Why believe in Christianity over all other religions?

[wutamess]

Got this in an email today from a religious freak co-worker of my wife: :rolleyes:

Why believe in Christianity over all other religions?

Critics often ask why Christianity is any better than any other religion in the world. After all, of all the religions that exist how can it be that only Christianity is true? If God exists, why can't God use different religions? Don't all paths lead to God? Skeptics ask these kinds of questions all the time and, unfortunately, few Christians have the the answers. Therefore, in an attempt to demonstrate why Christianity is true and all other religious systems are false, I've prepared the follow list of reasons for Christianity's superiority.



There are such things as absolute truths

If truth is relative, then the statement that truth is relative is an absolute truth and would be self defeating statement by proving that truth is not relative. But, if truth is absolute, then the statement "truth is absolute" is true and not self defeating. It is true that truth exists. It is true that truth will not contradict itself as we have just seen. In fact, it is absolutely true that you are reading this paper.
If we can see that there is such a thing as truth in the world, then we could also see that there can be spiritual truth as well. It is not absurd to believe in spiritual absolutes anymore than physical or logical absolutes. Even the statement that all religions lead to God is a statement held to be a spiritual absolute by many people. This simply demonstrates that people do believe in spiritual truth. Why? Because truth exists. However, not all that is believed to be true actually is true. Furthermore, all belief systems cannot be true since they often contradict each other in profound ways -- and truth is not self-contradictory.



Religions contradict each other; therefore, they cannot all be true.

Mormonism teaches that there are many gods in existence and that you can become a god. Christianity teaches that there is only one God and you cannot become a god. Islam teaches that Jesus is not God in flesh where Christianity does. Jesus cannot be both God and not God at the same time. Some religions teach that we reincarnate while others do not. Some teach there is a hell and others do not. They cannot all be true. If they cannot all be true, it cannot be true that all religions lead to God. Furthermore, it means that some religions are, at the very least, false in their claims to reveal the true God (or gods). Remember, truth does not contradict itself. If God exists, He will not institute mutually exclusive and contradictory belief systems in an attempt to get people to believe in Him. God is not the author of confusion (1 Cor. 14:33). Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that there can be an absolute spiritual truth and that not all systems can be true irregardless of whether or not they claim to be true. There must be more than a mere claim.



Fulfilled Prophecy concerning Jesus

Though there are other religions that have prophecies in them, none are 100% accurate as is the Bible and none of them point to someone like Jesus who made incredible claims and performed incredible deeds. The Old Testament was written hundreds of years before Jesus was born. Yet, the Old Testament prophesied many things about Jesus. This is undoubtedly evidence of divine influence upon the Bible.
Please consider some of the many prophecies of Jesus in the following chart.

Prophecy Old Testament Prophecy New Testament Fulfillment
Born of a virgin Isaiah 7:14 Matt. 1:18,25
Born at Bethlehem Micah 5:2 Matt. 2:1
He would be preceded by a Messenger Isaiah 40:3 Matt. 3:1-2
Rejected by His own people Isaiah 53:3 John 7:5; 7:48
Betrayed by a close friend Isaiah 41:9 John 13:26-30
His side pierced Zech. 12:10 John 19:34
Crucifixion Psalm 22:1,
Psalm 22:11-18 Luke 23:33;
John 19:23-24
Resurrection of Christ Psalm 16:10 Acts 13:34-37

Fulfillment of prophecy can have different explanations. Some state that the NT was written and altered to make it look like Jesus fulfilled OT prophecy (but there is no evidence of that). Others state that the prophecies are so vague that they don't count (but many of the prophecies are not vague at all). Of course, it is possible that God inspired the writers and Jesus, who is God in flesh, fulfilled these prophecies as a further demonstration of the validity of Christianity.



The Claims and Deeds of Christ

Christianity claims to be authored by God. Of course, merely making such a claim does not make it true. Anyone can make claims. but, backing up those claims is entirely different. Jesus used the Divine Name for Himself (John 8:58), the same Divine Name used by God when Moses asked God what His name was in (Exodus 3:14). Jesus said that He could do whatever He saw God the Father do (John 5:19), and He claimed to be one with the God the Father (John 10:30; 10:38). Likewise, the disciples also called Him God (John 1:1,14; John 10:27; Col. 2:9). By default, if Jesus is God in flesh, then whatever He said and did would be true. Since Jesus said that He alone was the way, the truth, and the life and that no one can find God without Him (John 14:6), His words become incredibly important.
Again, making a claim is one thing. Backing it up is another. Did Jesus also back up His fantastic words with miraculous deeds? Yes, He did.

Jesus changed water into wine (John 2:6-10).
Jesus cast out demons (Matt. 8:28-32; 15:22-28).
Jesus healed lepers (Matt. 8:3; Luke 17:14).
Jesus healed diseases (Matt. 4:23,24; Luke 6:17-19)
Jesus healed the paralytic (Mark 2:3-12).
Jesus raised the dead (Matt. 9:25; John 11:43-44).
Jesus restored sight to the blind (Matt. 9:27-30; John 9:1-7).
Jesus restored cured deafness (Mark 7:32-35).
Jesus fed the multitude (Matt. 14:15-21; Matt. 15:32-38).
Jesus walked on water (Matt. 8:26-27).
Jesus calmed a storm with a command (Matt. 8:22-27; Mark 4:39).
Jesus rose from the dead (Luke 24:39; John 20:27).
Jesus appeared to disciples after resurrection (John 20:19).

