Validating Christianity

[DarkProphet]

So the whole of Christianity hinges on 2000 year old event written about only in an ancient book from a far off culture with a very different language that was later edited by committee. Is there anything that validates the claim of this book? Or do you believe anything you read in it on faith? If it's faith why this book and not some other?

 

[Maranatha27]

Hi dark ,

I believe the Bible is the Word of God. Events in history have been prophesied beforehand and have come to pass validating the prophet along with the rest of his writings. Isaiah and Daniel being excellent examples.

If a prophet spoke for God, they had to bee 100 % accurate or the penalty was death. The prophet would give immediate prophecies concerning the people in that day an age and far off prophecies that concerned the "latter days". An example of this is Isaiah, The Assyrians had set a siege against Jerusalem and were threatening to destroy the city, but the prophet of God said that not one arrow would be shot into the city. The prophet was correct. Now he also received prophecies concerning the Messiah, the most known and loved by christians is contained in Isaiah 52-53, 700 years before the fact.

Now, more than a forth of the Bible was prophetic in nature at the time when it was written, there was validation then and the books were revered and kept safely by men of God.

There is still plenty of outstanding prophecy and some that has come to pass in the last century. For any student of prophecy the most important prophetic event in the 20th century was the reestablishment of the nation of Israel. Eschatology or the study of end time events centers around this event. Men in the early 19th century believed their Bibles and said that such an event would take place, knowing that God always keeps his word.

Now saying all that, this is only part of the validation for the christian.

 

[ebia]

So the whole of Christianity hinges on 2000 year old event written about only in an ancient book from a far off culture with a very different language that was later edited by committee.

More correctly "... an ancient group of books collected together by a consensus". But their lies the crunch - Christianity hinges on God having done something definite in real history - so yes, that means that 2,000 after that event it is 2,000 years ago that it happened. It's actually very arrogant to think that only that which happened in our age is real or important.

Is there anything that validates the claim of this book?

The set of books (the New Testament) and the community that produced them are intervalidating, but to see why requires a very considerable amount of historical (and epistimological) thinking. I recommend +N.T. Wright's Christian Origins and the Question of God series to anyone up to reading it.

 

[DarkProphet]

Hi dark ,

I believe the Bible is the Word of God. Events in history have been prophesied beforehand and have come to pass validating the prophet along with the rest of his writings. Isaiah and Daniel being excellent examples.

If a prophet spoke for God, they had to bee 100 % accurate or the penalty was death. The prophet would give immediate prophecies concerning the people in that day an age and far off prophecies that concerned the "latter days". An example of this is Isaiah, The Assyrians had set a siege against Jerusalem and were threatening to destroy the city, but the prophet of God said that not one arrow would be shot into the city. The prophet was correct. Now he also received prophecies concerning the Messiah, the most known and loved by christians is contained in Isaiah 52-53, 700 years before the fact.

Now, more than a forth of the Bible was prophetic in nature at the time when it was written, there was validation then and the books were revered and kept safely by men of God.

There is still plenty of outstanding prophecy and some that has come to pass in the last century. For any student of prophecy the most important prophetic event in the 20th century was the reestablishment of the nation of Israel. Eschatology or the study of end time events centers around this event. Men in the early 19th century believed their Bibles and said that such an event would take place, knowing that God always keeps his word.

Now saying all that, this is only part of the validation for the christian.

I would probably put more stock into prophecies if they weren't written vaguely in an ancient language. Nostradamus wrote vaguely in foreign languages because he knew that people would see what they want when they came to translate it.

 

[DarkProphet]

The set of books (the New Testament) and the community that produced them are intervalidating, but to see why requires a very considerable amount of historical (and epistimological) thinking.

I would say that the set of books contradict each other at key points, in both terms of events and doctrine. Could you give the cliff notes version of this intervalidating?

 

[ebia]

I would say that the set of books contradict each other at key points, in both terms of events and doctrine.

Supposed contradictions in the NT are a factor of viewing it as the wrong sort of thing. It's not a final set of facts and theorums produced and harmonized by a committee, but an emerging set of documents (narratives and letters for the most part) produced by an emerging community in order to teach its emerging understanding of truth and what followed from that truth.

