Post a New Question | Current Questions | Live Experts
Homework Help: Social Studies: Religion: Christianity
by Alessandro Zema
Let me start saying that if the title of this paper has already discouraged you and you don't think you have enough time to read a dozen pages, I suggest that you go directly to the last 2-3 pages to see if the whole thing can interest you or not. In fact, there you will find something about Web sites, photos, videos and miracles.
After this foreword, let's begin with the little bit boring part of our dialogue. Boring but necessary to better enjoy the most exciting one. I often happen to hear from a lot of people that they have never seriously or at all taken into consideration religious things or subjects relating to faith. If you ask those people the why of this attitude you will be surprised how vague most of their answers will be. Some of them will even answer that they don't know why. Religion, apart from containing a series of rules of life, is essentially an experience regarding the destiny of men after death. Why do many people show so much indifference towards something that talks about what can happen after the end of our lives on this Earth? Is that attitude reasonable or unreasonable? The question is not whether to believe or not in God. The question is simply if it is reasonable to ask oneself the question of His existence and of what He has perhaps told us about our destiny. Simply that. Not too much effort after all, but how many of us have seriously asked ourselves that question? (just a short note: I use the male pronoun He just because God is defined by Christians as The Father).
In the Western world as in many other parts of the Globe we have been reached by the Christian message, the so called Kerigma. Christianity has its foundations, as we all know, on facts happened around 2000 years ago which in turn have their roots in the history of the people of Israel. Christianity is a great message of hope. It is not by chance that the other word we use for Gospels (the 4 books about the life, works and message of Jesus) is The Good News. And in fact Christianity is the good news that Humankind had been waiting for since the beginning of History. The good news is that Christianity announces an offers the possibility of an eternal life after death. This is something that should make our hearts explode in joy. Christianity, anyway, does not announce only this wonderful possibility but also something which should be much more scaring than death itself: the serious risk of an eternal punishment. I think that one of the biggest mistakes of modern evangelisers and ministers of Christ is not to stress enough this second possibility. If one reads the Good News, one can see that the reference to the eternal punishment is a very frequent, not less that that to the eternal life. Eternal life or eternal punishment depend on the acceptance or refusal of the message of Christ. This is in very few words what Christianity says about our destiny. Is it reasonable and sensible not to dedicate some time of our lives to think seriously enough on the validity of this message? Mine is not an invitation to believe, at least not at this point of our dialogue. Mine is just an invitation to simply take into consideration this possibility. The attitude of those who think they have no time or the so much widespread Who knows. We'll see approach are not reasonable and sensible. The possibility of an eternal life or eternal punishment should make us meditate. After seriously meditating for a while, and only then, one can say that his/her attitude is reasonable and at the end of that pause of reflection everyone will be free to make their choice: to believe, not to believe or to remain in doubt. All these three positions are acceptable if based on good faith. As first step of our dialogue , the first thing to be done is show how the position of the believer is much more reasonable than that of the atheist. Starting with the latter, Atheism means to believe that no god exists. Therefore, to be an atheist means to be a believer. Given that no evidence exists to disprove the existence of God, Atheism is a faith but the most desperate faith of all. The faith in the god Nothing.
Now let's consider those reasons, i.e. that ground that can give birth to that hope that becomes certainty and that we call Faith.
It is essential to start from a question. Do we believe in the existence of a God, conceived as a Great Mind, creator and regulator of the Universe?
The possible answers are three: No, Don't now, Yes. In the first case we are atheist and we have seen how irrational(blind faith in nothing) this position is. In the second case we are in the deep sea of doubt. Doubt is reasonable but, being by its own nature a feeling of uncertainty, it can be a disturbing situation.
In the third case, when we can say Yes, we are believers in God. This is only the first step and a fundamental one towards more complex realities but it is not the Christian Faith yet. To believe that there is a God creator and regulator of the Universe obviously does not mean to be Christians because we can imagine this God s we like or according to our particular and temporary needs. Anyway, without the capacity of believing in one only God creator of every thing, Christianity is unconceivable and incomprehensible. Of course, one can start from the faith in Christ (God's Son) to arrive at that in God the Father and the usual approach to Christianity happens in this way. Anyway, trying to take that first step, i.e. start believing in the God Great Mind and Creator, can make the approach to the Christian Faith much easier.
Once you take that first step, that is when you have in you the faith in a God conceived as a Great Mind creating all the existing things, we must try and see if we are able to take the second step. Before trying to do that, if you find it hard to imagine a Mind creating material things, be encouraged by a fact under everyone's eyes. Matter (our brains) that creates minds, that is all of us.
At this point let's try and answer the second question(second step), Do we believe that God, conceived as a Great Mind, I stress mind, has in any way tried to communicate with us or do we believe in a Mind which is completely uninterested in what we think or do? In which of the two hypotheses do we believe? I personally find it horrible to think of this Great Mind who created everything, men included and who can do everything but has no interest at all in communicating with the only minds, as far as we know, existing in His world. That is simply a terrifying thought to me. Better to believe that such a Mind does not exist rather than He exists but is completely uninterested in us.
