Lets cut to the chase: Why should I be a Christian?

[notachance]

If you're a theist and are active on a forum called "Debating Christianity & Religion", then you probably believe that the value of Christianity is something that can be spoken for.

So here is the situation: I don't want you to tell me why you believe. I understand that for many of you, it has to do with a feeling in your heart, or inexpressible faith, or something along those lines, which would be hard to verbalize and to formulate into a cogent case for Christianity. As respectable a that is, and as good a reason it may be for you to believe, it doesn't help me.

I want you to tell me why I should believe.

Given the fact that I don't share with you that emotional connection with Christianity, given that I don't feel the presence of Jesus in my heart like you do, given that I guide my decision making and my opinion forming by rationality and common sense, what can you tell me along those lines to persuade me that Christianity is the way to go?

Why should I be a Christian? What can you say to persuade me that what you believe is true?

[samuelbb7]

[quote="notachancequote="samuelbb7"]
Sam, Sam, Sam. Try to focus, ok? Don't try to convince people of your case by making vague references to wikipedia. This is how it works:

The only way to ascertain the accuracy of a copy of a manuscript is to hold in your hand both the copy and the original, and COMPARE THEM.[/b]

I did not use vauge references. I gave you the exact title to type into wikipedia.

That would be nice. But we do not have the original mansucripts. In fact we do not have the original manuscripts of Julius Caesar, Plato and none of the Greek and Roman writers. So by your statment we really do not know the history of the world before 300 AD. except for stone carvings. So maybe Julius Caesar never conqured Gaul.

We only have the copies from 300 years later. We have no way of knowing how much was changed or lost in over the centuries of translations, editing, copying, etc.

The Gospels had to be written before 100 A.D. since they were being quoted and reference then. The translations from 300 A. D. were copies by scholars who you do not trust from copies that existed. So I can give you about one century between for them to be changed.

We do have copies of where people were quoting them. But you are correct. You can assume that people changed them. We can prove that after 300 A.D. they were not changed since we can compare the latter copies to the copies we have from the year 300. We can also compare them to copies and translation that existed in other parts of the world and to the writers who were quoting them. But since you can only know if you hold both the original and the latter copy in your hand that cannot prove it to you. Those before 300 A.D. are fragments including one that dates to 125 A.D. These fragments do match. So yes I am trusting those people to not have changed the Scriptures.

A similar charge used to be made that we could not know if the Old Testament was accurate. That is until the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls which did allow us to hold both those from after 300 A.D. and from 300 B.C. in which except for some misspelling we found no major mistakes.

And besides, what is your broader point as it related to my OP, that I should be a Christian because the anonymous scribes that wrote the Bible in the 4th century didn't change it too much from the originals that were written by iron age barbarians that had never even met Jesus?[/quote]

You had made a point about the New Testament and I was answering your point.

The Christian religion did change the Western World and has affected us greatly. You can say that was not a miracle. I am just correcting some exagarations that you seem to make. I have not proved you wrong.

[samuelbb7]

Let's see you provide any evidence what so ever that the Synoptic Gospels are actually written by the people to whom they are attributed. I will accept that the GOJ was written by a John, but let's see some evidence that is beyond speculation of WHICH John wrote it.

From the internal evidence, it appears that NONE of the Synoptic Gospels were written before 35+ years after date given for the Crucifixion... and none of them were eye witnesses. How can you say they were written by the Apostles?

I have read this claim before. Could you be more specific what internal evidence?

Scholars who believe the New Testament written by the Apostles I believe that this gentlemen is one.

Philip W. Comfort, Ph.D., has studied English literature, Greek, and New Testament at the Ohio State University and the University of South Africa. He has taught these classes at a number of colleges, including Wheaton College, Trinity Episcopal Seminary, Columbia International University, and Coastal Carolina University.

Now none of the gospels mention the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. If they were written after then why do they not mention it.

Two Gospels that were written in 130 A.D. were rejected by the scholars who copied the New Testament as being too late to put in the bible.

Dr. Craig Blomberg has been with Denver Seminary since 1986. He is a professor of New Testament.

Now the statement that there are preachers and seminaries that do not believe the apostles wrote the New Testament is true. Many seminaries and churches are affected by the Historical Critical method that became popular in Germany pre WWII. Those from this school of thought believe the gospels were changed by latter writers during the 100 years before the manuscripts we have now. I have read two books by those who propose this theory. They provided mostly speculation and assumptions. But they can give any who wish reasonable doubt.

So you can have a reasonable doubt about the New Testament and the existence of GOD.

I on the other hand can believe that the doubt is false.

