylistic differences but also theological differences…or the actual facts of the story.

As a history, they list no names of where they got the stories, not even their own. Since they are supposed illiterate Jews, the first author was most likely someone that could write…not necessarily the most informed. So, right off the bat, before even reading the stories, there are some issues as to the reliability of what they tell. None of these points are controversial amongst NT scholars today.

Just some FYI here. I originally read the NT theologically. I tried letting the stories move me, speak to me. When this failed, I looked into what NT scholars had to say. I read their arguments. I can’t go back. I learned too much.
 
First result from Google search:
Code: 
Was the source created at the same time of the event it describes? If not, who made the record, when, and why?

Who furnished the information? Was the informant in a position to give correct facts? Was the informant a participant in the original event? Was the informant using secondhand information? Would the informant have benefited from giving incorrect or incomplete answers?

Is the information in the record such as names, dates, places, events, and relationships logical? Does it make sense in the context of time, place, and the people being researched?

Does more than one reliable source give the same information?

What other evidence supports the information in the source?

Does the source contain discrepancies? Were these errors of the creator of the document or the informant?

Have you found any reliable evidence that contradicts or conflicts with what you already know?

Is the source an original or a copy? If it’s a copy, can you get a version closer to the original?

Does the document have characteristics that may affect is readability? Consider smears, tears, missing words, faded ink, hard-to-read handwriting, too dark microfilm, and bad reproduction.
 
Using these criteria it become apparent that the Gospels present some problems.
Mark was written first and Matthew and Luke copy large portions of him. Scholars theorize a second source in Q which appears to be a sayings document but no one has found a copy of anything that could be considered Q. Matthew and Luke use the sayings from Q in completely different scenarios. So, our scores for the Synoptics are Mark and a possible Q document.
The gospels are written by sincere believers. We have no contradictory or neutral documents to judge them against. If Mark told a whopper of a lie in there and Matthew and Luke copied it, we have no way of telling.

We have no originals, just copies of copies of copies. Any errors in the first or second set of copies, when there were very copies to begin with, could have been copied from that point on without any knowledge. We just don’t know!

Finally, all the copies we do possess have differences, transcription errors, differences of word order, meanings, etc…often trivial and some are not. There are a few places that scholars just aren’t sure what the original said.

As far as an historical document goes, the NT is among the worst type. Not the best. It doesn’t mean we can know nothing…it means we have to be very careful with every word, line and idea in them.
 
Pattylt said:
plus we have art, statues, engravings etc. surrounding most of the eras
Click to expand...
how do we know they are from whatever era? What is the governing criteria that something (bible, art, painting, etc) is genuinely authentic?
 
Sometimes it is in question so only a range of dates can be given. Engravings usually give something that dates it. Styles used at various times give clues. There are scholars that specialize in each of these area and if they agree, we can be pretty comfortable of the decisions. If they don’t agree, then it’s an open question. Sometimes they can give the earliest possible date but not know the end date.This is true of any period of time up to now, even. An example I heard once is…if a writing uses the words groovy, baby…we can assume it was written no earlier than the 1960’s but still not know if it was written in the 1980’s!

This how they have determined that certain letters of Paul were not written by him. They discuss church policies that did not exist during the time of Paul but were a big deal 30 years later.
 
Pattylt said:
There are scholars that specialize in each of these area and if they agree, we can be pretty comfortable of the decisions. If they don’t agree, then it’s an open question
Click to expand...
how do you choose who qualifies as a “scholar”? That’s the critical question because if we subvert the decision to whether they all agree, then how we define them is key. I think you can agree that two people researching historical item A could choose two different groups of “scholars” , which kills this whole theory
 
Well, usually there are more than two and they either reach consensus or don’t. We’re talking PhD’s from established universities from all over the world. If that’s not comfortable enough for someone then they are free to only listen to those that agree with them. But, consensus is the established scholarship model. This is one of the problems with scholars from established, secular universities versus evangelical scholarship…who has an agenda? Good universities try their best to eliminate bias and evangelical schools require it.
 
I would agree that that they do not but they admit to biases and try. The vast majority of these PhD’s are Christian, too. Evangelical schools usually require signed letters declaring that the studies support the Bible. Btw, Catholic universities also tend to eliminate bias in their scholarly research. Maybe not quite as extensively as secular ones as a Priest or two has found out but most Catholic universities are very respected by secular ones. Most secular universities started out as theological universities ie. Princeton U.
 
I guess my time in secular universities (Ole Miss and Johns Hopkins) has left me with no confidence whatsoever in their attempts to remove their bias, or even that they tried to begin with. That goes for history faculty as well as for just about any other liberal arts or social science faculty. I met very few profs for whom their research was not an attempt to promote an ideology.
 
I think it varies by university. Many were originally established by various denominations and still dependent on religious funding, many are overseas where biases can vary, too. I feel that’s why consensus is the all important qualifier. A few may get away with it but will be challenged by others. It’s certainly not perfect but the best we seem able to do.
 
Pattylt said:
If that’s not comfortable enough for someone then they are free to only listen to those that agree with them.
Click to expand...
Ultimatums aren’t persuasive. Either agree with your subjective scholar criteria (PhD and “established” university) or one is “only listening to those that agree with them”
 
Just stating my experience. I’ve often dealt with Evangelicals that will only listen to other Evangelicals. It’s a big lesson in patience that I often fail in. I should have been more clear on who I was referring to.
Sorry.
 
Well the main point I’m making is that “scholar” is subjective. Most people (not saying you’re doing this) will tend to choose scholars that agree with their desired conclusion. I think that’s just human nature. Hence you may exclude evangelicals & I may exclude college professors and you may include college professors & may include clergy.
Ideally I’d choose scholars among Catholic clergy and non-Christian (but not anti-Christian) college professors but I can’t honestly say I can be that objective!
 
I’m not necessarily typical in that I try to read all of them, including evangelical scholars. They can have valid points of view on occasion but their preconceived answers leave a lot to be desired.

I wish more Catholic scholars would write for a lay audience. Very few scholars do this so I place no blame on them but I really enjoy their point of view. I’m far enough along that I can tackle many of the strictly scholarly ones…if I can afford the books! There just doesn’t seem to be as much published by them (Catholic). I stated out years ago knowing nothing of the NT. I’ve enjoyed learning so much more!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top