Can you prove Christianity?

[Hobgoblin]

evidence is proof. No evidence no proof. That’s how it works.

No, it’s not. I’m talking about proof in an absolute/scientific/mathematical sense. You’re talking about it in the courtroom sense. I will always be able to doubt what you’re calling proof…which is just evidence.

The name Christianity, comes from Jesus the Christ, the one we believe in and therefore take the name from. He lived, He died, He resurrected from the dead, and He ascended back to heaven. All historical events. Recorded by eyewitnesses. One chooses to believe that or not.

Resurrected? I don’t see him walking around. Heaven? Is that in space? Sounds like a myth to me.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

evidence is proof. No evidence no proof. That’s how it works.

No, it’s not. I’m talking about proof in an absolute/scientific/mathematical sense. You’re talking about it in the courtroom sense. I will always be able to doubt what you’re calling proof…which is just evidence.

If 12 people see you run a red light, and then plow into another car in the intersection, and THEY are all interviewed by the police who arrive at the scene, and give the same exact story identifying you and what you did, … guess what?

The name Christianity, comes from Jesus the Christ, the one we believe in and therefore take the name from. He lived, He died, He resurrected from the dead, and He ascended back to heaven. All historical events. Recorded by eyewitnesses. One chooses to believe that or not.

Hobgoblin:

Resurrected? I don’t see him walking around. Heaven? Is that in space? Sounds like a myth to me.

Yes, resurrected from the dead.

AND

For 40 days, He walked around the countryside after He resurrected from the dead. He sat and ate with His apostles. On the day He resurrected, (Sunday) He walked with some disciples to Emmaus …,.,.

It’s all part of the record.

If you don’t want to accept that, that’s your choice.

 

[Justin_Mary]

Trouble is other religions have miracles, too.

Uncorrupted bodies? Really?

 

[Bon_Croix]

Stevenb is right. Proof can be based on preponderance of the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, and even in a mathematical sense being that Jesus fulfilled the OT prophecies and OT Law.

And you all are hardly touching on 2000 yrs of tradition, which is also evidence.

 

[Bon_Croix]

I think the case is a slam dunk for Christianity. A jury of 9, truly impartial and reasonable, would find in favor of Christianity.

 

[Bon_Croix]

The Jury has deliberated for 2000 yrs and Christianity prevails. What Jesus said about his Church was and is True.

 

[Saintp]

St Paul in 1cor.2 he came with the demonstrated spiritual power. So their faith is not based on mans wisdom.
Blake Healy a Christian can demonstrate the spiritual reality. His book the Vail.
I’ve seen the virgin Mary in mejogorie. .and more. The spiritual reality can be experienced.

 

[snarflemike]

No, it’s not. I’m talking about proof in an absolute/scientific/mathematical sense.

You can’t even prove to me that you exist, in an absolute/scientific/mathematical sense.

 

[Hobgoblin]

If 12 people see you run a red light, and then plow into another car in the intersection, and THEY are all interviewed by the police who arrive at the scene, and give the same exact story identifying you and what you did, … guess what?

That would be pretty damning evidence. We’ve seen plenty of damning evidence lead to acquital though. Remember OJ? And credible witnesses can be mistaken. I remember a classic TV episode (I think it was the Alfred Hitchcock show) featuring a car accident and multiple witnesses certain of what they saw. But it was later revealed that each didn’t quite see what they thought they saw and someone else entirely was at fault. Unfortunately for you all of your witnesses are long dead and it can be argued that those who propagated their stories had a vested interest in doing so. It could have been euphoric mass delusion.

You don’t have proof. All you’ve got is evidence which may or may not convince a given person.

 

[Hobgoblin]

I don’t think that the process of believing something happens at a conscious level.

I meant to comment more on this. I think you’re right that some beliefs seemingly occur automatically at a lower level. Two people can see the same thing and form entirely different impressions. But this is all influenced by our free will and pre-existing beliefs that we’ve willing chosen. There’s definitely a deterministic action in play in the universe that predisposes us to a given thing, but our materially-transcendent free will can change the course of that.

 

[PickyPicky]

Uncorrupted bodies? Really?

I’ve no idea whether they all go in for uncorrupted bodies, but miracles certainly.

And if we are trying to prove Christianity we have to prove the biblical accounts — not just take them as read. There is sufficient evidence in the Gospels for Christians to be assured in their faith, certainly. The question is whether a non-Christian, addressing the Gospels as historical documents, would see them as proof. I suggest not.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

If 12 people see you run a red light, and then plow into another car in the intersection, and THEY are all interviewed by the police who arrive at the scene, and give the same exact story identifying you and what you did, … guess what?

