|
|
1. Christ is in the Eucharist.
When Christ and the 12 Apostles met fror their last meal together, The Last Supper, he broke the bread into pieces, as your mother or wife (or any of us) might do with any food to be divided up. He told them to eat the bread. And he said it was his body. He did not say it was symbolic of his body, but of course he could have meant that. He blessed the cup of wine also and offered it to pass among them all, calling it the cup of his blood. They did not question his meaning or whether he was speaking symbolically, because he had explained that earlier. When he was preaching previously to a larger group of his disciples he had explained that to reach the kingdom of Heaven one would have to eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man (Jesus). Here he used graphic terminology (translated as "chew" or "gnaw"). This disgusted many of the followers, not casual ones, but disciples. They got up and left. Surely he would have told them at that point that he was speaking symbolically if he, in fact, was. Throughout the scriptures Christ uses parables and imagery to illustrate points, but he wouldn't let those who misunderstood abandon him over a misinterpretation of a metaphor. It would be unfair to those leaving. Early Christian services included the Eucharistic Communion as Catholics do today. It is the one thing that seems to be missing the most at a Protestant service. This has been replaced by the altar call, where members of the congregation are called up to pledge their life to God and Christ. It is a noble act, but it is not so much an act of worship. And it has less meaning to those who have made that pledge before and feel no need to renew that vow. The Catholic mass offers each Catholic present the chance to partake of the supreme act of worship. It is a holy moment.
After Jewish followers, disciples, quarreled about Jesus saying his flesh was bread from heaven saying , "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" Christ clarified. Read below. John 6:47-71 (54-58) "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven." The rest of the passage, which is beautiful and should be read in its entirety, goes on to describe how many disciples left, going back to their former lives, disgusted by the thought of this communion meal. At that moment, had Christ meant what he was saying symbolically, he surely would have called them back and explained. They were leaving because the literal interpretation of his word repulsed them. According to the St. Joseph edition of the New American Bible, to emphasize the graphic way Christ must have spoken, John uses words for "eat" that carry the meaning, "gnaw" or "munch." Concerning the reality of Christ being in the Eucharistic Communion Meal, if we take Jesus at his word, literally; game-set-match to the Catholics . . . checkmate, too. When I was a Protestant this fact of the followers leaving was sort treated like a bit of colorful detail to add reality to the description, to make the event seem real by describing general crowd reaction. There is a problem however. Because this is what often occurs in non-Catholic teaching. Uncomfortable facts in scripture, that do not fit the belief system of the particular denomination doing the teaching, are downplayed or ignored. A leading Protestant leader, during the Reformation, simple altered the Holy Scriptures because they did not fit his views. The famous of all Church rebels, Martin Luther, was hardly the most honest of men. He alter sacred scripture by placing the word "alone" after the word "faith" to obviously infer that we are saved by "faith alone." In the case here, about the Eucharist, this is not a casual crowd, they were disciples of Christ who left. Furthermore, the apostle John did not place the information there casually for artistic purposes. He knew that the event was important, earth-shaking in fact. Christ allowed devout followers to leave because he was unwilling to correct their belief that he meant the body and blood statement literally. Why? Because that is exactly how he meant it. The disgust of those disciples is described fairly graphically and more than once within a few verses. Why? because it was important. Christ's teaching on the Eucharist is repeated in detail within the same passages. Why? Because it is important. Why the focus on this point and the reaction of Jesus (the Christ, the Messiah) to the disgust of those followers? Because he meant it literally. Game, set, match! Checkmate, Catholicism! How could bread become flesh & wine become blood? And how could they become the blood and flesh of Jesus Christ? Even if you believe in the entire Christian story, he has been gone from the planets surface for over 2,000 years. He's not here to do these things, . . . and it still looks like a wafer and tastes like wine. Well, . . . think, if God could send down, to a small Middle Eastern town in the primitive ages of the past, the Holy Spirit (mysterious enough Itself, as the third part of the Trinity of Father, Son & Holy Spirit) and make a young peasant women pregnant without her having relations with any man; you would think the miracle at your local parish Church would be the easy part. The Eucharistic meal becoming our Lord upon blessing of it, while retaining all the outward attributes of the bread and wine called (transubstantiation), is possible because God can do anything, has done everything; and we have evidence, the evidence of all the unexplained miracles that have occurred and still occur. Protestants, good Christians, still have trouble with the logic, the believability of this. Protestantism grew from and with the Renaissance and matured through the Enlightenment. And the more man learned in those exciting days of new knowledge, the more man suddenly knew better than God. So, this communion thing can't be real it's illogical, they believed. We Catholics are also logical and scientifically inquisitive, but we also believe our Faith. we take it seriously and we read the scriptures literally, like many Protestants claim they do. God spiritually through the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary. He chose a young, unassuming, yet intelligent, peasant girl. He raised his Son from the dead. God, the Father and his Son and the Holy Spirit are all one but separate being. Do you see where I'm going with this? The Sunday morning transformation of matter into other matter with out it seeming to change just doesn't seem that hard. He is the Supreme Being. To improperly use common language to make the point: If God can "magically" impregnate the Mother of Christ, than he can certainly handle the reenactment and make it real. How can I believe all of this? Because Christ says it. If he is God, then we must believe it. Do I as a doubting human have validation. Sure! You see, it is all connected, this wonderful Christianity. Though we are called to show faith that needs no proof, we're given the proof we so need all of the time. Click here to go down the page to our article on miracles to see for yourself. 3. & G. Christ rose from the dead.
