On what basis do Christians reject other Gods?

[Gumph]

I understand that the Bible says you must not worship other gods. But I would like to go further back than that.

What made you accept the words in the Bible in the first place? Why did you choose those words over the Qu'ran or the Bhagavad Gita or any other religion's book?

How then do you explain your position when or if asked: Why do you not believe in {insert the god(s) of any other religion here} ?

 

[Albion]

I was thinking of this just recently. The reason is that the Bible has stood up to the criticisms that have been leveled against it for centuries and from all quarters. It is the record of God working through a special people, as recorded by many writers over a long period of time. It's proved out.

Other religions' sacred writings are more in the form of inspirational poetry or advice for living, that's about all. The Koran, for example, not only includes much that is borrowed from Christianity, Judaism, and Arabic paganism and then rearranged by the author, but the text admits that this is the case. So also the Book of Mormon, whomever the author of it might have been, and the various writings that are prominent in Oriental religions. Many of these don't even posit that there is a God, so they are not comparable IMHO.

 

[aiki]

I understand that the Bible says you must not worship other gods. But I would like to go further back than that.

What made you accept the words in the Bible in the first place? Why did you choose those words over the Qu'ran or the Bhagavad Gita or any other religion's book?

How then do you explain your position when or if asked: Why do you not believe in {insert the god(s) of any other religion here} ?

Because I can see in the Bible what I don't see in other supposed "divine" texts.

1. Thematic Unity.

In spite of being written over some 1500 years by 40 writers from widely varying walks of life, on 3 different continents and in 3 different languages, the Bible maintains what I think is an astounding degree of thematic unity. Imagine a group of your own friends discussing some controversial subject such as God, religion, politics, or abortion. I suspect they'd be hard-pressed to arrive at a consensus of opinion on any of these subjects! But the Bible manages to do so under formative circumstances that should have guaranteed wide disagreement in its contents.

“The Old Testament is the preparation (Isaiah 40:3). The Gospels are the manifestation (John 1:29). The Book of Acts is the propagation (Acts 1:8). The Epistles give the explanation (Colossians 1:27). The Book of Revelation is the consummation (Revelation 1:7). The Bible is all about Jesus.” - Josh McDowell.

2. The historicity and archaeological accuracy of the Bible.

The Bible is not written as mythology. Names, dates, specific historical events fill the Bible. You will never find the phrase “once upon a time” written anywhere in Scripture. The Bible records and recounts history that is possible to verify. And archaeologists have been verifying again and again that the Bible has it right about the events it relates.

http://www.equip.org/article/biblic...ence-to-support-the-historicity-of-the-bible/

3. Fulfilled prophecy.

Perhaps the most powerful evidence for the divine origin of Scripture is found in the multitude of fulfilled biblical prophecies.

- Concerning the Jewish nation.

Never be completely destroyed: Leviticus 26:44
Survive Babylonian rule and return home: Jeremiah 32:36, 37
Israel dispersed and their land occupied by their enemies: Leviticus 26:32, 33; Luke 21:24
The temple in Jerusalem destroyed: Matthew 24:1, 2

- Concerning the Messiah, Jesus Christ.

Born of a virgin: Isaiah 7:4
Born in Bethlehem: Micah 5:1, 2
A descendant of King David: Jeremiah 23:5
He would perform miracles of healing: Isaiah 35:4-6
Enter Jerusalem riding on a donkey: Zechariah 9:9
Betrayed by a friend: Psalm 41:9
Spat upon and beaten: Isaiah 50:6
Buried in a rich man's tomb: Isaiah 53:9
Silent before his accusers: Isaiah 53:7

For a more complete list of such prophecies see:
http://www.100prophecies.org/bible-prophecies.htm

http://www.reasons.org/articles/art...ecy-evidence-for-the-reliability-of-the-bible

4. Its preservation over time.

1 Peter 1:24-25 (NKJV)
24 because "All flesh is as grass,And all the glory of man as the flower of the grass.The grass withers,And its flower falls away,
25 But the word of the Lord endures forever." ...