That would be pretty damning evidence. We’ve seen plenty of damning evidence lead to acquital though. Remember OJ? And credible witnesses can be mistaken. I remember a classic TV episode (I think it was the Alfred Hitchcock show) featuring a car accident and multiple witnesses certain of what they saw. But it was later revealed that each didn’t quite see what they thought they saw and someone else entirely was at fault. Unfortunately for you all of your witnesses are long dead and it can be argued that those who propagated their stories had a vested interest in doing so. It could have been euphoric mass delusion.

You don’t have proof. All you’ve got is evidence which may or may not convince a given person.

When the evidence is there then so is the proof. Can people choose to reject proof that is right in front of them? Sure.

Perfect example, and I mean perfect where this happened

Jesus in full public view, raised people from the dead, caused the lame to walk, cause the blind to see, cured leprosy, etc etc. As a result those who followed Him, (not just the 12 who were also apostles) were also called "disciples"and They saw His miracles first hand.

Right after Jesus fed 5000 with a few fish and a few loaves of bread, many followed Jesus across the Lake where they got the rest of the story. However, They would have no part of what He said they were to do, (taught about the Eucharist) and they walked away from Him… in spite of seeing ALL the miracles he performed. See story HERE

Bottom line, They chose to reject the proof right in front of them… It was a choice they made. No force here to stay or go. It is pure choice. And they not only walked away, they went away for good. Did Jesus force anything one way or the other? Nope! Did He go after them? Nope! He let them go. Then He turned to His apostles and asked the 12, are YOU going to leave me too? And Peter, speaking for the other 11 apostles, said where are we going to go? HERE

These are choices people make. Stay or go, do or don’t do. Free Will in operation. It’s what make us culpable for the actions/decisions, good and bad that we make.

A great line from the movie “Gladiator”

"What we do in life echoes in eternity"

 

[PickyPicky]

When the evidence is there then so is the proof. Can people choose to reject proof that is right in front of them? Sure.

Perfect example, and I mean perfect where this happened

As I was saying,

if we are trying to prove Christianity we have to prove the biblical accounts — not just take them as read. There is sufficient evidence in the Gospels for Christians to be assured in their faith, certainly. The question is whether a non-Christian, addressing the Gospels as historical documents, would see them as proof. I suggest not

 

[steve-b]

if we are trying to prove Christianity we have to prove the biblical accounts — not just take them as read. There is sufficient evidence in the Gospels for Christians to be assured in their faith, certainly. The question is whether a non-Christian, addressing the Gospels as historical documents, would see them as proof. I suggest not

The Gospel accounts I was quoting were all historical events as well. Not just some fanciful theological story.

 

[Thom18]

If for nothing else, Christianity is proved true by its moral teaching. It is utterly perfect, and such perfection can only come from Perfection Itself (or should I say, Himself?)

 

[AlNg]

The reality is that God has spoken, first and foremost through Jesus Christ

Jews are not convinced of this.

Christianity is proved true by its moral teaching. It is utterly perfect

Are you sure that its moral teaching on capital punishment, the Inquisition (torture), and slavery has been utterly perfect?

 

[TheLittleLady]

So, for you a miracle would not be evidence?

 

[TheLittleLady]

“Incorruptibles” are explained by science. I, for one, find them interesting but not evidential of the miraculous.

Some people confuse the exhumation of a body so that relics can be retrieved as inspection for the 'incorruption" of a body. Bodies of saints have most of the time decayed in the natural way according to the environment in which they were entombed. The extent of the decay does not have impact on the Beatification/Canonization process.

 

[Hobgoblin]

When the evidence is there then so is the proof. Can people choose to reject proof that is right in front of them? Sure.

Ok Steve, we’re just arguing semantics. I’m not defining proof the way you do. Bottom line: We choose what to believe and nothing in the universe is undoubtable. Peace.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

When the evidence is there then so is the proof. Can people choose to reject proof that is right in front of them? Sure.

Ok Steve, we’re just arguing semantics. I’m not defining proof the way you do. Bottom line: We choose what to believe and nothing in the universe is undoubtable. Peace.

Just a few extra thoughts

Re: Doubt from the CCC​

(all emphasis mine)

2088 The first commandment requires us to nourish and protect our faith with prudence and vigilance, and to reject everything that is opposed to it. There are various ways of sinning against faith:

Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief. Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated doubt can lead to spiritual blindness.

2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. " Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."

✓157 Faith is certain . It is more certain than all human knowledge because it is founded on the very word of God who cannot lie. To be sure, revealed truths can seem obscure to human reason and experience, but “the certainty that the divine light gives is greater than that which the light of natural reason gives.” "Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt."

✓215 “The sum of your word is truth; and every one of your righteous ordinances endures forever.” “And now, O LORD God, you are God, and your words are true”; this is why God’s promises always come true. God is Truth itself, whose words cannot deceive. This is why one can abandon oneself in full trust to the truth and faithfulness of his word in all things. The beginning of sin and of man’s fall was due to a lie of the tempter who induced doubt of God’s word kindness and faithfulness.