At this point we have to choose. Has this Mind, we call God communicated with us? If disgusted by the hypothesis of His indifference, we believe He has communicated with us, the only thing we can and should do is start searching for those signs of His interest for Humankind. And of these signs we have a big loteven too many...
In the History of Humankind there have been many religions and many of them are still alive. Religions try to satisfy the human need to go beyond the limits of their lives and explain what cannon be rationally explained. If logics and science could explain everything, men would not resort to religions. Thus the phenomenon religion can be simply seen as the way men have to explain what they cannot explain and find consolation before the great unknown. This is essentially the interpretation that anthropologists give of this phenomenon which accompanies humankind since its birth. There is no doubt that such an interpretation is correct. Anyway, what they do not consider enough is the source that inspires men to search for the divinity. Why has man inside the concept of God? A scientific answer to that can only be: that's the way it is. An answer is instead suggested by a book that can be traced back to the origins of the people of Israel: Genesis. Genesis says that men are made in the image of God, that is we are similar to God. Can it be right that the reason why we can conceive and desire God so deeply? We'll come back later onto the Jewish Scriptures. Now what matters the most to us is just dissolve a doubt that might haunt our minds. Many, too many religions. Could it be by chance that they are all equal? As said above, humans have an innate need of God and that's why they have always searched for His signs outside and inside themselves. Nonetheless this doesn't mean that all the signs that men have interpreted as divine have a true nature of revelation. From this consideration, there arises the necessity to find out what is revelation by God and what just expression of the desire of God. The big problem is right there in fact all religions, dead and alive, have always claimed the right to be the only truth. This is an inner characteristic of any religious phenomenon. If all religions had the same contents, the problem would be more easily solvable but the fact is that religions, although with many similarities, have much deep differences. At this point, the greatest risk is relativism, for which all the religions of the world have the same dignity. What we must affirm is that all believers have the same dignity, but certainly not all religions.
It is true that the human desire behind them is the same but if we had to accept any religion as good we should consider acceptable also the gods of Ancient Greece with their quarrels, envy, or incestuous intercourses. I don't think it would be a good idea.
Anyway, letting aside the religions of the past, where we cannot exclude that an impulse by God might have been present, let's limit our reasoning on the religions still alive.
If we examine the universe of faith of the present time, we can see that the religions with a wide diffusion are not many and can be roughly divided into two groups: Western and Eastern religions. Western religions are basically the three great monotheistic (One only God) ones: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Eastern religions have as their centre the Indian Subcontinent with the big family of Hinduism from which all major oriental religions stemmed.
An important premise is necessary before starting any discussion about Oriental religions. I am a western man who has tried to study many different religious phenomena. Although I have made efforts to penetrate the secrets of these traditions I am and will always remain a man of the West with a western mindset. My understanding is and will always be necessarily partial and superficial. You will forgive me if you find something incorrect in what I write about a religious tradition. Be sure it is due only to lack of a deeper knowledge and not to bad faith or offensive intention. What moves me to write to you is just love and mutual understanding. We must look for something more than just tolerance. Tolerance is a cold attitude. Mutual understanding is what all the peoples of the world have to pursue. It is not you stay with your own ideas, I stay with mine but I learn from you and you learn from me the attitude I would like to see one day.
Now I can go on.
Buddhism, born in the Indian continent too, is a case apart. In fact Buddhism does not base its spirituality on God but on Man through a series of practices of self-purifications and detachment for material world. In few words the Buddhist disciple does not pray but makes exercises of spiritual elevation and cultivation. This is an enormous difference with the other religions which have their start and reason of being in the concept of God.
Remaining in Asia, we must now take briefly into consideration the vast world of Hinduism which is the basis of Indian spirituality. It is not easy at all to understand such a world in its many aspects especially when you are foreign to that Tradition. What is to underline is that the Indian way of thinking of the destiny of men after death is based on reincarnation that is the passing of souls from a body to another according to the Law of Karma. This Law states that your condition in present life is determined by your behaviour in the previous life and that the same will be for your next life. As long as you don't reach a state of purification you are destined to reincarnate in other bodies indefinitely. The other major feature of Hinduism is polytheism (many Gods). Although also Hinduism accepts a superior creating principle, the Brahman, Hindus worship many Gods sometimes represented in shape of animals. If you want to be a good Hindu you have a lot of Gods to worship and believe that after death you might be destined to pass in another body, perhaps that of a cow (sacred animal to Hindus). It's a question of sensitivity. Maybe I am wrong just because I do not belong to Indian culture, but personally I am scared of such a prospect.