There are no surviving autographs (original manuscripts) of the Bible. Unfortunately, they were all written on highly destructible materials (papyrus, or animal skins) However, the body of preserved ancient manuscript copies of the Bible is unparalleled in ancient literature contemporary with the Bible. There are over 24,000 ancient manuscript sources for the New Testament consisting of uncials (upper case/capital letter script) and minuscules (lower case script) - 5,686 Gk., 19,000 in Syriac, Coptic, Latin, and Aramaic. (www.carm.org), as well as patristic quotations, lectionaries, and prayer books (over 30,000) from which almost all of the New Testament could be accurately constructed. In comparison, Homer's “The Iliad,” which is second to the Bible in the size of its pool of ancient extant manuscript copies, boasts only 1800 of them. As one would expect, God has seen to it that the text of His Word has been marvellously preserved.

“The survival of the Bible through the ages is very difficult to explain if it is not in truth the Word of God. Books are like men—dying creatures. A very small percentage of books survive more than twenty years, a yet smaller percentage last a hundred years and only a very insignificant fraction represent those which have lived a thousand years. Amid the wreck and ruin of ancient literature the Holy Scriptures stand out like the last survivor of an otherwise extinct race, and the very fact of the Bible’s continued existence is an indication that like its Author it is indestructible.” - Arthur Pink. (Scottish Bible scholar and evangelist 1886-1952)

5. Scientific accuracy.

While the Bible in no way attempts to be a scientific tome, where it does make comment on the material universe, it does so with remarkable scientific insight.

The universe had a beginning. - Genesis 1:1
The universe is expanding – Jeremiah 10:12
Light is in motion – Jeremiah 38:19, 20
The Earth is a sphere – Isaiah 40:22
Earth is suspended in space – Job 26:7

It is strongly suggestive of the divine origin of the Bible that these facts appear in Scripture millenia before modern scientific investigation would confirm them!

6. Personal Experience of the truth and transformative power of Scripture.

Over the more than forty years of my life as a disciple of Christ I have had innumerable opportunities to witness in my own life the truth and power of God's Word. As I have lived in accord with the wisdom, spiritual principles and truth of the Bible my life has been profoundly and positively transformed. And I am not alone in this. I have encountered many thousands of Christians who've encountered the very same effect in their own lives as they have lived in accord with holy Scripture.

These are some of the reasons why I believe the Bible is the Word of God and all other religious texts are not. Don't get me wrong, though: God's truth may be found in bits and pieces in these other texts. But they possess such truth accidently, or by borrowing from the Bible, rather than as a consequence of genuine and direct divine inspiration.

"Pile them, if you will, on the left side of your study table; but place your own Holy Bible on the right side - all by itself, all alone - and with a wide gap between them. For...there is a gulf between it and the so-called sacred books of the East which severs the one from the other utterly, hopelessly, and forever...a veritable gulf which cannot be bridged over by any science of religious thought." - Professor M. Montiero-Williams, former Boden professor of Sanskrit

Selah.

 

[TheyCallMeDave]

I understand that the Bible says you must not worship other gods. But I would like to go further back than that.

What made you accept the words in the Bible in the first place? Why did you choose those words over the Qu'ran or the Bhagavad Gita or any other religion's book?

How then do you explain your position when or if asked: Why do you not believe in {insert the god(s) of any other religion here} ?

Only the Bible can be proved to have fulfilled prophecy in it. No other Religion has a historically verified divine Savior who gave up his life for our much accumulated sins . All other religions are religion and not a deep personal relationship with God who is Jesus . BKecause Jesus claimed and proved whio he was , this eliminates all othyer religions and philosophies unless something is acco9mplished greater that a physical resurrection from the dead 3 days later. Jesus clai8me3d to be the actual Creator of the Universe , then backed up this fact. No other Religious Figure in all of history has done this. Jesus therefore , is the way the only way to get to God and heaven. And....its a totally free undeserved gift based on your trust in what Jesus accomplished on the cross. Will you receive him this day and solidify your eternity ?

 

[ViaCrucis]

I understand that the Bible says you must not worship other gods. But I would like to go further back than that.

What made you accept the words in the Bible in the first place? Why did you choose those words over the Qu'ran or the Bhagavad Gita or any other religion's book?

How then do you explain your position when or if asked: Why do you not believe in {insert the god(s) of any other religion here} ?

If I were a Muslim I'd accept the Qur'an. If I was Hindu I'd accept the Bhagavad Gita.

But I'm neither Muslim nor Hindu.

My belief in Christian Scripture is due to the fact that I'm a Christian.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Job8]

I understand that the Bible says you must not worship other gods. But I would like to go further back than that.

Once a person sees that the Bible is God's truth and that it commands the total rejection of all other gods (including false gods and idols), it is simply a matter of obedience to God's commandments.

