Why I'm no longer a Catholic

Father Ted Crilly

I'm not sure if this is the right section for this thread or if this thread is allowed or not. Also, this is my first thread on boards.ie
I'm a Christian. I used to be a Catholic but I've changed my mind. I'm not a Protestant either. I'm going to outline why I'm no longer a Catholic.
I've made a lot of interesting discoveries while doing research on Catholic teachings and what the Bible says. Catholicism is all heresy and lies.

(All Biblical quotes are taken from Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition)

Idolatry

Exodus 20:3
4 Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth.
5 Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them: I am the Lord thy God, mighty, jealous, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.

God has forbidden the worship of images of him. Catholicism is full of idol and symbol worship. It is a sin to worship any image or saint.

The Immaculate Deception

The Roman Catholic Church teaches of the Immaculate Conception. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Mary was sinless. In fact, the Bible says that EVERYONE on earth with the only exception of Jesus Christ are sinners.

The Pope

The Pope claims to be God's representative on earth. Romans 3:4 states: But God is true; and every man a liar, as it is written, That thou mayest be justified in thy words, and mayest overcome when thou art judged.

Do not listen to anyone who tells you to listen to the Pope. The Pope is not God. He is a fellow sinner.

The Rosary

Catholicism claims that Mary invented the decade of the Rosary and the Rosary beads. The Bible says nothing about this. The Bible says it's a sin to repeat the same prayer over and over. Are you aware of the promises "Mary" supposedly made? There are 15 I think. One of the promises says that praying the decade of the Rosary will save you from damnation and bring you closer to the Father. This is heresy. Jesus is the ONLY way, as said by the Bible.

The "Virgin" Mary and more lies

The Catholic Church claims that Mary was a virgin her whole life. Yet the Bible says Jesus had brothers. They were even named. Nowhere in the Bible does it say Mary was a virgin.
Also, Mary is not my mother. Not your mother. Not God's mother. Not the "queen of Heaven". She is just a woman who was chosen by God to give birth to Jesus Christ. She is nothing else. She has no authority and is no more important in Heaven than the man on the moon.

Priests

Matthew 23:9 states: And call none your father upon earth; for one is your father, who is in heaven.
Catholics call priests "father".

El_Duderino 09

Where do you draw the line and stop using critical thinking?

Father Ted Crilly

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Where do you draw the line and stop using critical thinking?

I'm sorry?

Huntergonzo

To be honest I still think the differences are trivial and it all just boils down to whether or not you believe the bible in the first place. I mean the bible has a lot to say, some good, some evil but basically it's just a story that makes extraordinary claims with no evidence to support it.

El_Duderino 09

Father Ted Crilly wrote: »

I'm sorry?

Well you clearly used critical thinking and carved away some parts which didn't make sense. How did you decide where to stop using critical thinking and swallow the rest of it whole?

Frank Bullitt

A case of splitting hairs really.

Father Ted Crilly

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Well you clearly used critical thinking and carved away some parts which didn't make sense. How did you decide where to stop using critical thinking and swallow the rest of it whole?

Are you implying that the whole of Christianity is wrong?

Squall Leonhart

The whole of Christianity IS wrong. As a previous poster asked, at what point did you abandon rational thinking when you were chipping away the wrongs of Catholicism, only to swallow the bits you liked whole as fact?

The world is full of people with a very selective view on what bits they do and do not like from the Bible, and what parts they choose to believe as fact and what parts they dismiss as rhetoric or symbolism etc.

It is frankly frustrating and exasperating to see otherwise reasonable and intelligent people be so incredibly gullible (at best).

El_Duderino 09

Father Ted Crilly wrote: »

Are you implying that the whole of Christianity is wrong?

Just the supernatural bits. The unsubstantiated bits are... unsubstantiated. So I'm asking how you figure out which bits to think critically about

Huntergonzo

Father Ted Crilly wrote: »

Are you implying that the whole of Christianity is wrong?