Now let's go west and start examining briefly the three great monotheistic religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The common root of these religions is the religious tradition of the Jews. The first monotheistic faith in the History of Humankind was that of the Jews, that is Judaism. The Jews were the first people to conceive the existence of one only God creator of all things and present and intervening in History. One direct descendant of Judaism is Christianity that might be seen simply as a Jewish sect. Islam derives mainly from the Jewish-Christian tradition but with a lot of foreign elements (mainly Ancient Iranian tradition). Let's start with the youngest of the three religions, Islam, to see the elements on which a Muslims (Islamic believers) must found their faith . Islam is based on the observance of the Koran, the sacred Book written by Prophet Mohammed, (Peace and Blessings of Allah be upon Him. This is my pay of respect to all Muslims) lived 1200 years ago, who after being taken to heaven in contact with Allah (God), wrote down what Allah had told him. So if you want to be a good Muslim, you must believe in Mohammed. Mohammed said he was a prophet and a man not a divine being. We should have no doubt that when Mohammed said he was inspired by God he was in good faith. Obviously there is no verifiable or scientific evidence that what was written by the Prophet was really the Word of Allah but he was certainly in good faith.. It is a question of trust (faith) in Mohammed who was a great and intelligent man but, as he himself said, just a man.
At this point of our dialogue we can start drawing some preliminary conclusions to go further on. A premise is necessary:
1) Buddhism does not admit the existence of God or better His existence is irrelevant. Man is alone and he must cultivate his spiritual purification on his own. If you make it you go into Nirvana (not easy to understand what it is, especially for non Buddhists, but certainly a good thing). If you don't make, it you keep on reincarnating in other bodies until your purification is concluded. It is certainly a great and highly spiritual adventure full of dignity? Do you like it? You can try. Keep in mind that you must do everything by yourself or with the help of teachers. There is no God to help you.
2) Hinduism is a polytheistic religion and it is too complex to be understood thoroughly. Before you can start worship one of the gods you must learn about them. The traditions are many and vary a lot in different parts of India. Hinduism is very delicate and sublime (think of the extraordinary love for animals, even insects), as delicate and spiritual are most Indian people. There is a wide tradition of gurus, fakirs and yogi. Ancient and fascinating, Hinduism can enrich the cultural background of everyone. If one has the possibility to get in contact with it, it will certainly be a great experience. As for the destiny of men, as mentioned above, there is Karma and reincarnation that is the risk of passing after death in other bodies, animals included.
After this brief and certainly superficial conclusions on the oriental traditions mostly included in the Indian tradition and the Buddhist one (Those who want to know more have a lot of books to read), we can start drawing conclusions on the western traditions.
If you trust Mohammed and his prophetic capacity, you can hope in the Paradise after death promised in the Koran. There you will have the possibility of having an eternal life very similar but much better than the present one and getting married to more than a woman. It is not bad at all. Muslims, who trust Mohammed, great man, prince, and Prophet of Islam, believe in it. Muslims of many countries are among the strongest believers and full of dignity in their faith.
Now we can finally examine the Jewish-Christian tradition which is the one in which I've grown up and know better. Let's see what are the elements on which this tradition is based and if these elements are reliable, maybe more reliable than those of other traditions. I will never say that other religions are nonsense or bad. The men who believe and act according to their faith are loved by God and they are always in their right of being considered with respect. We are here just to consider if in the Jewish-Christian tradition, we can find something stronger from the point of view of visible or even scientific evidence. Yes, visible and scientific. If I were here just to tell you about doctrines I would waste my time. I am here to talk to you about facts not doctrines. The great Indian leader Jawaharlal Nehru said: facts are facts and they will not disappear on account of your likes. I take this quotation as my personal guide and hope you do the same too.
Let me start by showing what of highly acceptable we can find in Judaism.
As many of us know, the history, rules of life, and prophecies of the ancient Jews are collected in the books of the Old Testament of the Holy Bible. When many of us start reading those books, some tend to leave them disappointed if not horrified. These books tell us also about wars, massacres, epidemics, sacrifices etc. What one should consider though is that those Books tell the history of people lived thousands of years ago and were written by people lived thousands of years ago. This can make us accept things otherwise unacceptable to our modern sensitivity. On the contrary and at the same time, we should be surprised to find in the same Books some extraordinarily modern and wonderful things for such an old people.
Let us consider some of the most relevant of these things:
1) There is one only God. Today this seems to be an almost obvious thing but we must never forget that Egyptians, Old Greeks, Romans and all the best of the ancient civilization had a host of gods with human or animal shape who behaved like humans or animals, having arguments about who was the best looking or having incestuous sex. This was the religious scenario of the ancient peoples. On the contrary, a small people of shepherds, first example in human History, had already conceived the existence of one only God, creator and regulator of all things. The great civilised peoples a lot of indecent gods. That little group of wandering shepherds one only God like great modern philosophers. Isn't it a bit strange? I really think so.
2) Men are created in the image of God. What does it mean? The Jews recognised a great dignity to men but they also said something even more impressive: we are similar to God, that is our minds are not too far from that of God. Could it be for this reason that the God of the Jewish-Christian tradition is so much interested in our moral behaviour and feelings? Let's think about it. The book of Genesis says that all humans(men and women), yes women too, are similar to God. Genesis does not say that all male Jews are similar to God.
The really impressive thing is that such a statement seems to belong to a people who has adopted the highest philosophies of human equality and dignity of modern times. If we think that at the time of ancient Jews the other peoples (Egyptians Greeks, Romans) divided humans in persons and slaves, i.e. not humans, and that women were often considered as inferior beings, we should be surprised to know that a small tribe of shepherds of thousands of years ago, dared say that all men (savages included) are similar to their God, that God whose name they could not even speak without being terrified. Strange, isn't it? It should make us think.