 

[Job8]

If I were a Muslim I'd accept the Qur'an. If I was Hindu I'd accept the Bhagavad Gita.

Since many Muslims reject the Qur'an and believe the Bible, and many Hindus have been converted to Christ, and rejected the Gita, evidently only those who prefer to remain in their traditions rather than seek out the truth accept their religions unquestioningly. The Holy Spirit shows people that the Bible is God's Word.

 

[terryjohn]

In the end, our God is the only one who put in an appearance.

 

[graceandpeace]

I understand that the Bible says you must not worship other gods. But I would like to go further back than that.

What made you accept the words in the Bible in the first place? Why did you choose those words over the Qu'ran or the Bhagavad Gita or any other religion's book?

How then do you explain your position when or if asked: Why do you not believe in {insert the god(s) of any other religion here} ?

There are various reasons I could point to, but ultimately it comes down to the Christian worldview making the most sense to me when considering the reality of the world in which we live & the hope of the Gospel message as an antidote.

 

[AgingNerd]

I will answer this according to the Bible but I realize that everyone will not accept this explanation.

Just one verse and then more explanation ...

““For many are invited, but few are chosen.””
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭22:14‬ ‭NIV‬‬

So a Christian ultimately chooses the Bible and the trinity because the Holy Spirit called him and he believed. The Bible also says many times he who has ears will hear. There is also the parable of the seed that falls on different ground. (Sorry for not posting all the references. If you want me to I'll spend time doing that. )

So from a Christian perspective there is only one God. That one God calls us all to Him but those who hear and believe are saved. Everyone will not believe and for their own reasons. You may ask why we choose this God and not others. I would say because this is the only one that is real and I heard His voice.

Proving that this is the only one that is real then goes to Apologetics. There are libraries full of books to address this. Like other brothers have said here, the heart of it goes to the Bible and its defense.

 

[Hawkins]

I understand that the Bible says you must not worship other gods. But I would like to go further back than that.

What made you accept the words in the Bible in the first place? Why did you choose those words over the Qu'ran or the Bhagavad Gita or any other religion's book?

How then do you explain your position when or if asked: Why do you not believe in {insert the god(s) of any other religion here} ?

A religion acts as a reliable vessel for an important message (truth) to pass along the line of humanity. The method employed to pass such a message is called human witnessing. This is the most efficient way for a truth to be conveyed among humans as long as God has a strong reason not to show up to humans in majority. There's no other way round.

1. Not all religions have a strong reason for their gods to hide behind. If a god is much more superior than humans and he cares about humans he should show up publicly to guide humans.

The strong reason for the Christian God to hide behind is that all humans are bound to a covenant which everyone requires faith in order to be saved. God shows up to everyone simultaneously means no one can be saved.

On the other hand, if God doesn't show up to anyone, then no humans can get to know who God is. No humans can know what are God's requirements set forth for humans to follow.

The only way which works for a hiding God to make Himself known to humans, to make His requirements known to humans is to show Himself up to a small group of direct witnesses (explicitly His prophets and chosen witnesses), and for them to write about Him and what He wants then for others (humans in majority) to believe or not.

There's no other way round for such a truth to be conveyed.

2. Now which God can explicitly name this method of conveying truth?

Multiple accounts of witnessing, witnesses, prophets being explicit called God's witnesses, emphasizing on no false witnessing allowed, these are all unique characteristics of Christianity.

No other gods can be true in this perspective.

Moreover, no witnessing can be made more valid than those who martyred themselves for what is said and done. Today we have photos and videos in supporting our witnessing though.

 

[Gumph]

I was thinking of this just recently. The reason is that the Bible has stood up to the criticisms that have been leveled against it for centuries and from all quarters. It is the record of God working through a special people, as recorded by many writers over a long period of time. It's proved out.

Other religions' sacred writings are more in the form of inspirational poetry or advice for living, that's about all. The Koran, for example, not only includes much that is borrowed from Christianity, Judaism, and Arabic paganism and then rearranged by the author, but the text admits that this is the case. So also the Book of Mormon, whomever the author of it might have been, and the various writings that are prominent in Oriental religions. Many of these don't even posit that there is a God, so they are not comparable IMHO.

Thanks. There is a lot of subjectivity in those answers though. "Its proved out" might be a lengthy discussion all on its own. Not sure why you don't feel they are comparable. Why is it necessary for them to posit that there is a god?