The eyewitnesses recorded the miracles of Jesus and the gospels have been reliably transmitted to us. Therefore, we can believe what Jesus said about Himself for two reasons: One, because what He said and did, agrees with the Old Testament and two, because Jesus performed many convincing miracles in front of people who testified and wrote about what they saw Him do.



Christ's resurrection

Within Christianity, the resurrection is vitally important. Without the resurrection our faith is useless (1 Cor. 15:14). It was Jesus' resurrection that changed the lives of the disciples. After Jesus was crucified, the disciples ran and hid. But when they saw the risen Lord, they knew that all that Jesus had said and done proved that He was indeed God in flesh, the Savior.
No other religious leader has died in full view of trained executioners, had a guarded tomb, and then risen three days later to appear to many many people. This resurrection is proof of who Jesus is and that He did accomplish what He set out to do: provide the only means of redemption for mankind.
Buddha did not rise from the dead. Muhammad did not rise from the dead. Confucius did not rise from the dead. Krishna did not rise from the dead, etc. Only Jesus has physically risen from the dead, walked on water, claimed to be God, and raised others from the dead. He has conquered death. Why trust anyone else? Why trust anyone who can be held by physical death when we have a Messiah who is greater than death itself?



Conclusion

Why should anyone trust in Christianity over Islam, Buddhism, Mormonism, or anything else? It is because there are absolute truths, because only in Christianity is there accurate fulfilled prophecies of a coming Messiah. Only in Christianity do we have the extremely accurate transmission of the eyewitness documents (gospels) so we can trust what was originally written. Only in Christianity do we have the person of Christ who claimed to be God, performed many miracles to prove His claim of divinity, who died and rose from the dead, and who said that He alone was the way the truth and the life (John 14:6). All this adds to the legitimacy and credibility of Christianity above all other religions -- all based on the person of Jesus. If follows that if it is all true about what Jesus said and did, then all other religions are false because Jesus said that He alone was the way, the truth, and the life and that no one comes to the Father except through Him (John 14:6). It could not be that Jesus is the only way and truth and other religions also be the truth.
Either Jesus is true and all other religions are false or other religions are true and Jesus is false. There are no other options. I choose to follow the risen Lord Jesus.

[Saulbadguy]

Reply with a link to tubgirl.

[Baby Lee]

The mystery of faith needs no proof. And it certainly needs no theorem rife with logical fallacies. This is the misguided work of someone who has little cognition of the nature of his beliefs.

It's the perfect converse to arguing that quantum physics is accurate because God rawks!!!

[Baby Lee]

Mormonism teaches that there are many gods in existence and that you can become a god.
Patently untrue.

[Jilly]

so being fairly certain that I probably know a little more about this than others....what should my position be here? Take it apart bit by bit or just leave it alone?

[Adept Havelock]

Patently untrue.


"We are members of the family of the Eternal Father. He is a glorified and exalted and eternal Being, having a resurrected body of flesh and bones. His name is God, and the kind of life he lives is God's life. His name is also Eternal, and the name of the kind of life he lives is eternal life. Eternal life is God's life, and God's life is eternal life. We are commanded to be perfect as he is perfect and to advance and progress until we become like him, or in other words, until we gain eternal life. Thus Joseph Smith said, "You have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power." (Teachings, pp. 346-47.) Christ our Lord has so obtained, thus enabling him to say to the faithful: "Ye shall be even as I am, and I am even as the Father." (3 Ne. 28:10.)" (LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, The Mortal Messiah, Vol.1, p.23 - p.24, LDS Collectors Library '97 CD-ROM)


This would certainly lend some support to that ideal. Especially the passage I highlighted. If it was only a figure of speech, why speak of "Gods", instead of "god"?

"As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become."
--- Lorenzo Snow
Summarizing Joseph Smith, Jr.'s King Follett Discourse

As far as the "multiple gods theory", I know Mormonism teaches God as three seperate "entities", Elohim, Jehovah, and Michael. Smith believed the Hebrew phrase Elohim Jehovah to mean two gods (Lord) and (God). Michaels' origin seem to be less clear, from what I've learned.

There is also God's "wife" or the "Eternal Mother" whose name is unspoken so it may not be used in blasphemy.

[Jilly]

Come on people, it's the whole premise that truth is objective or absolute. The fact of that matter is that truth is a subjective concept....it's not objective. What is true for you might not be true for me....

If you were color blind and thought a black sock was brown - that would be true for you that the sock was brown, you would see it as brown...but in actuality the sock is black and the sock being black for me is truth because I'm not color blind.

But I can still recognize that the truth for the colorblind person is that the sock is brown, just like if I am a Christian, I can recognize that the truth for another person might be in Hinduism or something else.

So the whole premise of this argument is off base.