3) Again in Genesis, the already mentioned first Book of the Jewish Holy Scriptures, the book with the nice story of the snake, it is written about the victory of Good over Evil that God will make possible thanks to the child/son of the woman.. What does it mean? Who will be the child/son of the woman who will beat the evil in the world? Who is that Son? And who is the Woman? Unless you don't know anything about Christianity, try to give an answer by yourself. If you can't answer, please read in The Good News, the first part relating to the birth of Jesus from His mother Mary. That is the answer.
4) At a certain point in another book of the Old Testament, the book of Prophet Isaiah, there appear a strange and moving man: The Suffering Servant. Who is he? What does this Suffering Servant do? 700 or 500 years b.C. Isaiah describes in detail the horrible end of a man. This man, after being beaten and humiliated, is killed like a criminal (pierced precisely). Then he is buried among rich people. So far, it seams to be the terrible story of an unlucky guy. But strangely the Prophet says that this man will take upon himself the sins of Mankind, will save many from the wrath of God, and in the end he will reign for the eternity. Strange that a man rules the Earth forever after being killed like a criminal. Who is that Man, the Suffering Servant? It should not be hard to answer this question now. If you want some help, please read The Good News when they tell about Jesus' death. If you want to see the incredible coincidence between the Suffering Servant and the Christ, read Isaiah too.
At this point, given that you have probably got the right answer to the last question, let's consider if, apart from finding some hints in the Holy Scriptures of the Jews of what was to happen, we can find valid reasons to believe that 2000 years ago something extraordinary happened. That is something that has changed the History of Humankind. Without wasting too many words, let's see if it is reasonable to believe that Christianity is founded on something really happened about 2000 years ago. Here is the big difference between Christianity and the other religions. The others require confidence in the capacity of a man of getting the right illumination by God (Islam) or in traditions that have their roots in the beginning of times without almost any specific reference to historical facts or prophets or too far in the past. (E.g. Hinduism). On the contrary, Christianity is based on facts happened after all not too far in the past. These facts are: the birth, teaching, works, death and resurrection of a man who said he was the Son of God come to Earth to save the whole Humankind. This event, although extraordinary, is less far from our time than the Pharaohs of Egypt, Socrates or Julius Cesar of whom we are certain to know a lot and whose existence and works are not in doubt. The Pharaohs built the pyramids, Socrates died drinking a poison and Julius Cesar founded the Roman Empire and wrote De bello Gallico. Who puts these facts in doubt? Nobody. When it comes instead to consider the historical facts of Jesus of Nazareth all sorts of doubts arise not only on His works and teachings but even on His very existence. Why that? The answer is simple. While the above mentioned famous men are just men and even Mohammed and Buddha claimed to be just illuminated men, Jesus of Nazareth said He was nothing less than the Son of God and some men close o Him, the Apostles, even said that He had arisen from the dead and appeared to them. Doubts are of course more than reasonable. We have never met anyone seriously claiming to be the son of god who wasn't taken into a mental hospital, neither have we seen any man resurrect after becoming a corpse. And then what can we do now? Can we give up investigating these facts only because they are too extraordinary for our daily experience? If there were at stake just a cultural dispute, like that about the real existence of Atlantis, that would make sense but because the would-be Son of God said that those who do not follow Him are punished for the eternity., wouldn't it be more sensible to try an understand a bit more of the whole thing? Isn't it too risky not to pay enough attention to that? We are not deciding now whether to believe or not that Jesus Christ was really the Son of God come to save us. We should just see if the facts that are at the basis of the Christian faith are reasonably believable or not.
Here we come to these facts then:
1)A man named Jesus of Nazareth was born and lived about 2000 years ago.
This fact is attested by Christian documents (The New Testament, i.e. Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and Letters of the Apostles), by Jewish documents (Talmud of Babylon) and Roman historians(Tacitus). In any case, although someone tried to do that, it is very hard to say that a man with that name never existed
2)Jesus of Nazareth spread His teachings in Palestine and, claiming to be the Son of God, worked many miracles among which resurrection of dead and healings.
The documental testimony of these facts are the 4 Good News (Gospels) but we find a hint to Him in Jewish writings about one Jesus who practiced the art of magic.
Another testimony is the predication of the men who lived with Him and listened to His teachings.
At this point, the only thing to do is prove the reliability of the writings (The Good News) as historical documents and the reliability of those men (Apostles) as eyewitnesses.
The 4 Good News (Gospels) and the Apostles
The four Good News recognised as reliable by all the Christian Churches are those that the tradition traces back to persons close to Jesus. Mark was Peter's secretary. Matthew was one of the 12 Apostles. John was the so called Disciple that Jesus loved. This is maybe because he was the youngest of all. Luke was Saint Paul's secretary. It is important to make clear that the other Life of Jesus books that Christian Churches do not recognise have not a different content about the essential message of Jesus or the relevant facts of his life and death. It is just that the Fathers of the Church did not consider those writings coming from sources close enough to the eyewitnesses.
