/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Why don't you go search up some Eucharistic Miracles and allow us to skip this discussion?

Because they happened

>>557779

Don't exist

also

>catholics think the bread and wine is literally jesus

>the bread and wine actually turns into flesh and blood

>doesn't eat it

>Why would God want you to believe things based on faith and not facts

Doubting Thomas

>>557784

>God would do mirivkes for catholics

Maybe satan did the miracle. Says that he would to decieve people.

many effects of those things that happened a long time ago are very visible today

however there is a simpler answer here

if the Son of God, the Eternal Word, came as a human being, he would have to come at some specific point in history

there would thus inevitably be a time long before his coming, a time when he came, and a time long after

so the real question is, why come as a human?

he could have saved us from our sins by another method but he chose a method that seemed to us "degrading" to his divine dignity

there are many reasons for this: to give us an example of living a good human life, to teach us humility, to give meaning to our suffering, to prove his true love for us, to sanctify the material creation (particularly the human body), to fulfill prophecies, to establish his Church, and on and on

it is a very good thing that our God is not an abstract God reached only by the heights of philosophy and transcendental meditation; he is a God who comes down from heaven to meet us where we are in life, us who are dust and wither like the flowers of the field

this historicity of God's action is perhaps the biggest difference between Christianity and other major religions. With others, God is all eternity and transcendence, but with us, God actually became a specific man at a specific place and time in history.

It is a much more wonderful love that God has for us than humans could ever have imagined on their own.

>>557777

>unverifiable

What are fruits of the Spirit?

>>557777

>Blessed is he who has not seen and yet believed

When you hear the Truth it is right and proper to acknowledge it as such.

>>557788

Could you not?

>>557779

Which ones are you talking about specifically?

>>557781

How do you know?

>>557786

Didn't he actually lived with Jesus and witnessed many supernatural things? If that's right, it's a completely different situation from our own.

>>557790

I don't know.

>>557793

And how do I know I'm hearing the truth?

>>557799

>Which ones are you talking about specifically?

Any of them, specially the ones that leave AB- Blood or pieces of a Heart after they're done.

Do remember though, Eucharistic miracles are a sign for non-believers.

>>557799

>And how do I know I'm hearing the truth?

It's written in your heart.

Everything in the Bible is fact. There is no belief. You either accept God's given reality or you go to hell.

>>557806

That's right, evolution is shit and creationism is here to stay!

I would answer, but I can't verify that OP actually exists.

>>557801

Is there a peer-review study about these miracles? The blood and tissue from different places should have the same DNA, this would effectively prove Catholicism.

>>557804

If that's what you believe, there's nothing much to discuss really, but it doesn't convince me.

>>557809

>Everything in the Bible is fact

You believe that.

>>557816

It is the infallible word of God. Any deviations from the Word is simply man's misunderstanding of reality.

>>557777

Because the essence, and necessary quality, of the virtue of faith lies in trusting the authority of God.

By the way, many claims are verifiable (by proper, logical proofs, not just mere empirical evidence), and in such cases knowledge replaces faith, but the merits of faith are not lost as long as you are willing to accept the claims on God's authority anyway.

>>557816

look friend if you want to rationally establish Christianity here is the chain of reasoning

start with historically documented facts about the life of Jesus of Nazareth, treating the Bible like any other historical document for this purpose

from the secular historical record, prove that the only reasonable conclusion is that Jesus of Nazareth really lived, died, and rose from the dead, and that he really claimed to be God

move to philosophy and prove that raising something or someone from the dead is an action that is only even in theory possible by God alone.

do these two things and you prove the divinity of Christ.

from there use Christ's words to prove the institution and authority of his Church, move on from there to proving the inspiration of the Bible because the authoritative Church says so, and boom, you pretty much have enough Christianity to get started.

That is how you can start from secular rational principles and get to Christianity.

This does not destroy faith because faith is trust in the person of Jesus Christ. It is an attitude and habit of loving trust, not a set of propositions to which you agree.

>>557822

>not a set of propositions to which you agree.

There actually are definite things you must believe in order to be saved, the trust is the motive on which your belief (or willingness to believe, if you already know that these things are true) must be founded.

>>557818

How do you know that?

>>557819

>of the virtue of faith lies in trusting the authority of God

Why is believing something you can't know for sure a virtue?

>By the way, many claims are verifiable (by proper, logical proofs, not just mere empirical evidence)

Which ones?

>>557822

>treating the Bible like any other historical document for this purpose

Well, the Bible is a valid historical source of course, but it doesn't mean it's 100% reliable. There are things on the Bible that are considered untrue by historians, like the mass enslavement of israelits by egyptians.

>from the secular historical record, prove that the only reasonable conclusion is that Jesus of Nazareth really lived, died, and rose from the dead

How do you do that?

>>557829

>How do you know that?

He doesn't, but he's protestant so if he doesn't believe that his faith dies :^)

>>557781

>Baptists believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, to be taken literally

>Jesus literally states "this is my body"

>doesn't believe what Jesus literally said

>>557781

I guess miracles are works probably. rip baptists

>>557829

>How do you do that?

In history you typically work with possible alternative explanations and try to come to the best explanation. No historical argument, from the nature of the case, can be 100% scientific proof. However, you can make a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence.

No serious historian denies that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person who really lived. Nor is there anything more certain about Jesus' life, from a secular historical standpoint, than that he died by crucifixion. So the main sticking point is the Resurrection.

