Problem: can we all be right?

[St_Worm2]

Why is this surprising? God gives rain and sun to the just and the unjust.

THIS^

Plus the fact that the Bible tells us Satan (the "prince of the power of the air" .. Ephesians 2:2) has been granted certain powers by God (e.g. Job 1-2) and can affect the lives we lead, Christians AND non-Christians alike. He is also capable of great deception, making himself appear to be something he is not, such as an "angel of light"! (2 Corinthians 11:14) So he would be capable of appearing to answer certain prayers of false deities if it suited his purpose, thereby giving the false impression to those who worship and pray to it that their non-existent deity is actually real.

--David

"Our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against
the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the
spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places." ​

Ephesians 6:12​

 

[bhsmte]

The point I made stands.

Either Christianity is true and every other worldview that makes claims that contradict Christianity's claims is false, or Christianity is false, or they are all false.

What is not possible is that they all be true, which was what the OP was asking. To support this I have utilized one of the three basic laws of logic.

Now whether or not the gospels record Christ as claiming or alluding to being God incarnate is something that is subject to verification or falsification and we can debate that issue if you would like.

We could also debate the issue of whether or not the gospels are reliable biographies of Jesus of Nazareth, something also open to investigation and scrutiny.

The point I made stands.

 

[bhsmte]

what do you mean "objective" and "verifiable"? Do you have an example of what would constitute "objective evidence" or "verifiable evidence"?

What would you require in order to be persuaded that the gospels were reliable biographies of the life of Jesus of Nazareth and why would you require it?



When talking with skeptics, I do not rely on one source, but multiple and independent sources, most of which are extra-biblical and non-partisan.




Why do you say the authors were unknown? Why do you say they do not hold up well to historical critique?



This is false for eyewitness testimony today just as it was then is considered to be indispensable when attempting to reconstruct a reliable account of events that happened in the past that are not subject to investigation via the scientific method.

This is a good definition of "objective evidence"

Information based on facts that can be proved through analysis, measurement, observation, and other such means of research.


I have read extensively the work of NT scholars and historians and that would include; evangelical conservative, moderate and liberal.

Only the most conservative Christian scholars, will state the authors of the four gospels are known, the vast majority of scholars all agree they are anonymous, with the dates being around 40-70 years after Jesus died.

Not going to round and round with you on this, but unless you are hanging your hat on evangelical conservative scholars and historians, the majority will state; the NT has bits and pieces that are historically credible, but as a whole, the NT is a work of theology, vs a work of credible history.

 

[john mcmillan76]

so 2000 years ago a man was murdered and then his few friends claim that he appeared to them days later. That's it case closed. No, case very much open. Caesar was stabbed in the back in the senate. Yeah I buy that, it's documented and it's highly plausible. Jesus was reborn? It's highly unlikely from what we know about the physical world. Living creatures die and do not come back to full life. We have evidence for this,far more evidence than a 2000 year old story (written by, might I add a bunch of zealots determined to create a new religion) about a murdered their murdered friend coming back to life.

Testimony of people having life-transforming experiences is evidence for them, subjective evidence but it's not reasonable for anyone else to accept that that should be a strong enough claim that Jesus is real and that he spoke to them or touched their being.

This is how it works: we experience things (call it evidence or data) and then we apply Reason to form a proper conclusion. There is no evidence that there is any other world than the material one.

 

[znr]

Nonsense

That's basically how I feel. In my opinion, Jesus was a sort of traveling shaman, who happened to use better medical practices than most thanks to his Jewish background (at the time the Jews had some of the best medical practices), and the fact that his remedies worked made people think it was magic. It is possible Jesus also thought it magic. It wasn't uncommon however for such people to perform parlor tricks to keep their image of being miracle workers, hence the turning water into wine. Add in some exaggeration over time and Jesus is made out to be far more than he actually was.

 

[znr]

He's not catholic, he's trolling.

We can debate this if you like.

I find it ironic that you are a Catholic. Tell me, if there is no evidence for your worldview, why do you hold it?

 

[znr]

I suspect you're trolling and chain smoking.

so 2000 years ago a man was murdered and then his few friends claim that he appeared to them days later. That's it case closed. No, case very much open. Caesar was stabbed in the back in the senate. Yeah I buy that, it's documented and it's highly plausible. Jesus was reborn? It's highly unlikely from what we know about the physical world. Living creatures die and do not come back to full life. We have evidence for this,far more evidence than a 2000 year old story (written by, might I add a bunch of zealots determined to create a new religion) about a murdered their murdered friend coming back to life.

Testimony of people having life-transforming experiences is evidence for them, subjective evidence but it's not reasonable for anyone else to accept that that should be a strong enough claim that Jesus is real and that he spoke to them or touched their being.

This is how it works: we experience things (call it evidence or data) and then we apply Reason to form a proper conclusion. There is no evidence that there is any other world than the material one.

 

[bhsmte]

Nonsense

You could be right and you could be wrong. I have no issue with people who take the gospels on faith and claim it is an accurate view of Jesus, but the reality is, the gospels don't hold up all that well to an objective historical analysis.