The oldest manuscripts of the Good News date back to the II century but it is certain( type of language used, reference to places destroyed by the Roman in 70 AD, letters of Saint Paul) that the oldest Good News were written and read in the first Christian communities as early as few years after Christ's death. John instead wrote his Gospel probably around 90-95 AD when he was very old. For this reason we can say that the Good News were written soon after the facts they tell and by persons who had known Jesus or someone who had lived with Him. Generally a document is considered most reliable when born very close to the events contained in it. In fact if eyewitnesses of something happened or people who know those events are still alive, it is very difficult to spread a false truth. There is a high risk of being belied. The rapid spread of Christianity in Palestine soon after the death of Jesus should be considered as a sign that the predication of the Apostles was accepted as genuine by those who had seen or known the events of 2000 years ago.
Once accepted the overall historical reliability of the New Testament (The 4 Good News, Acts, Letters) as documents the other thing that remains to do is to see if those men who told and spread the facts contained in the New Testament are reliable. If we decide that those witnesses (Apostles) are reliable we can at least be sure that what the Christian Church has passed down to us through the centuries is what the Apostles had seen or at least had believed to see.
Who are those eyewitnesses of the life and death of Jesus that we call The Apostles? They are a group of 12 persons of modest-middle social class but not analphabetic as someone might think. Male Jews of that time were usually able to read and write. For example, Andrew and Peter were fishermen but could write and read in at one or two languages. Matthew, who was a tax inspector, could write and read in at least two languages. Saint Paul, to whom the Christ appeared after resurrection, was a textile merchant and could write and read in three languages and maybe a fourth and had a deep knowledge of the Jewish Holy Books (Old Testament)
Those men were not priests or something like that but common people with a lay and presumably practical mindset with a middle religious culture as it was usual among the Jews. How can we assess their reliability then? They are eyewitnesses of facts and as in any testimony, the reliability is deduced by the personal quality of witnesses (we tend not to believe insane or strange people) and by what they risk in case their testimony is found false. I'd like to propose an example. If 12 people accuse one of us (Mr X) of murder saying before a court that they have seen Mr X shoot to death a guy who is really dead shot, and if Mr X has no alibi because at the time of the murder he was walking on a lonely beach, well there is absolutely no chance for our poor Mr X to avoid the jail or the hangman. Do you know why? Just because 12 persons considered mentally healthy accused him risking some years of prison in case they had lied before the judges.
When the Apostles went around in Jerusalem announcing that Jesus was really the Son of God, that He had arisen from the dead and had appeared to them, they did not risk some years of jail but an almost certain death. When they went before the Chief Priests of Jerusalem to tell them in the face that they had crucified the Son of God, their most likely destiny was death for blasphemy as it was for Jesus himself who was found blasphemous in proclaiming himself the Son of God. Why did they do that? Why should the 12 imaginary accusers of Mr X witness against him knowing that Mr X is innocent and thus risking some years of jail for their false testimony? I do not believe that such a thing will ever happen. I do not believe that 12 mentally healthy people will send to jail or to death a poor Mr X being aware that he is innocent. Maybe one or two cruel or mad persons but certainly not twelve. For what reason should they do that? And why risk years of prisons for such a thing? An now the fundamental question arises. Why did 12 mentally healthy men(fishermen, tax inspectors, merchants must be presumed like that) tell a lot of lies risking or having the almost certainty of being sentenced to death? Is that credible? So the Apostles went around in Jerusalem shouting to the people and the Chief Priests that Jesus had arisen and appeared to them in bad faith. If we only had an idea of the power, and I'd say the terrible faces, the Chief Jewish Priests had we would think more than twice before considering such a hypothesis. Unless we want to accept that they were all mad or liars or both. But not one or two. All twelve! If only one of the twelve did not accept to lie or was less mad or fearless than the others he would have given the game away and unmask the whole plot. Let's think for a while. Is this reasoning correct? So at least the good faith of those twelve men should be out of question also because they should have taken away the body of their Master from the tomb because, as we'll see below, the body had with no doubt disappeared. Therefore these twelve men or some of them, other than being mad and liars must have been also disgusting abductors of corpses. Apart from the fact that cadaver abduction was punished with death, we must bear in mind that the tomb of Jesus was at just 90 meters from the walls and probably a door of the City. Can you imagine 3-4 disciples of Jesus in the silent night of Easter rolling away the big stone of the sepulchre to take away the body of their loved Master? What a horror film is that?! And this horror could be possible only if there were no guardians at the tomb as it seems most likely. And then? After all this dirty horrible farce such a noble phenomenon like Christianity spread with incredible force thanks just to those dirty liars who accepted willingly to be killed for those lies. What do you think?
