The more I learn about Christianity, the less true it seems

[ScottA]

I was introduced to Jesus at about the same time I was introduced to Yogananda Paramahansa, Sai Baba of Shirdi, Krishnamurti, Lahiri Mahasaya, Sri Yukteswar, Buddha and other Indian saints / gurus. All these people have followers who have made fantastical and miraculous claims about their leaders.

I have never seen any really compelling reason for Jesus to be any more special than them. So either

A) They all performed miracles and miracles are irrespective of religious faith. In this case, Jesus would be some sort of divine master who was able to somehow perform miracles alongside other similar healers / preachers / masters.
B) They were exaggerations or misrepresentations by followers who venerated them and placed their leader on a pedastal

I have not seen a compelling reason why Jesus was some sort of exception to be set apart from these other examples.

For someone who has not personally experienced anything that would verify one over the other - your point is well taken.

However, there is one exception: While all make claims, only one shows evidence of prophetic authority over the events of ALL of history. The ribbon of prophetic fulfillment that runs down throughout all of recorded history, is undeniable.

And every argument has been, or can be, answered.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Perhaps you will find what you are looking for here ? Among these 353 fulfilled prophecies :

http://www.accordingtothescriptures.org/prophecy/353prophecies.html

And what about these:

https://heavenawaits.wordpress.com/why-jews-reject-jesus…unfulfilled-prophesies/

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

For someone who has not personally experienced anything that would verify one over the other - your point is well taken.

However, there is one exception: While all make claims, only one shows evidence of prophetic authority over the events of ALL of history. The ribbon of prophetic fulfillment that runs down throughout all of recorded history, is undeniable.

If by "all of history" you mean the small, tiny, miniscule slice of history recorded by the Israelite tribe in a tiny area of the world for a brief few thousand years, then yes, you could perhaps say such a thing.

I find that many Christians forget that there was a big, complex world happening contemporaneously to the Bible's historical narratives. There were warring tribes in Canada, civilizations in China, temples being built in India, pioneers settling islands in the Pacific, pagan ceremonies being performed in Ireland, kingdoms rising and falling in west Africa, etc.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Let me ask you a question before I invest a lot of time: Are you open to the possibility that the Old Testament prophecies were never intended to be taken as literally as it appears you are seeing them? If you are not, then let's not waste each other's time. I maintain it is well within reason to understand that Old Testament writers were writing cryptically and, to some degree, metaphorically when they penned the prophecies. Let me illustrate by a simple example. In the Old Testament, the nation of Israel is promised the land of Palestine. I believe that this promise is really a "placeholder" for a richer, deeper promise: that a renewed and transformed human race will be restored to its "edenic" position as "rulers" (really caretakers) over all creation. So the Old Testament promise is a muted version of the real intent of the promise. That strikes me as an entirely legitimate interpretive move - it would be rigid oversimplification that the promise of Palestine to the nation Israel cannot be seen as anything other than a literal promise to be taken at face value.

If you are not at least open to my way of seeing things, we have exceedingly deep differences about how to read the Old Testament and I suspect we will not make progress.

What is the specific passage you are referring to here?

Why is it a "rigid oversimplification" to take the prophecy at face-value?

Often, one of the criticisms of prophecy is that it is intentionally vague so that the listener can "fulfill" the prophecy by applying the prophecy to a multitude of situations. This is the basis of horoscopes. For example, I recently received a fortune cookie which said, "In the future, you will receive help from an unexpected source." This is so vague that anyone could find this "prophecy" fulfilled in a vast multitude of situations.

In this case of the Promised Land, we have a refreshingly specific prophecy: the nation of Israel is promised the Land of Palestine and the borders are even defined!

Now, you've come along and re-interpreted it as a supremely vague prophecy: that a renewed and transformed human race will be restored to its edenic position as rulers over all creation.

What does that even mean? You've taken a specific prophecy and turned it into a vague word soup of fancy sounding words. I'm left wondering: what will it even look like if this re-interpreted prophecy is fulfilled? How can we identify when this prophecy is fulfilled? What does this re-interpreted prophecy have to do with the original prophecy? Why wouldn't God give a more clear prophecy rather than relying on flawed humans to hunt around for the intended meaning? Is this re-interpreted prophecy purely spiritual or does it have some physical manifestation? What is a "renewed and transformed human race"? How will we "rule over all creation" from our Earth-bound frames?

Your prophecy is entirely unclear. The lack of clarity makes it sound profound, but I don't think it holds any content.

