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.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 48 by bluegreenearth]

My friend, what you seem to be asking here would be exactly what I did in order to come to the convictions I now hold, and this took a number of years. In other words, this is not like a shopping list where I check off the things I buy. Rather, it was a painstaking process, that required years of thinking through, and you seem to be under the impression that this all can be handled in a single post?

GOOD GRIEF! If it were as simple as you seem to make it out to be, then I highly doubt we would continue to have the debate.

However, to make it as simple as you seem to want it to be. I believe the claims of the Resurrection of Jesus, because of the facts, and evidence we have which support the Resurrection of Jesus.

If we did not have these facts, and evidence to support the Resurrection of Jesus, then I would have no reasons to believe in this Resurrection?

Does that help?

When we consider the facts and other supporting evidence for the Resurrection claim as being reliable, are we then obligated to affirm other supernatural claims which might utilize that same or similar types of facts and supporting evidence? For instance, followers of Islam will articulate an almost identical justification based on historical facts and other supporting evidence for believing Mohammed flew up to heaven on a winged horse. Obviously, Christians do not accept that claim as being true. So, what distinguishes the facts and supporting evidence for the Resurrection from the facts and supporting evidence for Mohammed's miraculous assent to heaven?

Note: If the miracle claims from Islam is a unsatisfactory example for you, just substitute it with another non-Christian miracle claim that utilizes similar kinds of facts and evidence to support it. (Maybe UFO abduction claims?)

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 61 by bluegreenearth]

When we consider the facts and other supporting evidence for the Resurrection claim as being reliable, are we then obligated to affirm other supernatural claims which might utilize that same or similar types of facts and supporting evidence?

No, because you see, I do not have to know a thing at all about Islam, nor any other religion in the world, in order to understand if there may be facts, and evidence to support the Christian claims.

In other words, there may be facts, and evidence to support the claims of Islam, but I do not need to know this in order to determine if there may be evidence to support the Christian claims.

For instance, followers of Islam will articulate an almost identical justification based on historical facts and other supporting evidence for believing Mohammed flew up to heaven on a winged horse.

Oh really? I did not realize this at all? You are bringing news to may ears! So then, please do explain to us where in the world the letters would be, which were written to different audiences at the time, by numerous different authors, addressing completely different concerns at the time, who would have had no idea, that anyone else would have read what was being written, other than the original intended audience at the time, and surely could not have known about any sort of, "holy book" that was not compiled until hundreds of years later, that would be tied to Islam?

Because you see, although I do not know that much about Islam, I was under the impression that the writings in it's "holy book" all came from Mohammed himself, while Jesus did not leave a word in writing, and yet he is more than likely the most well known name in the history of the world, all on the account of what others had to say, about him?

Now, how do you think that really compares? I would say, not very well.

Obviously, Christians do not accept that claim as being true.

Well, I am a Christian myself, and I do not reject the claims as being false, because I couldn't care less about the claims, and I do not need to care, nor need to know a thing about Islam, in order to know if there may be facts, and evidence to support the Christian claims.

So, what distinguishes the facts and supporting evidence for the Resurrection from the facts and supporting evidence for Mohammed's miraculous assent to heaven?

Well, for one thing, as described above, I am under the impression that it would have simply been Mohammad who made the claims concerning Islam, while there were numerous disconnected authors, writing to different audiences at the time, most of whom would have already been believers, and these authors claim to have been witnesses of events, they claim to be historical, and we have certain evidence to support the fact that they continued these claims well into their old age, even to the point of prison, and even death. I'm not sure how that would compare?

But again, I am simply comparing the facts, and evidence between the two as I understand them. This would not be to say there would be no facts, and evidence to support Islam. I simply couldn't care less.

Note: If the miracle claims from Islam is a unsatisfactory example for you

Note: I have never said such a thing!

just substitute it with another non-Christian miracle claim that utilizes similar kinds of facts and evidence to support it. (Maybe UFO abduction claims?)