[samuelbb7]

Dan 2:31 Thou, O king, sawest, and behold a great image. This great image, whose brightness [was] excellent, stood before thee; and the form thereof [was] terrible.


Dan 2:32 This image's head [was] of fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass,


Dan 2:33 His legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay.


Dan 2:34 Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet [that were] of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces.


Dan 2:35 Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.


Dan 2:36 This [is] the dream; and we will tell the interpretation thereof before the king.


Dan 2:37 Thou, O king, [art] a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory.


Dan 2:38 And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou [art] this head of gold.


Dan 2:39 And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth.


Dan 2:40 And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all [things]: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise.


Dan 2:41 And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters' clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay.


Dan 2:42 And [as] the toes of the feet [were] part of iron, and part of clay, [so] the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken.


Dan 2:43 And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.

The above prophecy was made about 530 BCE. Yet the part result of the split of the Roman empire is still true. The main argument made against this was that it was written latter. But since the prophecy deals with the fall of the Roman Empire and the use of marriage to try to solve problems that happened in the middle ages that is impossible.

[notachance]

Let's see you provide any evidence what so ever that the Synoptic Gospels are actually written by the people to whom they are attributed. I will accept that the GOJ was written by a John, but let's see some evidence that is beyond speculation of WHICH John wrote it.

From the internal evidence, it appears that NONE of the Synoptic Gospels were written before 35+ years after date given for the Crucifixion... and none of them were eye witnesses. How can you say they were written by the Apostles?

I have read this claim before. Could you be more specific what internal evidence?

Scholars who believe the New Testament written by the Apostles I believe that this gentlemen is one.

Philip W. Comfort, Ph.D., has studied English literature, Greek, and New Testament at the Ohio State University and the University of South Africa. He has taught these classes at a number of colleges, including Wheaton College, Trinity Episcopal Seminary, Columbia International University, and Coastal Carolina University.

Now none of the gospels mention the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. If they were written after then why do they not mention it.

Two Gospels that were written in 130 A.D. were rejected by the scholars who copied the New Testament as being too late to put in the bible.

Dr. Craig Blomberg has been with Denver Seminary since 1986. He is a professor of New Testament.

Now the statement that there are preachers and seminaries that do not believe the apostles wrote the New Testament is true. Many seminaries and churches are affected by the Historical Critical method that became popular in Germany pre WWII. Those from this school of thought believe the gospels were changed by latter writers during the 100 years before the manuscripts we have now. I have read two books by those who propose this theory. They provided mostly speculation and assumptions. But they can give any who wish reasonable doubt.

So you can have a reasonable doubt about the New Testament and the existence of GOD.

I on the other hand can believe that the doubt is false.

Hi Sam, thanks for giving us the names of two minor Bible scholars. Now can you please link essays or publications from these minor scholars in which they claim the gospels were written by the apostles?

If you don't then I'll assume that you retract your claim.

[notachance]

The above prophecy was made about 530 BCE. Yet the part result of the split of the Roman empire is still true. The main argument made against this was that it was written latter. But since the prophecy deals with the fall of the Roman Empire and the use of marriage to try to solve problems that happened in the middle ages that is impossible.

Which part of the prophecy mentions the roman empire?

Which part mentions middle age problems and marriage as the solution?

It seems vague mumbo jumbo to me. Please avoid making baseless random statements, Sam.

[Kuan]

If you're a theist and are active on a forum called "Debating Christianity & Religion", then you probably believe that the value of Christianity is something that can be spoken for.

So here is the situation: I don't want you to tell me why you believe. I understand that for many of you, it has to do with a feeling in your heart, or inexpressible faith, or something along those lines, which would be hard to verbalize and to formulate into a cogent case for Christianity. As respectable a that is, and as good a reason it may be for you to believe, it doesn't help me.

I want you to tell me why I should believe.

Given the fact that I don't share with you that emotional connection with Christianity, given that I don't feel the presence of Jesus in my heart like you do, given that I guide my decision making and my opinion forming by rationality and common sense, what can you tell me along those lines to persuade me that Christianity is the way to go?

Why should I be a Christian? What can you say to persuade me that what you believe is true?

Do you mind if I jump in here way late? No need to reply if you dont feel like it, as I am limited on my time at computers to once a week.

Alright, here is all I have to say and although I am a devout mormon and such I do differ in some ways in my view.

Firstly is this and this should be applied to every religion. The religion you belong to should make you a better person and make you happier. If Christianity doesn't do that for you, thats fine, find something else. To be honest, It would be a boring world if we were all the same religion! How could we participate in the great debates on this site! That being said, I am happy that there is such a diversity on the subject of religion and thought processes. None of us are the same and we all are different. I encourage you to look for that which is praiseworthy, honorable, and to seek for that. In fact (sorry for the rant) but I am reminded of something that mormons always say.

