What is your strongest reason for believing in Christianity?

[bluegreenearth]

What is the single strongest reason that supports your belief in Christianity?

How could we determine if that reason is reliable or unreliable?

Note: Discovering you have an unreliable reason would NOT mean your belief is false; only that you require a more reliable reason to justify a high degree of confidence in the validity of the belief.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 49 by benchwarmer]

John 14:14 New International Version (NIV)
14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.

This is really comical! I mean you take one little sentence, which consists of 14 little words, completely away from any of the verses which would give this tiny little sentence it's context.

In it's context, we can clearly see that Jesus, and the Apostles are alone, which means that this sentence is not intended for all Christians throughout all times. Moreover, as we continue through the Biblical letters, we see that it is at least reported that the Apostles did themselves perform certain miracles.

So then, when Jesus says, "You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it", who is he speaking to? Just go back, and read it for yourself, the only ones there would have been the Apostles.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 67 by JehovahsWitness]


FURTHER:

Video lecture: Gerrit Lösch: Fortified by "the Prophetic Word" [5"30]
https://tv.jw.org/#en/mediaitems/Studio ... 03_1_VIDEO

Some Messianic Prophecies
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/book ... fulfilled/

Flimsy, and only applicable to Jesus of Nazareth by a great stretch of the imagination. Hosea 11.1 refers to Israel and the Exodus, not to Jesus, Mary and Joseph in Egypt.

And is that all you got, Jonah for the Resurrection? The belly of the fish = the tomb, and spewing on the beach = the resurrection?

Are "prohecy fulfillment" passages such as these part of what convinced you to become a JW? The reason I ask is because I am wondering if they are convincing to anyone who doesn't already believe, or if they are just a case of confirmation bias.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 6 by Zzyzx]

You choose to whom you believe or whom you trust ... I do the same. I got a lot of reasons to believe on Bible writers. Those reasons may not be strong enough for yourself, and that's Ok, cause you don't have to trust in the same persons I do.

The writers of the Bible wrote about their own experiences ... and I trust them.

And no, I don't trust in everybody ... for example, I don't know you, so I can not trust you on what you write ... no matter if you are alive or not.

I have to agree that trust is an intrinsic part of human relations and I don't think anyone goes through life totally devoid of any. Faith is essentially trusting the unseen but that doesn't mean unfounded.



JW

[Zzyzx]

.

I have to agree that trust is an intrinsic part of human relations and I don't think anyone goes through life totally devoid of any. Faith is essentially trusting the unseen but that doesn't mean unfounded.

Trust is not a black-and-white issue, but a continuum from zero trust to complete trust.

Few, if any, of us are likely to be at the extreme ends of the continuum. Rather, we are scattered along the trend line with varying degrees of inclination to trust people and sources. Some tend to be very trusting (with an extreme being gullible and naive) while others tend to be cynical (with a possible extreme being a hermit who trusts no one and/or nothing).

Also, our trust levels as individuals varies greatly depending on circumstances. We tend to grant more trust individuals and sources with whom we feel some camaraderie and to distrust those who differ from us and our position.

Further, our trust level may (and should) be linked to the importance of the matter at hand. A person we deem worthy of trust with a ‘twenty dollar matter’ may not be worthy of trust at the ‘thousand dollar level’.

A famous person said it well with, “Trust but verify� (concerning matters of importance).

[JehovahsWitness]

.

I have to agree that trust is an intrinsic part of human relations and I don't think anyone goes through life totally devoid of any. Faith is essentially trusting the unseen but that doesn't mean unfounded.

Trust is not a black-and-white issue, but a continuum from zero trust to complete trust.

Few, if any, of us are likely to be at the extreme ends of the continuum. Rather, we are scattered along the trend line with varying degrees of inclination to trust people and sources. Some tend to be very trusting (with an extreme being gullible and naive) while others tend to be cynical (with a possible extreme being a hermit who trusts no one and/or nothing).

My point exactly. Indeed even a Hermit trusts thats the sun (used to track the passage of time as a source if information) will come up in the morning or else he would be hoarding candles and firewood to combat the perpetual darkness he fears the night will become

JW

[Zzyzx]

.

Indeed even a Hermit trusts thats the sun will come up in the morning or else he would be hoarding candles and firewood to combat the perpetual darkness he fears the night will become.