Could you give the cliff notes version of this intervalidating?[/quote]

The texts are the products of the communities that produced them - we can't understand them apart from that, nor the communities apart from the texts. The community that produced the N.T. believed and built their entire understanding of everything on the resurrection of Jesus. There is no satisfactory explanation of how they came to write what they did unless something quite extraordinary happened on Easter morning.

As I implied before though, the groundwork on which to even start building the argument is about 700 pages of pretty heavy text examining how one goes about doing 1st century history.

But even then, I don't think anybody forms their view that way really. Worldviews are formed from trying to make sense of stories heard, experienced and implied. And challenged and changed by stories that subvert that worldview. One cannot avoid forming a worldview, nor can there be any neutral criteria by which to evaluate and select worldviews since they are the lens through which one views everything else. The only basis one can keep or reject ones worldview is 'does it make sense of what I need it to make sense of'. That's true of all world views, "religious" or not. I would suggest that, if anything ,religions (at least in the modern world) are much more transparent and explicit about what their philosophies are than (say) atheistic or post-modern world views.
Evidence can't help you choose a basic philosophy because you need the philosophic framework first from which to consider the "evidence". Trying to choose your religion (or none) by evidence inevitably tends to be an exercise in lifting oneself by one's bootstraps.

(Most) people are persuaded to 'convert' because the view they are joining is doing a better job of helping them to make meaning of their life than what they had before.

 

[DarkProphet]

Supposed contradictions in the NT are a factor of viewing it as the wrong sort of thing. It's not a final set of facts and theorums produced and harmonized by a committee, but an emerging set of documents (narratives and letters for the most part) produced by an emerging community in order to teach its emerging understanding of truth and what followed from that truth.

If I'm following correctly you believe that the Bible is NOT the word of God but the word ABOUT God? This is a break from many other Christians.

The texts are the products of the communities that produced them - we can't understand them apart from that, nor the communities apart from the texts. The community that produced the N.T. believed and built their entire understanding of everything on the resurrection of Jesus. There is no satisfactory explanation of how they came to write what they did unless something quite extraordinary happened on Easter morning.

At least from our translated version of it you think that. I doubt that's really the case as even some Christians make the case that they were talking about spiritual resurrection.

As I implied before though, the groundwork on which to even start building the argument is about 700 pages of pretty heavy text examining how one goes about doing 1st century history.

But even then, I don't think anybody forms their view that way really. Worldviews are formed from trying to make sense of stories heard, experienced and implied. And challenged and changed by stories that subvert that worldview. One cannot avoid forming a worldview, nor can there be any neutral criteria by which to evaluate and select worldviews since they are the lens through which one views everything else. The only basis one can keep or reject ones worldview is 'does it make sense of what I need it to make sense of'. That's true of all world views, "religious" or not. I would suggest that, if anything ,religions (at least in the modern world) are much more transparent and explicit about what their philosophies are than (say) atheistic or post-modern world views.
Evidence can't help you choose a basic philosophy because you need the philosophic framework first from which to consider the "evidence". Trying to choose your religion (or none) by evidence inevitably tends to be an exercise in lifting oneself by one's bootstraps.

The fundamental problem is that even Christianity's core belief, the resurrection, doesn't make sense if you really delve into it. Jesus "sacrificing" himself (which wasn't really a sacrifice) for our "sins" (a poorly defined concept) is inconsistent with the Christian conception of God.

(Most) people are persuaded to 'convert' because the view they are joining is doing a better job of helping them to make meaning of their life than what they had before.

You could say that about ANY cult.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

So the whole of Christianity hinges on 2000 year old event written about only in an ancient book from a far off culture with a very different language that was later edited by committee. Is there anything that validates the claim of this book? Or do you believe anything you read in it on faith? If it's faith why this book and not some other?

The Gospel validates Christianity.

The problem with your posts is that you're not really here to ask questions about what Christianity teaches, but to tell us how stupid we are for being Christians and then demanding that we justify our beliefs to you.

You want somebody to prove to you that Christianity is true.

You seem to believe that once you can wrap your head around it, intellectually, then it's OK to believe it. That isn't how Christianity works.