Well in fairness it's not just Christianity thats wrong so is every other religion, they're all equally as credible as the church of the flying spaghetti monster, no more no less.

Xterminator

Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare [children] to them, the same [became] mighty men which [were] of old, men of renown.

well that would suggest that giants walked the earth in biblical times. this might lead the literal reader to question if you can read the bible as a work of fiction inspired by a good message?

when i asked these questions i was told that the bible is the word of god, but transcribed by men. they used the mistakes of these men to explain away any 'errors'.

there are whole reams of literature that will explain how the king james version scholars misinterpreted certain hebrew words. but then you stry into the whole conspiracy theory territory.

Personally if you believe in faith and accept the fallibility of man, you can believe in the bible and accept its flaws & Picking on small flaws can be seen as nit picking.

however disaffected christians use these same flaws to bolster their skepticism.

neither argument ever convinces anyone in the other camp so the whole argument seems facile.

X

Delirium

Squall Leonhart wrote: »

The whole of Christianity IS wrong. As a previous poster asked, at what point did you abandon rational thinking when you were chipping away the wrongs of Catholicism, only to swallow the bits you liked whole as fact?

The world is full of people with a very selective view on what bits they do and do not like from the Bible, and what parts they choose to believe as fact and what parts they dismiss as rhetoric or symbolism etc.

It is frankly frustrating and exasperating to see otherwise reasonable and intelligent people be so incredibly gullible (at best).

MOD NOTE

Please remember this is Christianity forum.

Telling posters their religion is wrong and suggesting they are gullible for having faith isn't an appropriate way to engage with them.

Thanks for your attention.

Father Ted Crilly

Squall Leonhart wrote: »

<snip>

I'm the opposite of an atheist or nihilist or whatever. I find it hard to believe that there is no greater being.

If we humans can't prove and fully understand why we are different from every other creature on the planet, and how life began, and how the universe has evidence of design then I don't see how I could come to the conclusion that there is no God or anything.
I cannot understand how our bodies (and the bodies of animals) were so complexly built without someone on the outside of everything designing it.
How could something's DNA or whatever build a body so perfect for its environment. Evolution must have been coded. Things don't code themselves as you'll know if you are any good with computers.
And why would life begin on its own if it gains nothing from it. Why would 'Mother Nature' have a big bunch of monkeys and cats and chickens and dinosaurs and frogs and humans and birds and donkeys running around just to die again? What is the point in populating a place with animals. There must be a reason for us being alive.

I respect your beliefs. Some people say the moon landing was real and others say it was fake. Some say George Washington was the first president of America while others say it was John Hanson.
About 84% of the world's population is religious. The majority being Christian.

Now going back on-topic.

El_Duderino 09

Father Ted Crilly wrote: »

I'm the opposite of an atheist or nihilist or whatever. I find it hard to believe that there is no greater being.

If we humans can't prove and fully understand why we are different from every other creature on the planet, and how life began, and how the universe has evidence of design then I don't see how I could come to the conclusion that there is no God or anything.
I cannot understand how our bodies (and the bodies of animals) were so complexly built without someone on the outside of everything designing it.
How could something's DNA or whatever build a body so perfect for its environment. Evolution must have been coded. Things don't code themselves as you'll know if you are any good with computers.
And why would life begin on its own if it gains nothing from it. Why would 'Mother Nature' have a big bunch of monkeys and cats and chickens and dinosaurs and frogs and humans and birds and donkeys running around just to die again? What is the point in populating a place with animals. There must be a reason for us being alive.

I respect your beliefs. Some people say the moon landing was real and others say it was fake. Some say George Washington was the first president of America while others say it was John Hanson.
About 84% of the world's population is religious. The majority being Christian.

Now going back on-topic.

I'll bet you've no idea how on topic that post was.
You've answered my question about where you stop using critical thought.