"If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things."

Then again, we are returned to the great debate on perspective, and subjectivity. I dont know what you are looking for.

My two cents.

[notachance]

If you're a theist and are active on a forum called "Debating Christianity & Religion", then you probably believe that the value of Christianity is something that can be spoken for.

So here is the situation: I don't want you to tell me why you believe. I understand that for many of you, it has to do with a feeling in your heart, or inexpressible faith, or something along those lines, which would be hard to verbalize and to formulate into a cogent case for Christianity. As respectable a that is, and as good a reason it may be for you to believe, it doesn't help me.

I want you to tell me why I should believe.

Given the fact that I don't share with you that emotional connection with Christianity, given that I don't feel the presence of Jesus in my heart like you do, given that I guide my decision making and my opinion forming by rationality and common sense, what can you tell me along those lines to persuade me that Christianity is the way to go?

Why should I be a Christian? What can you say to persuade me that what you believe is true?

Do you mind if I jump in here way late? No need to reply if you dont feel like it, as I am limited on my time at computers to once a week.

Alright, here is all I have to say and although I am a devout mormon and such I do differ in some ways in my view.

Firstly is this and this should be applied to every religion. The religion you belong to should make you a better person and make you happier. If Christianity doesn't do that for you, thats fine, find something else. To be honest, It would be a boring world if we were all the same religion! How could we participate in the great debates on this site! That being said, I am happy that there is such a diversity on the subject of religion and thought processes. None of us are the same and we all are different. I encourage you to look for that which is praiseworthy, honorable, and to seek for that. In fact (sorry for the rant) but I am reminded of something that mormons always say.

"If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things."

Then again, we are returned to the great debate on perspective, and subjectivity. I dont know what you are looking for.

My two cents.

Hey dude, I appreciate your response.

The heart of your statement is this: "The religion you belong to should make you a better person and make you happier"

That's fine.

But here's the question:
Are you saying that whether something is true or not doesn't matter? It's all just about whether a belief makes you happy?

If believing that I won the lottery makes me happy and makes me a generous person, then it doesn't matter if it's TRUE that I actually won the lottery?

And what if a fact is true, but it doesn't make me happy, but instead makes me sad? For example, should I believe that I am still 20 years old just because the thought that I'm 30 makes me sad?

To me it seems that believing something because it makes you happy, rather than believing it because there is good reason to think it is actually true, is called "being delusional".

We should try to be good people and we should try to live a happy life WITHOUT believing things that are not true. It takes courage and it takes intellectual honesty, but I think it can be done.

Who cares if believing that Mary was a virgin makes you happy! It's not true. Find your happiness in the real world.

[samuelbb7]

Which part of the prophecy mentions the roman empire?

Which part mentions middle age problems and marriage as the solution?

It seems vague mumbo jumbo to me. Please avoid making baseless random statements, Sam.

The Passage in Daniel 2 does not mention any but one Kingdom by name. In verse 31 to 36 the dream is stated. In verse 37 the first Kingdom is to be that of Nebuchadnezzar or Babylon. The Kingdom that destroyed Babylon was the Media Persia empire. This kingdom came to power while Daniel was alive so that does not show the true effect of the Prophecy. The Kingdom that destroyed Medio Persia was Under Alexander the Great. More details come on this point in Daniel 8 with the most important verses 8:20,21. Now Jews state this verse is the reason that When Alexander the Great came to Jerusalem they welcomed him as the great king foretold in Daniel. The kingdom that affected Israel after the Greek Kingdom is the Empire of Rome often reoffered to as the Iron Empire by historians. Daniel 2:33,40. the fall of the Roman empire and the mingling of seed or intermarriage is found in verses 41-43.

I apologize for this being so arcane that you have a hard time understanding it.

Now Goat here are some sources and I added one more Scholar. Please listen to the interview of Phillip Comfort and read the article by F. F. Bruce which is the last reference.

Phillip W. Comfort

http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2010/ ... criticism/
You can listen to him here if you wish on this topic.
http://bestcommentaries.com/book/10040/ ... -w-comfort
http://www.ctlibrary.com/ch/1994/issue43/4322.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncial_0220
http://theologicallycorrect.com/studyce ... cle&sid=34 My search engine gave me this site as the article by Comfort. But I did not find his name at the site.
He also has books published if you type his name in you will find those.