Okay, let's go with the "UFO abduction claims'. I have some serious doubts about these claims, so much so, that I would not spend a minute of my time debating the issue. However, I do not insist, these claims must, and have to be false. Can you imagine why? Well because, I couldn't care less about the issue!

However, if I were going to spend my time on a debate site attempting to refute these claims, I will assure you, I would have far more to offer than my doubt. In other words, I would go on to investigate these claims thoroughly, and I would not be simply asking folks to compare other similar claims, (i.e. Christianity to Islam) because I would understand that simply because one claim MAY be false, would not necessitate that the other would be false as well. In fact, I would understand that one, would have nothing whatsoever to do with the other.

My point is, for me to go to the extent to care enough to actually debate an issue, would demonstrate that I understand there would be enough evidence to support the claims. If there is not enough evidence for me to care enough to debate the issue, then I simply ignore it, because I deem it to be silly.

With this being the case, I entertain the idea that there may be reasons to doubt the claims of Christianity, which is why I am here to debate the issue.

You may want to consider the fact that many of us as Christians, have actually thought through these things ourselves, long before you came along!

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 62 by Realworldjack]

Realworldjack,

Based on the implied tone of your most recent response, I feel it is necessary to pause for a moment and request that you adopt a less arrogant posture in this dialogue as I've been nothing but doxastically open in soliciting your constructive criticism. However, my willingness to investigate the reliability of your reasoning was not intended to invite a dismissive attitude from you. I hope you understand and choose to respect these rules of engagement. Thank you.

[Zzyzx]

.

You choose to whom you believe or whom you trust ... I do the same.

I choose based on verifiable evidence, not emotion.

I just want to point out that the definition of “trust� is that we don’t have verifiable evidence. If someone only trusts when s/he has verifiable evidence, then that person doesn’t trust anyone. Which is his/her choice, but to me it seems like a sad, ineffective, and pointless life.

Perhaps life is exciting (not ‘sad, ineffective, pointless’) for those who prefer to base decisions on emotions (and ‘trust’) rather than upon reasoning and evidence.

Frequent surprise discoveries that they should NOT have trusted a person or source may be emotionally stimulating.

I would consider myself VERY naive and gullible if I made important decisions based on ‘trust’ without darn good reason (verifiable evidence) to trust the person or source. Regarding unimportant matters, I would trust even Apologists telling what they had for breakfast (unless they claimed unicorn ears or some such) because that is not a matter of any importance. I would NOT, however, trust Apologist claims of knowledge of ‘gods’ or ‘afterlife’ or ‘miracles’ unless they could provide verifiable supporting evidence.


Trust: assured reliance on the character, ability, strength, or truth of someone or something. www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trust

To some ‘assured reliance’ may mean they read a book by unknown writers telling unverifiable tales. To me and others ‘assured reliance’ means knowledge of the trustworthiness of a source that can be verified.

[Avoice]

[Replying to post 2 by Eloi]

You know of course that the concept of the Messiah comes from the Jews. And we are told in the Hebrew Scriptures about the Messiah.

Where does it say in the Hebrew Scriptures that the Messiah was to die and resurrect three days later? As far as that goes or be born of a virgin? It doesn't.

Jesus could have been born of a virgin on Mars and die and resurrect 20 times. It would certainly make him pretty cool but these things don't prove he is the Messiah.

If you can show me where it says the Messiah will die and resurrect in the Hebrew Scriptures then I'd like to see it. If not, then what would be your next reason to believe Jesus us the messiah?

Thanks for the input. Look forward to your reply

[Avoice]

[Replying to post 5 by Eloi]

Have you checked the claims made by the evangelists?

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 .."

Have you ever bothered to read chapter 7. It takes only five minutes to read.

[JehovahsWitness]

Where does it say in the Hebrew Scriptures that the Messiah was to die and resurrect three days later? As far as that goes or be born of a virgin? It doesn't.