Thanks

Manach

Well not point in rehashing a whole bunch of cut and paste arguments that have been done so many times in prior threads. It is ironic that both the use of Father in the OP username and the no longer part by not engaging with an understanding of the historical traditions which crafted both the Church and the Bible itself which is the birthright of the Catholic community.

Father Ted Crilly

Manach wrote: »

Well not point in rehashing a whole bunch of cut and paste arguments that have been done so many times in prior threads. It is ironic that both the use of Father in the OP username and the no longer part by not engaging with an understanding of the historical traditions which crafted both the Church and the Bible itself which is the birthright of the Catholic community.

For your information, I created this account when I was still a Catholic.

The Catholic Church even admitted that most of its teachings are of pagan origin.
What I'm getting at is that Catholicism is a man-made religion and it is simply not the religious denomination for me. In fact, someone in the Bible warned about cults in the future forbidding people to marry and from eating meat which God has given to us to be enjoyed or something along those lines.

I respect everyone's religious beliefs (or lack of them). I do however ask that you do not heckle me by saying Christianity is wrong or whatever.

This thread was made from the viewpoint that there is a God and stuff like that.

Squall Leonhart

@SW

Apologies, I took the bait. My answer was my personal view in response to a question posed by the OP, who is of course entitled to his opinions and beliefs. However I would take no offence if somebody were to tell me that I was wrong - I don't need to justify my views any more than OP does his.

Manach

Father Ted Crilly wrote: »

For your information, I created this account when I was still a Catholic.

The Catholic Church even admitted that most of its teachings are of pagan origin.
What I'm getting at is that Catholicism is a man-made religion and it is simply not the religious denomination for me. In fact, someone in the Bible warned about cults in the future forbidding people to marry and from eating meat which God has given to us to be enjoyed or something along those lines.

I respect everyone's religious beliefs (or lack of them). I do however ask that you do not heckle me by saying Christianity is wrong or whatever.

This thread was made from the viewpoint that there is a God and stuff like that.

Mate, that level of historical revision is beyond natural levels and surely perculates up to Chickian plateaus of shear and utter ignorance of wilful blindness of tradition, history and even the modicum of understanding of the Church fathers and the rationalism of Thomasism.

Benny_Cake

Father Ted Crilly wrote: »

For your information, I created this account when I was still a Catholic.

The Catholic Church even admitted that most of its teachings are of pagan origin.

Definitely going to want some kind of source on that. You do realise that the vast majority of what the Catholic Church teaches is shared by most Christian denominations. Just take the Nicene creed, for example.

Understandable that people who leave a church/religion have something of the zeal of the recently converted but you might want to do a little homework before you start throwing accusations of heresy around.

pauldla

Father Ted Crilly wrote: »

..........................
The Catholic Church even admitted that most of its teachings are of pagan origin.
.........................

I must have missed that Encyclical; Coggedit Of De Paganums, was it? :P

edward2222

Thread title
"Why i'm no longer a catholic"
then you explained why.
But since your not anymore a catholic,
are you still a believer?
Not in religion, but in gods?

Peregrinus

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Well you clearly used critical thinking and carved away some parts which didn't make sense. How did you decide where to stop using critical thinking and swallow the rest of it whole?

Seriously? What Ted wrote is an example what you regard as critical thinking?

Say it ain't so, El_Duderino!

El_Duderino 09

Peregrinus wrote: »

Seriously? What Ted wrote is an example what you regard as critical thinking?

Say it ain't so, El_Duderino!

He picked up a book full of nonsense and pointed at certain bits and decided they're nonsense.

The bible says 'Don't make graven images', Catholics make graven images therefore one of them isn't in line with the other. That much is fair enough. Why stop there was my question.

Not critical thinking in hindsight

Delirium

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

He picked up a book full of nonsense and pointed at certain bits and decided they're nonsense.

The bible says 'Don't make graven images', Catholics make graven images therefore one of them isn't in line with the other. That much is fair enough. Why stop there was my question.

Not critical thinking in hindsight

MOD NOTE

One poster has already been warned about disrespectful language regarding Chrisitianity/Christians.

