Historically correct?


Thomas Jefferson? Jefferson Memorial, panel three:

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever. Commerce between master and slave is despotism. Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free. Establish a law for educating the common people. This it is the business of the state and on a general plan.”


Re-read the quote; there’s nothing about ‘miracles’ in there. Jefferson believed in Christ to an extent, but as a ‘rationalist’, didn’t believe in the miracles of the NT. IIRC, he developed his own version of the Gospels, removing all reference to miracles.


I guess anyone can rationalize anything.


As one of my priest professors said “everything in the bible is true, and some of them actually happened.”


All of the miracles Jesus did actually happened.


Indeed. But you seem to have forgotten that Jesus left you with the task of spreading the Gospel. And to do that you MUST go “down” to the level of your intended audience. And most of your audience does not accept the Catholic tradition, they want actual evidence. And that is a huge problem…

Yes, I am aware of this quote. It always makes me smile. :slight_smile:


…and that is a theological belief. History has no way to confirm or deny it…it is outside historical investigation.

It is faith.


Jesus never directed the apostles to write anything down. Rather he told them to go and spread the gospel to all nations, teaching them what he had taught. And that is what they did, for many decades before one word of the New Testament was written. The Church at its founding was incapable of even being a scripture alone body, since the most important of the scriptures, the New Testament, had yet to be written.


Jesus didn’t task his followers with providing historical evidence. Jesus, throughout the Gospels, constantly praised and rewarded people who had faith. In some cases they weren’t even Jewish people, they didn’t have a clue about the Jewish Messiah, they certainly had no proof that he was anything other than some carpenter’s son from Galilee, they just heard there was a teacher (Jesus) who was curing people and they had faith he could cure them or their loved ones.

He didn’t convince them by offering historical proof. They just believed.

Faith is a gift of the Holy Spirit. We cannot put faith in people’s heads. I find the historical arguments interesting - most educated Christian people do think it’s neat when somebody finds an old piece of archaeology that confirms something in the Bible - but we do not rely on those things in order to believe in it, nor do we “spread the Gospel” by obtaining historical proof of it to show people. The original Apostles didn’t do that and we don’t do that. It’s ultimately going to come down to faith anyway because I have met many atheist or agnostic scholars who are familiar with historical proof and will agree with me that Jesus existed and certain major events in his life took place, but will not agree with me that he was the Messiah or the Son of God because there is no way to historically prove those things.

Also, somehow despite this lack of historical proof, we have billions of people who believe in Jesus because they have faith. Historical proof is obviously not needed for a person to believe.

So with all due respect, your contention that we have to prove the Bible in order to spread it is not correct.


A superb post!


Scholars have known since the 18th century that the Gospels, in particular, were problematic as historical accounts. The whole field of textual analysis was new back then, but sufficiently advanced to be able to draw some conclusions. They were also able to identify that at least some NT letters supposedly written by Paul were authored by someone else. Of course, the application of textual analysis to the Bible has always been somewhat controversial, but I think the Church long ago ceased to have any issues with that sort of investigation. The NT came together, after much debate, over a couple of centuries. It didn’t just show up on the Church’s doorstep in one piece.


It is just as factual as ‘real’ history.


One size does not fit all. For some people the hearsay is sufficient, for others it is not. Now, if Jesus wanted everyone to hear the good news, he could have made sure that everyone receives the evidence which is sufficient for them. Makes sense, doesn’t it?


Why would Jesus bend over backwards to “make sure that everyone receives the evidence which is sufficient for them?”

It’s very presumptuous of you to expect God to present evidence to prove himself to you. God doesn’t owe you any favors in that respect.

Seriously that’s so condescending towards God, I can’t even come up with a good response. It’s about on the same level as “if God really loved us, he’d fix it so there’d be no suffering in this world and we’d all just go to Heaven” only worse. You seem to think God is your servant instead of the other way around. Better check yourself before you wreck yourself.

I’m muting this thread now because my mind is just absolutely boggled at your last post. Have a nice day.


John 20:29

New International Version
Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”


No where have I said the whole text is allegorical in nature, as a mater of fact, relatively little of it is, and that prtion which is, is normally quite apparent.
What you do not seem to understand is that people who were writing a “history” two thousand years ago did not write history in the same scientific manner they are written today. You are taking two extremes and expecting the bible to be one or the other.

I consider the resurrection a historical fact, I do not know exactly how it was discovered and by whom as the details are slightly different in the various gospels.
I consider Genesis to be factually accurate to the extent that God created all things, and he created the first man and woman, that man and woman sinned against God, and some of the results of that sin are with us today.

What really happened? I would suggest reading up on physics and biology which address these in a possibly more literal fashion as to the material aspects of the creation events.

BTW, I speak authoritatively for zero Catholics or for the Church. I try to state the Church’s authoritative teachings and position on any subject I write about, but there is no authority in what I write unless I am explicitly copying a Church document such as the catechism.


What more evidence could he have given us than the apostles and disciples who followed him during his time on earth? We have their description of what they saw. Unfortunately, biographical and historical practices were not at the same level as today, which you seem to be expecting.


Because God “wishes” everyone to be with him and enjoy the beatific vision in heaven. :slight_smile: And the words “bend over backwards” are insulting when they are uttered in conjunction with God/Jesus. God only needs to “will” something and it will happen. No effort is necessary.

No, I merely accepted the idea that God loves us and cares about us… When I love someone, and I can act in the best interest of that loved one, I do what needs to be done. That is what “love” means!

I would rather be with God in heaven, than being “blessed” here on Earth.


Those who are drawn to Christ today are blessed because they have not seen Him. Having a personal relationship with Jesus is very important.


@BadgerHoney , would you mind giving us a brief description of your religion and views? I have no idea what mosteppennincs means, and you seem to be searching for a fault in our way of seeing things. It seems only fair that we know as much about your religion as you do ours.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.