Can you prove Christianity?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rosejmj
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
AlNg said:
Are you sure that its moral teaching on capital punishment, the Inquisition (torture), and slavery has been utterly perfect?
Click to expand...
Yes I am sure. Stop trying to spread your doubt.
 
No it does not. Does the Church’s position on moral issues cause you doubt in addition to your reading of the Bible as vague?
 
PickyPicky said:
And if we are trying to prove Christianity we have to prove the biblical accounts
Click to expand...
I don’t follow the logic. Christianity was true for hundreds of years before there was a New Testament. How would they have “proved” the biblical accounts?

My issue is that some people believe the Blessed Virgin Mary had to have said the Magnificat exactly as written otherwise it’s not true. It was written down 60? 70? Years after the event but they expect a word for word account, as if a stenographer followed this unassuming 14 year old girl to the hill country of Judea… after umpteen translations.

2000 years later & we need proof she was pure?

Sorry. But if you need that level of proof, you’re worried about the wrong thing.

There’s something inside you that science can’t explain. The Church does but you don’t want to hear it. God is real. God, your God is King.
 
AlmaRedemptorisMater said:
Does the Church’s position on moral issues cause you doubt
Click to expand...
I don’t see how anyone can say that the position of the Church on the morality of torture is utterly perfect. The present teaching is that torture is a mortal sin. The previous teaching of Pope Innocent IV, had allowed for the Inquisition the use of confession-extracting torture (with a severity only stopping short of danger to life and limb) for those accused of heresy. How does that make the teaching of the Church on the morality of torture utterly perfect?
https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2018/06...rtal-sin-vatican-urges-help-for-drug-abusers/
 
Last edited:
You should watch the movie or read the book The Case for Christ. Not a bad starting place.
 
steve-b said:
The Gospel accounts I was quoting were all historical events as well
Click to expand...
That is what you would need to prove if you wanted to prove Christianity. You can’t just say “Here they are, written down, so they must be true”.
 
Justin_Mary said:
Sorry. But if you need that level of proof, you’re worried about the wrong thing
Click to expand...
I don’t need proof; I am happily settled in my opinions on the matter. It is not a question of what I need but of what the OP is asking.
Justin_Mary said:
I don’t follow the logic. Christianity was true for hundreds of years before there was a New Testament. How would they have “proved” the biblical accounts?
Click to expand...
Well the Gospels are believed to have been composed within 100 years of Christ’s life, but I agree their evidential value would be greater if they were more contemporaneous. But if you propose to prove the truth of Christianity without reference to the New Testament — I wish you luck.
 
Last edited:
PickyPicky said:
40.png
steve-b:
The Gospel accounts I was quoting were all historical events as well
Click to expand...
That is what you would need to prove if you wanted to prove Christianity. You can’t just say “Here they are, written down, so they must be true”.
Click to expand...
Technically, with all His miracles fully seen by everyone who not only benefited by them but all those who were witness to them, in particular those called “disciples”, and in spite of that, it was His followers called “disciples” that left Him never to return as followers (in the link I provided).

Was it that Jesus couldn’t prove Himself to them and that’s why they left? Even with ALL that they saw and experienced?

NO​

As Jesus said, those who left Him, didn’t believe. They had no faith

SO​

One who can’t believe or won’t believe, won’t accept Him. And as He said, His promises won’t benefit them.
 
Last edited:
steve-b said:
Technically, with all His miracles fully seen by everyone who not only benefited by them but all those who were witness to them, in particular those called “disciples”, and in spite of that, it was His followers called “disciples” that left Him never to return as followers (in the link I provided).

Was it that Jesus couldn’t prove Himself to them and that’s why they left? Even with ALL that they saw and experienced?
Click to expand...
… allegedly.
 
PickyPicky said:
… allegedly.
Click to expand...
Mixing secular with theological, Pascal’s wager, paraphrased 🙂

If you are right PickyPicky, and I’m wrong, then no harm no foul. We just die and no consequences for what kind of life we led. Whether one is an abominable person or a stellar person, there are No benefits no chastisements, nothing, for what one does here, when this life is over, we’re just dead. You won’t say your last words to me, see I told you so steve, and my last words to you, yeah PichyPicky, you were right, well nice knowing you…lights out forever!

But if I’m right and you’re wrong you’re screwed so bad you can’t get your head around it. You won’t come to me and I won’t come to you each giving the other our last thoughts. We will be separated for eternity … Heaven or Hell

Hence , the wager. the gamble.​

I have for my support system, someone who has lived, died , and rose from the dead, to tell me how things really are in the life to come. And if I want that life, and those promises, I need to follow Him. Without Him it’s bad news

SO​

There’s a wager on the table.
 
Last edited:
I will point you to a couple of podcasts that discuss the evidence for the Shroud of Turin and the Tilma of Juan Diego.

Asking that you listen to both of them with an open mind.

Loading…

redpillreligion.com
 
steve-b said:
There’s a wager on the table.
Click to expand...
The wager is inherently flawed. And that is why no serious theologian suggests it. The error is manifold. It is not true that “no harm, no foul”. If you believe and your belief was incorrect, then you squandered your whole life. Because it is not just “believe” of “not believe”. You must offer up your whole life, must follow all sorts of commands that are unnatural. All that for nothing.

If you don’t believe, and you are wrong, then the alleged punishment (eternal suffering) is just an assumption. The alleged supreme being does not have to be God of Christianity, it can be any “first cause” or any deistic “creator”. No theologian suggests it seriously.
 
It would be better to stop at this point since nothing you have said has worked.
 
For the believer, no proof is necessary. For the unbeliever, no proof is enough. Bottom line: faith is a gift.
 
steve-b said:
There’s a wager on the table
Click to expand...
Steve, you are persistent in misunderstanding me. I am discussing purely whether the truth of Christianity can be proved, that being the subject of the OP. Not whether it is true, but whether it can be proven true. Quoting chunks out of the Bible, or rephrasing chunks of the Bible, or taking potshots at my unbelief — none of that takes us any further.

Let’s put it this way. Not relying on pre-supposing the Bible true, not relying on pre-supposing Catholic teaching true, how would you prove the truth of, say, the Nicene creed. My guess is that it cannot be proven — which does not speak to the matter of its truth, of course.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top