 

[expos4ever]

What is the specific passage you are referring to here?

I assume I don't actually need to refer you to the multiple Old Testament prophecies about the Jews being given Palestine.

So I assume you are interested in me providing a text to defend the notion that all creation has been given to all believers (which, on my argument is how Paul "re-interprets" the meaning of that particular Old Testament prophecy). Here is one from Romans 8.

For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that[h] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.

Why is it a "rigid oversimplification" to take the prophecy at face-value?

Just like it can be an over-simplification to think the story of the wolf and the three little pigs as a lesson that we should produce strong houses; it is clearly more general than that and has nothing in particular to do with houses. I think you are fixated on this idea that any attempt to rework a prophecy from a strictly literal reading is suspicious. Well, the example I just provided - over the top though it is - should make the case. There are many other morality tales that are clearly metaphor - they present an account of something happening in order to make an entirely different point. I suggest that something similar is at play with respect to the Old Testament.

Often, one of the criticisms of prophecy is that it is intentionally vague so that the listener can "fulfill" the prophecy by applying the prophecy to a multitude of situations. This is the basis of horoscopes. For example, I recently received a fortune cookie which said, "In the future, you will receive help from an unexpected source." This is so vague that anyone could find this "prophecy" fulfilled in a vast multitude of situations.

Well, you are not yet in a position to judge whether I am going to do this, or whether I will expose a more nuanced reading of the prophecy that, to an objective eye, actually does expose its deeper meaning in an entirely legitimate way.

In this case of the Promised Land, we have a refreshingly specific prophecy: the nation of Israel is promised the Land of Palestine and the borders are even defined!

Of course, but I think I have been clear about this: this and other prophecies were never intended to be taken at face value. If you rule out this possibility a priori, then we have nothing more to talk about since I am not going to get into a long defence of the use of literary device (in this case where a "superficial" promise is really a way to point to a deeper promise) in religious literature. I take it as self-evident that, to be fair about this, you need to at least consider the arguments and not dismiss them before you have even heard them.

Now, you've come along and re-interpreted it as a supremely vague prophecy: that a renewed and transformed human race will be restored to its edenic position as rulers over all creation.

How is that vague? I see the "re-interpretation" as similar to "getting" the moral of the story of the three little pigs and the wolf. A more profound, global, and significant promise is pointed to by the promise of one strip of land to one people. I do not see how that makes it "vague".

 

[Stillicidia]

You merely have no experiences in the spirit, which is unfortunate.
Lots of reading may be too much reading, experiencing for yourself is always so amazing.
Pray and you will find, which may be found like a ton of bricks on your spirit.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

You claim to be a seeker. I am wondering exactly what it is you are seeking.

I seek some form of truth. And, by my seeking, I am more and more convinced that the Bible is rarely historically accurate and not particularly exceptional. I seek truth from a variety of sources, not just Christian sources.

I'm reaching the point where I am not sure what would convince me otherwise. There are so many stories of gurus, faith healers, messiahs, etc. and it seems entirely unclear why the Gospels should be regarded as true and good while the others should be considered false and/or evil. It doesn't seem clear how the Gospels are the exception to the rule. It also seems inconsistent as to why Christians would accept the Gospels as true while rejecting other similar stories. I think it primarily comes down to the fact that Christians have not heard about (or prefer not to think about) these other similar stories.

You have been given some very good advice from many others here who have attempted to point you to the best source of the truth you claim to be seeking, which is the Word of God, but you just continue to refute their posts.

This is because very few who have responded to me actual understand my issue. You cannot use the Bible as a justification to someone who's main concern is the validity of the Bible itself.

Telling me to "read the Bible" when it is the Bible itself that I question is like asking you to believe in Swami Sivananda from a the testimony of this website. Why won't you read it and believe?

What is it that you are seeking? Are you seeking truth or do you just want to debate Christianity hoping that you will convince yourself that Christianity is just a myth?

I think Christianity should be able to stand up to scrutiny and, thus far, no one here has really addressed my concerns.

 

[razzelflabben]

The scriptures never say Jesus is a king over a "spiritual" realm to the exclusion of this real world (John 18:36 has been misunderstood due to a translation problem).

????? I NEVER said in exclusion to the real world...maybe you would be well served to read what I said again before commenting further.