Craig Blomberg
http://www.dtl.org/apologetics/article/who-needs.htm
http://www.theopedia.com/Craig_Blomberg
http://www.niv-cbt.org/translators/dr-craig-blomberg/
http://www.alibris.com/search/books/qwo ... Commentary

F. F. Bruce
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F._F._Bruce
http://www.alliancenet.org/partner/Arti ... 66,00.html

Would you like me to find some more Schorlas. After all these only took me about five minutes.

[notachance]

The Passage in Daniel 2 does not mention any but one Kingdom by name. In verse 31 to 36 the dream is stated. In verse 37 the first Kingdom is to be that of Nebuchadnezzar or Babylon. The Kingdom that destroyed Babylon was the Media Persia empire. This kingdom came to power while Daniel was alive so that does not show the true effect of the Prophecy. The Kingdom that destroyed Medio Persia was Under Alexander the Great. More details come on this point in Daniel 8 with the most important verses 8:20,21. Now Jews state this verse is the reason that When Alexander the Great came to Jerusalem they welcomed him as the great king foretold in Daniel. The kingdom that affected Israel after the Greek Kingdom is the Empire of Rome often reoffered to as the Iron Empire by historians. Daniel 2:33,40. the fall of the Roman empire and the mingling of seed or intermarriage is found in verses 41-43.

Sam. You are killing me. You are literally killing me with your posts.

Please focus.

KINGDOMS ARE ALWAYS DEFEATING OTHER KINGDOMS.

The Media Persian Empire destroyed Babylon, therefore you assume that Babylon is the first empire, and the Persians are the second.

If the Persians hadn't defeated the Babylonians, but the other way round, YOU'D BE SAYING THAT THE PERSIANS ARE THE FIRST EMPIRE, AND THE BABYLONIANS THE SECOND.

There is NO SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION in the "prophecy" that identifies one as the first kingdom and the other as the second.

Do you understand?

If I wrote "One football team that is very strong shall beat another team, but then that other team shall beat another team, and in the end that team shall be defeated by another team" I AM NOT REALLY SAYING ANYTHING.

I have to give specifics about the teams in questions.

If my prophecy is so vague that it can adapt to whatever circumstances happen, then I am not predicting the future.

Please say you understand!

[samuelbb7]

Sam. You are killing me. You are literally killing me with your posts.

Please focus.

KINGDOMS ARE ALWAYS DEFEATING OTHER KINGDOMS.

The Media Persian Empire destroyed Babylon, therefore you assume that Babylon is the first empire, and the Persians are the second.

If the Persians hadn't defeated the Babylonians, but the other way round, YOU'D BE SAYING THAT THE PERSIANS ARE THE FIRST EMPIRE, AND THE BABYLONIANS THE SECOND.

There is NO SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION in the "prophecy" that identifies one as the first kingdom and the other as the second.

Do you understand?

I have to give specifics about the teams in questions.

If my prophecy is so vague that it can adapt to whatever circumstances happen, then I am not predicting the future.

Please say you understand!

I understand what you are saying. I also agree if it was a vague as you say then I would have to agree with you. Maybe I am not saying or writing this in such a way that my point is not clear. Let me try again.

In the Passage Daniel tells the King of Babylon that the golden head represents him. Daniel 2:37 in other words the Kingdom of Babylon is the first or Golden Kingdom and the starting point of this prophecy.

Then Daniel says the Next kingdom is represented by silver. Latter on in another Passage Daniel states that the second Kingdom is Media Persia. Daniel 8:20 This even happened in the life of Daniel. So most do not look on it as good evidence for prophecy.

The Third kingdom is Grecia. This happened after the death of Daniel. Again the prophecy is given in two parts one in Daniel 2 and the second more specific in Daniel 8:21. In order to get the full details both prophecies have to be put together. They use different images so some find it a little confusing.

In Daniel 2 he speaks of four main kingdoms using a giant statue. In Daniel 8 he speaks of two kingdoms with the second being established by a great king represented by a single horn But that king will die and his kingdom will be split up. The Jews understood the prophecy to refer to Alexander the Great and so when he came they did not resist him. That is found in Jewish History not recorded in the Bible.

Now the fourth kingdom is not specifically named but it is called an Iron Kingdom and rules until the Messiah arrives. The Kingdom is Rome which overthrew the Greek Empire.

However this fourth powerful kingdom would be broken into pieces and these parts would try to reunite by marriage but it would fail. These parts would be strong and weak kingdoms formed from the fall of the fourth kingdom.

Now these kingdom do not refer to the whole world. But to those that had a relationship to Israel and the Messiah to come.

Now hopefully this time I have explained myself properly. Maybe this website will help since it gives a lot more detail.

http://glenburnie.netadvent.org/babylon.html

I hope you have a good day.

Samuel