This question is based on the assumption that the Hebrew messianic prophecies were exhaustive and that the Messiah himself could only do or teach that which was previously revealed.

To illustrate: A father promises an inheritance to his son, only to be delivered if he (The son) marries a fellow Romanian, under 5"5 in height, with brown hair, of noble parentage that plays the harp. Would the inheritance be withheld if he married a girl that did all the above but also spoke 5 languages, played the violin and turned out to be a mathematical genius that bore him 12 children? Could someone object "The will says nothing about maths or children obviously she doesn't meet the criteria"!

As in the above example, Jesus fulfilled all the Messianic prophecies destined for his earthly life. That he would do more than outlined and give new information about the Messianic role does not disqualify him from being said Messiah. Indeed given the biblical pattern of progressive revelation, it would arguably indicate he was not the Messiah if he failed to reveal something new.

Continued below....

Progressive Revelation in the Hebrew scriptures
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 251#330251

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 67 by JehovahsWitness]


FURTHER:

Video lecture: Gerrit Losch: 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/





MESSIANIC PROPHECIES

Are the Messianic promises in the Hebrew bible exhaustive?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 64#p974464

How was SOLOMON like the Messiah? [Her 1:5]
viewtopic.php?p=1059329#p1059329

Where in the Hebrew Scriptures does it say the Messiah would come.. TWICE?!
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 15#p888515

Does PROGRESSIVE REVELATION represent a correction of error?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 27#p839127

Did Matthew mistranslate the Hebrew ALMA (virgin) when speaking about Mary the mother of Christ?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 18#p763618

Was Jesus a "fake Messiah" instigated by the Romans to counteract insurgency?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 82#p933982

JESUS

Did Jesus ever actually claim to be the Messiah?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 42#p918342

Did Jesus use "typology?"
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 39#p800839

Did Jesus manipulate event so it only appeared he fulfilled prophecies?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p847881

Did Jesus ever become a king?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 36#p930936

Did Jesus indicate he would return in the first century?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 62#p752162

Previous PROPHETS
viewtopic.php?p=335116#p335116

1914

How could Jesus be appointed king in 1914 if he was given "all authority" in 33 CE?
viewtopic.php?p=829355#p829355

Has Jesus not ALWAYS been king?
viewtopic.php?p=830982#p830982

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

JESUS , MESSIANIC PROPHECY and ...FALSE PROPHETS

[Elijah John]

Now that I think for myself, I'm a New Atheist.

I've asked you this before, and forgive me if I missed the answer, but what is a "New Atheist", as opposed to a regular ole atheist?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 41 by benchwarmer]

I find RR's response typical of the type of response given when there is no single solid reason.

I tell you what. You show me a person on either side of the equation who is under the impression that there is a "single solid reason" to believe, or dismiss the claims, and I can more than likely show you a, simple minded person, because it does not work like that my friend.

I think there is a confusion of terms here. I am not claiming there is one and only one solid reason for anything. I'm talking about A solid reason. Do you have A solid reason. i.e. what is your MOST solid reason. I'm not sure how that has escaped your notice given the title of this thread or the part of my response which you conveniently did not respond to when I gave one example for disbelief.

In other words, I gave a single (not many) reason which I find solid. Are there others? Sure. I gave what I thought was my most solid reason.

Continually insinuating others are 'simple minded' or not thinking well is not garnering you any points. It does, however, make me care less and less about having a dialog with you. Let's stick to the topic please.

I think there is a confusion of terms here. I am not claiming there is one and only one solid reason for anything. I'm talking about A solid reason. Do you have A solid reason. i.e. what is your MOST solid reason.

Which I have already demonstrated makes no sense! If I say, "the Resurrection of Jesus", then the question becomes, "why would you believe such a thing"? If I say, "because we have the reports", then I will be ask, "why would you believe the reports"? So then, as you can see, for anyone who actually uses the mind, to arrive to the Resurrection, there must, and has to be, multiple reasons.