If you're not convicted of your sins, if you feel no remorse or grief for your sins, then no amount of convincing is going to help you.

Could I tell you about the manuscript evidence? Yes. Could I tell you about the archaeological evidence? Yes. The prophetic evidence? Yes. The statistical evidence? Yes. The extra-Biblical historical evidence? Yes.

I could build an air tight case to support the truth of the Bible, but you'd still go to Hell so what would be the point? You don't need to be convinced. You need to be convicted.

 

[AV1611VET]

So the whole of Christianity hinges on 2000 year old event written about only in an ancient book from a far off culture with a very different language that was later edited by committee. Is there anything that validates the claim of this book?

Ya --- a "far off culture with a very different language" --- called Israel.

These "far off" people are your very neighbors.

Wow!

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Ya --- a "far off culture with a very different language" --- called Israel.

These "far off" people are your very neighbors.

Wow!

And let's not forget that nobody speaks those "ancient" languages of Hebrew and Greek anymore.

 

[DarkProphet]

And let's not forget that nobody speaks those "ancient" languages of Hebrew and Greek anymore.

The point is that it's a different culture and language from what YOU speak. Jewish people, who actually spend the time to learn the language and study the culture, come to a VERY different conclusion about the Bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

The point is that it's a different culture and language from what YOU speak. Jewish people, who actually spend the time to learn the language and study the culture, come to a VERY different conclusion about the Bible.

So?

What's your point?

With one exception, Jews wrote the books of the Bible.

I'll go with what the ancients wrote --- not with what the moderns say the ancients wrote (or didn't write); which, by ... um ... coincidence, happens to agree with what the atheists say as well?

Just asking.

 

[ebia]

If I'm following correctly you believe that the Bible is NOT the word of God but the word ABOUT God?

Depends in what one means by "the word of God (TM)". I happy that the bible is "God breathed". The point isn't about inspiration, but about what sort of text you treat it as. One glance at the bible should tell you that it's not a collection of facts and statements (just compare it to the Koran, which pretty much is), but that its a collection of genres, many of them narrative and all of them firmly embedded in a meta-narrative. To treat it as a book of facts is to grossly distort it before one even starts. That's what many Christians do, because they would actually be more comfortable with something more like the Koran, but stories that raise questions are actually much more powerful than collections of answers.

This is a break from many other Christians.

And firmly in line with many others.

At least from our translated version of it you think that.

+Tom Wright is working from the original languages.

I doubt that's really the case as even some Christians make the case that they were talking about spiritual resurrection.

He devotes considerable length to explaining why that and various other ideas put forward don't work. Eg that the words and phrases that NT authors use for resurrection have strong connotations of a physical resurrection - a 1st audience would hear them as talking about a physical event when there are perfectly good alternative words and phrases for a spiritual event. You can follow up that particular discussion very well in his public discussions with Marcus Borg (who takes the "spirtual resurrection" point of view).

The fundamental problem is that even Christianity's core belief, the resurrection, doesn't make sense if you really delve into it. Jesus "sacrificing" himself (which wasn't really a sacrifice) for our "sins" (a poorly defined concept) is inconsistent with the Christian conception of God.

Are we talking about the resurrection, or are we talking about the crucifixion? Resurrection is the central event (at least for the earliest church). Ideas of the crucifixion and how that works are then built up on top of that. If one wants to go there I have something to say to your point, but it's the resurrection that is central in the sense we are talking about, not the crucifixion.

You could say that about ANY cult.

Exactly my point - its true of ALL philosophies, including those held by humanists, atheists, agnostics or anyone else. NO-ONES fundamental philosophic framework is based on "evidence" and "objectivity", even that of those who demand evidence from others.

A demand to prove my religion is true is never going to work. The best one might be able to do in that direction, even in theory, is to show you some of the flaws in your philosophy and dispel a few myths you might have about mine.

An academic debate might be fun, but it's not what changes people's minds.

 

[ebia]

The point is that it's a different culture and language from what YOU speak. Jewish people, who actually spend the time to learn the language and study the culture, come to a VERY different conclusion about the Bible.