At this point, we might think that those men were in error. They were in good faith but had a bad comprehension of what really happened. In few words, they had hallucinations. They were so in love with their Master that, unable to bear his death, they imagined seeing him after death. We all know that mass hallucination is a phenomenon that can happen. The question is that those twelve men, like many hundreds with them, must have had hallucinations for about three years when they saw miracles of all kinds worked by Jesus before their eyes and then his resurrection. It would be a strange case of a 3-year mass hallucination, but why not? Everything is possible. Yes it is, but in this case that thing is not possible. Do you know why? Because the tomb was certainly empty. How can we know that for sure? For two reasons:
1) While the Apostles and disciples announced that Jesus had arisen from the dead, some Jews began spreading the suspicion that the body had been abducted. If in a civil case before a judge, one party says that he/she has a credit of 2000 dollars and the other respond that the credit is only 1000 dollars, the thing the judge knows for sure is that at least 1000 dollars are owed. The disciples of Christ said He has arisen!. The unbelieving Jews said They have stolen the body! What we know for certain is that the body of Jesus the Christ was no longer in His tomb. 2) If we want to put it in a different way we might say that when the Apostles started spreading the news of Christ's resurrection the easiest thing to do in order to stop them was to take them to the tomb and show that the poor Jesus was still inside there and nobody would have believed the Apostles anymore. They certainly didn't do that. Why? Simply because there was no body to show. The tomb was certainly empty and this is one of the best proven facts in History.
If what said above doesn't seem enough to us to believe, we can consider that after the Apostles had announced Christ's resurrection there started a series of unimaginable persecutions. Persecutions in Jerusalem, Asia, Greece and Rome. Most Apostles died as martyrs. The history of Christianity is made of common people who left home, family, job to risk and sometimes find a horrible death.
At this point I think we have enough elements to draw a conclusion. Do we believe that Jesus the Christ was really the Son of God come to save us and that he really resurrected after death? Let's try to answer this question and especially the latter part because Christianity is all in that. Doubt can be useful when we have already decided to believe. Doubt is not foreign to the faithful but we must always fight against the doubt and I am certain that in the end it will be what we have fought for that will matter.
In any case, if you don't feel ready to give an answer to the question above, you are not alone. You are even in the company of a Saint. In fact, when the Apostles told Thomas, one of them, that they had seen the Christ resurrected, Thomas did not believe or better he remained doubtful. He had seen the miracles worked by Jesus and heard Him predict His resurrection but nonetheless he did not believe. It was necessary that the Christ appeared directly to Thomas so that he could touch Him, to make Thomas believe. If doubt was acceptable for one of the Apostles, naturally it is more than understandable for us 2000 years later. And now? Now we may say that Saint Thomas was lucky. He could see and touch Him. But what about us?
We all have the right of being Thomas. Our Lord Christ the Saviour knows that. He knows that many of us are Thomas. So let's see if we also have something to see and touch to believe. At this point, we can begin the extraordinary and fascinating search for the signs that are given us by God. These signs given to us, modern Thomas, are usually called miracles.
Many of us have certainly heard about miraculous healings, saints bearing on their bodies (hands, feet, side) the signs of Christ's Passion (Suffering) or apparitions of the Virgin Mary. Those are phenomena that serious science cannot explain but reserves the right to explain in the future. For some scientists (not the most prominent) there is already an explanation, Stigmata (signs of the passions) on the body of some saints would be a psychosomatic phenomenon, i.e. due to the power of the mind on the body. As for the inexplicable healings the same scientists also say we are before a psychosomatic phenomenon. When it comes to visions and apparitions they say it is autosuggestion, delirium or pure psychopathology. that is mental disease. This kind of approach on the part of some scientists is anyway too simplifying and rough because of prejudice. What these would-be scientists do not consider enough is that the same phenomenon (what appears) can have different origins. Example: If we see on the street someone pointing a gun and shooting a man who falls to the ground motionless we immediately think of a murder. But it could well be that those guys are cinema actors shooting the scene of a movie. What shows to us is the same but the causes of it are very different. In the same way, granted that the mind can influence the body, this does not mean that any phenomenon must necessarily be psychosomatic. Again, the visions can well be the effect of schizophrenia but can also be the result of something else. The truth is that we must try to get rid of prejudices that limit our ability to understand the many faces of reality.
Anyway, it is of great comfort that the signs that our Lord sends to us are not just signs that can be interpreted also as psychosomatic or psychic phenomena. That is why I do not spend much time saying how deep the stigmata of Padre Pio were (one could see the light through the holes in his hands) or that from the wound at the chest of Saint Teresa D'Avila one could see the lung. Useless to say of course how realistic the visions of Bernadette Soubirus were.
I prefer to suggest to your attention those phenomena where the power of human mind can have little or no influence at all. If we want to give a name to such phenomena we could call them objective miracles, that is events which science itself invites to consider not natural.
There are many cases of such kind of miracles but I have taken just four of them to give you an idea. I find them some of the most relevant also for their inner meaning.