In order to maybe explain this better, there is another member of this site with whom I have been in debate with, and in the end as far as I can tell, he only has 2 reasons for his unbelief. The first is, the claims are far to extraordinary, and then it is, the Resurrection is not "the most preferable answer". The point is, if he cannot go on to give the reasons behind these conclusions, then these would be very weak arguments by themselves.

I'm not sure how that has escaped your notice given the title of this thread or the part of my response which you conveniently did not respond to when I gave one example for disbelief.

All I can tell you is that I attempt to answer every point, and I am sure I will miss one from time, to time. So if you can make the point again, which you claim I "conveniently did not respond to" I will be more than happy to address it.

With that being said, there are numerous things I have pointed out which you clearly seem to have ignored, and yet you are going to attempt to bring up the one you think I avoided? Really?

In fact, my last response to you was in reply to your post #41. The only place in this post where you seem to give a reason is when you say,

All we have are claims from authors (some anonymous) about what other people claimed. Since I have no way to independently verify these claims, I cannot honestly believe the claims. This does not mean the claims are false (as some like to strawman my position), but simply that I find no reasonable reason to believe the claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Not more unverifiable claims.

Okay, so here is what I said in my very next post to you,

This seems to sort of demonstrates one who does not know a whole lot about what is contained in the Bible. These letters we have are not simply claims, but are also direct evidence of how these men went on to live their life well into their old age.

These letters are also direct evidence that the author of the two letters to Theophilus would have traveled around with Paul on his missionary journeys for years, which clearly demonstrates, this author would have been alive at the time of Christ, would have known all the Apostles, spent much time with them, and known the claims they were making first hand. This demonstrates, the claims of the resurrection could not possibly have been something the Apostles never claimed, and these tales came along much later after the Apostles were gone, as some of the critics suggest.

Again, for one to simply claim, "all we have is claims" sort of demonstrates pretty clearly one who is not thinking very much, because there are a lot of things we can know, and a lot of arguments which are made by the critics, that can be refuted by looking at these letters which contain way more than simply, claims.

So then, if there is another issue I may have missed, then please do remind me.

Continually insinuating others are 'simple minded' or not thinking well is not garnering you any points.

My friend, I am not here to, "gather points" whatever that means? Next, if we are in a debate, and are on opposing sides of this debate, are you not attempting to demonstrate that I am not thinking correctly?

As far as the term "simple minded" the only time I recall using this phrase was here,

I tell you what. You show me a person on either side of the equation who is under the impression that there is a "single solid reason" to believe, or dismiss the claims, and I can more than likely show you a, simple minded person, because it does not work like that my friend.

Now the question is, do you disagree with my statement here? Or, are you under the impression with me, that there would have to be way more involved than one single reason?

My point is, you either understand how complex this matter actually is, and that there are no simple answers. Or, you simply do not actually want to have to think through all that would be involved, and would rather simply have, simple answers.

As I have pointed out in the past, it is not as simple as many Christians would like it to be when they say, "the Bible says, I believe it, and that settles it" but it is also not as simple as many unbelievers make it out to be.

So then, either you agree with me that there are no simple answers to this complex matter"? Or, you are under the impression that this matter is simple, and there are simple answers? So then, you tell me which side you end up on here?

It does, however, make me care less and less about having a dialog with you. Let's stick to the topic please.

Listen, I have been on this site for almost 7 years now, and I have had folks attempt to insult me, they have broken rules of the forum, and I have even received a threatening PM from one of the members.

None of these things have ever bothered me in the least, because I want folks to feel free to express themselves any way they wish, and I look past all these things to what it is they are actually saying to me, in order to determine if they may be correct, and I in error, because that is how important the truth is to me.

My point is, if you are more concerned about how people say things, as opposed to what is actually being said, then I can tell you from experience a debate forum may not be the place to be.

As far as sticking to the topic, I really do not see how the words I use to make my points would be in any way, on topic?