Because I can see in the Bible what I don't see in other supposed "divine" texts.

1. Thematic Unity.

In spite of being written over some 1500 years by 40 writers from widely varying walks of life, on 3 different continents and in 3 different languages, the Bible maintains what I think is an astounding degree of thematic unity. Imagine a group of your own friends discussing some controversial subject such as God, religion, politics, or abortion. I suspect they'd be hard-pressed to arrive at a consensus of opinion on any of these subjects!

Do the other books not also show thematic unity? Any idea how they fail there?

I am not really sure why a thematic unity is not an expected result for a collection of books and writings about a single topic that is pro that topic. Would you not be able to collate a compilation of writings on just about any subject and ensure thematic unity?

I think its reasonable to assume that whenever there were obvious flaws or conflicting views, the conflicts would have not been included in the compilation. This is not trying to find a conspiracy. Is it not unreasonable to expect a compilation of writings on say "The invention and development of the rifle" to have thematic unity? Or have I perhaps misunderstood the definition of the term?

2. The historicity and archaeological accuracy of the Bible.

The Bible is not written as mythology. Names, dates, specific historical events fill the Bible. You will never find the phrase “once upon a time” written anywhere in Scripture. The Bible records and recounts history that is possible to verify. And archaeologists have been verifying again and again that the Bible has it right about the events it relates.

Sho! The article was a little difficult for me to delve in too deeply because it mentioned some fairly obscure bible stories. The only one known to me was the flood and Noah. I tend to think that discovering that there were big floods in the past hardly verifies the story of Noah. The uniqueness of that story is that the whole world was covered in water and that all living animals that were saved were on a boat. I was really under the impression that these old testament stories were no longer being taken literally.

Does discovering ancient cities and human remains mentioned in the bible really give the stories much more credibility. Does the future discovery of a buried empire state building, really prove that king kong existed?

Where does the bible use specific dates? "In the time of King John" is not a specific date.

Do these other religious texts not also have claims of actual events that can be superficially verified?

3. Fulfilled prophecy.

Perhaps the most powerful evidence for the divine origin of Scripture is found in the multitude of fulfilled biblical prophecies.

This is a huge debate topic on its own. However it requires a fair amount of research and back ground information to deal with properly. This is probably not the right time or place. I therefore accept for now that you find the prophecies to be impressive. I take a different view. I find them horribly vague - if they can even be believed in the first place. Lets agree to have different views on this one for now

4. Its preservation over time.

Does that not give the Jewish, Hindu and Budhist faiths a "win" in this category then? Have they not maintained stories and writings for even longer?

5. Scientific accuracy.

I don't often see Christian using this as a pro in their discussions, so interesting that you see it that way. I suspect that there are many more scientifically dubious claims in the bible. I am surprised though that you see this as a point that makes the bible stand out against other religious texts.

6. Personal Experience of the truth and transformative power of Scripture.

Over the more than forty years of my life as a disciple of Christ I have had innumerable opportunities to witness in my own life the truth and power of God's Word. As I have lived in accord with the wisdom, spiritual principles and truth of the Bible my life has been profoundly and positively transformed. And I am not alone in this. I have encountered many thousands of Christians who've encountered the very same effect in their own lives as they have lived in accord with holy Scripture.

These are some of the reasons why I believe the Bible is the Word of God and all other religious texts are not. Don't get me wrong, though: God's truth may be found in bits and pieces in these other texts. But they possess such truth accidently, or by borrowing from the Bible, rather than as a consequence of genuine and direct divine inspiration.

Do members of other faiths also not have similar personal experiences?
Did the bible not "borrow" much of the teachings from Judaism?

 

[Gumph]

... No other Religion has a historically verified divine Savior who gave up his life for our much accumulated sins ...

Well of course not, that is Christianity's uniqueness. Other religions make different claims. Is it not like a Muslim saying that no other religion has a prophet arriving after Jesus?

...
this eliminates all othyer religions and philosophies unless something is acco9mplished greater that a physical resurrection from the dead 3 days later. Jesus clai8me3d to be the actual Creator of the Universe , then backed up this fact.

So its the greatness of the claim that is important? So if another messiah arrived and made bigger claims, would that get you considering a conversion?

As a matter of interest, how did Jesus back up his claim to be the creator?

...
Will you receive him this day and solidify your eternity ?

Nope, not this day. Hoping he is going to clear up the ambiguity and uncertainty around his message before making a decision.