The core belief of Christians in general and Catholicism in particular is that Christ took the punishment for the sins of mankind and rose from the dead and ascended to heaven. Any very brave man could have said I'll die for the sins of others, or all. It would have been a way for some condemned person to both "grandstand" and give meaning to their execution, should a they find themselves in that horrible position anyway. One might as well give it meaning. But someone who said that would have possible drawn greater wrath and torment to themselves from the authorities and ridicule from the masses. So, what goal would really be achieved. Also if you are not someone with supernatural powers, you really could not back up a claim like that. You could not even show any evidence that your claim was true. It would just have been a dramatic exit, but a lie.
The Resurrection gives credence to the claim to save the world sinners. If a man can do that: if he can take all of that punishment, die and then rise from the grave, surely anyone who was sure of this Ressurection, would believe. This is what Christ did. The Roman execution by crucifixion was as brutal as anything in history. There is a statue in Hanceville, Alabama at the Shrine of the most Blessed Sacrament, depicting Christ after the scourging just before the execution on the cross. Although this is a small statue (reasonably realistic, but not vividly so) it is difficult to look at. There are literally chunks of flesh torn from the limbs and torso, and lying on the ground at Jesus' feet. To endure that and a brutal execution would make any reanimation and Resurrection from death extremely impressive and convincing. Only a supernatural person, a god, could arise and live again after those severe punishments. God did. The women who had come from Galilee with him followed behind, and when they had seen the tomb and the way in which his body was laid in it, they returned and prepared spices and perfumed oils. Then they rested on the sabbath according to the commandment. But at daybreak on the first day of the week they took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb. They found the stone rolled away from the tomb; but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. While they were puzzling over this, behold, two men in dazzling garments appeared to them. They were terrified and bowed their heads to the ground. They said to them, "Why do you seek the living one among the dead? He is not here, but he has been raised. Remember what he said to you while he was still in Galilee, that the Son of Man must be handed over to the sinners and be crucified, and rise on the third day." And they remembered his words. Then they returned from the tomb and announced all these things to the eleven and to all the others. The women were Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James; the others who accompanied them also told this to the apostles, but their story seemed like nonsense and they did not believe them. But Peter got up and ran to the tomb, bent down, and saw the burial clothes alone; then he went home amazed at what had happened., A person doubting truth in the Christian core beliefs need only find a way to believe this, to convince themselves that this event actually occurred. Nothing else is needed. To get to that point: read the works of Protestant Lee Strobel as well as various scholars, both Catholic and Protestant to see if you an agree with them that the scriptures are valid. If you can accept the scriptures, then read of the fact related in these scriptures: that the tomb of Jesus was empty when the women came to see him there. and that he appeared to many of his followers. Those events are well described in the New Testament. If the New Testament documents are valid, describing real events, are they secondly describing true events accurately? From the standpoint of secular proof one can, again, look at Strobel's The Case For Christ, for he addresses such issues as whether the behaviors of people involved in the events surrounding the Christian Easter celebration, the torture, death and Resurrection of Christ. In The Case For Christ one will discover that, with the reporters fervor, Strobel sought evidence from every type of expert. We mostly have only the New Testament, and he addresses its validity as an historical document very thoroughly [see B. The Bible, particularly the New Testament, is a valid historical text, with a better pedigree than some other respected ancient texts. below]. Then, convinced about that issue, Strobel seeks expert advice concerning: 1. did Christ die? Yes; 2. was evidence of his Resurrection convincing? Yes; 3. Were witnesses of the empty tomb and his appearances alive valid? Yes. He seeks experts in every field to address such things as the actual methods of Roman torture and the cause of death during a crucifixion, which was a common Roman form of execution. He addresses such issues as the chances of survival during this punishment. 2. Peter was chosen by Christ.
|
The Hail MaryHail Mary, Full of Grace,
The Lord is With Thee. Blessed are Thou Amongst Women, And Blessed is The Fruit of Thy Womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, Pray for us sinners, Now, and at the hour of our death, Amen. |
The visit from the angel to tell Mary she has been chosen by God to give birth to Jesus (1) and (2) Mary's visit with her cousin Elizabeth, wife of Zechariah, who is also surprisingly pregnant} are really form the scriptural basis for the first half of the prayer to Mary and the first line of the second half:
The angel Gabriel says to Mary "Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you." Luke 1: 26-28 ...Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, cried out in a loud voice and said, "Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And how does it happen that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" Luke 1: 39-45 |
Now with respect to the words in the second half of the prayer above that are in gray rather than color, those are the words that are not backed by scripture because they cannot be . They are our appeal, our request of Mary to pray for us. We Catholics do not see Mary as a goddess as we as are accused of doing. Would you ask a god or goddess to pray?