There is also a continuum of credibility of arguments. Defending ‘everyone trusts’ by citing sunrise (or gravity) falls somewhere on that trend line. Readers will decide for themselves where it falls.

[Zzyzx]

.

The writers of the Bible wrote about their own experiences ... and I trust them.

And no, I don't trust in everybody ... for example, I don't know you, so I can not trust you on what you write ... no matter if you are alive or not.

OH? You don't trust me because you don't know me -- but trust Bible writers who you do not know.

How does that work exactly?

Could it be that your trust is given to those who say what you want to hear (or already believe)?

[JehovahsWitness]

As you put so well,

A famous person said it well with, “Trust but verify� (concerning matters of importance).

That sums up how I would summarize the point. Well put, thanks

Be Well,


JW

[Tcg]

.

Indeed even a Hermit trusts thats the sun will come up in the morning or else he would be hoarding candles and firewood to combat the perpetual darkness he fears the night will become.

There is also a continuum of credibility of arguments. Defending ‘everyone trusts’ by citing sunrise (or gravity) falls somewhere on that trend line. Readers will decide for themselves where it falls.

Considering that this discussion relates to this statement:

• "Rather, we are scattered along the trend line with varying degrees of inclination to trust people and sources."

This reader considers an assertion concerning the sun as totally irrelevant, unless of course the sun is to be classified as either a person or source of information.


Tcg

[bluegreenearth]

We can start with page one of the Christian testament. The writer claims jesus' birth was not an ordinary event. That it was prophecies. The writer then quotes a passage from the book of Isaiah. Chapter 7 verse 14.

"Behold a virgin will conceive and bear a son .."

Here is a bit of Biblical scholarship regarding this issue:

In the earliest and best manuscripts of Isaiah from the archives, the Hebrew word "almah" used in the context of that verse means "young woman of marriageable age" or "maid" and not necessarily "virgin." If the author of Isaiah intended to describe a virgin, he would have used the more common Hebrew word "bethulah" in that context.

However, the men who wrote the two canonical birth narratives for Jesus apparently didn't understand the ancient language from Isaiah because that version of Hebrew was no longer commonly or widely communicated during the late 1st and early 2nd century when the Gospels were written; especially by Greek speaking authors living in Rome which is the geographic origin of all the Gospels. As such, the verse from Isaiah was likely mistranslated into the Greek word for virgin instead of "young woman of marriageable age" or "maid" as probably intended by the author of Isaiah.

Since every claimed disciple of Jesus would have been familiar with the ancient Hebrew language from Isaiah through their Jewish traditions, they would have no theological reason to expect the prophesied Messiah would be born of a virgin. As such, the disciples would not have insisted upon a virgin birth for Jesus in their subsequent oral or written traditions in order that it coincide with a misinterpreted prophecy from Isaiah. Therefore, the obvious transcription error demonstrates that the authors of the book of Matthew and the book of Luke which contain the two birth narratives for Jesus could not have been disciples, eyewitnesses, or have utilized eyewitness sources. In terms of probability, it seems more likely that the authors of the Jesus birth narratives were Greek speaking Romans writing religious propaganda decades after the events described in their texts and were deliberately attempting to solidify a link between the life of Jesus and their misinterpretation of an Old Testament Messiah prophecy.

Since divine virgin birth was a popular theme among the neighboring pagan religions for which early Christianity was in competition, the ability for such a translation error to survive and thrive within that cultural context is not at all surprising. The mistranslation appears to have accidentally and unintentionally made the story of Jesus more competitive with and attractive to many of the neighboring pagans who were accustomed to the concept of a God being born of a virgin. By the time anyone may have called attention to the mistranslation, the existing version of Jesus Christ's story may have already been too established and popular for the church to issue a retraction without compromising its credibility. Consequently, this could be a clear motivation to establish church doctrine and apologetic arguments designed to boost confidence in a discredited virgin birth narrative.

Of course, there are Christian theologians and apologists who attempt to dispute this assessment. However, to dispute it is one thing but to falsify it is something else. To date, this explanation has yet to be falsified. As such, it cannot be ruled out and must be considered as not only a possible but a plausible explanation even if you disagree with it. That is, unless, you can demonstrate it is false.

I welcome your constructive criticism, but will not be persuaded by logically fallacious arguments. To the best of my ability, I try very hard to ensure my arguments are free of logical fallacies, but please be civil and polite if you discover any I've missed. Thank you.