Well are you saying hi to him in your prayers. He loves you more than you will ever know kiwidan. Lemme ask you a question, do you believe Jesus is alive in Heaven right now?
Not sure about heaven because i dont know what heaven is. People say something about a new earth is heaven so maybe hes there, but then people say this earth will be recreated and purified so maybe hes not here yet, people say he is sitting at the right hand side of God until judgement so maybe hes just chilling out in the spirit world at the moment. I have no idea.
He is alive if he is the son of God. I wasnt lucky enough to see him resurrected like other people back then, so i cant testify nothing. Im trying to belive in him. All i can do is believe a couple storys people wrote in the bible and have to trust them. Thats all i got. Not like God visits me or gives me a miricle to help gain faith. I get nothing. I have to prove myself to him ut i still havent given up. I wont give up. Its been a month and im still here learning. Also i find the bible so interesting i dont think i will ever give up listening to his words anyhow. Wheather i am saved or not. I did believe in him and that he rose and to forgive my sins, and i repented and really meant it, so i hope im at least saved for now. And now im trying to figure everything out. Even when i question him its not a matter of not believeing. Its more helping me grow in faith because other people with more experience can give me more clarified answers.
Im more about reassurance and im sure Gods happy with that for other people to help me with reassurance. People with more knowledge.
A good place to start your Christian journey is in Scripture. You seem to be a little confused as to whether Scripture is God-breathed or not. Everything you read will be tainted if you are not sure the Bible is inspired of God, and you will probably wind up just tossing it aside and moving on to the next "hobby" or fad. Following is the reason I believe the books that are included in the Bible are the ONLY God-breathed Scriptures we have. Note that this method is objective.
"The Catholic method of proving the Bible to be inspired is this: The Bible is initially approached as any other ancient work. It is not, at first, presumed to be inspired. From textual criticism we are able to conclude that we have a text the accuracy of which is more certain than the accuracy of any other ancient work.
An Accurate Text
Sir Frederic Kenyon, in
The Story of the Bible, notes that "For all the works of classical antiquity we have to depend on manuscripts written long after their original composition. The author who is the best case in this respect is Virgil, yet the earliest manuscript of Virgil that we now possess was written some 350 years after his death. For all other classical writers, the interval between the date of the author and the earliest extant manuscript of his works is much greater. For Livy it is about 500 years, for Horace 900, for most of Plato 1,300, for Euripides 1,600." Yet no one seriously disputes that we have accurate copies of the works of these writers. However, in the case of the New Testament we have parts of manuscripts dating from the first and early second centuries, only a few decades after the works were penned.
Not only are the biblical manuscripts that we have
older than those for classical authors, we have in sheer numbers far more manuscripts from which to work. Some are whole books of the Bible, others fragments of just a few words, but there are literally thousands of manuscripts in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Coptic, Syriac, and other languages. This means that we can be sure we have an authentic text, and we can work from it with confidence.
The Bible as Historical Truth
Next we take a look at what the Bible, considered merely as a history, tells us, focusing particularly on the New Testament, and more specifically the Gospels. We examine the account contained therein of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.
Using what is in the Gospels themselves and what we find in extra-biblical writings from the early centuries, together with what we know of human nature (and what we can otherwise, from natural reason alone, know of divine nature), we conclude that either Jesus was just what he claimed to be—God—or he was crazy. (The one thing we know he could not have been was merely a good man who was not God, since no merely good man would make the claims he made.)
We are able to eliminate the possibility of his being a madman not just from what he said but from what his followers did after his death. Many critics of the Gospel accounts of the resurrection claim that Christ did not truly rise, that his followers took his body from the tomb and then proclaimed him risen from the dead. According to these critics, the resurrection was nothing more than a hoax. Devising a hoax to glorify a friend and mentor is one thing, but you do not find people dying for a hoax, at least not one from which they derive no benefit. Certainly if Christ had not risen his disciples would not have died horrible deaths affirming the reality and truth of the resurrection. The result of this line of reasoning is that we must conclude that Jesus indeed rose from the dead. Consequently, his claims concerning himself—including his claim to be God—have credibility. He meant what he said and did what he said he would do.
Further, Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken as
merely a historical book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching authority.
We have thus taken the material and purely historically concluded that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Because of his Resurrection we have reason to take seriously his claims concerning the Church, including its authority to teach in his name.
This Catholic Church tells us the Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the Church is infallible. Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority—that is, one established by God to assure us of the truth concerning matters of faith—that the Bible is inspired can we reasonably begin to use it as an inspired book.
A Spiral Argument
Note that this is not a circular argument. We are not basing the inspiration of the Bible on the Church’s infallibility and the Church’s infallibility on the word of an inspired Bible. That indeed would be a circular argument! What we have is really a spiral argument. On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history. From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded. And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired. This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable), and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired). What we have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired."
The whole article can be found here:
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/proving-inspiration