If I were a Muslim I'd accept the Qur'an. If I was Hindu I'd accept the Bhagavad Gita.

But I'm neither Muslim nor Hindu.

My belief in Christian Scripture is due to the fact that I'm a Christian.

Fair enough, but then why are you a Christian in the first place and not a Muslim or a Hindu?

Once a person sees that the Bible is God's truth and that it commands the total rejection of all other gods (including false gods and idols), it is simply a matter of obedience to God's commandments.

Why do you consider the Bible to be more true than other religious texts?

Since many Muslims reject the Qur'an and believe the Bible, and many Hindus have been converted to Christ, and rejected the Gita, evidently only those who prefer to remain in their traditions rather than seek out the truth accept their religions unquestioningly. The Holy Spirit shows people that the Bible is God's Word.

Then what about Christians who have converted to Islam or Buddhism or Judaism?
How does the Holy Spirit show us that the Bible is Gods word?

 

[dysert]

Thanks. There is a lot of subjectivity in those answers though. "Its proved out" might be a lengthy discussion all on its own. Not sure why you don't feel they are comparable. Why is it necessary for them to posit that there is a god?



Do the other books not also show thematic unity? Any idea how they fail there?

I am not really sure why a thematic unity is not an expected result for a collection of books and writings about a single topic that is pro that topic. Would you not be able to collate a compilation of writings on just about any subject and ensure thematic unity?

I think its reasonable to assume that whenever there were obvious flaws or conflicting views, the conflicts would have not been included in the compilation. This is not trying to find a conspiracy. Is it not unreasonable to expect a compilation of writings on say "The invention and development of the rifle" to have thematic unity? Or have I perhaps misunderstood the definition of the term?



Sho! The article was a little difficult for me to delve in too deeply because it mentioned some fairly obscure bible stories. The only one known to me was the flood and Noah. I tend to think that discovering that there were big floods in the past hardly verifies the story of Noah. The uniqueness of that story is that the whole world was covered in water and that all living animals that were saved were on a boat. I was really under the impression that these old testament stories were no longer being taken literally.

Does discovering ancient cities and human remains mentioned in the bible really give the stories much more credibility. Does the future discovery of a buried empire state building, really prove that king kong existed?

Where does the bible use specific dates? "In the time of King John" is not a specific date.

Do these other religious texts not also have claims of actual events that can be superficially verified?



This is a huge debate topic on its own. However it requires a fair amount of research and back ground information to deal with properly. This is probably not the right time or place. I therefore accept for now that you find the prophecies to be impressive. I take a different view. I find them horribly vague - if they can even be believed in the first place. Lets agree to have different views on this one for now



Does that not give the Jewish, Hindu and Budhist faiths a "win" in this category then? Have they not maintained stories and writings for even longer?



I don't often see Christian using this as a pro in their discussions, so interesting that you see it that way. I suspect that there are many more scientifically dubious claims in the bible. I am surprised though that you see this as a point that makes the bible stand out against other religious texts.



Do members of other faiths also not have similar personal experiences?
Did the bible not "borrow" much of the teachings from Judaism?

What, so you're ambivalent about some of these points and blow off some others, and "conclude" that your pre-conceived notions are still correct? Why, the fulfilled prophecies alone are enough to convince an open-minded person that there's something going on that is supernatural. Every time I mention fulfilled prophecy as a reason to believe the Bible the sound of crickets gets louder.

 

[Gumph]

In the end, our God is the only one who put in an appearance.

Well, so they say. Although I thought he sent his son?
Does this claim make the religion more valid? Why should an appearance be a necessary requirement?

There are various reasons I could point to, but ultimately it comes down to the Christian worldview making the most sense to me when considering the reality of the world in which we live & the hope of the Gospel message as an antidote.

Fair enough. A personal motivation. Did you take a look at any others before deciding?

So a Christian ultimately chooses the Bible and the trinity because the Holy Spirit called him and he believed.

Again, fair enough. A personal spiritual intervention.

(Sorry for not posting all the references. If you want me to I'll spend time doing that. )

Please don't. They are pointless to someone like me. The link target may as well be in Greek. I much prefer the modern English explanations by posters.

The method employed to pass such a message is called human witnessing. This is the most efficient way for a truth to be conveyed among humans as long as God has a strong reason not to show up to humans in majority. There's no other way round.

