Can you prove Christianity?

[VanitasVanitatum]

And does it really matter which religion is followed as long as people try their best to be good people?

It doesn’t matter even if they tried to be the worst they an be.

 

[steve-b]

There’s no way to prove Christianity. I used to wonder why, if God existed and wanted us to believe in him and do certain things, wouldn’t he reveal himself and make it clear.

He did

Hobgoblin:

Why require faith when he can appear and remove all doubt?

He did. Thomas was a big time doubter. So Jesus appeared to him. And Thomas believed. HERE

Hobgoblin:

What might convince one person might not convince another, but an omniscient God would know what was needed for each individual. It eventually occurred to me that there might not be any manifestation of God within the material universe that couldn’t be doubted. Sure there’s evidence that can get you closer. But there’s no rock solid proof. This is actually true of anything. At some point you just have to jump. But there are very reasonable reasons for doing that.

As long as you demonstrate in your actions, more interest and efforts to not believe than believe, then you won’t believe.

 

[Divine3]

(Responding only to this question) "Can you prove Christianity? " No, but God can, just seriously ask him. And I promise after we die, we will get all the proof we need, but why wait until then? You’re not an accident. God wanted you for all eternity. Try going into a Catholic church and sit there in silence and ask…please prove Christianity.

 

[po18guy]

Watch a few Prof. Peter Kreeft vids on YouTube. Very rational.

 

[po18guy]

All true - but it is meaningless to someone who does not grasp or perceive the transcendent; to one who does not believe in a supreme being, or even in the God of Israel. To those who do not believe, the scriptures may be nothing more than meaningless gibberish. To an avowed atheist, it may even be repulsive.

The leap pf faith required to transition from Old Testament to New is simply beyond comprehension to many, i.e. Judaism. Others who demand proof are not seeking reasons for belief, but rather reasons to disbelieve.

If the scriptures were effective at converting; if the spoken word was effective, then the entire world would be Christian - but it is not. And therein lies our conundrum.

Ah, but the illumination of the Holy Spirit opens both eyes and hearts. Yet, He cannot be forced, but enters in only when invited. Yet, He can arrange the events of one’s life so as to lead the horse, so to speak, to water.

The drinking in is quite another matter.

 

[lelinator]

All true - but it is meaningless to someone who does not grasp or perceive the transcendent; to one who does not believe in a supreme being, or even in the God of Israel. To those who do not believe, the scriptures may be nothing more than meaningless gibberish. To an avowed atheist, it may even be repulsive.

The leap pf faith required to transition from Old Testament to New is simply beyond comprehension to many, i.e. Judaism. Others who demand proof are not seeking reasons for belief, but rather reasons to disbelieve.

If the scriptures were effective at converting; if the spoken word was effective, then the entire world would be Christian - but it is not. And therein lies our conundrum.

Ah, but the illumination of the Holy Spirit opens both eyes and hearts. Yet, He cannot be forced, but enters in only when invited. Yet, He can arrange the events of one’s life so as to lead the horse, so to speak, to water.

The drinking in is quite another matter.

What I find interesting, is that delusion and faith are practically indistinguishable, and enter a person’s worldview in the very same fashion.

 

[po18guy]

From outside looking in, this may appear to be the case. It is 100% incorrect.

 

[lelinator]

From outside looking in, this may appear to be the case.

Sorry, that’s the only view that I have. But come to think of it, that’s the only view that any of us have when it comes to beliefs other than our own.

So despite your assertion to the contrary, it would seem that you really can’t distinguish delusion from faith, because your perspective is always biased.

 

[Bon_Croix]

Can anyone disprove Christianity? No.

Miracles are documented. Scripture and tradition is strong evidence for it.

 

[lelinator]

Can anyone disprove Christianity? No.

Well that one’s a given.

Miracles are documented.

Documented and proven are of course two different things. Reincarnation is also documented, but somehow I don’t think that you’ll accept the authenticity of it.

Scripture and tradition is strong evidence for it.

In this case “strong” is a very subjective term. In fact, some might even question your use of the term evidence.

 

[po18guy]

You seem to be atheist/agnostic, but you cannot prove that, either.

Existentialism, it’s like groovy, man.

 

[lelinator]

You seem to be atheist/agnostic, but you cannot prove that, either.

And of course, you would be wrong…again.

I don’t have anything against God, it’s Catholicism that I don’t like. Although to be fair, there are a number of other ideologies that I’m not too fond of either.

 

[OddBird]

Thirding the suggestion of C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity. @rosejmj, it’s an excellent read which starts exactly from where you are.

 

[Bon_Croix]

By definition miracles are proven. Experts and juries are used, evidence is presented, etc…

 

[Bon_Croix]

Do four witnessed accounts which are not contrary to one another refute Christianity?

And you want to bring up subjective evidence?

 

[PickyPicky]

Do four witnessed accounts which are not contrary to one another refute Christianity?

I’m not sure why you call them “witnessed” accounts, and of course there are those who doubt that they “are not contrary to one another”. I prefer @PetraG’s argument:

So–as I said, I’m not saying that a rational assessment of the situation couldn’t possibly leave room for doubt. I can say that it does leave room for a rational person to believe it. Absolutely, without a doubt, it is rational to have the opinion that Christianity is true.

and

Jesus of Nazareth and the Apostles didn’t have enough political importance to leave the kind of trail of evidence you may be looking for. That isn’t evidence that they didn’t exist

 

[Bon_Croix]

The Gospels are accounts of the witnesses. And for those of Faith, the inspirer of the Gospels is the ultimate witness.

There were hundreds of witnesses. The Sheperds at the nativity were witnesses. There were many.

 

[PickyPicky]

But the question in the OP is whether Christianity can be proved; not what those in the faith believe. To prove Christianity from the Gospels you must address them not as the word of God but as historical documents.

 

[Justin_Mary]

To prove Christianity from the Gospels you must address them not as the word of God but as historical documents.

In my mind that would be an effort to prove the the historical accuracy of the text. Not that the underlying message is true. The underlying message is that God is real. He created all that is out of love & supports all creation through love. That is Christianity. Everything else is the how & the why.

Doesn’t matter to me if the universe was created in 7 days, or billions of years. Doesn’t matter to Christianity. That God did it… that’s Christianity.

In my mind.

 

[PickyPicky]

In my mind that would be an effort to prove the the historical accuracy of the text.

I think you are right. In practice of course scholars make informed judgements about what probable truths can be deduced from historical documents and of course, despite the difficulties and disagreements, most scholars of the period deduce some probable historically accurate statements and events from the Gospels. That means, as @PetraG was saying, there is room for doubt and room for faith. Room for proof? Probably not, as you say.