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.

[benchwarmer]

[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.

You mean the context where it says "whoever"?

12 Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13 And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.

I suppose you can twist the words to mean whatever you like. Seems like common practice.

I guess you'll find this comical too:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

19 “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.�

Are you conceding that prayer is pointless unless you were there with Jesus when he was alive and talking to you? Countless Christians seem to disagree with you when they gather and pray in Jesus name. Perhaps you should go straighten all them out first?

I guess I'm glad to see at least one Christian concede that they can't in fact ask for things in Jesus name and expect it to potentially happen. Not sure what the point in praying is then if that's the case. Are you in the "I pray to apologize for my sins and ask God to do what He was going to do anyways" camp?

[Elijah John]

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.

And the author of the first and earliest Gospel, "Mark" has no birth narrative, or knowledge of any Virgin Birth traditions. None demonstrated anyway. Could Mark be the closest thing we have to a genuine NT author who is an actual disciple of Jesus of Nazareth? If not an eyewitness, perhaps the close associate of an eyewitness, maybe Peter?

[JehovahsWitness]

And the author of the first and earliest Gospel, "Mark" has no birth narrative, or knowledge of any Virgin Birth traditions. None demonstrated anyway.

There is absolutely not a shred of verifiable physical proof that Marks was the first gospel written. Indeed the earliest supporting manuscripts available have Matthew's gospel written first.

Confirmation bias aside, there is no reason to assume that Marks omissions were anything but editorial decisions. To take them as being proof positive an event did not happen assumes his gospel to be exhaustive which is a position that is illogically and contextually untenable.



JW




RELATED POSTS

What evidence is available of the authorship of the gospels (goose)?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 190#961190

Are the alternative endings of Marks gospel authentic?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 765#804765

Could the Apostle Peter have written the epistles that bear the same name?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 315#972315

[Tcg]

And the author of the first and earliest Gospel, "Mark" has no birth narrative, or knowledge of any Virgin Birth traditions. None demonstrated anyway.

There is absolutely not a shred of verifiable physical proof that Marks was the first gospel written. Indeed the earliest supporting manuscripts available have Matthew's gospel written first.

Not surprisingly, both parties of this argument have failed to address the OP question, "What is your strongest reason for believing in Christianity?"

Perhaps neither have any reason to believe in Christianity. Instead, they ignore that reality by arguing over minor details of the claims that apparently haven't convinced either of them.

Tcg

[bluegreenearth]

And the author of the first and earliest Gospel, "Mark" has no birth narrative, or knowledge of any Virgin Birth traditions. None demonstrated anyway. Could Mark be the closest thing we have to a genuine NT author who is an actual disciple of Jesus of Nazareth? If not an eyewitness, perhaps the close associate of an eyewitness, maybe Peter?

Honestly, I'm not sure it would makes that big of a difference one way or the other. If the author of Mark was a disciple of Jesus or a close associate of an eyewitness, the reliability of the text would remain in question because the author's extraordinary supernatural claims lack any implicit empirical basis by which we can determine if the described events are even conceptually possible.

[SallyF]

Thought I'd re-mention that as a Christian child, my belief was unreasoned.

It was just what my community group did. I never had reason to seek a reason.

I suspect that applies to a lot of Christians.

They never think about it too much.

I was accused of thinking about it too much as I matured and did begin to think … for myself.

So there you are - a rare direct answer - my strongest reason for believing was not having a reason to believe.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 85 by bluegreenearth]

The gospel, like most historical accounts, are recorded testimony of empirical evidence. One would end up rejecting much of accepted history (as well as the theory of evolution)* if one were to limit what one accepts as true only to what one has empirically observed.

EMPIRICALE

Relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empirical

* It is the height of irony that those that believe in the "miracle" of life emerging from non living matter in a mythical the left-handed amino acid world that poofed itself into existence from stardust, defying all known laws of thermodynamics and surviving in "magic water" (that theoretically defied all the properties of water as we know it), claim such regard for empiracle evidence.



JW


RELATED POSTS

What is evidence?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 18#p942218

How does proof differ from evidence?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 55#p950455

]

For further reading please go to other posts related to...

PROOF , EVIDENCE and ... FAITH

[bluegreenearth]

The gospel, like most historical accounts, are recorded testimony of empirical evidence.

The gospels were not necessarily historical accounts nor were they intended to be but were written in the style of religious propaganda by anonymous authors decades after the events they describe are supposed to have taken place. The gospels claim there were eyewitnesses to the events they describe but are not themselves eyewitness accounts. For example, if someone wrote a book claiming there were over 250 eyewitnesses who observed a UFO hovering over a small town in Kentucky 45 years ago, the author of that book would not be considered an eyewitness. Even if eyewitnesses of a UFO hovering over a small town in Kentucky did provide written accounts of their observations, that information would only be considered testimony of empirical evidence by the eyewitnesses since they were the only people who observed anything. To everyone else who didn't observe the UFO, eyewitness testimony could only be considered as conceptual evidence. Meanwhile, a video recording and photographs of the alleged UFO might be considered empirical evidence by outsiders who didn't witness the event themselves, but such evidence still wouldn't be sufficient to conclude that extra-terrestrial aliens exist.

One would end up rejecting much of accepted history (as well as the theory of evolution)* if one were to limit what one accepts as true only to what one has empirically observed.

* It is the height of irony that those that believe in the "miracle" of life emerging from non living matter in a mythical the left-handed amino acid world, defying all known laws of thermodynamics and surviving in "magic water" (that theoretically defied all the properties of water as we know it), claim such regard for empiracle evidence.

Have you read my posts on epistemology yet?