Huh !! You need to visit my other thread on this human messenger topic. This is a grossly inefficient way to convey truth. Human witnesses are biased, fallible, prone to error and have dodgy memories.

What "strong reason" does he have not to show up?

There are most definitely alternatives to an all powerful God.

If a god is much more superior than humans and he cares about humans he should show up publicly to guide humans.

I so agree with you. Of course this is a pretty big factor against all religions who claim there is a God.

The strong reason for the Christian God to hide behind is that all humans are bound to a covenant which everyone requires faith in order to be saved. God shows up to everyone simultaneously means no one can be saved.

Huh?
I didn't enter into any covenant.
How does a simultaneous show mean that no one can be saved?

On the other hand, if God doesn't show up to anyone, then no humans can get to know who God is. No humans can know what are God's requirements set forth for humans to follow.

Again I agree. So why does religion exist?

The only way which works for a hiding God to make Himself known to humans, to make His requirements known to humans is to show Himself up to a small group of direct witnesses (explicitly His prophets and chosen witnesses), and for them to write about Him and what He wants then for others (humans in majority) to believe or not.

There's no other way round for such a truth to be conveyed.

Again, huh? How about he makes himself a "non-hiding God"?
If he is a hiding God, then how can he show himself to a small group?
There are plenty of other, much better and reliable ways.

2. Now which God can explicitly name this method of conveying truth?

They each have their own methods of conveying truth. Why is this way considered better than the others?

No other gods can be true in this perspective.

Of course not, if you mean the Christian perspective. But then neither can the Christian God be true if taken from any of the other perspectives.

Moreover, no witnessing can be made more valid than those who martyred themselves for what is said and done. Today we have photos and videos in supporting our witnessing though.

So there are more valid ways!

 

[Gumph]

What, so you're ambivalent about some of these points and blow off some others, and "conclude" that your pre-conceived notions are still correct? Why, the fulfilled prophecies alone are enough to convince an open-minded person that there's something going on that is supernatural. Every time I mention fulfilled prophecy as a reason to believe the Bible the sound of crickets gets louder.

Not too sure which points I was ambivalent on. I accept some answers as a personal view of the individual poster. I find other explanations to be personally unsatisfying - is this what you consider to be "blowing off"?

I have come to no conclusions yet. I have some existing opinions which have yet to be changed through some thought provoking discussion. There is no "correct", yet. Me and the other posters are merely exchanging ideas and opinions.

I specifically excluded the prophecy discussion because it is a big topic over multiple so called prophecies which is being discussed in detail elsewhere by others far more learned than me, and it is likely to derail this thread.

However seeing that you seem to find such a crucial part of the discussion, please allow me to address my concerns with these prophecies:

1) Perhaps the quotes provided by the poster are incorrect, but the first two prophecy quotes about the messiah include neither the term virgin or the term Bethlehem. How are these prophecies?
2) How can we verify any prophecy? The Bible is a collection of stories that were apparently witnessed and recorded by men. What is stopping a writer inserting a little twist to the story which enables a so called prophecy to suddenly become true. What third party means do we have to verify that Mary was a virgin or that Jesus was indeed born in Bethlehem?
3) How do we know that any "prophecies" that didn't turn out be correct weren't simply excluded from the texts?
4) "A descendant of David" is not a prophecy of any adequate meaning. The Child will be born on the 11 December 2015 at 6:15am at the St Annes hospital, ward 7, on the corner of Bethlehem and Nazareth roads, New York, USA to the parents Joseph and Mary Smith, with social security numbers ..... He will be 7 pounds and have a birthmark on his left thigh in the shape of cross. Now that is a prophecy to be taken seriously by open-minded persons, especially if it was made in 500BC.
5) Which prophecy is due in our life times so that we can personally verify the amazing foresight of the relevant prophet?

Now what about the prophecies in Islam? Are their prophecies in any way inferior to those in Christianity?

And then a nice little quote I found on a Jewish website on prophecies: "Who need a prophet if he is only under stood in retrospect? "

 

[graceandpeace]

Fair enough. A personal motivation. Did you take a look at any others before deciding?

Sure. I didn't grow up devout in any particular religion, & while I did attend church at times I was more drawn to neo-Paganism. I did at some point in my youth begin to seek spiritual fulfillment & direction, & something about Jesus' message eventually won me over. My faith has certainly had ups & downs since then, & has changed in many ways, but I'm at peace with the path I'm on.