Any further posts of similar vein will be carded.

Thanks for your attention.

Father Ted Crilly

edward2222 wrote: »

Thread title
"Why i'm no longer a catholic"
then you explained why.
But since your not anymore a catholic,
are you still a believer?
Not in religion, but in gods?

Yes. I've chosen to believe in and seek God. I've always been a Christian. I'm still a Christian. I don't follow the Catholic Church's teachings anymore. You must remember that Catholicism is a denomination of Christianity. In my opinion, the Catholic Church has twisted the whole Christian religion.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

He picked up a book full of nonsense and pointed at certain bits and decided they're nonsense.

The bible says 'Don't make graven images', Catholics make graven images therefore one of them isn't in line with the other. That much is fair enough. Why stop there was my question.

Not critical thinking in hindsight

If the "book full of nonsense" you are referring to is The Bible then I don't think you understand what Catholicism is and what Christianity is about.

The Bible is a collection of books with some fake stories to explain things easily. The Gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke and John document the life and miracles etc of Jesus (and yes, there is more evidence than just the Bible to say that Jesus did exist). A Christian is a follower of Jesus.

Catholicism is a denomination inside Christianity. But it has teachings that cannot be found in the Bible. Quite a number of them actually contradict the Bible.

What do you mean by "Why stop there"?

pauldla

Father Ted Crilly wrote: »

Yes. I've chosen to believe in and seek God. I've always been a Christian. I'm still a Christian. I don't follow the Catholic Church's teachings anymore. You must remember that Catholicism is a denomination of Christianity. In my opinion, the Catholic Church has twisted the whole Christian religion.



If the "book full of nonsense" you are referring to is The Bible then I don't think you understand what Catholicism is and what Christianity is about.

The Bible is a collection of books with some fake stories to explain things easily. The Gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke and John document the life and miracles etc of Jesus (and yes, there is more evidence than just the Bible to say that Jesus did exist). A Christian is a follower of Jesus.

Catholicism is a denomination inside Christianity. But it has teachings that cannot be found in the Bible. Quite a number of them actually contradict the Bible.

What do you mean by "Why stop there"?

Two questions, following on from your earlier posts.

1. When did the Catholic Church admit that most of its teachings are of pagan origin?

2. What evidence, other than the Bible, is there for the existence of Jesus?

Thanking you in advance,

P

homer911

pauldla wrote: »

2. What evidence, other than the Bible, is there for the existence of Jesus?

Have you heard of Titus Flavius Josephus? He was a first century Romano-Jewish scholar who documented much of what he experienced, including some passing references to Jesus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

pauldla

homer911 wrote: »

Have you heard of Titus Flavius Josephus? He was a first century Romano-Jewish scholar who documented much of what he experienced, including some passing references to Jesus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

I have; and I have heard that there is dispute over the veracity of the references contained in Josephus. In any event, this is hardly evidence for the existence of Jesus; it is possibly evidence of Josephus writing about Jesus sometime in the late first century (if we accept the references as valid).

I wonder does Father Ted Crilly have any other evidence?

edward2222

Father Ted Crilly wrote: »

I'm still a Christian.

Thats enough for me.

Peregrinus

pauldla wrote: »

I have; and I have heard that there is dispute over the veracity of the references contained in Josephus.

Oh, come now, Pauldla. It's acknowledged that the references to Jesus in some copies of Josephus have been doctored. But we also have copies of Josephus which contain version of the references which have not been doctored. I don't think there is a respectable segment of acadamic opinion which denies that the writings of Josephus contain references to Jesus.

pauldla wrote: »

In any event, this is hardly evidence for the existence of Jesus; it is possibly evidence of Josephus writing about Jesus sometime in the late first century (if we accept the references as valid).

If writings about figures from classical history is excluded as evidence for their existence, then we have no evidence of the existence of any figure from the classical period, other than people who were themselves authors and whose works have survived. And, even then, only if we are willing to accept that the works attributed to them are indeed by them.

pauldla wrote: »

I wonder does Father Ted Crilly have any other evidence?