And while the Scriptures indeed declare that Satan was the "ruler" of this world, they equally clearly declare that Jesus has toppled him from that position:

And He (Jesus) said to them, “I was watching Satan fall from heaven like lightning

Please site your claim here...your claim is that Jesus toppled Satan from his rule over the earth and the passage you present says that Satan was ousted from heaven, two different realms, so if you are going to 1. ignore what I said as you do above to make a claim, then 2. at least let your scripture support back the claim you make not some other claim that supports what I said.

Now, let's get back on track, shall we? 1. I said that where as God concerns Himself with the physical and works within it, His domain is the heavenly one, the spiritual one. Notice I did NOT say that He excludes the physical world but rather I said the opposite of that, 2. look at all the scriptures that deal with reconciliation. The earth has yet to be reconciled to God, that means it is still ruled by Satan...in fact look into the passages about the rulers of this world.

Since I refuse to argue the matter, I will leave it for you to research, scripture is clear on the matter. None the less, you need to evidence your claim not allow your evidence to make a different claim than what you are trying to make.

...a clear declaration that Satan has fallen from his position.

From his position in heaven, but that was never in question. In fact, where was he cast down to?

 

[Stillicidia]

Hmm if scripture blinds you from everything except scripture, then that is not good.

You merely have no experiences in the spirit, which is unfortunate.
Lots of reading may be too much reading, experiencing for yourself is always so amazing.
Pray and you will find, which may be found like a ton of bricks on your spirit.

For you specifically I will suggest you strive for the love of god to dwell in you, and then you will know, maybe.

To do this you need his favor, which is gained by loving him and praising him, and thanking him.
The favor of god is determined by what is in your heart.

If he favors you enough he will dwell in you, and keep away all devils from you naturally.

His love is fairly mutual, if you love him heavily, he will blast you with his love, and that should be your goal friend.

 

[expos4ever]

????? I NEVER said in exclusion to the real world...maybe you would be well served to read what I said again before commenting further.

Sorry but here it is:

That being said, in context, Jesus is able to work in the physical world but the scriptures say He is about the spiritual Kingdom, in fact, scripture says that the ruler of this world is Satan.

You have Satan, not Jesus in charge of this present world.

Please site your claim here...your claim is that Jesus toppled Satan from his rule over the earth and the passage you present says that Satan was ousted from heaven, two different realms, so if you are going to 1. ignore what I said as you do above to make a claim, then 2. at least let your scripture support back the claim you make not some other claim that supports what I said.

Jesus claim that Satan falls from heaven is clearly a statement that he falls from a position of authority. Do you really think Satan was "in heaven" during the time Jesus walked the earth. But forget about that text. Here is another:

Now My soul has become troubled; and what shall I say, ‘Father, save Me from this hour’? But for this purpose I came to this hour. “Father, glorify Your name.” Then a voice came out of heaven: “I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.” 29So the crowd of people who stood by and heard it were saying that it had thundered; others were saying, “An angel has spoken to Him.” 3Jesus answered and said, “This voice has not come for My sake, but for your sakes. 31“Now judgment is upon this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out.

You have claimed that the ruler of this world is Satan. Jesus says (2000 years ago) that Satan is about to be cast out. Which is it?

 

[Stillicidia]

Man's understanding of scripture does not yield truth.

 

[razzelflabben]

You are missing my point.

It is not that only believers saw what happened. It is that only believers wrote about it.

All we have about Jesus' life and death is garnered from his followers who venerate and worship him.

So, you keep using examples of events which are described in the books written by his followers.

on the contrary, the books were according to the claims written by God Himself but scribed by men, men who after seeing Christ came to believe. Your claim is equivalent to saying that I am not qualified to tell you about my husband because I know him personally, only those who don't know him are qualified to speak about him....since that argument wouldn't fly in regular life, why would we think it is a wise argument in the life of Christ?

Let's take the same argument and apply it to another religious belief, let's say Hinduism, I think someone else brought that up already. Your argument is the equivalent to saying that a non HIndu is equally qualified to explain Hinduism to us as a Hindu is...now, I have studied HInduism some, but I am not the person you want to testify to the "truths" of Hinduism because I don't believe it is truth even if there is truth in it somewhere. It is enough to take the word of someone who found truth in it when they have previously believed something else, like Paul for example. Look at it this way. I was hit by a train in 1980, now, there are a lot of people who will testify to you that I was hit by a train, but whether or not they saw it, only those that believe what I am saying will testify to the truth of the event. Likewise, from a standpoint of scripture, the very testimony of those that did not believe, then witnessed the event and that witness so convinced them that they believed, is sufficient to meet the criteria you set forth and interesting enough, scripture gives us both. Not to mention the none believer that tried to make arguments and prove something other than the resurrection took place but failed to do so.