 

[dysert]

1) Perhaps the quotes provided by the poster are incorrect, but the first two prophecy quotes about the messiah include neither the term virgin or the term Bethlehem. How are these prophecies?
2) How can we verify any prophecy? The Bible is a collection of stories that were apparently witnessed and recorded by men. What is stopping a writer inserting a little twist to the story which enables a so called prophecy to suddenly become true. What third party means do we have to verify that Mary was a virgin or that Jesus was indeed born in Bethlehem?
3) How do we know that any "prophecies" that didn't turn out be correct weren't simply excluded from the texts?
4) "A descendant of David" is not a prophecy of any adequate meaning. The Child will be born on the 11 December 2015 at 6:15am at the St Annes hospital, ward 7, on the corner of Bethlehem and Nazareth roads, New York, USA to the parents Joseph and Mary Smith, with social security numbers ..... He will be 7 pounds and have a birthmark on his left thigh in the shape of cross. Now that is a prophecy to be taken seriously by open-minded persons, especially if it was made in 500BC.
5) Which prophecy is due in our life times so that we can personally verify the amazing foresight of the relevant prophet?

Now what about the prophecies in Islam? Are their prophecies in any way inferior to those in Christianity?

And then a nice little quote I found on a Jewish website on prophecies: "Who need a prophet if he is only under stood in retrospect? "

1) The Bethlehem prophecy is found in Micah 5:2.
2) If you come at a prophecy with the attitude that it couldn't have happened, you'll come up with all sorts of reasons for not believing it. If you take them at face value, though, it's easy to see fulfilled prophecy when someone points them out to you.
3) Even if that were the case, the fulfilled prophecies that are in there are more than sufficient to indicate that something supernatural going on. (According to some authors there are over 300 prophecies about Jesus' first coming.)
4) I agree, but the prophecies tell us that Jesus would be a descendant of Abraham, Isaac, Judah, Jacob, Jesse, David. That narrows it down quite a bit.
5) Generally, the prophecies are not dated, so we don't know if some prophecies are due to be fulfilled in our lifetimes or not. (There are some that are dated, though. For example, the prophecy that Judah would be captive in Babylon for 70 years.)

 

[Gumph]

1) The Bethlehem prophecy is found in Micah 5:2.
2) If you come at a prophecy with the attitude that it couldn't have happened, you'll come up with all sorts of reasons for not believing it. If you take them at face value, though, it's easy to see fulfilled prophecy when someone points them out to you.
3) Even if that were the case, the fulfilled prophecies that are in there are more than sufficient to indicate that something supernatural going on. (According to some authors there are over 300 prophecies about Jesus' first coming.)
4) I agree, but the prophecies tell us that Jesus would be a descendant of Abraham, Isaac, Judah, Jacob, Jesse, David. That narrows it down quite a bit.
5) Generally, the prophecies are not dated, so we don't know if some prophecies are due to be fulfilled in our lifetimes or not. (There are some that are dated, though. For example, the prophecy that Judah would be captive in Babylon for 70 years.)

1) There were thousands of towns in Judah at the time? Is the birth place of Bethlehem not under dispute seeing that there seems to be no record of or logic in every single person in the country having to pick up and return to their home town for a census? Where does it say he will be born there - "out of" is very broad?
2) I think its essential to have that attitude - one of questioning. I never said it couldn't have happened, I'm saying I cannot verify the details and I don't think its appropriate to simply take some ones word for it. Taking something so important at face value without investigating further and seeking verifications seems a bit of a disservice. And just because it easy doesn't mean that its right.
3) If there are any excluded prophecies that never came to fruition, then it may indicate that its was merely a numbers guessing game. The correct ones were cherry picked. So they simply chosen a dozen kings from which he may arrive, and then keep the records of the correct one. I find this unlikely, but as we conveniently can't do any verifications, it can't be ignored altogether. A prophecy that he is coming is of not much use unless it provides specifics. "Nigeria will beat Brazil in a soccer world cup" is a useless prophecy unless I give the date and place and score.
4) How so? Surely if he is a descendant of David he is automatically a descendant of the others? In any event, you are now expecting me to research the prophecy in more detail in order to put forward a decent argument. That will have to be for another time. The prophecies remain way to general for my liking. Would an all powerful God not be able to provide something far more accurate?
5) Convenient?

And the prophecies of other religions?

 

[dysert]

And the prophecies of other religions?

Sorry, I don't know them.