I don't know about Ted, but Jesus is better attested than most figures from the classical period. He is vastly better attested than Alexander the Great, for example - multiple independent written sources attest his existence, all much closer to him in time than any source we have for Alexander. If someone questions the historicity of Jesus but doesn't question the historicity of Alexander the Great, I have to assume that their position is not one arrived at by considering the available evidence, but that they have Another Agenda.

katydid

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I'll bet you've no idea how on topic that post was.
You've answered my question about where you stop using critical thought.

Thanks

Actually, critical thought was the core of that post. You might consider looking at your own kneejerk reaction...

katydid

Father Ted Crilly wrote: »

For your information, I created this account when I was still a Catholic.

The Catholic Church even admitted that most of its teachings are of pagan origin.
What I'm getting at is that Catholicism is a man-made religion and it is simply not the religious denomination for me. In fact, someone in the Bible warned about cults in the future forbidding people to marry and from eating meat which God has given to us to be enjoyed or something along those lines.

I respect everyone's religious beliefs (or lack of them). I do however ask that you do not heckle me by saying Christianity is wrong or whatever.

This thread was made from the viewpoint that there is a God and stuff like that.

Well, Roman Catholicism is a denomination of the Christian religion, and both are man-made. All religions are man made, and I doubt if there is any religion or denomination in the world that someone will find contains everything they can accept. The fact that they are born out of human thought, and humans never agree on anything, makes that inevitable.

If you can't accept organised religion, fine. I hope that whatever way you find, it works for you. But I think that it's important to reject religion, or particular denominations, for the right reason. To be honest, as a former Roman Catholic, I think you are identifying the wrong reasons. The thing about graven images, for example, is taken out of context; it was meant to address people worshipping idols instead of God. Using images as a channel to reach God is not the same thing, and that is how most Christians, including Roman Catholics, interperet that. Just because some, off their own bat, turn images into objects of idolatry, doesn't mean it's approved of by the Christian denomination to which they belong.

And, with all due respect, interpreting Romans, written (probably) by St. Paul, to say that the pope can't be God's representative on earth because he's a sinner is wrong. I don't believe that the pope is God's representative on earth, but in fairness to the RC church, I don't think it teaches that the pope isn't a sinner!

El_Duderino 09

katydid wrote: »

Actually, critical thought was the core of that post. You might consider looking at your own kneejerk reaction...

It was an argument from ignorance (god of the gaps) supplemented with argument from personal incredulity.

In fact it was phrased as questions more than statements. 'How else' and 'I don't know how it happened' ending in a positive belief while abdicating the burden of proof.

It was not an example of critical thinking though.

El_Duderino 09

homer911 wrote: »

Have you heard of Titus Flavius Josephus? He was a first century Romano-Jewish scholar who documented much of what he experienced, including some passing references to Jesus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

Did Josephus actually reference Jesus? I thought he referred to 'flowers of Jesus, who called him Christ'. Or something along those lines. Anyway it was 50 years AD so Josephus couldn't be called a contemporary of Jesus.

That's like saying you have a source for aliens because you met people who went to a Roswell convention before you were born.

Father Ted Crilly

katydid wrote: »

And, with all due respect, interpreting Romans, written (probably) by St. Paul, to say that the pope can't be God's representative on earth because he's a sinner is wrong. I don't believe that the pope is God's representative on earth, but in fairness to the RC church, I don't think it teaches that the pope isn't a sinner!

According to the Bible, EVERYONE (except Jesus) is a sinner. That includes Pope Francis, Pope Benedict, Pope Finn MacCool and every other Tom, Dick and Harry that has been a pope.
The Catholic Church teaches that the pope is infallible. I didn't believe that for a second when I first learned about it.