[Jilly]

and yes, why try to do this to a person's faith anyhow, it isn't meant to be a theorom, like Baby Lee said.

[Adept Havelock]

and yes, why try to do this to a person's faith anyhow, it isn't meant to be a theorom, like Baby Lee said.

There are some believers whose faith is sufficently insecure that they need some type of "evidence" in the face of unbelievers.
That's where things like this, and the entire ID movement come from, IMO.

[Baby Lee]

"We are members of the family of the Eternal Father. He is a glorified and exalted and eternal Being, having a resurrected body of flesh and bones. His name is God, and the kind of life he lives is God's life. His name is also Eternal, and the name of the kind of life he lives is eternal life. Eternal life is God's life, and God's life is eternal life. We are commanded to be perfect as he is perfect and to advance and progress until we become like him, or in other words, until we gain eternal life. Thus Joseph Smith said, "You have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power." (Teachings, pp. 346-47.) Christ our Lord has so obtained, thus enabling him to say to the faithful: "Ye shall be even as I am, and I am even as the Father." (3 Ne. 28:10.)" (LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, The Mortal Messiah, Vol.1, p.23 - p.24, LDS Collectors Library '97 CD-ROM)


This would certainly lend some support to that ideal. Especially the passage I highlighted. If it was only a figure of speech, why speak of "Gods", instead of "god"?

"As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become."
--- Lorenzo Snow
Summarizing Joseph Smith, Jr.'s King Follett Discourse
1. This is not scripture or doctrine. It is a statement by a man, an Apostle, not even the president of the Church. I'd file it along with the ramblings of Pat Robertson.
2. The LDS, and Community of Christ, believe in Celestial glory, wherein one dwells with God forever. But there is a difference between existing in communion with God for eternity and being A GOD.

[Taco John]

1. This is not scripture or doctrine. It is a statement by a man, an Apostle, not even the president of the Church. I'd file it along with the ramblings of Pat Robertson.


I'm curious. The way you describe this man... Do you feel the same about Paul of the New Testemant? I ask, because I'm cautious of him. I find it curious that a man who once slayed Christians and who never met Christ in the flesh or even heard one of his sermons, magically became the authority on those teachings and how they are meant to be applied to our lives and our salvation.

[Adept Havelock]

1. This is not scripture or doctrine. It is a statement by a man, an Apostle, not even the president of the Church. I'd file it along with the ramblings of Pat Robertson.
2. The LDS, and Community of Christ, believe in Celestial glory, wherein one dwells with God forever. But there is a difference between existing in communion with God for eternity and being A GOD.


OK, then what about the "multiple Gods" theory? Jehovah, Elohim, and Michael? The "Eternal Mother"? Is it like the Christians claiming that the three (father, son and holy ghost) are actually one?

Also, a cursory Google of Apostle Bruce R. McConkie at least appears to show he has a bit more influence in the LDS than our favorite lunatic old Pat R. does among mainstream Christians. Though McConkie is apparently a controversial figure among the LDS.

[Baby Lee]

OK, then what about the "multiple Gods" theory? Jehovah, Elohim, and Michael? The "Eternal Mother"? Is it like the Christians claiming that the three (father, son and holy ghost) are actually one?

Also, a cursory Google of Apostle Bruce R. McConkie at least appears to show he has a bit more influence in the LDS than our favorite lunatic old Pat R. does among mainstream Christians. Though McConkie is apparently a contraversial figure among the LDS.
I have to cop, I'm Community of Christ [formerly RLDS], not Mormon. SO I am not versed in developments as they left Missouri and headed west. But I do know the origins of their faith, as we shared it up until the killing of Joseph Smith. And I know that the wild accusations of rejecting Christ and the Bible and making men Gods, etc., is largely bunk.

[memyselfI]

Got this in an email today from a religious freak co-worker of my wife: :rolleyes:



I thank GOD for spam filters!!! :clap:

[recxjake]

i grew up in catholic school and i don't know what to believe..... sometimes i wonder if religion is the biggest hoax in the world...

[memyselfI]

i grew up in catholic school and i don't know what to believe..... sometimes i wonder if religion is the biggest hoax in the world...

Dang, you ARE capable of independent thought. :clap:

[Adept Havelock]

I have to cop, I'm Community of Christ [formerly RLDS], not Mormon. SO I am not versed in developments as they left Missouri and headed west. But I do know the origins of their faith, as we shared it up until the killing of Joseph Smith. And I know that the wild accusations of rejecting Christ and the Bible and making men Gods, etc., is largely bunk.

I'm far from religious myself, but do have a scholarly interest. I'll agree on the first point as bunk, and there is a lot of dispute both ways about the second. I don't see it myself, but I can see how some Church statements can be construed to support it. Out of curiousity, does CoC also teach the Jehovah/Elohim/Michael concept and the "Eternal Mother"? If so, is it similar to the Chrstian idea of the Triune Godhead? Just wondering, and thanks.

I also understand if it's not something to be discussed among unbelievers like myself.

[wutamess]

so being fairly certain that I probably know a little more about this than others....what should my position be here? Take it apart bit by bit or just leave it alone?

