How to prove Christianity for those who never heard of it?

[HitchSlap]

Correct, for those that where under the law.

in Christ, Not me.

Are Jews under the law now?

 

[Not me]

Are Jews under the law now?

Did we not agree upon “before Jesus was born” that is the dividing line. For “all” of humanity.

For;
the law came through Moses but Grace and truth came through Christ Jesus.

in Christ, Not me

 

[Petros2015]

Live it.

 

[HitchSlap]

Did we not agree upon “before Jesus was born” that is the dividing line. For “all” of humanity.

For;
the law came through Moses but Grace and truth came through Christ Jesus.

in Christ, Not me

Are preachers who proclaim homosexuals should be killed preaching Truth?

 

[ananda]

It's not a contradiction. You didn't hear the story from a translator; you read a translation of the story. Setting aside the problems inherent in translation, what you're reading is not someone giving a secondhand account of what Paul said. It's the retransmission of the documented firsthand account.

You're using the term "hearsay" in a context where it doesn't apply.

Again, no it doesn't. Julius Caesar's memoirs are not hearsay simply because the original copies have been lost. This is not how history works. Primary source vs. secondary source.

It is all "hearsay" according to the dictionary definition I use and am concerned with: "unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge".

Whether or not you define Paul's writings as "hearsay" does not belie the fact that I have not experienced what Paul claimed to have experienced for himself.

 

[Not me]

Are preachers who proclaim homosexuals should be killed preaching Truth?

If Jesus has been born and He did in truth bring “Grace and Truth.” The answer to that question is most obviously.

in Christ, Not me

 

[Silmarien]

It is all "hearsay" according to the dictionary definition I use and am concerned with: "unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge".

Whether or not you define Paul's writings as "hearsay" does not belie the fact that I have not experienced what Paul claimed to have experienced for himself.

You are willfully misreading that definition of hearsay. The word "hearsay" refers to the source of a piece of information, not to the recipient's epistemic position in relation to it.

My concern is the correct usage of terminology, not whether or not you believe Paul's account. I likewise have no way of ascertaining exactly what Paul experienced and am for the moment agnostic about his claim, but that does not make "hearsay" the appropriate term to describe it. The Pauline Epistles are in a different position than the rest of the New Testament with regards to their historic value as an eyewitness account, and they should not be treated as unreliable because of transmission.

 

[HitchSlap]

If Jesus has been born and He did in truth bring “Grace and Truth.” The answer to that question is most obviously.

in Christ, Not me

Do you think those preachers who profess death for homosexuals would claim your interpretation of the Bible is wrong?

 

[ananda]

You are willfully misreading that definition of hearsay. The word "hearsay" refers to the source of a piece of information, not to the recipient's epistemic position in relation to it.

My concern is the correct usage of terminology, not whether or not you believe Paul's account. I likewise have no way of ascertaining exactly what Paul experienced and am for the moment agnostic about his claim, but that does not make "hearsay" the appropriate term to describe it. The Pauline Epistles are in a different position than the rest of the New Testament with regards to their historic value as an eyewitness account, and they should not be treated as unreliable because of transmission.

No, the definition says "information gained from another ... not part of one's direct knowledge", which speaks in regards to the recipient - not the source.

 

[bhsmte]

There's only one way. First, establish that miracles occur and are abundant, and that the testimony of the apostles is trustworthy. Once you've done this, demonstrate that their teaching was accurately passed on to the bishops resulting in decrees of Church councils and writings of the Church Fathers and the New Testament. That's all there is to it. Then, interpret all this in the obvious way and come up with the only meaning possible. It's helpful to also point to fulfilled prophecy and supporting archaeology, as well as corroborating evidence from science.

And you established that miracles occurred, how exactly?

 

[Tayla]

And you established that miracles occurred, how exactly?

I didn't say that miracles occur.

 

[Silmarien]

No, the definition says "information gained from another ... not part of one's direct knowledge", which speaks in regards to the recipient - not the source.