This miraculous Event took place in the 8th century A.D. in the little Church of St. Legontian in Lanciano Italy. During Holy Mass, the host was changed into live Flesh and the wine was changed into live Blood The Host-Flesh. The Blood is coagulated and has an earthy color resembling the yellow of ochre. Various ecclesiastical investigation ("Recognitions") were conducted since 1574. In 1970-71 and again partly in 1981 there took place a scientific investigation by the most illustrious scientist Prof. Odoardo Linoli, eminent Professor in Anatomy and Pathological Histology and in Chemistry and Clinical Microscopy assisted by Prof. Ruggero Bertelli of the University of Siena-Italy The analyses were conducted with absolute and unquestionable scientific precision and they were documented with a series of microscopic photographs. Some years later 15 experts of WHO (World Health Organization) confirmed the results of the two Italian Professors. These analyses sustained the following conclusions: The Flesh is real Flesh. The Blood is real Blood. The Flesh and the Blood belong to the human species. The Flesh consists of the muscular tissue of the heart.. The Flesh is a "HEART" complete in its essential structure. The Flesh and the Blood have the same blood-type: AB (Blood-type) identical to that which Prof. Baima Bollone uncovered in the Holy Shroud of Turin-Italy and on the Sudarium of Oviedo-Spain).The preservation of the Flesh and of the Blood, which were left in their natural state for twelve centuries and exposed to the action of atmospheric and biological agents, remains an extraordinary phenomenon. The hypothesis of a false is excluded by the precision of the section n of the Heart. It would have taken a modern cardio surgeon with a lancet to do that, not a monk with a knife and after all can you imagine a group of monks cutting the heart of a man? More info at
http://www.cmns.mnegri.it/miracolo/shortdesc.html
Every Holy Saturday since the fourth century AD and every year Orthodox Christians have cherished it as the greatest of miracles and see it as a continuous reminder of the Lord's resurrection. The ceremony of the Holy Fire has taken place every year for nearly fifteen centuries. Everything takes place under strict control of the Israeli police that guarantees that no fraud occurs. It is hard to describe what happens inside the Church of the Resurrection (or Church of the Holy Sepulchre) on that day. The Holy Light comes into the church and with blue-white flashes illuminates the Sepulchre and then the walls of the Church. Candles and oil lamps light up spontaneously. Sometimes a globe of Holy Fire comes out of the Sepulchre to go across the believers, touching their heads but without burning anyone.
Nobody has ever contested this miracle. Science does not even try to do that.
There is a video (see below) where you can see the Light and the globe of Fire. Given that, as I said, it is hard to imagine this great Event I suggest that you visit: www.holyfire.org/eng/ and
http://www.holylight.gr/agiofos/endownload.html (Video)
The Holy Shroud of Turin has been examined thoroughly by experts (STURP) of all branches of science and belonging to different religions, atheists included. Even though no definitive word has been said about the Holy Shroud of Turin, science has come to some certain conclusions The image of the Shroud is not the work of an artist. It has enveloped the body of a man flogged and crucified. . There are still traces of blood on the cloth. The blood type is AB. Scientists cannot explain how the image on the Shroud was formed. The image is due not to colour but to a sort of burn which might have been produced by a flash of light or radiation. No dead man emits radiation or light, but can we say the same of a man that resurrects? What was that radiation or light and how was it? Maybe an answer is at the Holy Sepulchre every Easter... For further information I suggest: http://www.shroud.com/menu.htm but there are many other interesting sites
The History of Christianity is full of charismatic persons to whom a lot of supernatural powers have been attributed. We can count tens of saints who worked hundreds of miracles but the sceptical person will say those are medieval things and keep on denying them. Medical Science has acknowledged many inexplicable healings (like those in Lourdes-Spain) but the sceptical will say that one day science will explain them too. At this point there appears with all her power the figure of Marie Therese Neumann. Therese is not a woman lived in the Middle Ages and in a backward little town of South Italy. Therese Neumann lived and died, in 1962, in the advanced and civilised Bavaria-Germany. It is a waste of time spending too many words to describe her stigmata, not so different from those of Padre Pio or Saint Teresa D'Avila. Nothing new
Neither is necessary to write about her visions or her, she was a farmwoman, capacity to speak ancient languages better than a university researcher. Also here nothing newOther saints did the same and sceptical people will deny again.
Where it is appropriate to put our attention is on an even more extraordinary phenomenon happened to Therese. There are some other cases of such a phenomenon in Christian history but far in the past or not verifiable. What is this phenomenon happened to Miss Neumann? In few words, she lived for 36 years without eating or drinking anything. Her only nourishment was one consecrated host per day. That's impossibile!! There must be a fraud! Many will say.
