Why is this wrong help!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chuck1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Good questions, I think it is absolutely important to be able to know why you believe the claims of Christ, and even more so, the claims of the Church about Christ, and to be able to explain it to anyone who might wonder or challenge it. And there are a lot of modern scholars who would challenge the Church’s Christological doctrines (Schweitzer, Bultmann, the Jesus Seminar, Crossan, etc., etc.)

So, if I have this right, the statement you posted basically said that Christianity’s view that Jesus is God is based on exaggerations of stories about him told by his followers, or that somehow throughout time his original message was warped and changed - that Jesus never was God, or even claimed to be, but that this is the result of historical exaggeration… etc.

Some things to keep in mind:
  1. The fact that Jesus lived, and that he was crucified, is historical fact. This fact is pretty much uncontested, and you can find it in secular history as well as in the Bible. The reason he was executed was because he had committed blasphemy according to the high priests - because he claimed to be God.
  2. If you look in the new testament, many of the epistles are written to settle problems within the early Church. There were many disagreements among early Christians, regarding things like circumcision and food laws, and if they were editing Christ’s teaching, they very well could have added something to what he had said to settle those disputes. The gospel’s don’t mention those things, though. One of those issues, according to Acts and the Epistles, had to do with preaching the gospel to Gentiles and their admission to the church - however, this is virtually absent from the Gospels, supporting the fact that the early church was not framing Christ’s teachings to meet their needs.
  3. Each of the gospels, though they provide a lot of the same stories about Christ and offer similar views of him - also reflect the individuality of the author. Matthew emphasizes that Christ is the fulfillment of messianic prophesies. Luke is more interested in the gentile mission and the universal Lordship of Christ. The fact that there are 4 gospels, which each reflect the author, and not just one gospel, show that these are separate views of a single Christ. In other words, actual views of individuals on a historical person.
  4. At the end of the day, though, how do we know who Christ is? When you look at the Christological doctrines of the Church, that he is the Son of God, true God and true man, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father, etc., etc., it begs for an authority of some sort. All of the doctrines that both Catholics and Protestants believe can be found in some sense in scripture, whether explicit or implicit. But the truth is that God has revealed many things throughout history, through the Church. This was finally the reason that I converted to Catholicism from Protestantism - without some authority there is no way to know for sure. But the Church is the body of Christ, and it is HIS Church, and he promised Peter when he gave him the keys that the gates of hell would never prevail against it. 1 Tim 3:15 calls the Church “The pillar and foundation of truth.” So we need the Church because Christ has revealed the truth to her, so we can trust it.
But the final question is the one that Christ puts to us - “Who do you say that I am?” (Mark 8:29). There are many arguments from Scripture, Theology and History to defend the claims of the Catholic Church about Christ.

Hope that’s a helpful start! Best of luck to you in RCIA! I converted in 2010 and it was the best thing I’ve ever done! 🙂
  • Leah
 
One other thing - We would agree with the statement that Christ was fully man, and that he had all the same needs as any other man. But he was also fully God in the hypostatic union, and in that way he was completely other that we are. It is necessary that he is fully both - we can’t diminish either. That’s the beauty of the incarnation, that God humbled himself to become fully human.

Just an extra thought. 🙂
  • Leah
 
Maybe the question should be how do we know people didn’t edit the bible to tell the gospel stories like from when the originals were translated and copied etc from the originals to copies whatever they had then how do we know ? From the writings from them to whatever copies they had then , so like we’re there other copies to say this is correct , oral tradition ? What things were there to say no this is wrong if someone did ? We’re early scriptures kept under lock and key ? How do we know , U know what I mean ?
Are they any originals ?
How do we know they are authentic ?
Have they been re translated ?
And I do believe the bible is true 1 million percent but I like to know why I am write so just a momentary doubt but with it comes greater understanding ?
 
Sorry I get a bit ranty , I do know the bible is the word of god but I meant like a secular veiw like how do we know the bible is accurate ie what people saw - or please refer to my previous post so I can just know and move on as it keeps buggin me ?
 
Because if it was corrupt there wod have been other Christians and orthodox Christians to say no this is wrong since word spread and it was practiced amount the early church… Is this Right ?
Thanks in advance 🙂
 
Chuck1 said:
Maybe the question should be how do we know people didn’t edit the bible to tell the gospel stories like from when the originals were translated and copied etc from the originals to copies whatever they had then how do we know ? From the writings from them to whatever copies they had then , so like we’re there other copies to say this is correct , oral tradition ? What things were there to say no this is wrong if someone did ? We’re early scriptures kept under lock and key ? How do we know , U know what I mean ?
Are they any originals ?
How do we know they are authentic ?
Have they been re translated ?
And I do believe the bible is true 1 million percent but I like to know why I am write so just a momentary doubt but with it comes greater understanding ?
Click to expand...
There are 2,328 manuscripts and manuscript fragment that we have since the originals, but not the originals themselves. Probably the earliest fragment of the NT is a papyrus fragment of parts of John 18 that dates to about 125AD, within about 30-40 years of the original composition. In terms of complete transcripts of the books, the earliest we have is about the 3rd or 4th century. Estimates suggest that 97-98% of the original text is exactly the same, and while there are textual variants within many verses, most have no bearing on theology or historical authenticity. Usually Bible footnotes will alert you to any textual variants that might change the meaning of a given verse. Also keep in mind that the gospel’s weren’t written as historical books like we think of today; they didn’t have the same scientific mindset that we do, they were written as theological books intended for the people of the day. The books of the Bible weren’t compiled into the canon was put together in the 3rd century. Keep in mind that the gospel were written within the first century, but not until several years after Christ’s death. The culture at the time was highly oral, and they memorized their scriptures at a very young age, so they were way more practiced than we are at passing down oral tradition and maintaining authenticity. You can also look at extra-biblical early church sources, like Eusebius or Irenaeus, to attest to the authenticity of the authorship, etc. There was no printing press until the reformation, so there were very few copies of manuscripts and they were very carefully kept and translated.

In terms of the authenticity of the miracles, look at the resurrection as an example. Some people will say that this belief came about later / his body was stolen / it was a mass hallucination. Or that the apostle’s belief in the significance of Jesus’ abiding message convinced them he was alive spiritually, and that that eventually became a transformed story of the resurrection. But the idea of the bodily resurrection was present even from the very earliest Church (1 Cor 15:3-7, for example), and in Jewish circles this would have been a very strange idea to come up with.

As for translation, most translations are generally translated straight from the original language. The New American Bible, for example, which is used during mass, was translated directly from Greek and Hebrew.

One other note: the problem with the protestant idea of Sola Scriptura, that scripture is sufficient and authoritative ON ITS OWN, is that a) the bible never claims this for itself, and b) the Bible was compiled by the Catholic church at the councils of Hippo and others, which is where we have the canon, the list of infallible books of scripture. The Church gave us the Scriptures, but we also trust the tradition of how the Church has understood and taught the Scriptures throughout history to guide us.

Hopefully that helps, let me know if it doesn’t make sense or your have other questions. 🙂
  • Leah
 
Yes it did make sense thankyou for clearing that up - I know it’s all true I just like to know why I am right so when it comes up I can defend , thanks again ! 🙂
 
Glad to help - good luck with RCIA! I’ll be praying for you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top