I can't remember whether I mentioned this in my OP or not but your post just reminded me of another thing.
The Bible says that Jesus said that if you want forgiveness from God you have to pray directly to God. The Catholic Church teaches that the only way of having your sins forgiven is to go the "Sacrament of Reconciliation".
You tell your sins to a fellow sinner who is dressed in black.

Father Ted Crilly

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

<snip>

Don't forget the other sources. Romans etc.

katydid

Father Ted Crilly wrote: »

According to the Bible, EVERYONE (except Jesus) is a sinner. That includes Pope Francis, Pope Benedict, Pope Finn MacCool and every other Tom, Dick and Harry that has been a pope.
The Catholic Church teaches that the pope is infallible. I didn't believe that for a second when I first learned about it.

I can't remember whether I mentioned this in my OP or not but your post just reminded me of another thing.
The Bible says that Jesus said that if you want forgiveness from God you have to pray directly to God. The Catholic Church teaches that the only way of having your sins forgiven is to go the "Sacrament of Reconciliation".
You tell your sins to a fellow sinner who is dressed in black.

The RCC teaches that IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES the pope is infallible. How does that mean that it says he's not a sinner?

Regarding confession/reconciliation, you can find anything in the bible to suit you. You can read John 20:22-23 to justify it; " “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” .

tommy2bad

Father Ted Crilly wrote: »

I'm not sure if this is the right section for this thread or if this thread is allowed or not. Also, this is my first thread on boards.ie
I'm a Christian. I used to be a Catholic but I've changed my mind. I'm not a Protestant either. I'm going to outline why I'm no longer a Catholic.
I've made a lot of interesting discoveries while doing research on Catholic teachings and what the Bible says. Catholicism is all heresy and lies.

(All Biblical quotes are taken from Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition)

Idolatry

Exodus 20:3
4 Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth.
5 Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them: I am the Lord thy God, mighty, jealous, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.

God has forbidden the worship of images of him. Catholicism is full of idol and symbol worship. It is a sin to worship any image or saint.

The Immaculate Deception

The Roman Catholic Church teaches of the Immaculate Conception. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Mary was sinless. In fact, the Bible says that EVERYONE on earth with the only exception of Jesus Christ are sinners.

The Pope

The Pope claims to be God's representative on earth. Romans 3:4 states: But God is true; and every man a liar, as it is written, That thou mayest be justified in thy words, and mayest overcome when thou art judged.

Do not listen to anyone who tells you to listen to the Pope. The Pope is not God. He is a fellow sinner.

The Rosary

Catholicism claims that Mary invented the decade of the Rosary and the Rosary beads. The Bible says nothing about this. The Bible says it's a sin to repeat the same prayer over and over. Are you aware of the promises "Mary" supposedly made? There are 15 I think. One of the promises says that praying the decade of the Rosary will save you from damnation and bring you closer to the Father. This is heresy. Jesus is the ONLY way, as said by the Bible.

The "Virgin" Mary and more lies

The Catholic Church claims that Mary was a virgin her whole life. Yet the Bible says Jesus had brothers. They were even named. Nowhere in the Bible does it say Mary was a virgin.
Also, Mary is not my mother. Not your mother. Not God's mother. Not the "queen of Heaven". She is just a woman who was chosen by God to give birth to Jesus Christ. She is nothing else. She has no authority and is no more important in Heaven than the man on the moon.

Priests

Matthew 23:9 states: And call none your father upon earth; for one is your father, who is in heaven.
Catholics call priests "father".

Ok, that's fair enough. If you accept that the bible is the only means of finding salvation. However it requires a certain discipline. You have to spend time studying the bible and how to interpret it properly. You will have to rely on your consciences to guide you and the advice and guidance of others.
Of course that's pretty much how the Roman Catholic church dose it too, so you might end up exactly share you started.
Remember scripture alone isn't that good a guide, if it were their wouldn't be such variation in
Sola scriptura churches. Everything from Westboro Baptist to Lutherans. I'm not saying the 3 legged stool of scripture, tradition and holy spirit don't lead to variation as well, and as wide but in the end unless you are willing to devote a lot of time to the effort your just as likely to be in error as the church you think is in error. Even with the effort you will still have to rely on your own judgment. Maybe that's how it should be so I wish you well.