On the contrary, there seems to be no fraud at all this time. If one has a look at the photos of Therese when she suffered the Passion of Christ, that would be enough to believe she was not a liar. (photos of Therese are widely available on the Internet). Anyway the point is not that. Therese Neumann was a woman who lived in a small city of North Bavaria, Konnesreuth, like anyone else. She had her regular social life. She did not live secluded. Her family was a numerous family and sometimes guest of other people. It is very difficult to fool a whole town, not for 36 days or months but 36 years. Nobody has ever seen Therese eating or drinking since 1926. Professor Agostino Gemelli, sent by the Pope to visit her in 1935 reported that he saw no sign of mental disease in her and that he could not explain the facts. Professor Agostino Gemelli, by the way, was a great psychiatrist other than a religious man. He was such a great physician that in Rome there is a hospital named after him. Is all we said enough to believe in the facts about Therese? Why should have a religious woman mysteriously marked with the signs of Christ fooled her friends and the world saying she did not eat or drink? She was already a saint but ate and drank when no one could see her. Why that farce? Why this insult to her religious belief? The phenomenon anyway was so strong that incredulity grew even stronger. Protestant journalists tried to unmask her. The result in many cases was conversion to Catholicism. The Bishop of Rotesberg was tired of the rumours about Therese. All priests who knew the woman reported to him that the phenomenon was true but the public opinion was anxious to know things with more certainty. For this reason the Bishop asked Therese to spend a period of time under strict surveillance and she accepted. Some physicians told the bishop that after 11 days without food and drink no man can be still alive. Therese was checked 24 hours a day by twelve nuns under oath and some doctors. The trial lasted 15 days not 11. Therese was not left alone one single minute and after 15 days she was the same weight and absolutely healthy. The 12 nuns confirmed their oath to the Bishop. If this shouldn't be enough, during the war, in Germany there was food rationing with a special card you need to buy food. Therese never had this card but was allowed to have more soap and detergent to wash her clothes and linen stained with blood. At this point the sceptical cannot just say that Miss Neumann was a mad woman with some psychosomatic phenomena. There are just two options. 1) The whole town of Konnesreuth played the game with Therese for 36 years and nobody ever gave the game away unmasking her. The Catholic Church of Bavaria, notably all the priests the nuns of the town and the Bishop of Rotesberg were part of the plot. 2) It is all true. Can you really think hat the Catholic Church would have risked a catastrophic scandal that would have undermined the Church of Bavaria for a woman that after all was already a stigmatised saint just to say that she did not eat and drink? Not the Catholic Churchespecially in Germany with the Protestant Church ready to take advantage. What do you think? If you are curious there are articles and photos of Therese Neumann on Internet.
We are almost at the end of this short walk through the wonderful world of Faith. In the light of the above mentioned miracles let's try and find some deeper meaning inspired by them
Therese Neumann has given a deadly blow to materialism. A body can also live on spirit only. Can you believe it?
The Eucharistic Miracle warns us not to consider things as mere symbols. If you really believe you are eating the Body of Christ, you really take Him into yourself.
The Holy Shroud seems to be the material evidence of the Resurrection of Christ. No myth! Christianity is Hystory supported by science.
The miracle of the Holy Light (MOST IMPORTANT) allows to read the Good News with different eyes. Sometimes when lay people or even priests explain the contents of The Good News as well as that of the Old Testament, when they find themselves before phenomena such as Men of Light, flashes, lightning, fire descending on the Apostles' heads, they tend to give an allegoric explanation, that is they tend to say that all those strange things are ways to express abstract concepts, first of all the power of God and His intervention but not real things. That is not true at all! When we read in the New Testament of flashes of light, lightning or tongues of fire that is exactly what the Apostles saw and not symbols indicating abstract things. Don't you believe it? The best thing you can do is book a ticket to Jerusalem for the next Holy Easter celebrated by the Orthodox Patriarchate at the Holy Sepulchre and see with your own eyes! As far as Jerusalem and waiting till the next Easter?! Ok, lazy peopleyou are very very lucky. You don't need to go to Jerusalem physically. Today we have a wondrous means wanted by the Providence. Ok, go to Internet and have a look at this site: www.holyfire.org/eng/ You will see something really unique. If you are more than curious or want to have an even greater emotion, you can go to http://www.holylight.gr/agiofos/endownload.html and download a video. It is more than reliable. It was shot by Kefalas Petros, an orthodox pilgrim in 1994. I hope you enjoy it with all your hearts
I hope that, with this few pages, I have been clear and above all convincing. At this point if you believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God and that he was crucified for our redemption, taking upon Himself the sins of humankind and that after His death He resurrected, well you are lucky. Not everyone, even put before such clear evidence, believe it. Now you are ready for the baptism of the Holy Spirit like the Apostles on the Pentecost day. Before that day the Apostles talked, prayed, thanked God and then again talked and prayed. After Pentecost they devoted themselves to martyrdom. We are not asked to be martyrs but to do something more for our Saviour certainly yes.
The Holy Spirit is God Himself that enters and works inside us. He arrives when He decides to do so. My modest advise is that the best training of faith is made of Scriptures and charity. With the former you get close to God, with the latter you can touch Him.
I can give you phone numbers, addresses of scientists and university researchers who can confirm the reliability of what I wrote in this paper. I can also give you more indication about material you can take directly from the Internet. I have no doubt that in the last few centuries Evil has taken advantage of intellect and science to attack the Faith. I strongly believe that we must counterattack with the same weapons.
As far the Scriptures are concerned, although I can also help you, if you find a minister (priests, friars, missionaries, nuns) of the Christian Church, don't hesitate to ask for their help. They will certainly be more than happy to welcome you and help you in your way to Faith. The big arms of Christ are wide open and waiting for you.
MY BEST WISHES TO ALL OF YOU
Homework Help: Social Studies: Religion
For Further Reading
|
