Bookmark and Share
My Photo


    Opinions expressed on the Insight Scoop weblog are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Ignatius Press. Links on this weblog to articles do not necessarily imply agreement by the author or by Ignatius Press with the contents of the articles. Links are provided to foster discussion of important issues. Readers should make their own evaluations of the contents of such articles.


« Table of Contents for the June/July 2011 issue... | Main | Why do dissenters remain in the Catholic Church? »

Thursday, June 16, 2011


Megan Behrens

Thank you so much for writing this article! I've often had conversations with my Pentecostal friends about the divinity of Jesus (apparently they don't believe that he was fully God, but a Spirit-infused man) but I've never had these simple and beautiful arguments to bring to them. Thank you for sharing. It's articles like this that really help build the Church.


I've often heard the argument that Christ, because of what He says about Himself, must be either God or a bad man.

It seems to me that there is a similar argument for the Catholic Church. Because of what She says about Herself, She must either be the Bride of Christ or the Whore of Babylon.

I grew up thinking the latter, but then was confronted with the goodness of the Church Herself (as opposed to the evil of the people who are in the Church, now including myself). I ultimately had no choice but to convert.


Brilliant! I am a great admirer of Peter Kreeft. Unlike other intellectually endowed people, Peter Kreeft's sincerity in sharing his spirituality, through his wealth of knowledge, comes across by the way he presents his topic simply and plainly, the kind that can be understood by the ordinary person. I have had a lot of life-changing insights by reading his books. Praise God for him!


Lord, lunatic or liar should have one more option. How about "legend"? I'm not saying that Jesus was ficticious but perhaps he was exaggerated. As to how much, who can say but to make absolute determinations of divinity based upon 2,000 year old writings is quite a leap of faith. None of us were present when he made such claims so who can be sure exactly what was said. Now I'm sure people will make all these arguments that the Bible is a very accurate historical record and therefore is trustworthy but haven't you ever played "the telephone game" as a kid and found your original message to be completely different form it's original? And that was a message generated within minutes of its origination not one recorded years after the crucifixtion as the Gospels are. I pray that Jesus is real but the gnawing doubts that God expects us to overcome in our present human state is quite a tall task and one that leads me to agnosticism. Saying that Christianity is airtight in it's arguments is downright unsympathetic to man's plight.
P.S. i had Dr Kreeft as a teacher for two semesters back in the 1980's at Boston College.

Christopher  Lake

Michael, I am sympathetic to man's plight, as you write of it here-- man's struggle to believe. I was an agnostic myself for years when I was younger. Evaluating competing truth claims is certainly not always easy. Even now, faith in God is not always easy for me, as a practicing Catholic and a 38-year-old man who has had a physical disability (Cerebral Palsy) from birth.

With that said, when you equate the writing and transmisson of the Bible to people playing "the telephone game," aren't you already assuming that the Biblical authors were *not* divinely inspired, and thus protected from error, by God? Is this a fair assumption to make, especially in light of all of the good arguments for the Bible's historical trustworthiness (which you briefly allude to in your comment)?

Ultimately, doesn't this sort of assumption (i.e. that the transmission of the Bible is finally comparable to a written version of the telephone game) naturally lead to a disbelief in Christianity's truth claims? It seems to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.


Christopher, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence otherwise it's basically heresay and anecdote. As far as divinely inspired text goes we cannot assume this, as this again is a giant leap of faith. It begs the question: if God was so involved with history 2,000 years why is he so silent, invisible and indifferent now?


"why is he so silent, invisible and indifferent now?"

Who says He is?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Ignatius Insight


Ignatius Press

Catholic World Report


Blogs & Sites We Like

June 2018

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Blog powered by Typepad