Exhibit A would be the fact that the Jews of the time were expecting a Messiah because of their prophecies. The Old Testament prophecies of a Messiah show that, at a minimum, someone like Jesus was expected ahead of time. This is a historical fact, not really open to dispute. Some today might point to these prophecies to try and claim that they aren't really prophecies, but that's not how they were understood at the time by the people whose sacred writings they were. A prophecy of a Messiah ahead of time gives greater credibility to someone's claim to be that Messiah.

Exhibit B: The lives of the Apostles after Christ's death bear a consistent witness to the truth of his resurrection. These were men who preached that God was Truth, who believed that liars would be cast into hell. So they could not be reasonably expected to be lying about their belief. The only conclusion is that they honestly believed that they had in fact seen Jesus Christ die and that they also believed that they saw him in a risen form after his death.

What could have made them believe this? The simplest explanation is the best: they really saw what they claimed to have seen.

Let's not neglect the aspect that eleven out of the Twelve apostles were martyred for their faith. Could they have given their lives for something they knew was false? It beggars belief. Clearly they really believed.

Exhibit C: The conversion of Saul of Tarsus, a strict Pharisee who persecuted the first Christians and oversaw the death of the first Christian martyr, St. Steven. How and why could a man of his learning and pedigree choose to convert to a Way that led to his own imprisonment, beatings, shipwrecking, and eventual death? What motive could account for it? Once again, it makes no sense unless we believe what he said about it himself: that the risen Jesus really appeared to him on the road to Damascus.

You can look at many other evidences, especially the history of the Church, and the divinity of the doctrine itself which Jesus taught, but these are already enough and, in my opinion, overwhelming evidence.

>>557838

he was just being symbolic there cause uh pastor meme said so. but yeah catholics worship Mary!!!!!!!!1

>>557777

>Ani-gay

>Notice pattern, etc.

Nice Godz quadz btw

>>557842

>In history you typically work with possible alternative explanations and try to come to the best explanation. No historical argument…

>No serious historian denies that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person … So the main sticking point is the Resurrection.

Agreed.

>Some today might point to these prophecies to try and claim that they aren't really prophecies, but that's not how they were understood at the time by the people whose sacred writings they were

Isn't the fact that many Jews didn't accept Jesus evidence that they were expecting someone different?

> These were men who preached that God was Truth, who believed that liars would be cast into hell. So they could not be reasonably expected to be lying about their belief. The only conclusion is that they honestly believed that they had in fact seen Jesus Christ die and that they also believed that they saw him in a risen form after his death.

This is a non-sequitor. It's not hard to create rationalizations to justify lying for your ideology or religion, even if you think lying is wrong.

Anyway, it's not like people could only be telling the truth, or purposely trying to deceive. Sometimes stories get changed with time.

>Let's not neglect the aspect that eleven out of the Twelve apostles were martyred for their faith.

The martyrdom of the apostles is not a historically accepted fact like the Jesus existence and crucifixion though.

>Saul of Tarsus

Talking about the historical Paul is complicated because you not only have to believe what he said about himself, but you have to rely on Acts (a much later document), and on Church tradition.

>the divinity of the doctrine itself which Jesus taught

Can you elaborate a little bit on that? I'm curious.

>>557788

>imagine being this butthurt because God gave us miracles

>>557904

>Isn't the fact that many Jews didn't accept Jesus evidence that they were expecting someone different?

On this matter, you should read the bible.

If things went down as described, then God declared his alliance with the jews imperfect and sought to destroy it. We are now in the New Testament.

No comment on other charges.

>>557777

The less ignorance you have, the higher the standard to which you are judged will be.

If God appeared to you and told you "I exist, stop being an idiot" you would better become a monk and make a vow of poverty because otherwise he is going to consider you lukewarm and "spit you out of his mouth" when you are judged by HIm

>anime pic

>non-gay (however stupid) thread

well that's unusual

>>557904

>Isn't the fact that many Jews didn't accept Jesus evidence that they were expecting someone different?

It's true, they thought he would be a political messiah. But his kingdom turned out to be not of this world.

>This is a non-sequitor.

True, I realized that after I posted. I still think that a group's repeatedly professed beliefs are at least evidence that they do actually believe those things.

>Anyway, it's not like people could only be telling the truth, or purposely trying to deceive. Sometimes stories get changed with time.

True, but surely the apostles themselves would not be subject to this mythologization. They knew the historical Jesus after all, right? I don't see as how there are any options for them besides telling the truth, lying, or being deluded to the point of insanity.

>The martyrdom of the apostles is not a historically accepted fact like the Jesus existence and crucifixion though.

I don't know enough to comment on this point, but what are the alternative explanations?

>Talking about the historical Paul is complicated because you not only have to believe what he said about himself, but you have to rely on Acts (a much later document), and on Church tradition.

All of these sources recount basically the same story though, yeah? Suppose he was lying about himself: what was there to gain? The weight of the available evidence easily suggests we should believe him. It's only because the story seems so inherently unbelievable from a naturalistic perspective that anyone would want to doubt it historically.

>Can you elaborate a little bit on that? I'm curious.

Well, there is the fact that he revealed God to be a Trinity, which is not a conclusion that human reason could have reached on its own. But perhaps more pragmatically, the system of morality implicit in the principles he laid down is just so perfectly consonant with itself and with the natural law, which human reason can understand, that it's hard to imagine a mere man creating a system at once so comprehensive and consistent without writing it down in some fat autistic books like Kant. I'll admit this criterion is more than a little subjective but I personally find it immensely convincing, so I thought I'd include a note about it.