What would it take?

[Athetotheist]

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?

[Goose]

I didn't shift the burden of proving the resurrection onto you; that burden has been on you all along.

How on earth could the burden of proof to prove the resurrection have been on me all along in a thread you started where you are asking what it would take to convince Christians that Christianity was false?

Looks like we are done here.

[Athetotheist]

I didn't shift the burden of proving the resurrection onto you; that burden has been on you all along.

How on earth could the burden of proof to prove the resurrection have been on me all along in a thread you started where you are asking what it would take to convince Christians that Christianity was false?

Looks like we are done here.

You said that I shifted onto you a burden of proof which you would have assumed on your own with an extraordinary claim.

Now we're done.

[brunumb]

What would be the point of sending a divine message only to let a writer garble it?

It’s an implication of God choosing to involve people in delivering his message.

Doesn't say much for the importance of the message. What sort of omnipotent being with any degree of intelligence chooses an apparently ad hoc collection of individuals to cobble together what should be the most significant document for all humanity with no concern over what happens to his inspired words? One has to wonder why he just didn't do it himself. The most obvious explanation is that there is no God involved at all.

[JehovahsWitness]

What would be the point of sending a divine message only to let a writer garble it?

It’s an implication of God choosing to involve people in delivering his message.

Doesn't say much for the importance of the message. What sort of omnipotent being with any degree of intelligence chooses an apparently ad hoc collection of individuals to cobble together what should be the most significant document for all humanity with no concern over what happens to his inspired words? One has to wonder why he just didn't do it himself. The most obvious explanation is that there is no God involved at all.

Or that God both inspired and ensured that his message would be read in an incorrupted form when the information was needed.







RELATED POSTS

If the bible HAD been irrevocably compromised, what would that suggest about God?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 57#p833457

If bible translations are not inspired, how can they be trusted?
viewtopic.php?p=986376#p986376

Did Jesus suggest copies and translations of holy scripture were erronious?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 13#p986513

Have bible truth always been freely available?
viewtopic.php?p=1021307#p1021307

To read more please go to other posts related to...

BIBLICAL INERRANCY , COMPILATION and ... AUTHORSHIP & TRANSMISSION

[1213]

You stated that “Not having video of Obama's inauguration” would convince you that Obama was never president of the United States. Do you abandon that claim?

1213 asked what it would take to convince that Obama was never president of the United States. Assume that you are abandoning your earlier claim, which seems the only rational choice, how would you answer his question?

I was being a bit facetious to make a point. Virtually nothing short of amnesia would convince an informed and reasonable person that Obama was never president, because there's too much evidence that he was . This puts Obama's presidency in stark contrast with Jesus's alleged walk on the sea of Galilee.

I think the same way about Jesus. To me it would be like denying Obama was not president to say Jesus was not the promised Messiah.

[brunumb]

Doesn't say much for the importance of the message. What sort of omnipotent being with any degree of intelligence chooses an apparently ad hoc collection of individuals to cobble together what should be the most significant document for all humanity with no concern over what happens to his inspired words? One has to wonder why he just didn't do it himself. The most obvious explanation is that there is no God involved at all.

Or that God both inspired and ensured that his message would be read in an incorrupted form when he information was needed.

That's rather doubtful given that he wasn't even able to ensure that any of the original documents survived. All we have are copies of copies of copies.....
Then we had almost two millennia of corrupted messages before groups like the JWs turned up to finally inform us of (their versions of) the true message. Sure speaks of a pretty incompetent deity.

[JehovahsWitness]

... we had almost two millennia of corrupted messages ...

Do you have any proof to support this statement?

[Athetotheist]

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)

2. Did the law of Moses say, "Do not swear at all"? (Numbers 30:1-2)

3. Did the law of Moses say, "You will not add to the law"? (Deut. 4:2)

4. When Jesus added to the law by saying, "Do not swear at all", was he violating the law? (ibid.)

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)

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?

[Don Mc]

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?

It's a good question. I’m guessing that when you say "falsifiable," you mean falsifiable in principle, i.e., that the belief is of such a kind that it could be shown to be false if indeed it were actually false. (That's what I mean when I say "falsifiable," anyway.) Otherwise I would say that Christian theism is not falsifiable for the simple reason that it's true.

Now I don't think Christian theism is falsifiable in the way a properly formulated scientific hypothesis might be. But from all indications it was falsifiable in the first century. When the apostles publicly declared that Jesus had risen from the dead and appeared to them, they essentially challenged their detractors to falsify the claim by opening the tomb of Jesus and producing the body.

For myself Christian theism is not falsifiable, in principle or otherwise. That's not because I hold it to be true as a dogma, but because it strikes me as a properly basic belief – a belief which, as Plantinga describes it, is for me self-evidently true and for which there are no defeaters. So in that sense Christian theism is on a par with my belief in the validity of logic, my belief in the existence of an external world beyond my perceptions, and my belief in other minds.

[Athetotheist]

It's a good question. I’m guessing that when you say "falsifiable," you mean falsifiable in principle, i.e., that the belief is of such a kind that it could be shown to be false if indeed it were actually false. (That's what I mean when I say "falsifiable," anyway.) Otherwise I would say that Christian theism is not falsifiable for the simple reason that it's true.

Now I don't think Christian theism is falsifiable in the way a properly formulated scientific hypothesis might be. But from all indications it was falsifiable in the first century. When the apostles publicly declared that Jesus had risen from the dead and appeared to them, they essentially challenged their detractors to falsify the claim by opening the tomb of Jesus and producing the body.

For myself Christian theism is not falsifiable, in principle or otherwise. That's not because I hold it to be true as a dogma, but because it strikes me as a properly basic belief – a belief which, as Plantinga describes it, is for me self-evidently true and for which there are no defeaters. So in that sense Christian theism is on a par with my belief in the validity of logic, my belief in the existence of an external world beyond my perceptions, and my belief in other minds.

I'm using "falsifiable" in the sense that if undeniable facts rule out the possibility of a belief being true, those defending the belief will admit thai it's false.

Christian belief holds that Jesus died and rose from the dead after three days, but positive identification of a body [by the face and the nose] had to be made within three days of death, as was eventually codified in Mishnah Yevamot 16:3. So even if the authorities had brought out the body of Jesus after three days, decomposition would have begun, a positive identification couldn't have been made and the disciples could have said that it wasn't him, which fits in with the conclusion indicated by the questions I posed earlier.