Um, the conclusions they come to about the Hebrew scriptures are not so very different to the conclusions that Christian scholars come to about the Hebrew scriptures when one recognises the breadth in each. In particular, what Jewish and Christian scholars can conclude about what 1st century Jewish thinking was is very similar. The divergence that happens after then is as a result of Christian understanding of what went before being now seen through the lens of the resurrection of Jesus, and Jewish understanding having to be seen through the lens of the destruction of the Temple and the (practical) necessity of moving to a rabinnic form of Judaism centred on Torah instead of Temple.

 

[Maranatha27]

I would probably put more stock into prophecies if they weren't written vaguely in an ancient language. Nostradamus wrote vaguely in foreign languages because he knew that people would see what they want when they came to translate it.

Hi dp,

This rebutal is very weak and untrue. Prophetic scripture is extremly detailed. Sticking with the theme of Isaiah, in the 44th and 45th chapter, the prophet names a gentile king by name that would give the Jews permission to rebuild Jerusalem after their captivity. The prophecy of the gentile king Cyrus was given 150 years before the fact. Daniels 70 "week" prophecy gives the exact day that Christ would ride into Jerusalem riding on the colt of an ass.

 

[Maranatha27]

The point is that it's a different culture and language from what YOU speak. Jewish people, who actually spend the time to learn the language and study the culture, come to a VERY different conclusion about the Bible.

There is a reason they killed their own prophets.

 

[Chesterton]

So the whole of Christianity hinges on 2000 year old event written about only in an ancient book from a far off culture with a very different language that was later edited by committee. Is there anything that validates the claim of this book? Or do you believe anything you read in it on faith? If it's faith why this book and not some other?

Just for the fun of it:

So the whole of atheism hinges on the claims that matter, energy and processes create themselves, and that if our five senses can't perceive something, it doesn't exist. Is there anything that validates these claims?

 

[AV1611VET]

[deleted]​

 

[packermann]

So the whole of Christianity hinges on 2000 year old event written about only in an ancient book from a far off culture with a very different language that was later edited by committee.

Well, not quite. This is what all of us Christians have in common. It is finding the least common denominator.

But as a Catholic Christian, my faith does not just hinge on an event that happened 2,000 years ago. Even if there were flaws in that event, I would still believe in what has happened very, very recently. Unlike my Protestant brothers and sisters, I believe that there are some very miraculous events that have happened recently. And even though my Protestant brothers and sisters may disagree that these events are from God, they do seem for the most part to admit that something superntural did happen. And if a supernatural event happened, even if for the sake of argument, was demonic, it would still prove the existence of God. If it is proven that the Devil exists, then God must also exists. You cannot have a superntural being who rebelled against God without having God against whom the supernatural rebelled.

Here is recent miraculous events:

1. Medjugorgie - A group of children have seen the virgin mary. This is happening RIGHT NOW! If you are sincere seeker of the truth, then I challenge to you to there yourself and investigate it.

Or here is another alternative. Get this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Medjugorje-Me...bs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234720886&sr=8-2

This book was written by a PROTESTANT! This is not the kind of person that want to admit that something superntural is going on there.

Check it out!

I will present more miraculous events that have happened recently when I have more time.

 

[packermann]

Here are some other evidences for Christianity from a Catholic perspective:

1. The Shroud of Turin - Read the book found at
http://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-...d_bbs_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234732252&sr=8-6.

This was written by an AGNOSTIC. He basically started this book on a dare, and became convinced that this had to have been from the first century nand was the burial shroud of Jesus. The picture is on the shroud was not painted on. It is a negative image. The author found that the only way this image could be transposed on the shroud was by radiation. Corpses normally do not emit radiation that causes their negative image to go on their burial shrouds. The author concluded that this could only be explained by some radio-active event that could happen in the resurrection of Christ.

2. The Blessed Virgin Mary appearing to the three children at Fatima (1917)

We have over 70,000 witnesses who saw the sun dancing in the sky. This is not an event that happened 2,000 years ago. We have taped recording of people saying what they saw. Even the secular newspaper reported that something sttrange was going on with the sun.

3. The healing of Lourdes -

Mary appeared to a girl and told her to dig. From where she dug, water sprung out, and now we have a huge body of water. Thousands have gone to Lourdes and have been healed from their diseases. This is going on today, not just something that happened 2,000 years ago.