 

[znr]

Maybe God prevented the accounts from being written right away. He may be very clever (for reasons I can't surely answer). I don't think it's always necessary to be able to historically, and rationally, understand things. I think God is a mystery on purpose, if you were to ask me.

You could be right and you could be wrong. I have no issue with people who take the gospels on faith and claim it is an accurate view of Jesus, but the reality is, the gospels don't hold up all that well to an objective historical analysis.

 

[bhsmte]

Maybe God prevented the accounts from being written right away. He may be very clever (for reasons I can't surely answer). I don't think it's always necessary to be able to historically, and rationally, understand things. I think God is a mystery on purpose, if you were to ask me.

If that frame of mind works for you, then you should hold onto it. With that said, I am sure you understand why others look at it more objectively.

 

[znr]

You'll rarely find me pushing my views on the bible on others aggressively or in a hostile way, because I do understand that.

If that frame of mind works for you, then you should hold onto it. With that said, I am sure you understand why others look at it more objectively.

 

[bhsmte]

You'll rarely find me pushing my views on the bible on others aggressively or in a hostile way, because I do understand that.

Agree, I have never seen you do that.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

This is a good definition of "objective evidence"

Information based on facts that can be proved through analysis, measurement, observation, and other such means of research.


I have read extensively the work of NT scholars and historians and that would include; evangelical conservative, moderate and liberal.

Only the most conservative Christian scholars, will state the authors of the four gospels are known, the vast majority of scholars all agree they are anonymous, with the dates being around 40-70 years after Jesus died.

Not going to round and round with you on this, but unless you are hanging your hat on evangelical conservative scholars and historians, the majority will state; the NT has bits and pieces that are historically credible, but as a whole, the NT is a work of theology, vs a work of credible history.

Care to debate this?

 

[bhsmte]

Care to debate this?

Not really no. Did a debate once on this site and I think formal debates are basically useless.

 

[znr]

From one observer to another, I had a feeling you're a people watcher.

Agree, I have never seen you do that.

 

[com7fy8]

peeping peeps

Hi,
Buddhists pray for things and may or may not receive them. Muslims pray to Allah and Hindus pray to their many. many dieties and may receive what they pray for. Witches and Satanists do their spells and sometimes their spells work. New Age people ask their spirit-guides or angels for things and they may receive them. Hell even atheists may get what they want without praying lol. The problem is all of the many people who pray to their god (which isn't Jesus) are getting results from their prayers or spells.

Something's working for these non Christian people therefore is that proof that there is no Jesus answering our prayers? We can't all be right about the same God existing can we?

You can't go by success in life either. Many Hindus or Buddhists or Satanists or Witches or NEW Agers are successful people too.

But, for one thing, what are people praying for? If they are praying for what is only or mainly for themselves, they are not getting all that God would give them.

Also . . . you can read how the Jews went against God and said they wanted a human king. God gave them a king, but it was not good for them to get what they wanted. So, even though they got what they wanted, and God was giving this to them, it was not really working! > 1 Samuel 8

There are times when people ask for what is not right for them, but God gives them what they ask for. So, ones say, "Be careful what you ask for, or you may get it."

Also, I am finding that when God gives me something, I often need correction and maturing so I can receive the good He does me and appreciate it and benefit from it; because God is so greater and better than we are, and so He can give us more than we are ready to handle the right way

Also, 1 Samuel 12:23 quotes what Samuel said to those Jews who had refused the LORD as their King and had demanded a human king > "'Moreover, as for me, far be it from me that I should sin against the Lord in ceasing to pray for you; but I will teach you the good and the right way.'"

So, he prayed for ones who were refusing God and him as their prophet and example.

This is our example, I would say, of how we need to never give up on anyone, but pray for any and every person, with hope of all God is able to do for each even "impossible" person.

And this praying in love . . . all-caring love for any and all people > this praying works for us, not only to get things we want, but this helps us stay strong in real love with God.

So, if certain people not of God are managing to get a few things they pray to get for themselves, this does not impress me much. We need to pray for these people whose prayer results are so limited. Prayer is not for trying to make God our puppet or "genie". He is able to do so much more and better than just things for our lives (Romans 8:26, Ephesians 3:19-21).

And He desires to share with us and care for us (1 Peter 5:7) and guide us in every detail . . . not only to be waiting "on call" for a prayer, now and then when we get stuck and can't do or get something, ourselves: "that's too impersonal; our God is our Father through Jesus His Son; so He is about family . . . personal and intimate sharing in prayer with us, in His love."

So, prayer is for personal sharing and developing our relationship with our Father and Jesus > "praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God," we have in Jude 20-21.

 

[bhsmte]

From one observer to another, I had a feeling you're a people watcher.

The psychology of human behavior fascinates me. I plead guilty.

 

[BL2KTN]

Care to debate this?

This is the most debate-desiring chap I've seen.

 

[bhsmte]

This is the most debate-desiring chap I've seen.

Reminds me of theycallmedavid.

I have found through experience, the folks most eager to debate, are also the one's who debate in the most intellectually dishonest fashion.

 

[BL2KTN]

Reminds me of theycallmedavid.

I have found through experience, the folks most eager to debate, are also the one's who debate in the most intellectually dishonest fashion.

I just think Jeremy is young and thinks he'll win. I'll not comment on the other poster