No, the question is where the source of the information got it. If you are speaking to someone who gained their information from another source, then what you are listening to is hearsay. If, on the other hand, you are speaking to someone who does have direct knowledge, what you are receiving is not hearsay. It only becomes hearsay once you share it with someone else and become a source of information yourself. If you went around paraphrasing Paul to someone who'd never read the New Testament, that would count as hearsay.

Seriously, your interpretation of that definition is radical in the extreme and makes communication impossible almost by definition. This is not what's meant in any field where we care about the transmission of information.

 

[bhsmte]

I didn't say that miracles occur.

Ok, thanks. I must have read too quick.

 

[bhsmte]

No, the question is where the source of the information got it. If you are speaking to someone who gained their information from another source, then what you are listening to is hearsay. If, on the other hand, you are speaking to someone who does have direct knowledge, what you are receiving is not hearsay. It only becomes hearsay once you share it with someone else and become a source of information yourself. If you went around paraphrasing Paul to someone who'd never read the New Testament, that would count as hearsay.

Seriously, your interpretation of that definition is radical in the extreme and makes communication impossible almost by definition. This is not what's meant in any field where we care about the transmission of information.

I would agree with you.

If I hear first hand from someone who witnessed something, they are giving me their first hand account of that event, in regards to their own interpretation of it. If I share what I heard, that is where we get into hearsay.

Obviously, the more layers between the first hand account we have, the less reliable the information becomes. And, even first hand accounts, can be tainted with personal bias and flawed interpretations, which is why eye witness accounts in legal proceedings, have been found to be not the most reliable forms of evidence.

 

[Silmarien]

I would agree with you.

If I hear first hand from someone who witnessed something, they are giving me their first hand account of that event, in regards to their own interpretation of it. If I share what I heard, that is where we get into hearsay.

Obviously, the more layers between the first hand account we have, the less reliable the information becomes. And, even first hand accounts, can be tainted with personal bias and flawed interpretations, which is why eye witness accounts in legal proceedings, have been found to be not the most reliable forms of evidence.

Yep, but that's a different question altogether. And we have to keep in mind that the rules that work in the extremely controlled legal environment don't really work out in the real world (and even that those legal rules change depending on what's at stake--civil law and criminal law use different evidentiary standards). We shouldn't refuse to believe anyone unless they can provide video recorded evidence of what they're saying unless we're okay with not being able to function in society. Solipsism and the extremes of epistemological skepticism are what's waiting at the end of that road.

 

[bhsmte]

Yep, but that's a different question altogether. And we have to keep in mind that the rules that work in the extremely controlled legal environment don't really work out in the real world (and even that those legal rules change depending on what's at stake--civil law and criminal law use different evidentiary standards). We shouldn't refuse to believe anyone unless they can provide video recorded evidence of what they're saying unless we're okay with not being able to function in society. Solipsism and the extremes of epistemological skepticism are what's waiting at the end of that road.

Agree.

When a lot is at stake (legal proceedings, taking away one's freedom), it makes logical sense to have a very controlled environment.

When it comes to hearing personal testimony of people in regards to any topic, I tend to ramp up what I require to give credibility to their claim, depending on how extraordinary their claim is.

 

[Not me]

Do you think those preachers who profess death for homosexuals would claim your interpretation of the Bible is wrong?

What do you think?

For opinion is just that, opinion. Isn’t truth that which is important.?

in Christ, Not me

 

[ananda]

Solipsism and ... epistemological skepticism are what's waiting at the end of that road.

I have no problem with that; in fact, I embrace it, as a Buddhist.

 

[HitchSlap]

What do you think?

For opinion is just that, opinion. Isn’t truth that which is important.?

in Christ, Not me

So how would I determine which one of you is interpreting scripture correctly?

 

[Tom 1]

How to prove Christianity for those who never heard of it?

You can't use the Bible until you prove the Bible. You can't invoke common sense because the gospel seems like "foolishness". (1 Corinthians 1:18) (1 Corinthians 1:23) Archaeology doesn't work because mainstream archeology doesn't agree with Christian archaeology. Ditto for science. You can't use the subjective argument that once you believe "it just feels true".

I’d say find some common ground and work from there. There are good/bad/terrible examples from historical first contacts with other peoples to draw on also.