[continued next below: a description of the complete Rosary prayer with the
four groups of Mysteries as the story of Christ]
[continued next below: a description of the complete Rosary prayer with the
four groups of Mysteries as the story of Christ]
The Rosary Prayer as the History of Christ
[coming soon]
5. Mary is our mother (both symbolic & true).
When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold your son." Then he said to the disciple, "Behold your mother." And from that hour the disciple took her into his home.
Catholics again, as often stated here on this site, take Jesus at his word literally. There is no reason not too except when he indicates in some way that he is speaking metaphorically. Apparently the Apostle John, the youngest, was the only one of the 12 present at the Crucifixion. Perhaps the others just couldn't take it. We know that their beliefs, for which they had given up normal lives, were being sorely tested at the time. And perhaps, as now, the youngest then had a bit stronger stomachs for terrible things.
The event important here is the moment when Christ looks down from the cross and says to Mary, in reference to John, "Woman, behold your son." Then he turns his gaze to John, and in reference to Mary, tells him to "behold your mother." They are not biologically related in any way, but Christ means it. John represents us all in this moment, for so many of the references in both Old and New Testaments point to her role as the new Eve, mother of the human race. He means it in the legal sense, that we are adopted by Mary, that we are technically her children now, as in an adoption.
Catholics again, as often stated here on this site, take Jesus at his word literally. There is no reason not too except when he indicates in some way that he is speaking metaphorically. Apparently the Apostle John, the youngest, was the only one of the 12 present at the Crucifixion. Perhaps the others just couldn't take it. We know that their beliefs, for which they had given up normal lives, were being sorely tested at the time. And perhaps, as now, the youngest then had a bit stronger stomachs for terrible things.
The event important here is the moment when Christ looks down from the cross and says to Mary, in reference to John, "Woman, behold your son." Then he turns his gaze to John, and in reference to Mary, tells him to "behold your mother." They are not biologically related in any way, but Christ means it. John represents us all in this moment, for so many of the references in both Old and New Testaments point to her role as the new Eve, mother of the human race. He means it in the legal sense, that we are adopted by Mary, that we are technically her children now, as in an adoption.
C. God can be a scientific reality.
D. Science suggests an intelligent creator of the universe.
Science since Darwin has been seen as the enemy of Christianity as scientifically oriented people believe that everything can be explained by the practical rules of science. This belief is probably partly responsible for the doubts Protestants have in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Protestants can accept the supernatural events in the Bible, to a point; but reject this part of Catholic belief perhaps because it happens in front of them, in their time, not thousands of years ago.
For me, science does not explain everything. It does not explain certain miracles that were associated with and/or used to validate sainthood of St. Faustina (as is the case with other saints as well). I've spoke with people directly associated with some of these miracles and they are inexplicable scientifically. I have had my own experiences when a friend died that I cannot explain. They occurred after his death, but I was not overly distraught at the time. We had not been close, as we once had been, for a while. Family members and friends have had their own experiences that aren't easily explained, but clearly occurred.
Luckily many scientist believe that there are unexplained things in our world and universe, and many also believe in the Christian Faith as a part of that world, as in fact involved in the origin of that world. One such scientist is Francis Collins who headed the Humane Genome Project. In his book, The Language of God, he explains how DNA is to complicated and well designed to be created by the accidental evolutionary process. He was an atheist who became Christian and believes that science and Christianity can coexist.
In The Case For a Creator, Lee Strobel takes his investigative skills from the subject of the truth about Christ to the possibility of the creation story from the Bible being true. He does not attempt to delve into the question of the book of Genesis being literally true. Rather he addresses the question of simply was the universe created by God or an accident of natural physics. You will find the book very fascinating as you read the views of scientist after scientist who believe in intelligent design and creation, and can back their belief up with facts. Concerning creation, the comment that stuck with me the most in Strobel's research was when he relates [in another of his books: The Case For Faith] a conversation with Walter L. Bradley, Ph.D. Dr. Bradley quotes Sir Frederick Hoyle who states that the possibility of random chance leading to the origin of life "...is about as likely as a tornado whirling through a junk yard and accidentally assembling a fully functional Boeing 747." The book [Case For a Creator] discusses all of the other objections to evolution without intelligence behind it: the often mentioned development of the eye and wing for example. These two organs cannot function unless fully developed, so how could they evolve through developmental stages to a finished organ. But this is a much more in depth look at the various issues with the argument between those who believe in a creator and those who believe things just developed on their own. And there are so many issues. For example we learn that our planet needed so many conditions to be just right for the development of life, a situation that would seem difficult to develop by accident. Very precise chemical requirements for life exist. And concerning the Big Bang theory, it was refreshing to hear scientists confirm my own thought: doesn't that moment, at the very beginning of creation, seem a whole lot like what we Christians imagine the snap of God's fingers to be like. Strobel's book covers all of the various arguments for an intelligent creator, God.