I was hoping someone would take it apart bit by bit because I was gonna send the religous freak a well thought out rebuttal. But I frankly don't have the energy to argue the point and I'm also afraid someone could possibly do it better.

[Baby Lee]

I'm far from religious myself, but do have a scholarly interest. I'll agree on the first point as bunk, and there is a lot of dispute both ways about the second. I don't see it myself, but I can see how some Church statements can be construed to support it. Out of curiousity, does CoC also teach the Jehovah/Elohim/Michael concept and the "Eternal Mother"? If so, is it similar to the Chrstian idea of the Triune Godhead? Just wondering, and thanks.

I also understand if it's not something to be discussed among unbelievers like myself.
To the extent we believe anything any more [long story], our tradition is a triune Father, Son and Holy Ghost, with God noncorporeal and unwilling [can't really say unable about an omnipotent being] to countenance any sin, the Son flesh and our conduit to perfection, and the Holy Ghost the continuing presence of God in the material world.

[wutamess]

To the extent we believe anything any more [long story], our tradition is a triune Father, Son and Holy Ghost, with God noncorporeal and unwilling [can't really say unable about an omnipotent being] to countenance any sin, the Son flesh and our conduit to perfection, and the Holy Ghost the continuing presence of God in the material world.

:eek:

And I'm college educated.
Is there a 3rd grade english version of this around somewhere?

[kcfanintitanhell]

Only in Christianity do we have the extremely accurate transmission of the eyewitness documents (gospels) so we can trust what was originally written.

Extremely accurate? First of all, no one can tell without a shred of doubt that translations from that long ago are "extremely accurate", and, secondly, if anyone has played that old party line game, where one person makes a statement, passes it on to the next person, who passes it on to the next, and 8 people later it has taken on a new life, and totally different than the original statement.
Imagine that game started out with the statement "Jesus showed up with a loaf of bread and a fish."
JMHO-I was born and raised Catholic, started doubting at the age of 18, and have read a whole lot about various religions since.

[Adept Havelock]

To the extent we believe anything any more [long story], our tradition is a triune Father, Son and Holy Ghost, with God noncorporeal and unwilling [can't really say unable about an omnipotent being] to countenance any sin, the Son flesh and our conduit to perfection, and the Holy Ghost the continuing presence of God in the material world.

Thank you Good Sir! Could you at least give me a hint or a pointer on the "long story"? Sounds quite interesting.

[Sully]

My fiance is a minister. She could rip it apart piece, but then she gets so pissed off she starts cussing and throwing things, because of people who write crap like this... so I'm not sure I'd put her to that.

[Taco John]

I'm curious. The way you describe this man... Do you feel the same about Paul of the New Testemant? I ask, because I'm cautious of him. I find it curious that a man who once slayed Christians and who never met Christ in the flesh or even heard one of his sermons, magically became the authority on those teachings and how they are meant to be applied to our lives and our salvation.

[Nightwish]

There are such things as absolute truths

If truth is relative, then the statement that truth is relative is an absolute truth and would be self defeating statement by proving that truth is not relative. But, if truth is absolute, then the statement "truth is absolute" is true and not self defeating. It is true that truth exists. It is true that truth will not contradict itself as we have just seen. In fact, it is absolutely true that you are reading this paper.
If we can see that there is such a thing as truth in the world, then we could also see that there can be spiritual truth as well. It is not absurd to believe in spiritual absolutes anymore than physical or logical absolutes. Even the statement that all religions lead to God is a statement held to be a spiritual absolute by many people. This simply demonstrates that people do believe in spiritual truth. Why? Because truth exists. However, not all that is believed to be true actually is true. Furthermore, all belief systems cannot be true since they often contradict each other in profound ways -- and truth is not self-contradictory.
True. Where the objectivists fail, though, is in the opinion that their subjective interpretations of objective truths (scripture, for instance) are themselves objective truths. They're not.

Religions contradict each other; therefore, they cannot all be true.

Mormonism teaches that there are many gods in existence and that you can become a god. Christianity teaches that there is only one God and you cannot become a god. Islam teaches that Jesus is not God in flesh where Christianity does. Jesus cannot be both God and not God at the same time. Some religions teach that we reincarnate while others do not. Some teach there is a hell and others do not. They cannot all be true. If they cannot all be true, it cannot be true that all religions lead to God. Furthermore, it means that some religions are, at the very least, false in their claims to reveal the true God (or gods). Remember, truth does not contradict itself. If God exists, He will not institute mutually exclusive and contradictory belief systems in an attempt to get people to believe in Him. God is not the author of confusion (1 Cor. 14:33). Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that there can be an absolute spiritual truth and that not all systems can be true irregardless of whether or not they claim to be true. There must be more than a mere claim.
Religions don't teach objective truths. Religions teach subjective interpretations of objective truths. Creation is an objective truth. What that actually means is, in my opinion, unfathomable (which is why I'm agnostic). While it is true that religions making contradictory objective claims cannot all be true, it does not necessarily follow that any of them are true.

