Katholisch Leben!

Den katholischen Glauben kennen, leben, lieben & verteidigen!

Blog

'Sober' apologetics vs. 'openhearted' ethics

Posted on February 1, 2015 at 6:50 AM

'Sober' apologetics vs. 'openhearted' ethics? Another version of justfying breaking canon law that seems to be used by some Catholics. If you point out abuse in the Church (which is a duty for every Catholic!), this is called 'apologetics' (in fact it has nothing to do with apologetics) and evaluated with an adjective ('sober'). The breaking of canon law itself is then called 'ethics' (again: that has nothing whatsoever to do with 'ethics') and accompanied by another adjective ('openhearted'). In my eyes, that is close to being a completely inappropriate means of propaganda. Such attitudes have nothing to do in the Church. If somebody points out mistakes, we need to be thankful and not throw sophisticated mud on him.

Should Catholics not try to convince others �?? as in �??proselytizing�???

Posted on July 31, 2014 at 2:35 PM

Of course they should! “Proselytizing” has a bad sound to it, but it need not be so. It is just another aspect of evangelizing. Yes, we should also convince others through our own life example – through our works of love, through the way we act and talk, and through the way we worship. But this is not all there is to it. We can and should also try to challenge other people’s beliefs and try to win their hearts and minds! Outreach is not just a matter of the heart, it also affects the intellect. Peter taught us we should always be ready to give an account of the hope that is within us. That also includes the knowledge about this hope. Knowing what the Church and with it the Bible teaches. Knowing what we believe and why we believe it. Giving our faith a reason and being ready to defend it when necessary. We can only love what we know, so a solid foundation is essential for our faith. This knowledge and foundation can help us convincing others. Now I said it. And with full intention – this is something we MUST do. And we must be able to do it. Yes, we should avoid being arrogant, prideful and the like. We should not try to win the argument, but the heart – and soul. Bottom line: As bad as it might sound to some, but there is nothing wrong with it – on the contrary, it is a must for every Catholic.

What do Muslims believe about the Bible?

Posted on April 5, 2014 at 10:10 AM

They do believe that both Old and New Testament are valid and ought to be believed in (you find that in several Suras - like 2:98 or 2:136), but they also claim that both Jews and Christians have corrupted these Scriptures. So what about it? Have we? Muhammad himself said in the 7th century that we need to believe and obey to what the Bible says.

Let’s take a look at the scientific evidence: Between 200 BC and AD 68 the Dead Sea scrolls were written and later rediscovered. They prove beyond any doubt that the Old Testament as we have it now is exactly the same that existed before the time of Jesus.

What about the New Testament? If you take a look at the historical facts and the Fathers of the Church, you also can see very clearly that today’s New Testament is the same the Apostles left.
Besides: Around 400 the Bible as we have it now was officially approved by the Church. That was 200 years before Muhammad was born!!

Therefore the claim that the Bible is true and Muslims have to obey it, but that we can’t really trust it because it had been corrupted is wrong.

We could even go as far as to say (along with Hilaire Beloc) that the Islam is nothing but a Christian heresy. Islam’s claims contradict the Bible, the history and common sense.

Muslims say the Koran must be believed in. But why? So do the Mormons with their “Book of Mormon”. All sorts of groups and people claim to be “inspired”. Give us some prove!

We can prove our point: If you read the early Church Fathers, some of whom even knew the Apostles themselves, you can clearly see that the teachings back then were Catholic – not Islamic. The quotes those Church Fathers are the same we use today.

What do you have?

Let’s take a closer look to what the Koran says:

It tells Muhammad to confirm God’s revelations by using a Bible verse in Sura 10:94. That does not go along with Muslim teaching: In the Sura mentioned above God tells Muhammad to ask those who have read the Scriptures before him. Why would God do that if these Scriptures were corrupted by Jews and/or Christians?

So the Bible is corrupted and the Koran is not. Why? Because it’s Allah’s book and He protects it. Does He? If that is true, why would He not protect His first book, the Bible?

Muslims also say that the Bible points to the prophet Muhammad in John 15:26 (““When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me.“ NIV). So a corrupted Bible points to Muhammad? How can that be?

And if you assume the above claim, we need to also believe the other claim the Bible makes: Jesus being divine – the Son of God. Who tells us which Bible passages we can trust and which not?

Most of all: If the Bible had been corrupted, give us some prove. Show us the uncorrupted originals of the Bible. You can’t – because they don’t exist. So you can’t tell which Bible verses you can trust and which not either.

Next one: If you say the Old Testament had been corrupted, we need to ask you when that took place. As we have the evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls, we know that it was not corrupted after Jesus. However, if it was corrupted before, why didn’t Jesus mention it and warn us about it?

If you claim that Christians corrupted the New Testament, where is your proof? Who, when and where corrupted what exactly? You can’t give a proof because there is none.

So far, thousands of ancient Bibles that have the same content like those today were found all over the world. Not a single one of what Muslims might see as “not corrupted Bible” (the “original” so-to-speak) has been found to this day. Not a single archeological evidence.

Nothing.

Muslims sometimes also claim that the uncorrupted versions of the Bible were destroyed or suppressed on purpose. So far, however, they have not presented any evidence for that either. No mentioning of that in the whole history of Christianity. Besides: how exactly was that done? How did those who allegedly suppressed the true versions managed to do that all over the world? Back then there was no internet that you could infiltrate. It is simply impossible that this could have happened.

All Bibles are the same in content. If you claim there had been a corruption, there must have been a difference between the Bible verses that came before and those that came afterwards. None of that has ever been found. Furthermore, there would have been open resistance by faithful Christians. None of that has ever been documented.

Had there been a corruption, the Jews and Romans during the time of the early Church would have most likely used that against the Christian and protected the original version of the Holy Bible. Nothing of that has ever been heard or documented.

No historian ever – Jewish, Christian, pagan or non-believer – has ever mentioned a corruption of the Bible. How can this be if there was one?

Because that alleged corruption never took place. It is mere fantasy.

Robert

(For more information, go and get this resource: Beginning Apologetics 9. How to Answer Muslims. By Father Frank Chacon and Jim Burnham. San Juan Catholic Seminars. www.catholicapologetics.com)