Now as to the scientific origins of God. None but the philosophers can endeavor to attack this issue with any hope of success. Sure, every devout atheist "knows" the answer, but here we are interested not only in truth, but a reasonable intellectual approach to the same. Atheist aren't going to give us that. No one is going to know the origins of God or if he has always existed until he decides, sometime in the afterlife, to enlighten us. But his existence is known by his works, his creation. If we decide for ourselves that the types of scientific arguments presented by authors such as Francis Collins, Lee Strobel and Scott Hahn have convinced us that the universe had an intelligent creator, which we can call God, then we know and can say God is a scientific reality. He had to exist in order to do the work. In Strobel one will find an in depth discussion of the Big Bang Theory. I found it quite interesting when one of the experts took the words right out of my mouth when they suggested that the universe appearing out of nothing with a sudden explosion sounded a whole lot like the snap of God's fingers we all imagined the first time we heard the biblical creation story as little children.
For me, science does not explain everything. It does not explain certain miracles that were associated with and/or used to validate sainthood of St. Faustina (as is the case with other saints as well). I've spoke with people directly associated with some of these miracles and they are inexplicable scientifically. I have had my own experiences when a friend died that I cannot explain. They occurred after his death, but I was not overly distraught at the time. We had not been close, as we once had been, for a while. Family members and friends have had their own experiences that aren't easily explained, but clearly occurred.
Luckily many scientist believe that there are unexplained things in our world and universe, and many also believe in the Christian Faith as a part of that world, as in fact involved in the origin of that world. One such scientist is Francis Collins who headed the Humane Genome Project. In his book, The Language of God, he explains how DNA is to complicated and well designed to be created by the accidental evolutionary process. He was an atheist who became Christian and believes that science and Christianity can coexist.
In The Case For a Creator, Lee Strobel takes his investigative skills from the subject of the truth about Christ to the possibility of the creation story from the Bible being true. He does not attempt to delve into the question of the book of Genesis being literally true. Rather he addresses the question of simply was the universe created by God or an accident of natural physics. You will find the book very fascinating as you read the views of scientist after scientist who believe in intelligent design and creation, and can back their belief up with facts. Concerning creation, the comment that stuck with me the most in Strobel's research was when he relates [in another of his books: The Case For Faith] a conversation with Walter L. Bradley, Ph.D. Dr. Bradley quotes Sir Frederick Hoyle who states that the possibility of random chance leading to the origin of life "...is about as likely as a tornado whirling through a junk yard and accidentally assembling a fully functional Boeing 747." The book [Case For a Creator] discusses all of the other objections to evolution without intelligence behind it: the often mentioned development of the eye and wing for example. These two organs cannot function unless fully developed, so how could they evolve through developmental stages to a finished organ. But this is a much more in depth look at the various issues with the argument between those who believe in a creator and those who believe things just developed on their own. And there are so many issues. For example we learn that our planet needed so many conditions to be just right for the development of life, a situation that would seem difficult to develop by accident. Very precise chemical requirements for life exist. And concerning the Big Bang theory, it was refreshing to hear scientists confirm my own thought: doesn't that moment, at the very beginning of creation, seem a whole lot like what we Christians imagine the snap of God's fingers to be like. Strobel's book covers all of the various arguments for an intelligent creator, God.
Now as to the scientific origins of God. None but the philosophers can endeavor to attack this issue with any hope of success. Sure, every devout atheist "knows" the answer, but here we are interested not only in truth, but a reasonable intellectual approach to the same. Atheist aren't going to give us that. No one is going to know the origins of God or if he has always existed until he decides, sometime in the afterlife, to enlighten us. But his existence is known by his works, his creation. If we decide for ourselves that the types of scientific arguments presented by authors such as Francis Collins, Lee Strobel and Scott Hahn have convinced us that the universe had an intelligent creator, which we can call God, then we know and can say God is a scientific reality. He had to exist in order to do the work. In Strobel one will find an in depth discussion of the Big Bang Theory. I found it quite interesting when one of the experts took the words right out of my mouth when they suggested that the universe appearing out of nothing with a sudden explosion sounded a whole lot like the snap of God's fingers we all imagined the first time we heard the biblical creation story as little children.
E. Christ is historical
"Now there arose at this time a source of further trouble in one Jesus, a wise man who performed surprising works, a teacher of men who gladly welcome strange things. He led away many Jews, and also many of the Gentiles. He was the so-called Christ. When Pilate, acting on information supplied by the chief men around us, condemned him to the cross, those who had attached themselves to him at first did not cease to cause trouble, and the tribe of Christians, which has taken this name from him is not extinct even today." [This translation from: F. F. Bruce, Josephus: Testimonium Flavianum from his Antiquities (early 2nd century A.D.) found on the site Rational Christianity Christian Apologetics, http://www.rationalchristianity.net/.]