Fulfilled Prophecy concerning Jesus

Though there are other religions that have prophecies in them, none are 100% accurate as is the Bible and none of them point to someone like Jesus who made incredible claims and performed incredible deeds. The Old Testament was written hundreds of years before Jesus was born. Yet, the Old Testament prophesied many things about Jesus. This is undoubtedly evidence of divine influence upon the Bible.
Please consider some of the many prophecies of Jesus in the following chart.

Prophecy Old Testament Prophecy New Testament Fulfillment
Born of a virgin Isaiah 7:14 Matt. 1:18,25
Born at Bethlehem Micah 5:2 Matt. 2:1
He would be preceded by a Messenger Isaiah 40:3 Matt. 3:1-2
Rejected by His own people Isaiah 53:3 John 7:5; 7:48
Betrayed by a close friend Isaiah 41:9 John 13:26-30
His side pierced Zech. 12:10 John 19:34
Crucifixion Psalm 22:1,
Psalm 22:11-18 Luke 23:33;
John 19:23-24
Resurrection of Christ Psalm 16:10 Acts 13:34-37

Fulfillment of prophecy can have different explanations. Some state that the NT was written and altered to make it look like Jesus fulfilled OT prophecy (but there is no evidence of that). Others state that the prophecies are so vague that they don't count (but many of the prophecies are not vague at all). Of course, it is possible that God inspired the writers and Jesus, who is God in flesh, fulfilled these prophecies as a further demonstration of the validity of Christianity.
The above list contains several prophecies which appear to have been fulfilled by Jesus, if one first assumes that they were about Jesus in the first place (the Isaiah prophecy about the virgin birth, for instance, was not). It's hardly an exhaustive list of all the messianic prophecies, it is merely a list of those few messianic prophecies that Jesus appeared to fulfill. As to the remainder of the list of messianic prophecies, many people cling to the fallacy that they should be considered fulfilled because they will eventually be fulfilled with the "Second Advent." Tell me this -- what kind of logic is required to believe, "It is fulfilled, it just hasn't happened yet, but it will someday, so it is fulfilled?" That's what the Second Advent crowd asks us to believe.

The Claims and Deeds of Christ

Christianity claims to be authored by God. Of course, merely making such a claim does not make it true. Anyone can make claims. but, backing up those claims is entirely different. Jesus used the Divine Name for Himself (John 8:58), the same Divine Name used by God when Moses asked God what His name was in (Exodus 3:14). Jesus said that He could do whatever He saw God the Father do (John 5:19), and He claimed to be one with the God the Father (John 10:30; 10:38). Likewise, the disciples also called Him God (John 1:1,14; John 10:27; Col. 2:9). By default, if Jesus is God in flesh, then whatever He said and did would be true. Since Jesus said that He alone was the way, the truth, and the life and that no one can find God without Him (John 14:6), His words become incredibly important.
Again, making a claim is one thing. Backing it up is another. Did Jesus also back up His fantastic words with miraculous deeds? Yes, He did.

Jesus changed water into wine (John 2:6-10).
Jesus cast out demons (Matt. 8:28-32; 15:22-28).
Jesus healed lepers (Matt. 8:3; Luke 17:14).
Jesus healed diseases (Matt. 4:23,24; Luke 6:17-19)
Jesus healed the paralytic (Mark 2:3-12).
Jesus raised the dead (Matt. 9:25; John 11:43-44).
Jesus restored sight to the blind (Matt. 9:27-30; John 9:1-7).
Jesus restored cured deafness (Mark 7:32-35).
Jesus fed the multitude (Matt. 14:15-21; Matt. 15:32-38).
Jesus walked on water (Matt. 8:26-27).
Jesus calmed a storm with a command (Matt. 8:22-27; Mark 4:39).
Jesus rose from the dead (Luke 24:39; John 20:27).
Jesus appeared to disciples after resurrection (John 20:19).
The problem with the words and deeds of Jesus is that extrabiblical corroboration (from contemporary sources that would have likely contained references to such things, had they happened) is remarkably lacking.

The eyewitnesses recorded the miracles of Jesus and the gospels have been reliably transmitted to us.
Have they? The earliest of the NT writings were those of Paul, who never met Jesus during his lifetime, and were penned several years after the crucifixion. The earliest of the Gospel accounts is even further removed than that. And the gospels disagree among each other on a number of details. The details aren't particularly egregious, but they are enough to make one question just how reliably these things have actually been handed down, especially since no autographa remain, and the best we have is copies dating to the 2nd century.

Therefore, we can believe what Jesus said about Himself for two reasons: One, because what He said and did, agrees with the Old Testament and two, because Jesus performed many convincing miracles in front of people who testified and wrote about what they saw Him do.
Untrue. Very, very few of the NT writings even pretend to be firsthand accounts.

Christ's resurrection

Within Christianity, the resurrection is vitally important. Without the resurrection our faith is useless (1 Cor. 15:14). It was Jesus' resurrection that changed the lives of the disciples. After Jesus was crucified, the disciples ran and hid. But when they saw the risen Lord, they knew that all that Jesus had said and done proved that He was indeed God in flesh, the Savior.
None of which was recounted by any who were supposedly there.

