Maybe this has been asked before, but what would it take to convince Christians that Jesus was not the promised Messiah of the Bible? What would have to happen? What would have to be proven and how?
I remember reading the work of a Christian apologist author who asserted that any possible explanation for a problem would suffice to negate the problem. Still, Christians who engage in honest debate on the subject should concede that Christianity has to be falsifiable at some point. What would Christians consider that point to be?
What would it take?
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2690
- Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
- Has thanked: 14 times
- Been thanked: 484 times
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2690
- Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
- Has thanked: 14 times
- Been thanked: 484 times
Re: What would it take?
Post #61Have you read the questions I posed in post #48? If you haven't, I would ask you to do so. If you have, you might consider looking at them again. It may be difficult and uncomfortable to confront, but facts are facts and God----whoever or whatever that designation means----should never be expected to disapprove of an honest examination of facts.EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 2:01 pm [Replying to Athetotheist in post #1]
The truth of Christianity is a settled point. Christianity grew in the very city that Jesus Christ died and everyone knew that he died. In 2000 years there has never been any evidence to suggest something different. That means that Jesus is who is says is He is and that everything in the Bible is true. For 2000 years men have tried to disprove the resurrection and all have failed. Good luck if you want to try.I remember reading the work of a Christian apologist author who asserted that any possible explanation for a problem would suffice to negate the problem. Still, Christians who engage in honest debate on the subject should concede that Christianity has to be falsifiable at some point. What would Christians consider that point to be?
- EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2192
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 43 times
- Contact:
Re: What would it take?
Post #62[Replying to Tcg in post #60]
You would have to present the point or points you are speaking of to back this claim up. If there are many as you say pick the one that you think is the best.Based on the discussions in this thread alone, your claim is clearly false.
- EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2192
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 43 times
- Contact:
Re: What would it take?
Post #63[Replying to Athetotheist in post #61]
Observations are what theories have to explain.
Observations
1. The Christian message has always been that Jesus died and rose again.
2. Christianity started in the very city in which Jesus died.
3. The disciples believed that Jesus rose from the dead.
4. There was no dead body that anyone ever brought forth.
5. Most of the Rome empire was filled with the teaching of Christianity by AD 64. In 30 short years after the death and testified to resurrection of a Carpender in Jerusalem.
These are observations that cannot be falsified because they have been observed. So Christianity is a settled point.
Theories can be disproved and are subject to falsification.Have you read the questions I posed in post #48? If you haven't, I would ask you to do so. If you have, you might consider looking at them again. It may be difficult and uncomfortable to confront, but facts are facts and God----whoever or whatever that designation means----should never be expected to disapprove of an honest examination of facts.
Observations are what theories have to explain.
Observations
1. The Christian message has always been that Jesus died and rose again.
2. Christianity started in the very city in which Jesus died.
3. The disciples believed that Jesus rose from the dead.
4. There was no dead body that anyone ever brought forth.
5. Most of the Rome empire was filled with the teaching of Christianity by AD 64. In 30 short years after the death and testified to resurrection of a Carpender in Jerusalem.
These are observations that cannot be falsified because they have been observed. So Christianity is a settled point.
- tam
- Savant
- Posts: 6443
- Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
- Has thanked: 353 times
- Been thanked: 324 times
- Contact:
Re: What would it take?
Post #64Peace to you,
(One might want to keep Jeremiah 8:8 in mind - since it was the scribes and teachers of the law who added to the law that God gave and to which Christ corrected. And keep in mind also Matt 19:8, because there Christ explains that some laws were given to them as an allowance for their hard-hearts, and He then taught them what was true from the beginning.)
Neither is true of Christ.
They do not point to the conclusion that He was not the Messiah. He did not violate the law (not sure that was even a requirement of the Messiah, regardless, the law was a tutor leading to Christ, and when He came, the people were to listen to HIM... Deuteronomy 18:15, 18; as even God said to do... Luke 9:35) The Messiah teaching and explaining to the people all things (which would certainly include the truth from the beginning) is something that was expected of the Messiah:
"The woman said, "I know that Messiah" (called Christ) "is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us." John 4:25
Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy
He (Christ) did.Athetotheist wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 11:58 am Why should it take something elaborate to demonstrate that Jesus wasn't the Messiah? Why not just plain old logic? Consider just one example here, in a series of questions with scriptural references to the answers:
1. Concerning the taking of oaths and vows, did Jesus say, "Do not swear at all"? (Matthew 5:33-37)
Not that I am aware of. The verses that you have quoted do not command people TO swear, either. The verses that you quoted are regulations to follow IF one CHOOSES to swear an oath.2. Did the law of Moses say, "Do not swear at all"? (Numbers 30:1-2)
Moses did say to Israel, do not add to the law that God gave them.3. Did the law of Moses say, "You will not add to the law"? (Deut. 4:2)
(One might want to keep Jeremiah 8:8 in mind - since it was the scribes and teachers of the law who added to the law that God gave and to which Christ corrected. And keep in mind also Matt 19:8, because there Christ explains that some laws were given to them as an allowance for their hard-hearts, and He then taught them what was true from the beginning.)
