I've had people say, "you can't really believe that Christian stuff, can you?"
And then, once I became Catholic, some (certainly not all) Protestants began with, "You don't really believe all that Mary stuff, do you. Or that it's not bread and wine, but Jesus? Really?"
Well, let's start with why I'm a Christian.
At age 20, I wasn't really Christian in thought, word, or deed. I was exploring various philosophical and Eastern religious alternatives. But then I was confronted with reality.
The simple fact is that the New Testament documents are THE BEST ATTESTED DOCUMENTS of the ancient world, bar none.We have 9 manuscripts of Caesars Commentaries on the Gallic Wars, all of them dating from the 10th century. Scholars never voice any doubts about their authenticity.
Yet, we have literally tens of thousands of New Testament manuscripts, some of them dating from mere decades after the life of Christ, even within the lifetime of the Apostles. If one applies the same criteria to them that one applies to any other other ancient manuscript, there is no doubt whatsoever that they are, indeed, authentic and were written by those to whom Tradition ascribes authorship.
In addition, there is much internal evidence to suggest their authenticity. Take the Gospel of Luke, for example. It includes medical terminology of the day - exactly what one would expect of a 1st century physician. And it contains historical detail which has only otherwise recently come to light through archaeological means, e.g., Quirinius's governing of Syria in the late first century BC.
So, the New Testament is authentic. But, what of the content?
There are two factors which I find compelling.
One - Jesus was one of three things.
If He was not, as he claimed, the Son of God, indentifying Himself with YHWH ("Before Abraham was, I am"), then either he deliberately misled (i.e., he was a liar; hardly the "good man" that his non-Christian 'fans' would have him be), or he was deluded. So, Lord, Liar, or Lunatic? Liar and lunatic seem beyond absurd.
Two - the Resurrection. The apostles claimed this from the very beginning. Unless it's true, it's a truly absurd claim. So, if Jesus wasn't resurrected, why didn't Rome produce a body? Why didn't the Sanhedrin produce a body? Why would the the apostles go to their death for what they would KNOW to be a lie?
So, either one must accept the resurrection, or accept that the Romans, the Jews, and the Apostles all acted in an absurd manner.
So, I'm a Christian.
But, at about 31-32 years old, I was confronted with the question of what became of the Church Jesus left. Is it today's Catholic Church, is it today's Orthodox Faith, or some form of Protestantism. Examining the earliest post Christian writings, I found bishops, I found a belief that the bread and wine in the Eucharist somehow truly becomes the Body and Blood of Jesus.
I asked myself - did the Church go THAT far astray as soon as the last apostle died? Did Christ allow his spotless bride to become spotted? Did He leave her or forsake her?
Of course not!!!
I could no longer accept the Protestantism in which I'd been raised.
But, having been Protestant, I could never, EVER be Catholic. So I became Orthodox.
But the more I read, I kept coming across the information that I summarize here:
https://www.facebook.com/notes/lou-pizzuti/first-post-apostolic-work-supports-the-papacy/548019735243684
Tomorrow, I celebrate the 19th anniversary of my reception into the Catholic Church, after God dragged me in, screaming and kicking.
(originally published 2/28/2014)
No comments:
Post a Comment