Bob,

Thank you for this post. I hope all that read it consider the grace and peace that is possible through Jesus.

One thing that has always concerned me ... did Judas have free will to betray?
 

Bob, your next book should be, "Protestantism: An Idiot's Guide to an Idiotic Heresy."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm
-Read and learn.
 

Danny,

So is there really that big a gap between Catholic and Protestant? And here I have been telling my Prod friends that catholics can be saved. I guess I will have to apologize to my Prod friends. Thanks for the heads-up Dan.
 

Danny,

How many souls have you won so far with that approach? :)

If you want to ask me a specific point, that's fine. But I don't want to wade through a bunch of Church legalese when you haven't yet convinced me that my interpretation of the words of Jesus and St. Paul (in the same Bible you use) is wrong.

(BTW I was confirmed as a Catholic so I am familiar with Catholicism, though not as well as Tom Woods is.)
 

It appears to me danny is a troll who may have seen other Catholic-Protestant flare ups online. I have seen many zealous Catholics try to combox-convert and danny's feels more like an nihilist's attempt to sew discord between Christians.

The first warning bell is the term "Idiotic" to describe protestantism. I know some Catholics who would use that word in private to discuss a specific theological proposition they hold as false but much in protestantism is solid. (Incidentally 99% of the theology between the two camps is similar. To call one idiotic would be to call the other idiotic as well. God became man and died? This God-man died at the hands of his own creatures? Catholics eat the flesh of God?)

The other warning bell is the link. It links to a reputable Catholic site but its just an article to an old encyclopedia written in the early 1900s about the definition of heresy. It is not a constructive link about the nature of Christ, the differences between mainline protestant ecclesial communities and Catholicism, or some other useful link.

In addition if danny really wanted to
convert you he would throw out those specific questions you asked for ,"If you want to ask me a specific point, that's fine. " There are many stock "protestant stumper" questions avaliable on many websites zeal-filled young Catholics have access to about the the Eucharist, the bible, church structure, Mary, and authority but danny did not bring up any of those.

In conclusion danny is a troll posing as an ardent Catholic.
 

I am not interested in arguing about faith per se. However, the evidence we have about what Jesus was like comes almost entirely from his followers. So, the accurate rendition of what you say here is this: We are told by his followers that he did or said such and such. Most historians do not take what people say at face value. They try to find corroborating sources; they think about the motives and reliability of the witnesses. Now if we could be sure of the facts then we could go on to believe or not the truth of the substantive doctrine. I have always thought it odd that St. Paul said that if Jesus did not rise from the dead then our faith is in vain. To me, this means that whetrher Jesus rose is not a subject for faith. It is the fact on which faith is based. If this is the case, then the basis of faith is all very weak. I wish it were not so.
 

Mario Rizzo wrote:

I have always thought it odd that St. Paul said that if Jesus did not rise from the dead then our faith is in vain. To me, this means that whetrher Jesus rose is not a subject for faith. It is the fact on which faith is based. If this is the case, then the basis of faith is all very weak. I wish it were not so.
Mario, you're right, that's an interesting thing for Paul to say, and I understand why that is it odds with the normal Christian discussion of faith.

However, I disagree with what I take to be your main point: It is not "a matter of faith" whether Jesus rose from the dead. Either He did or He did not. And doubters at the time were satisfied by using their normal means of attaining high degrees of confidence (by seeing and touching His body).

Obviously if I am going to do a short blog post on a spiritual topic, I can't start from scratch with why we should believe in Jesus in the first place. Just like, if I want to say, "Did you see Krugman's latest post?!" a skeptic of capitalism would find my remarks ill-defended.
 

Bob,

Ok. We'll leave it at that. I find it interesting that you agree with St. Paul. In a way, I do too. I was *not* saying it is a matter of faith whether Jesus rose from the dead. I was saying that, according to Paul, it is the foundation of faith. We disagree on the strength of the foundation. Ok.
 

Mario: One quick point, and then I (and you?!) should do some work...

I don't know if this is what Paul had in mind, but here's why I agree with his statement. When I say "I need faith" what I mean is, e.g., I have to have faith in the character of Jesus. Even if I used modern technology and documented that He really did walk on water, healed people, came back from the dead, etc., then I still wouldn't know whether to believe Him when He says, "I am the way the truth and the life" or "No one can come to the Father except through Me."

Sooo, if it turned out that Jesus didn't really come back from the dead (despite His predictions of that), then that means either He lied/was wrong or His closest disciples and the guys who wrote down all His "sayings" are lying/were wrong. Hence, my faith collapses.
 

or His closest disciples and the guys who wrote down all His "sayings" are lying/were wrong. - Bob Murphy

10 of the 11 remaining disciples traveled across the known world fleeing their homes. All of the 11 disciples faced torture. To stop all they would have to do is recant their statements. 10 of the 11 remaining disciples died brutal agonizing tortuous deaths, crucified, speared and pierced.

They did this because they were either liars, lunatics, or servants of the Lord.

If they were liars what reason would all of them have to persist in the lie unto death? If they were lunatics than their ravings would be self contradictory and not compatible with reality. Therefore they must have believed they actually saw, touched, and dined with the resurrected Jesus Christ.
 

Napoleon was telling gay joke?