No other religious leader has died in full view of trained executioners, had a guarded tomb, and then risen three days later to appear to many many people. This resurrection is proof of who Jesus is and that He did accomplish what He set out to do: provide the only means of redemption for mankind.
Heck, they don't even know where he was buried. As was Jewish custom, his body was removed from the cross just before sundown and hustled away to a temporary tomb to await the passing of the Sabbath, at which time the preparers would go and prepare the body and remove it to its permanent resting place. That was Jewish tradition when a person died on a Friday. The two Marys knew where the temporary tomb was, but did not arrive there until sunrise on Sunday morning. The preparers, under the direction of Joseph of Arimethea, depicted in Paul's writings as one of Jesus' killers and enemies, would have gone to the tomb and prepared the body as soon as the sun went down on the Sabbath. It's not likely that the body would have still been in its temporary cell when the Marys arrived at sunrise, it would have already been taken away. And there is no indication that Joseph told them where that permanent location was. Protestant tradition now holds that it was the "Garden Tomb", while Catholic tradition holds that it was the Tomb of the Holy Sepulchre, both of which are located at opposite ends of the city. In short, how do they know he rose from the dead, if they don't even know where he was buried in the first place, especially as the words put into the mouth of the Roman guard were not penned for many decades, with no means to verify whether they were actually ever spoken. Some critics hypothesize that the guard never spoke those words, but they were attributed to him later by writers chagrined at not being allowed to know the true resing place of their leader.

[Taco John]

Imagine if Rush Limbaugh started writing the Gospels of John F. Kennedy, saying that John F. Kennedy came to him in a vision and told him to spread the Democrat message to the world. But now imagine that Rush had never seen John F. Kennedy in person... Never even heard him talk... Not even once.

How accurate do you imagine Rush's version of John F. Kennedy would be?

[Adept Havelock]

Imagine if Rush Limbaugh started writing the Gospels of John F. Kennedy, saying that John F. Kennedy came to him in a vision and told him to spread the Democrat message to the world. But now imagine that Rush had never seen John F. Kennedy in person... Never even heard him talk... Not even once.

How accurate do you imagine Rush's version of John F. Kennedy would be?

Well, Drug Addiction can lead to Hallucinations....

[Fox River]

For me I believe that God is from all have come from and all go to. When the Bible states that God is the begining and the end I feel that it is correct. The Bible is written by men. I feel that they felt inspired to keep track of what they saw and what they heard. They were primative people. They tried to explain the unexplainable into terms that could be understood. The Divinity of Christ is when I become perplexed. It is not that I do not feel that he was enlightened. I feel that he was. I do not believe in the virgin birth or that he came back from the dead. I can not decide if he became devine, was born devine, or if he was devine at all. I do not fell that the bible can be taken as literal. It has to be put into context. It can be a helpful guide to life.

[kcfanintitanhell]

I think that I need to watch "Life of Brian" again to put this all into perspective.

[Nightwish]

Imagine if Rush Limbaugh started writing the Gospels of John F. Kennedy, saying that John F. Kennedy came to him in a vision and told him to spread the Democrat message to the world. But now imagine that Rush had never seen John F. Kennedy in person... Never even heard him talk... Not even once.

How accurate do you imagine Rush's version of John F. Kennedy would be?
Good analogy to Paul. :thumb:

[tiptap]

I'm curious. The way you describe this man... Do you feel the same about Paul of the New Testemant? I ask, because I'm cautious of him. I find it curious that a man who once slayed Christians and who never met Christ in the flesh or even heard one of his sermons, magically became the authority on those teachings and how they are meant to be applied to our lives and our salvation.

Here is a plausible Saul/Paul tale. Saul was from the Roman town and therefore a Roman citizen. He was not part of the Jerusalem crowd that personally went after Jesus and his followers. He was told that the teaching was bad for the jews in regards to the Roman rule. He didn't mind Roman rule since he was Roman and a jew who could practice his religion. So when asked to remove the 'rebels' of christians he was willing to do so. However now personally dealing with christians he realized they were pacifists. Luke, one of Paul's friends, tells the story for Saul of his holding coats for the stoning of Stephen. Saul became conflicted about what he was being asked to do. On the road to Damascus his guilt got to him and he had an epiphany or vision of a Risen Christ. To people at this time dreams and visions were real communication with god. He became convinced that Christ was still alive someway. When he did finally talked to people who knew Jesus he heard their words about Jesus spirit still living on as validation of a Living Jesus a resurrected Jesus. He left Jerusalem because he wasn't well recieved in his opinions. Only later when he expanded christianity to include gentiles and it took off did the rest of the church follow and try to be included. Council of Nicea took the risen christ as doctrine so all of the Pauline writings were included and the works from Pauls friends, Mark, Luke and such. The Gnostic writings were declared heretical and were destroyed leaving the very edited idea of Jesus we have today.

[Nightwish]

When Paul had his vision on the road to Damascus, it always resonated to me very similar to a fever-induced hallucination. I've always suspected that's what happened to Paul. And of course in those times, with medical knowledge as primitive as it was, it would be very easy for someone to take an hallucination experienced in a state of delerium to be a valid and true experience. Wouldn't it be hilarious if it turned out that this whole religion came about because Paul got the flu?