[1213]

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

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

My strongest reason is the Bible and that things go as the Bible tells. Also, I choose to believe because I think the teachings about good and evil are true and good.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 81 by benchwarmer]

You mean the context where it says "whoever"?

Exactly! So let's think about this? It was his disciples which were with him, right? Disciples are students, and Jesus would be the teacher, right? So then, when we read these sort of passages, we are overhearing a teacher conducting a class with their students.

So then, now let us imagine, I write you a email explaining an event which may have happened at a local high school, and in this email I describe to you how the teacher stood in front of her class and said, "whoever brings me a typo they find in the newspaper over the next month will receive a $100.00 cash award."

Now, would you understand this teacher to be intending to give this award to "whoever", my walk in off the street who may have heard, or read this somewhere? Of course not! However, for some reason, you read what is contained in the Bible, which is something that was never even addressed to you, where a teacher had gathered his class together, and somehow this, "whoever" must, and has to apply to all, throughout all times.

I suppose you can twist the words to mean whatever you like. Seems like common practice.

Do you mean like one who takes on little sentence out of it's whole context, in which the context clearly explains who exactly was being addressed, and then insists this little sentence must, and has to apply to everyone in the world throughout all times, when they would never understand it this way in other written material? I guess you are right? It truly seems as if it is "common practice."

I guess you'll find this comical too:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

Well, I really do not know exactly what you are referring to here since you simply give me a whole chapter. We really do not have the time, or space here to do a Bible study, but let's see what we can do.

The first thing I notice right from the start is, it was Jesus, and the disciples again because it starts out by saying,

At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying

So then, just like in the other passage you took out of context, this is a conversation we are overhearing between Jesus, and his disciples. It then describes how Jesus, "called a little child to him, and placed the child among them". Now, who is "them"? Well, that would clearly be the disciples who came to him.

He then goes on to tell them, (the disciples),

If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

So now, would this apply only to the disciples? Well, let's see by going on to what is said immediately after this,

Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come!

Okay, Jesus indeed is only addressing the disciples, but we can clearly see that he is now including the "world" as he is talking to them, which would clearly indicate to us that even though we are reading a conversation, between Jesus, and his disciples, what he says here to them would apply to the world as well.

As I said, these things are not difficult to understand, and you would not have a bit of trouble with most other written material, but all of a sudden because it is in the Bible, it has to be read differently than anything else we read.

As an example, suppose I pick up a letter on the kitchen table which is clearly addressed to my wife, and it is from her boss. Now let us imagine, that in this letter it reads, "if you will get to work an hour early in the morning, you will get a $1000.00 bonus".

Now, do you suppose that I might show up for work myself, at my place of employment, and expect the same bonus? Well no! Because this would not apply to me.

However, now let us imagine that at the end of the letter, her boss tells her, "oh, and by the way, I wanted to be sure to tell you that Walmart is having a big sale on Saturday, and the first 100 customers will get 50% off their entire purchase".

Now then, although this letter was intended for my wife, would this apply to me as well? Absolutely! So then, as we read things in the correct context, we can determine things which are said that would not apply to us, and we can also easily determine the things that would indeed apply to us.

If it is not difficult at all to determine these things in other written material, then why is it so difficult simply because it is contained in the Bible?

So then, when we arrive to verse 19, we can clearly see the context is concerning, Church discipline, because Jesus has just explain to them how to handle those who may sin against you. He ends by telling them,

If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

In other words, they are not to be allowed in the fellowship of the Church. He then goes on to say,

Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

What is he talking about? Well, he is still talking about Church disciple, right? So then, whenever the Church agrees someone should be taken out from under the care and protection of the Church, this is done in heaven as well, according to Jesus.

So then, when we get to verse 19 we read,

Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.

So what is being said here? Is it saying that whatever you ask will be done here on earth? No, it is saying it will be, "done in heaven". Remember verse 18, "what is loosed, on earth will be loosed in heaven". Then verse 19, what is asked for on earth, will be done in heaven.

So then, as you can see, we take this passage which is clearly referring to Church discipline, and attempt to force it to say, "whatever we ask for on earth, will be given for us on earth" when the passage is dealing with things which are done in heaven, not here on earth.

Are you conceding that prayer is pointless unless you were there with Jesus when he was alive and talking to you?

I do not see how in the world one could honestly come to this conclusion? Jesus is explaining here to his disciples about Church disciple. How would this have anything to do with what I may pray for, when there are clear teachings given by Paul and others, as they write to the Churches about pray?

Countless Christians seem to disagree with you when they gather and pray in Jesus name. Perhaps you should go straighten all them out first?

You are correct, and I would imagine this is where you got this faulty understanding. Instead of simply listening to the interpretation of others, (including myself) it may be best for you to actually read these things for yourself in their correct context.

I guess I'm glad to see at least one Christian concede that they can't in fact ask for things in Jesus name and expect it to potentially happen.

And I do not expect this, because as you can see, it was never promised. What you ask for on earth, will be done in heaven is the clear context concerning Church discipline.

Not sure what the point in praying is then if that's the case.

Again, what is being talked about here is, Church discipline. It has nothing to do with promising Christians they can ask whatever they want, and receive it. So how would this have a thing to do with what is taught about pray, elsewhere?

Are you in the "I pray to apologize for my sins and ask God to do what He was going to do anyways" camp?

I am in the camp of reading things in their context, in order to come to a correct understanding. When one does such a thing, they will come to understand that there is no way in which to understand this passage to possibly mean that Christians can ask for whatever they wish, and receive it, and the only way to do so, is to twist the passage completely, and more than likely for a purpose.