"About this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned him to be crucified, those who had formerly loved him did not cease to follow him, for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, along with a myriad of other marvellous things concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day." [This translation from: Testimonium Flavianum, Historicity of Jesus, Wikipedia
These two translations of the same passage from Jewish historian Josephus' Antiquities offer two versions of a very important passage. This is the best ancient secular history reference to the existence of Jesus the Christ. Josephus lived between 37A.D. and 100A.D., which was immediately after Jesus' time on earth. He could well have known, or at least interviewed, surviving original disciples. It proves pretty convincingly that Jesus really lived. Josephus also references James, called the brother of Jesus (but considered by Catholics not to be a true, biological brother, as Catholics believe that Mary was always a virgin), again proving the existence of Jesus by simply referencing him.
Josephus was not a follower of Christ, so his reference is more believable since it is obvious that he is not tying to help promote Christianity with his history. Since we know that there is ample evidence to validiate the New Testament [see B. The Bible, particularly the New Testament, is a valid historical text, with a better pedigree than some other respected ancient texts. below], the additional validation of Christ by virtue of his being mentioned in a secular history is pretty good reason to believe that he actually live. The historian and others refer to the early Christian believers, some calling them a "cult." Therefore, these writings also prove early existence of followers of Jesus. Josephus lived between 37A.D. and 100A.D. which was right after Christ's death & Resurrection in 33A.D. His history was therefore written within a generation of Christ's life.
"About this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned him to be crucified, those who had formerly loved him did not cease to follow him, for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, along with a myriad of other marvellous things concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day." [This translation from: Testimonium Flavianum, Historicity of Jesus, Wikipedia
These two translations of the same passage from Jewish historian Josephus' Antiquities offer two versions of a very important passage. This is the best ancient secular history reference to the existence of Jesus the Christ. Josephus lived between 37A.D. and 100A.D., which was immediately after Jesus' time on earth. He could well have known, or at least interviewed, surviving original disciples. It proves pretty convincingly that Jesus really lived. Josephus also references James, called the brother of Jesus (but considered by Catholics not to be a true, biological brother, as Catholics believe that Mary was always a virgin), again proving the existence of Jesus by simply referencing him.
Josephus was not a follower of Christ, so his reference is more believable since it is obvious that he is not tying to help promote Christianity with his history. Since we know that there is ample evidence to validiate the New Testament [see B. The Bible, particularly the New Testament, is a valid historical text, with a better pedigree than some other respected ancient texts. below], the additional validation of Christ by virtue of his being mentioned in a secular history is pretty good reason to believe that he actually live. The historian and others refer to the early Christian believers, some calling them a "cult." Therefore, these writings also prove early existence of followers of Jesus. Josephus lived between 37A.D. and 100A.D. which was right after Christ's death & Resurrection in 33A.D. His history was therefore written within a generation of Christ's life.
F. Jesus was not crazy & believed what he claimed.
This topic may have been treated by Catholic scholars, but Protestant Lee Strobel took his hallmark investigative approach and addressed this point in CASE FOR CHRIST. Reverend Strobe is a godsend to the Christian cause, for he has done what some religious writers would not do. He has addressed the issues important to the average non-Christian more openly and honestly than many, maybe better than any. It is a Christian mantra, for many, that it's all about "faith." The non-Christian cannot feel strong faith for something he may know nothing about. Let's face it, Christians doubt. I'll never forget the Easter Sunday morning that the priest thanked everyone for being there because, after all "have you seen him?' Implied, of course, was "No, but your still here." That was a show of faith, but the priest was implying that there was much potential out there in the world for doubt. Mother Theresa even had her dark night of the soul, wondering if the suffering around her was consistent with the existence of a benevolent God.
So Rev. Strobel, coming from the angle of an atheist, could forget the issue of faith. From his position at the time his research began, he could not be expected to have any faith. Rev. Stobel's methodology was to seek experts the way crime investigator might. Since the events of the story of Christ were long over, the evidence is only in texts and the locations that match up to what is in the texts. On the issue of Christ's sanity, the issue of whether this was a nice, but mentally ill, man who just thought he was the son of God, the author of CASE FOR CHRIST approached mental health professional experts and got a resounding conclusion the the Christ of the Gospels was a sane man. The result of his inquiry was simply that the Gospels revealed the words and actions of a sane man who believed what he was telling his followers. With Christ's recorded time on earth over long ago, the only thing that a mental health analysis can be based upon is the words and actions in the New Testament. The process would be something like reviewing of a novel or a biography and trying to determine if a fictional character in the novel or the real life subject of the biography was sane or not. It is obviously not perfect, but the evaluation is possible, and the analysis could be reasonably accurate. We accept this sort of thing in book, movie review and other reports with regularity.
[This article is short because there are no other references to my knowledge than Strobel and I do not want to just copy parts of his book. There can be no other evidence on this topic than the writings about Christ in the Bible. Views in other modern books are just that, and no different than Strobel's. What we like about his work is the investigative approach and the reliance upon experts of great quality. The Case for Christ is a good read and highly recommended. Please see the margin.]