Did crowds see Jesus ascend into heaven? Or were stories exaggerated and changed and invented and then later recorded by his followers?

if you read The Case for Christ you know how oral History works, it is NOT like the game of telephone like your posts portray, rather there are absolutes in the story that cannot change. My grandfather was a story teller, that is just who he was, none of his stories were written down but when we tell the stories to our children we do not change the significant details, only the insignificant ones. That is how oral history works. What you have been describing is the game of telephone which is a whole different thing and if you read the book for meaning you would know all of this.

Also, what is the chapter and verse where Pilate claims that Jesus is sinless?

actually, I misstated, he claimed He was innocent, not sinless. Read John 18:maybe 35-40 in that it talks about another topic we were discussing, that of what world Jesus is King over.

Paul had a vision.

So did Mohammad. I assume you believe Mohammad's vision was false.

why would I believe Mohammad's vision is false? I mean, if someone says, I had a vision who am I to question that? I do not believe that Mohammad's vision speaks of the whole truth of man and his relationship with Deity. In fact, I don't have to look any further than Mohammad's life to know that I want no part of such a religion. You see, Mohammad is upheld as the example of how a good Muslim should live, personally I find that troubling to say the least and appalling is a much better word. By contrast Jesus was very kind, compassionate, loving toward everyone and HE is the Christian example of a right way to live.

OUr youngest calls himself an agnostic, I had this discussion with him and he understands what I am saying so I'm pretty sure you will be able to understand as well. If the only thing we look at is the person the religion holds as the perfect example, Islam is out, Judaism is out, Christianity is in in my personal opinion. If we want to look deeper we can, but that is enough to convince me. [/quote]

So did Joseph Smith. I assume you believe Joseph Smith's vision was false.[/quote] again, why would I? I don't understand you reasoning and logic...

So did ...


What makes Paul the exception?

Paul was given as an example of an unbeliever who witnessed Christ and in that witness became a believer, thus meeting the criteria you were presenting, nothing more or less. For you to implant him into any other discussion at this point would be in error.

 

[Stillicidia]

Instead of disputing the testimonies of the witnesses, develop a testimony through witnessing.

 

[ScottA]

If by "all of history" you mean the small, tiny, miniscule slice of history recorded by the Israelite tribe in a tiny area of the world for a brief few thousand years, then yes, you could perhaps say such a thing.

I find that many Christians forget that there was a big, complex world happening contemporaneously to the Bible's historical narratives. There were warring tribes in Canada, civilizations in China, temples being built in India, pioneers settling islands in the Pacific, pagan ceremonies being performed in Ireland, kingdoms rising and falling in west Africa, etc.

The problem here is obvious...your focus is only on what you know, and not on what you want to know. If you really want the answers...you will need to change that.

 

[razzelflabben]

I seek some form of truth. And, by my seeking, I am more and more convinced that the Bible is rarely historically accurate and not particularly exceptional. I seek truth from a variety of sources, not just Christian sources.

I'm curious about this comment, "I seek some form of truth." Why would anyone want to seek some form of truth? Why not just seek truth period, end of story, why would you want some form of truth rather than truth itself? I don't get it, please explain.

I'm reaching the point where I am not sure what would convince me otherwise. There are so many stories of gurus, faith healers, messiahs, etc. and it seems entirely unclear why the Gospels should be regarded as true and good while the others should be considered false and/or evil. It doesn't seem clear how the Gospels are the exception to the rule. It also seems inconsistent as to why Christians would accept the Gospels as true while rejecting other similar stories. I think it primarily comes down to the fact that Christians have not heard about (or prefer not to think about) these other similar stories.

I think your problem here might be in the "some form of truth" you talk about above....most all religious beliefs, in fact, I am hard pressed to think of any exceptions at the moment, have some form of truth imbedded in them, but some form of truth is in essence the same thing as saying they also have lies. A common example is a cake, we bake a cake and it is full of good ingredients, but what happens if we put a little bit of dog do do in it? Would you still want to eat it?