El_Duderino 09

Father Ted Crilly wrote: »

Don't forget the other sources. Romans etc.

Do you have any sources?

Do you know what Josephus said about jesus? I went to the bother of googling it and it appears that some of his writings are forged and the remaining sentence or 2 are about early Christians. No evidence for Jesus as anything more than a person. It just says there were Christians at the time.

What are your views on Josephus writings and what do you conclude from them?

Father Ted Crilly

pauldla wrote: »

I wonder does Father Ted Crilly have any other evidence?

I've mentioned the Romans already.

This is my own opinion.
The Romans were known for trying to make their enemies look stupid when they were documenting what is now their history. The Romans believed that there were many Gods and stuff like that and they persecuted anyone who disagreed with them. They must have been astonished by this Jesus guy going around performing miracles and walking on water and feeding 5000 people with two baskets containing a seemingly endless supply of loaves and fish. Why else would they describe someone as being that epic?

Why would the Romans lie and say that a man who claims to be the son of God is performing miracles knowing it would tarnish their beliefs. If I recall correctly, didn't a Roman emperor give up his glory, reputation and power and stop calling himself a god and he became a Christian. It happened so long ago I can't remember the guy's name. You can "Google" it.

Father Ted Crilly

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That's like saying you have a source for aliens because you met people who went to a Roswell convention before you were born.

It's a good thing I just noticed this thread:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057426545

El_Duderino 09

Father Ted Crilly wrote: »

It's a good thing I just noticed this thread:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057426545

Are you noting the similarities between the 2 threads and the OP's standard of evidence?

Father Ted Crilly

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

<snip>

This thread is about why Catholicism is not Christianity. I'd love to discuss the evidence for Jesus existing but if you want that sort of thing, http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057359817 is the appropriate place.

I would like to note that there is sufficient proof that Jesus Christ did exist. Unfortunately, at the time of Jesus, IPhones didn't have built in cameras so we don't have any photographic evidence of his miracles being performed.

El_Duderino 09

Father Ted Crilly wrote: »

I've mentioned the Romans already.

This is my own opinion.
The Romans were known for trying to make their enemies look stupid when they were documenting what is now their history. The Romans believed that there were many Gods and stuff like that and they persecuted anyone who disagreed with them. They must have been astonished by this Jesus guy going around performing miracles and walking on water and feeding 5000 people with two baskets containing a seemingly endless supply of loaves and fish. Why else would they describe someone as being that epic?

Why would the Romans lie and say that a man who claims to be the son of God is performing miracles knowing it would tarnish their beliefs. If I recall correctly, didn't a Roman emperor give up his glory, reputation and power and stop calling himself a god and he became a Christian. It happened so long ago I can't remember the guy's name. You can "Google" it.

Constantine. That makes one of us who actually looked it up. There was no evidence that he did it for anything other than political reasons. He didn't take part in Christian ceremonies and didn't even bother to get baptised until shortly before he died.

Newstalk did a good podcast about him a few years back.

What exactly do you see his conversion as evidence of and how strong do you think it is?

pauldla

Peregrinus wrote: »

Oh, come now, Pauldla. It's acknowledged that the references to Jesus in some copies of Josephus have been doctored. But we also have copies of Josephus which contain version of the references which have not been doctored. I don't think there is a respectable segment of acadamic opinion which denies that the writings of Josephus contain references to Jesus.

Thanks for the reply, P; I'll preface my response by saying that I don't think this is the place to go in to the historicity of Jesus; there was a thread on it on A&A last year I believe, so we can revive that one if you want to discuss it further.