So Rev. Strobel, coming from the angle of an atheist, could forget the issue of faith. From his position at the time his research began, he could not be expected to have any faith. Rev. Stobel's methodology was to seek experts the way crime investigator might. Since the events of the story of Christ were long over, the evidence is only in texts and the locations that match up to what is in the texts. On the issue of Christ's sanity, the issue of whether this was a nice, but mentally ill, man who just thought he was the son of God, the author of CASE FOR CHRIST approached mental health professional experts and got a resounding conclusion the the Christ of the Gospels was a sane man. The result of his inquiry was simply that the Gospels revealed the words and actions of a sane man who believed what he was telling his followers. With Christ's recorded time on earth over long ago, the only thing that a mental health analysis can be based upon is the words and actions in the New Testament. The process would be something like reviewing of a novel or a biography and trying to determine if a fictional character in the novel or the real life subject of the biography was sane or not. It is obviously not perfect, but the evaluation is possible, and the analysis could be reasonably accurate. We accept this sort of thing in book, movie review and other reports with regularity.
[This article is short because there are no other references to my knowledge than Strobel and I do not want to just copy parts of his book. There can be no other evidence on this topic than the writings about Christ in the Bible. Views in other modern books are just that, and no different than Strobel's. What we like about his work is the investigative approach and the reliance upon experts of great quality. The Case for Christ is a good read and highly recommended. Please see the margin.]
We are not associated with the various organizations linked to here (other than being EWTN missionaries). We earn nothing from the sale of their books. |
New Testament: John, Chapter 6, verses 32 -59
The New American Bible, Saint Joseph Edition
The 2 books listed below discuss the Eucharistic meal in great detail & with much historical reference. Dr. Hahn is a former Protestant minister who is now (among other things) a professor at Franciscan University.
Scott Hahn
The Lamb's Supper
Doubleday,1999
Mike Aquilina
The Mass of the Early Christians, Our Sunday Visitor, 2001
Mike Aquilina & Scott Hahn host a television show together on EWTN: 9P.M. on Monday, after The Journey Home. The name of the show varies with the book topic & is currently, THE LAMB'S SUPPER
Then in First Corinthians 11:23, "For I received from the Lord what I also handed over to you, ..." and then proceeds a story of the Last Supper. Paul was not there so he is passing on Christian traditional teaching of the command to partake of the Eucharistic meal.
Lee Strobel's
The Case for Christ
Zondervan, 1998
PART 3: Researching the Resurrection, chapters 11-14
NT: Luke, Chap. 23, verses 55-56; &
Chap. 24, verses 1-9
The New American Bible, Saint Joseph Edition
NT: Matthew, Chap. 16, verses 13-20
The New American Bible, Saint Joseph Edition
Mark P.Shea
By What Authority
An Evangelical Discovers Catholic Tradition
Our Sunday Visitor
1996
Adrian Fortescue
The Early Papacy
to the Synod of Chalcedon in 451
Ignatius, 2008
(1st. pub. 1920)
Patrick Madrid
Pope Fiction:
Answers to 30 Myths & Misconceptions About the Papacy
Basilica Press, 1999
Stephen K Ray
Upon this Rock: St Peter & the Primacy of Rome in Scripture & the Early Church
Ignatius, 1999
Upon this Rock: St Peter & the Primacy of Rome in Scripture & the Early Church
Ignatius, 1999
Scott Hahn's
Hail Holy Queen,
The Mother of God in the Word of God
Doubleday, 2001
NT: John, Chap. 19, verses 26-27
The New American Bible, Saint Joseph Edition
Francis S. Collins
The Language of God
Free Press, 2006
Lee Strobel, The
Case for a Creator
Zondervan, 2004
Scott Hahn & Benjamin Wiker, Answering the New Atheism, Dismantling Dawkins' Case Against God
Emmaus Road, 2008
Lee Strobel, The
Case for Faith
Zondervan, 2000
Objection #3: Evolution Explains Life, So God Isn't Needed, pg. 100
These two quotes are from the websites noted after each quote.
Josepus' references to Jesus are discussed in depth in : Lee Strobel's
The Case for Christ
Zondervan, 1998
PART 1: Examining the Record, chapters 4-5
Lee Strobel's
The Case for Christ
Zondervan, 1998
PART 2: Analyzing Jesus, chapters 7-8
|
Scott Hahn's The Lamb's Supper Doubleday,1999 Mike Aquilina The Mass of the Early Christians, Our Sunday Visitor, 2001 Mike Aquilina & Scott Hahn host a television show together on EWTN: 9P.M. on Monday, after The Journey Home. The name of the show varies with the book topic & is currently, THE LAMB'S SUPPER (our current reference) Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ Zondervan, 1998 {If you have doubts about the logic of Christianity, Read this book!} NT: Luke, Chap. 1, verses 26-28 The New American Bible, Saint Joseph Edition OT: Genesis, Chap.3
verse 15 {This book is a must read for those who wish to understand the church's position on Mary.} Scott Hahn's
Hail Holy Queen, The Mother of God in the Word of God Doubleday, 2001 Hail Holy Queen "Once a Virgin, Always a Virgin," pg. 102 Hail Holy Queen "Once a Virgin, Always a Virgin," pg. 106 Fr. Oscar Lukefahr, C.M. We Believe, A Survey of the Catholic Faith
Liguori 1990 We Believe
"Ever Virgin" pg. 68-69 |
H. Christian Miracles Have Occurred & J. Introduction to the Saints
Best defined perhaps as unexplained, positive occurrences, miracles are associated with religion because of their positive outcome or feeling engendered. They are associated with Christianity because God performed them in the Old Testament and Christ performed them in the New Testament. Many people feel that they have been at least near to a miracle, perhaps more than one. Sometimes things are hazy enough to make one doubt or question, not only "what happened" but "did anything unusual really happen at all."