He was not violating the law. He was warning people (something you do out of love - which is the law - and there is no law against love), not to do something that He knew spelled trouble for them. Yes, if you make a vow, you must keep your vow. But it is not a violation of the law to instead let your 'yes' be your 'yes' and your 'no' be your 'no'.4. When Jesus added to the law by saying, "Do not swear at all", was he violating the law? (ibid.)
... and who taught others to do the same.5. Did Jesus say that anyone who violated even the least command of the law would be called least in the kingdom of heaven? (Matthew 5:19)
Neither is true of Christ.
6. Do the answers to the previous questions point to the conclusion that Jesus was the Messiah or to the conclusion that he wasn't?
They do not point to the conclusion that He was not the Messiah. He did not violate the law (not sure that was even a requirement of the Messiah, regardless, the law was a tutor leading to Christ, and when He came, the people were to listen to HIM... Deuteronomy 18:15, 18; as even God said to do... Luke 9:35) The Messiah teaching and explaining to the people all things (which would certainly include the truth from the beginning) is something that was expected of the Messiah:
"The woman said, "I know that Messiah" (called Christ) "is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us." John 4:25
Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy
-
- Student
- Posts: 58
- Joined: Tue May 26, 2020 9:39 pm
- Has thanked: 26 times
- Been thanked: 14 times
Re: What would it take?
Post #65I can't see how your question is relevant to anything I said, let alone a sound rebuttal to my argument. Could you at least give it a shot? If not, could you go ahead and concede that your argument against the falsifiability of the resurrection is a nonstarter (since your criteria for falsifiability are impossible for any hypothesis to fulfil), before I agree to a fresh debate about…whatever point it is you're trying to make now?Athetotheist wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 7:59 pmWhat kind of reflection would it be on that hypothesis if the Jesus who supposedly rose from the dead and left his tomb empty were the same Jesus mentioned in the questions I posed earlier?Don Mc wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 6:25 pmNow I would say it's true, and almost all philosophers of science since Popper would agree, that if a "falsifiable" hypothesis is one for which no one can manage to dream up some absurd and completely ad hoc explanation to salvage it regardless of the facts stacking up against it, then there is simply no such thing as a falsifiable hypothesis. But that’s certainly not a bad reflection on the particular hypothesis that Jesus rose from the dead and left his tomb empty.
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2690
- Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
- Has thanked: 14 times
- Been thanked: 484 times
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2690
- Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
- Has thanked: 14 times
- Been thanked: 484 times
Re: What would it take?
Post #67But Jesus goes beyond the law by prohibiting that choice, thus violating the law's command that nothing be added to it.
It isn't the scribes and teachers adding to what Moses says in Numbers 30; it's Jesus himself doing that.One might want to keep Jeremiah 8:8 in mind - since it was the scribes and teachers of the law who added to the law that God gave and to which Christ corrected.
Then why does Deut. 13:18 say the exact opposite of that?And keep in mind also Matt 19:8, because there Christ explains that some laws were given to them as an allowance for their hard-hearts, and He then taught them what was true from the beginning.
"....because you have listened to the voice of the Lord your God, to keep all his commandments which I command you this day to do that which is right in the eyes of the Lord your God."
It would have been dishonest of Moses to make allowances for the hardness of people's hearts in the law and then tell them that they were to keep all the law as it was given in order to do what was right.
It is a violation of the law to say "do not swear at all" when the law doesn't say "do not swear at all" and does say "do not add anything to the law". 2+2=4.Yes, if you make a vow, you must keep your vow. But it is not a violation of the law to instead let your 'yes' be your 'yes' and your 'no' be your 'no'.
5. Did Jesus say that anyone who violated even the least command of the law would be called least in the kingdom of heaven? (Matthew 5:19)
This is exactly what Jesus does by his own example.... and who taught others to do the same.
But in Matthew 5, he's the one who tells people that they should keep every jot and tittle of the law. He also tells them in Matthew 22:40 that all of the law is in line with the two greatest commandments, again leaving himself no room to go countermanding the law----and no room to be the Jewish Messiah if he does.the law was a tutor leading to Christ, and when He came, the people were to listen to HIM...
- brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 5993
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6607 times
- Been thanked: 3209 times
Re: What would it take?
Post #68Given that you supplement your responses with numerous links to JW teaching, I offer the following supplement to my comment.
Were the Stories of Jesus Corrupted Before they were Written Down?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wyj00NBIjaY
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.