Having said that, I'll allow myself the luxury of a reply here. :P

RE: the reliability of Josephus as a source, I see enough of a question mark over the matter as to leave it as 'problematic'; and even if the references to Jesus were indeed written by the man, it's still not evidence of Jesus, it's evidence of Josephus hearing stories about Jesus in Jerusalem and environs some sixty odd years after his death.

writings about figures from classical history is excluded as evidence for their existence, then we have no evidence of the existence of any figure from the classical period, other than people who were themselves authors and whose works have survived. And, even then, only if we are willing to accept that the works attributed to them are indeed by them.

It seems to me here that you're saying 'if somebody wrote about it, it must have been real', and I know that can't be the case. How do we evidence figures from the classical period?

don't know about Ted, but Jesus is better attested than most figures from the classical period. He is vastly better attested than Alexander the Great, for example - multiple independent written sources attest his existence, all much closer to him in time than any source we have for Alexander. If someone questions the historicity of Jesus but doesn't question the historicity of Alexander the Great, I have to assume that their position is not one arrived at by considering the available evidence, but that they have Another Agenda.

Oh, I'll try answer my own question, then. In the case of Alexander we do have a lot of evidence, archaeological as well as literary. And also a few cities he named after himself, the braggart. You can certainly question the historicity of Alexander, but I suspect that it wouldn't be long before you began to suspect that there was something to it all.

But it's not a terribly fair comparison, is it? Alexander was, after all, the Great; anybody who genuinely denies his existence is probably not far off believing he is Alexander himself. Troy was long thought to be 'just a myth', for example, until wotsisname found it. But these are big things, empires and wars and the like, and we can expect a certain amount of physical evidence, multiple sources, etc. What evidence can we expect of an itinerant preacher wandering the quieter areas of Judea two thousand years ago?

Agenda, Peregrinus? And not just an agenda, but Another Agenda with two big 'A's? That sounds ominous.

To get back to the question to Ted about evidence, so far we have

1) Scripture
2) Josephus

as evidence. I'm genuinely curious to know if Ted has anything else to add to the list.

El_Duderino 09

Father Ted Crilly wrote: »

I would like to note that there is sufficient proof that Jesus Christ did exist. Unfortunately, at the time of Jesus, IPhones didn't have built in cameras so we don't have any photographic evidence of his miracles being performed.

It was yourself who said you are a follower of Jesus rather than the catholics.

So you keep telling us about this 'proof' and then it turns out you kinda heard it somewhere or something, and sure how else could you believe it if it never happened? Therefore it must have happened.

You're convinced there's loads of proof but keep referring to sources which you haven't even looked up.

Father Ted Crilly

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

<snip>

I saw everything.

El_Duderino 09

Father Ted Crilly wrote: »

I saw everything.

Makes as much of a case as any of the evidence you've sited so far.

katydid

tommy2bad wrote: »

Ok, that's fair enough. If you accept that the bible is the only means of finding salvation. However it requires a certain discipline. You have to spend time studying the bible and how to interpret it properly. You will have to rely on your consciences to guide you and the advice and guidance of others.
Of course that's pretty much how the Roman Catholic church dose it too, so you might end up exactly share you started.
Remember scripture alone isn't that good a guide, if it were their wouldn't be such variation in
Sola scriptura churches. Everything from Westboro Baptist to Lutherans. I'm not saying the 3 legged stool of scripture, tradition and holy spirit don't lead to variation as well, and as wide but in the end unless you are willing to devote a lot of time to the effort your just as likely to be in error as the church you think is in error. Even with the effort you will still have to rely on your own judgment. Maybe that's how it should be so I wish you well.

In fairness, there's a difference between getting advice and guidance from others on scripture, and being told what to think by others. Roman Catholics were traditionally encouraged not to delve into the bible themselves, but to just listen and take on board what the clergy told them.

Frank Bullitt

Even if you can prove the existence of Jesus, can you now prove his divinity?

Anyone?

katydid

Gintonious wrote: »

Even if you can prove the existence of Jesus, can you now prove his divinity?

Anyone?

How could anyone PROVE such a thing.