[Taco John]

For me I believe that God is from all have come from and all go to. When the Bible states that God is the begining and the end I feel that it is correct. The Bible is written by men. I feel that they felt inspired to keep track of what they saw and what they heard. They were primative people. They tried to explain the unexplainable into terms that could be understood. The Divinity of Christ is when I become perplexed. It is not that I do not feel that he was enlightened. I feel that he was. I do not believe in the virgin birth or that he came back from the dead. I can not decide if he became devine, was born devine, or if he was devine at all. I do not fell that the bible can be taken as literal. It has to be put into context. It can be a helpful guide to life.


I have my doubts about Paul... For sure. But I don't have any doubts about Jesus. I believe the basic story of his life to be fundamentally true. I don't necessarily agree with the post mortem interpretations of what it all means though. I think that the boat is still out on that one.

[tiptap]

I would simply addressed the first statement about relative and absolute truths. What we do have is consistency in logical constructs. But the system constructed must have unresolved parts (givens) and some parts that are arbitrary one way or another, can't be both at the same system, but both are equally valid going forward. This is a very poor statement of Godels uncertainity theorem. But the system is valid, is truthful within its construct.

Science seeks only a materialistic answer, one that we can derive advantage in understanding and utilizing our existence. It system does not seek to move beyond that self consistent construct. Religion seeks to claim that a god intercedes in this world for the believer to the believer's advantage in this world and the promise of continued existence. Many of those claims are extreme outliers possibilities under the self consistent system of science. (Including a man rocketing into space in a cloud.) I am not comfortable with such extreme and rare examples. They are simply too easy to say and impossible to demonstrate for me to consider them valid.

[Pitt Gorilla]

I have to cop, I'm Community of Christ [formerly RLDS], not Mormon. SO I am not versed in developments as they left Missouri and headed west. But I do know the origins of their faith, as we shared it up until the killing of Joseph Smith. And I know that the wild accusations of rejecting Christ and the Bible and making men Gods, etc., is largely bunk.My wife is as well. I attend her church, although I'm technically a methodist.

[CRONUS]

The mystery of faith needs no proof. And it certainly needs no theorem rife with logical fallacies. This is the misguided work of someone who has little cognition of the nature of his beliefs.

It's the perfect converse to arguing that quantum physics is accurate because God rawks!!!:clap::clap::clap:

We do not always agree but this time we clearly do.

Whatever method of worship for God a person chooses, faith is the key. Christianity should be chosen because a person's faith leads them to it. Not because it is some magic bullet to the afterlife.

[Ugly Duck]

If truth is relative, then the statement that truth is relative is an absolute truth and would be self defeating statement by proving that truth is not relative. Logic alert! This guy has it backwards..... If truth is relative, then the veracity of that very statement is relative, not absolute. This guy can't even get his opening statement right....

[Old Codger]

I'd say that, overwhelmingly, most cosmological belief systems are a product of home environment..If your folks were Morman, Catholic, or whatever, you probably will be also. Same with Christianity, Muslim, Buddist, or whatever. Which basically means that its just the luck of the draw as far as what most people have faith in.

[Amnorix]

i grew up in catholic school and i don't know what to believe..... sometimes i wonder if religion is the biggest hoax in the world...

Yes and no.

IMHO religions are "useful" (for lack of a better word) because they provide comfort to those who can take comfort in it, and provides a fundamental moral philosophy for societal interaction and conduct.

So it's not a "hoax" in the sense that just because people DO believe in all that stuff does affect people's actions, often in a positive fashion.

But fundamentally, yes, I think all that stuff is bunk. :)

[Amnorix]

Got this in an email today from a religious freak co-worker of my wife: :rolleyes:

Why believe in Christianity over all other religions?



So when you boil everything else away, the answer is "cuz the Bible says so, and the Bible is true and correct in every respect."

uhhhhhh.....key-dokey.

[Amnorix]

I'd say that, overwhelmingly, most cosmological belief systems are a product of home environment..If your folks were Morman, Catholic, or whatever, you probably will be also. Same with Christianity, Muslim, Buddist, or whatever. Which basically means that its just the luck of the draw as far as what most people have faith in.


Right. I'd be VERY interested in a scientific study of what percentage of individuals have the same religious beliefs as at least one of their parents. On a worldwide basis it's easily got to 95+%. Here in the US, harder to say, but probably 75+% at least.

One trick would be how to count movement among the various Christian sects. If someone changes from Catholic to Baptist, or Methodist to Congregationalist, how is that counted. Probably need to state it separately. IMHO, you're still a Christian, so although you've changed denominations, your fundamental religious beliefs have not changed.

[Amnorix]

I just finished reading "Chronicle of the Popes," which is a reign by reign march through all of the Popes with a brief description of what their individual histories and what they accomplished, placed in the context of the larger world setting.

It was an eye-opener, even for me, and I'd like to believe that I know more about Western History and the history of the Catholic Church than most folks.

[Old Codger]

Right. I'd be VERY interested in a scientific study of what percentage of individuals have the same religious beliefs as at least one of their parents. On a worldwide basis it's easily got to 95+%. Here in the US, harder to say, but probably 75+% at least.