We have promised a certain casual friendly approach on this website, so here is a bit of personal experience. From the personal anecdote point of view the writer has had very minor experiences, not of the miraculous level, just the supernatural realm. It involved very clear sounds, when the items from which the sounds had to come were not moved. It occurred the night a friend died and after several months of the friendship becoming less close. But it involved no particular emotion, depression etc. on my part that could have triggered illusion. Among family & friends several have clearly seen dead relatives that they were very close to. We hear these stories all of the time, and part of a movie industry is built on them. But we know what we see, many witnesses are beyond reproach in integrity, and with the association of these events with death of a close person, a connection with religious belief is a logical conclusion. Does God let people sometimes say goodbye? There was no real animosity between my friend and I, our ages were different and we moved in different circles most of the time, but I think he was irritated at me over a very stupidly unimportant issue. Did he drop by to "apologize"? On the greater level of try miracles such as healing or unbelievable survivals, The Catholic church is the most expert institution. Some resent the level of growth and beauracracy the Church has developed over the centuries. In its defense I must say that any institution that old has to have grown and any major institution has to develop and modernize to survive. I have had Protestant friends who disagree with the Church but offer praise for its great archives and libraries that are open for scholars, whether they are Catholic or not. when it comes to miracles the Church is definitely the expert institution. Part of Catholic belief is based upon the concept of miraculous occurrences. Besides the fact that we believe the general miraculous events in the Bible are true, our whole belief system is founded in the miraculous Resurrection of Christ and his changing of the wine and bread into his blood and flesh at the Last Supper. More incredulously, we believe he does that again & again at each mass celebrated in the world. This is the core miracle, the miracle of all miracles. But there are other miracles in our world, occurring on a daily, perhaps hourly, basis. Miraculous cure and similar miracles are a basis for determining sainthood. Intervention of a saint or saints is not believed to be required for a miracle to take place. God is the source of all miracles, and he can do them when he pleases. Saints are quite simply, very holy ordinary people who have passed on. We revere them, we are fans of them, they are our heroes. They are our NFL or NBA. Saints are no different than us, they are people, but they are the best of us. To be officially recognized as a saint by the Church miraculous intervention is required. That does not mean the that Church makes saints. God makes saints by whatever mechanism God guides and inspires us. And, I guess, saints make themselves saints to some extent, but not without God. There are saints unrecognized by the Church. The institution can only recognize what comes to its attention. Catholics believe that we can talk to the dead. Non-Catholics scoff. and then go to the cemetery and talk to Granny. To put this all together: we believe God creates miracles; we believe we can pray (talk to not worship) the dead; saints are the holiest among us, and we can talk to them; we can ask them to intercede on our (or someones behalf). By the end of that, the practical Protestant is saying, "Okay, you lost me there at the last." But wait a minute, what if you pray very hard to a certain saint and you get your miracle? And what if others do the same? and what if this happens all of the time? Well, that is the basis of officially recognized sainthood. People are proposed for sainthood on the basis of a track record. Based upon their life and a long history of apparent association with miracles, candidates are suggested. Many factors lead to this. Solanus Casey, an American candidate, was rather simple ordinary man who struggled with the more technical aspects of his priestly studies and worked primarily as the abbey doorman. He was very kind and seemed to have great powers of premonition. He would answer peoples question accurately about their sons away at World War I. Padre Pio, of Italy suffered the stigmata, the wounds of Christ from the nails. They were not self-inflicted and they did not get infected. The Church is very skeptical of such things, as it worries, I'm sure, about fakes who will ultimately embarrass it. So with these occurrences comes something almost like a house arrest and much investigation. Padre Pio was not faking, and the wounds never healed. How can you argue with that? You tell me! Because I have no answers. He once refused communion to a woman who he said was not raising her children in the Church and absolution from one who he said was hiding an abortion from him; both true, both people he did not know and could not have known what he accused them of. When he met the relatively unknown, young Karol Józef Wojtyła, (Pope John Paul II), probably the greatest pope of modern times, Padre Pio told him that he would be pope someday. This was not some obscure mystic. He was a world famous, humble priest, to who's door the world beat a path. World leaders and Christian leaders, some Protestant, visited him. These are the types of people who become candidates, but to be declared a known saint they must be associated with miracle after their death. They must have interceded on someone's behalf and appealed to God. During the course of the investigation of a proposed saint there must be proof of 2 important miracles after they have died that can be connected to their intersession. I was told of 2 miracles related to Maria Faustina Kowalska of Poland, who was canonized by Pope John Paul II. In Stockbridge, Massachusetts I met a former school librarian