As to scripture...Personally I have not found a single thing in scripture that would make me question the truth of it and a whole lot of things that evidence it as truth. For example, one common problem many people site is that scripture contradicts itself, yet when I look at the contradictions they claim all are based on a misunderstanding of what is happening, let's take for example the crucifixion and resurrection we were just talking about. Any discrepancies in the accounts are equivalent to what we would find in any witnesses of an event, nothing more than the perspective by which they witnessed the evident. In fact, scriptures accounts are even more consistent than what we would expect to find today when witnessing several people who witness the same events. IOW's all the pertinent information is identical.

That is just one example, but I don't want to get us off topic by talking about all of them.

This is because very few who have responded to me actual understand my issue. You cannot use the Bible as a justification to someone who's main concern is the validity of the Bible itself.

exactly why the claims made in the bible should be tested in fact, scripture tells us to test the voices, including but not limited to scripture to see if it is truth or not. Now, be careful here to test the claims of scripture not the claims man makes of scripture.

Another example, Romans 8:28 gives three distinct criteria for the promise to be fulfilled. 1. everything will work together for good, no indication of what is meant by that but good none the less and working with everything else 2. for those that love the Lord. If you do not love the Lord, there is no guarantee in this promise for you 3. to those who are the called according to His purpose, iow's not necessarily what we want to happen and would call good but what we know in Christ to be a fulfillment of HIs purpose. If these three criteria are met and scripture is truth, we should see this happen and yes I have seen it happen and dramatically so, just as Joseph saw the same thing (Gen. 50:20 if memory serves)

Telling me to "read the Bible" when it is the Bible itself that I question is like asking you to believe in Swami Sivananda from a the testimony of this website. Why won't you read it and believe?



I think Christianity should be able to stand up to scrutiny and, thus far, no one here has really addressed my concerns.

I'm trying to, do I still not understand?

 

[GQ Chris]

Surprised where some people's journeys take them. Before I believed, I hungered for the truth and when I found it, I could no longer dispute it.

 

[Stillicidia]

Peoples will know us by the love we have for each other, that time hasn't come yet

+1GQ Chris

 

[expos4ever]

Now, let's get back on track, shall we? 1. I said that where as God concerns Himself with the physical and works within it, His domain is the heavenly one, the spiritual one. Notice I did NOT say that He excludes the physical world but rather I said the opposite of that,

You clearly placed Satan, not Jesus as ruler of this physical world. I am arguing that the scriptures teach:

1. While Satan was in that position, Jesus deposes Him;
2. Jesus replaces Satan as "ruler" or "king" over this present world.

Do you deny either?

2. look at all the scriptures that deal with reconciliation. The earth has yet to be reconciled to God, that means it is still ruled by Satan...in fact look into the passages about the rulers of this world.

The fact that all is not perfect here on earth is certainly not evidence that Jesus is not presently king. In fact, Paul tells us explicitly in 1 Corinthians 15 that Jesus will rule until sin and death are defeated. This means, of course, that sin and death are still present during Jesus' reign. And I will not look for texts to support your position that Satan is presently ruler. It would be a fruitless search since there aren't any. If there were, that would make Jesus incorrect when He tells his followers that Satan is about to be cast out of his position of rulership.

 

[Stillicidia]

Stop your petty arguing. People don't like it.

 

[razzelflabben]

Sorry but here it is:


You have Satan, not Jesus in charge of this present world.

and....nothing in that excludes Christ's function in this world, in fact, it says just the opposite...so like I said, please stop misrepresenting what I said and making claims that I said something I didn't. If you do not understand something I say, ask, don't just pretend I say something different.

Jesus claim that Satan falls from heaven is clearly a statement that he falls from a position of authority. Do you really think Satan was "in heaven" during the time Jesus walked the earth. But forget about that text. Here is another:

Now My soul has become troubled; and what shall I say, ‘Father, save Me from this hour’? But for this purpose I came to this hour. “Father, glorify Your name.” Then a voice came out of heaven: “I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.” 29So the crowd of people who stood by and heard it were saying that it had thundered; others were saying, “An angel has spoken to Him.” 3Jesus answered and said, “This voice has not come for My sake, but for your sakes. 31“Now judgment is upon this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out.

You have claimed that the ruler of this world is Satan. Jesus says (2000 years ago) that Satan is about to be cast out. Which is it?

lol...wow...you do realize that Jesus came to destroy the power of Satan over this world right? And that that power is not fully destroyed until all things are reconciled to God, right? That is all that passage says in context...it's a study you would be well served to do, but like I said, I refuse to argue about a subtopic on this thread. I do insist however that you stop misrepresenting what I said...