Another interesting study would be based on individuals where both the parents share the same religious beliefs.

What part of Chronicles of the Pope did you find eye-opening..? Just curious as it sounds intriguing.

[Baby Lee]

Thank you Good Sir! Could you at least give me a hint or a pointer on the "long story"? Sounds quite interesting.
There has been a strong, bordering on aggressive, ecumenical movement in the past 20 years. It started with changing doctrine to put women in the priesthood, then opening participation in communion to anyone who wants it, then changing the name of the church, then the most recent I saw the other day [and am deeply saddened by]

Recognizing that the perception of truth is always qualified by human nature and experience, there is no official church creed that must be accepted by all members.
http://www.cofchrist.org/seek/beliefs.asp

So basically, we're now just a loose confederation of people who meet weekly to chat about how cool God is and all.

[Amnorix]

Another interesting study would be based on individuals where both the parents share the same religious beliefs.

What part of Chronicles of the Pope did you find eye-opening..? Just curious as it sounds intriguing.


All of it, really. The modern Catholic Church has been very different over the past 300 or so years compared to what it was the first 1700 years. A few random examples (some of which I knew, but most of which I didn't):

1. Nepotism was rampant in the Renaissance era. One Pope made his 14 year old and 16 year old grandsons Cardinals.

2. The Papacy owned land for probably a thousand or so years. Not just the Vatican, but areas in Italy known as the Papal States. These lands were involved in numerous conflicts with secular powers (i.e. invaded). A couple of Popes led their forces in battle, to a degree.

3. Many popes have been murdered (by every means possible, including poison), exiled, forced to abdicate, imprisoned, etc.

4. One person was made Pope at the age of 18, and lived such a life of ridiculous debauchery that he died of his own excesses at about 18.

5. The popes were VERY frequently involved in secular disputes from the time of Rome until the 1800s or so. They were heavily involved in various disputes between feuding monarchs.

6. I learned alot about the various orders within the Catholic Church, such as the Dominicans, Franciscans, Jesuits, etc.

7. The modern form of the Papal Conclave, which among other things must convene within 10 days of the prior Pope's death, was established that way because it once took the Cardinals THREE YEARS to select a new Pope.

8. That the Pope, originally, wasn't the readily acknowledged leader of the Catholic Church. Initially, there was a bit of a struggle between the bishops of Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and one other city for leadership. All but Rome and Constantinople fell by the wayside because those cities became Muslim. Then in about 1000 AD, Constantinople and Rome each ex-communicated each other, and that split remains to this day.

9. Relatedly, the Pope is, to this day, "Archbishop of Rome," as well as the foremost head of the Catholic Church.

For a book that really is "easy reading", you get a real broad-brush of knowledge about stuff that touches upon the Church. The Knights Templar, the split with Constantiople that resulted in the Eastern Orthodox Church, heresy and its suppression, how Popes are elected the way they are, etc ad infinitum.

I had a somewhat misguided notion that for about 500 years, from the height of the Middle Ages, Crusades and all that, through to the Renaissance, the Pope was the foremost power in Europe, and nobody would really mess with them because they might be ex-communicated. I was disabused of that idiotic notion.

[penchief]

Come on people, it's the whole premise that truth is objective or absolute. The fact of that matter is that truth is a subjective concept....it's not objective. What is true for you might not be true for me....

If you were color blind and thought a black sock was brown - that would be true for you that the sock was brown, you would see it as brown...but in actuality the sock is black and the sock being black for me is truth because I'm not color blind.

But I can still recognize that the truth for the colorblind person is that the sock is brown, just like if I am a Christian, I can recognize that the truth for another person might be in Hinduism or something else.

So the whole premise of this argument is off base.

Are you suggesting that you can see clearly but those who see the sock as brown cannot? I believe your intent is pure but your characterization of the other person as being color blind was counterproductive to your intent.

Couldn't it be you that is color blind? In matters of faith what doctor can determine who is color blind and who is not?

[Nightwish]

Are you suggesting that you can see clearly but those who see the sock as brown cannot? I believe your intent is pure but your characterization of the other person as being color blind was counterproductive to your intent.

Couldn't it be you that is color blind? In matters of faith what doctor can determine who is color blind and who is not?Not just that, but what many people don't consider is that the sock may be neither brown nor black, to keep with this analogy. It may be blue, or something else entirely. I also must take issue with the claim that it's one person's truth that [the sock is brown], while it is another person's truth that [the sock is black]. If the sock is black, then that is the truth for both of them and everyone else. Those who don't see it as black have simply misinterpreted the truth. Truth is not relative, but perception is. All too often people confuse the phrases "what I perceive" and "what is true for me." Perception and truth are not equal to each other, and in these kinds of analogies, the word "truth" is bandied about far too loosely. Truth is not defined by our perception or understanding of it. Truth is completely independent of such subjective things, it transcends us, and if there is no longer a sentient being in the universe to attempt to percieve truth, it won't matter, because truth will still be what it is at that moment in time.

[gblowfish]

"Jesus loves me, this I know.
For the bible tells me so."

Now go invade the non-believers' country
and pump out all the oil.

Sincerely,
Dick Cheney