and her husband, who worked at the National Shrine of the Divine Mercy, which is the devotion that Saint Faustina is responsible for revealing. They personally knew the woman, Maureen Digan, from that area who was involved, as one of the investigated miracles, in St. Faustina's case. This woman had gone to Europe to visit the shrines of various saint and pray for her incurable disease, Lymphedema. Medicine had given up hope of saving her second leg from amputation. After visiting and praying at St Faustina's tomb in March of 1981, her symptoms disappeared almost immediately, making other pilgrimages unnecessary. Returning to Massachusetts, she was declared inexplicably cured by her doctors. The second story I believe was told to me by Fr. Seraphim Michalenko, MIC, who is at the shrine in Mass. Forgive me Father Seraphim if my source is wrong or I get any facts wrong. The priest told me that while in the Philippines he was at the bedside of a dying person. I believe it was a man, attended by loving family. The story continues that the family constantly prayed the Divine Mercy devotional prayer, given to us by St. Faustina but prayed to God: "Eternal Father, I offer you the body, blood, soul and divinity of your dearly beloved Son, our Lord, Jesus Christ, in atonement for our sins and those of the whole world" [one time] [followed 10 times by] "For the sake of his sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world." [repeated 5 times]. The man recovered, and one of the doctors promised to become a priest: stating that there was nothing more he could do in his current profession, but in God's work, perhaps he could do more. I do not know if he fulfilled that promise or reconsidered. Several things seem to help reinforce the fact of sainthood as well as the purpose of sainthood. Obviously the well documented miracles is an indication the something unusual is going on. There are other things as well. Again, obviously, there is the stigmata such as Padre Pio suffered. Another unusual occurrence is the incorrupted body of saints such as Bernadette of Lourdes. She is one of the superstar saints for many reasons: her youth, determination, beauty, sacrifice & the apparent healings associated with her (again as an intercessor, not healer herself). And of course she is one of the saints who's body did not decay. Lourdes is possibly the best known and most visited of all the saintly shrines. So many of the saints are young women (girls really) who: were poor, hard working, willing members of religious orders, sickly and died young, all without complaint. There is definitely something about them, those young women and other saints. They us, normal people, but they are in a class unto themselves. They're "All Pro." I believe, and this is my opinion, that the unusually wonderful aspects of the saints serves two purposes. First, their unusual attributes help prove sainthood, or convince us of their worth, to make us believe. The second purpose I see for the saints' interesting and unusual attributes is that these are signs from God, a little tap on our (mankind's) collective shoulder. Yes, I understand those who say we must accept Christ on faith alone. I won't get into that argument now. I will just say that God made us intelligent and inquisitive beings, therefore he knows he can reach us through our minds. The known doubts of the very pious and famous among the religious shows us that anyone can doubt, anyone can have a "dark night of the soul." These saints lives are so devout and circumstances around them so unique that they become God's hints. Through hem he can tap us on the shoulder and say,"I'm really here." Remeber: 1. miracles come from God; 2. saints are not required for miracles; 3. no one has to pray to saints; 4. prayer to saints is not worship, it is conversation; 5. saints are comparable to sports, music or literary heroes; 6. the Church does not make a saint, God does; 7. the Church officially recognizes a saint when it believes someone is a saint. Your own research will bring up many documented stories. My goal here was introductory and to tell what I knew. Please forgive me if you, as a reader, wanted more research. But you can do that yourself. To learn more about this topic click on this link to begin: CATHOLIC ANSWERS The Bible Supports Praying to the Saints By Mitchell Pacwa, S.J. http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9007chap.asp |
Padre Pio: the True Story by C. Bernard Ruffin, Our Sunday Visitor, 1991 Faustina, Saint for Our Times , Fr. George Kosicki, CSB No Turning BackA Witness to Mercy
Fr. Donald H. Calloway, MIC 2010 |
By What Authority
Mark P. Shea. 1996 Our Sunday Visitor NT: First Timothy, Chap. 3, verse 15
First Corinthians Chap. 11, verse 23 II Thessalonians Chap. 2, verse 15 |
15. Scripture tells Christians to follow Church tradition as well as the Bible.
There are several scriptural passages making refernce to sacred tradition and the importance of following, particularly from the Apostle Paul. In First Timothy 3:15 we read: "...you should know how to behave in the household of God,which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth." This refers to the church as the repository of correct teaching "truth."
Then in First Corinthians 11:23, "For I received from the Lord what I also handed over to you, ..." and then proceeds a story of the Last Supper. Paul was not there so he is passing on Christian traditional teaching. In Second Thessalonians 2:15 we read, "So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter." We have then, from Paul the revered evangelist for Christ, three separate scriptural passages that tell us to follow the traditional teachings passed down by the church leaders. Suggested reading: By What Authority ? by Mark P. Shea {click author's name} |
7. & I. The 12 apostles believed in Jesus after his death.
|
Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ Zondervan, 1998 PART3: Researching the Resurrection, chapters 13-14 |
L. Events such as Pentecost reveal the influence of God & Christ
|