P
PickyPicky
Guest
Ah, but I didn’t. Perhaps you are confusing me with @rosejmj who generously came to my defence.
And you’ll notice the quote is not that one religion is as good as another.
- Status
P
PickyPicky
Guest
Yes I know all of that. But the question is, Can you prove Christianity?
S
steve-b
Guest
It’s already provensteve-b:
Yes I know all of that. But the question is, Can you prove Christianity?
Christianity came from Jesus the Christ
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
My apology then, I have addressed my comment to the wrong person.
P
PickyPicky
Guest
Not at all. I’ve never been accused of pagan syncretism before. I’m usually just called a lost soul.
Last edited:
P
PickyPicky
Guest
Oh my, Steve. I presume you know you are not addressing the question, just displaying your own orthodoxy. Enough.
S
steve-b
Guest
Without Jesus there is no Christianity. It’s just that simple.steve-b:
Oh my, Steve. I presume you know you are not addressing the question, just displaying your own orthodoxy. Enough.
A
Autumn-Smoke
Guest
To me, it can be proven because prophecy has come true, so history proves it. Most recently, in 1948, Israel became a nation again, which it hadn’t been since 70 CE (AD). The Bible prophesied that Israel would become a nation again within one day’s time. (Isaiah 66:8). And so it happened: on May 14, 1948 Israel was proclaimed and recognized as a Nation: a country was born in one day, as prophesied by Isaiah in the 8th century BC. God promised that he would call the Jewish people back to Israel and so he has, and according to Wikipedia, " In world politics, Jewish state is a characterization of the nation of Israel as a sovereign homeland of Jewish people." Thus proving in history that scripture is true and is the reality of our world.
We can also prove Christianity in history because Jesus was born, lived, and died in history to fulfill all of the prophecies of the Old Testament.
So history can prove the truth of prophecy as recorded in the Bible. And the fact that all of these things happened can be found in history. The Word of God comes to pass because He is a true reality.
Last edited:
P
PetraG
Guest
Realize up front that the Church has always taught that faith is required. I don’t think we lose anything by admitting that; it is no secret. We’re saying that it is rational to believe in Christianity, not that it is impossible for someone who is rational to reject it!
Again: The C.S. Lewis book, Mere Christianity, lays out the reasons that a rational person can believe Christianity is true. His autobiographical Surprised by Joy outlines how he went from being a rational atheist to a rational Christian. His writing style is very straightforward. If you want to know how a logical person could believe Christianity is true, start there. Do not go looking for “unassailable arguments,” not when you are talking about God becoming Incarnate, submitting to a kangaroo trial and public execution and then rising from the dead. This isn’t the kind of thing that can be proven in a laboratory.
F
ForeverLearn
Guest
I never said whether I accepted it or not, I just stated there was no written source that can be cited.
Ok, I see. But many suicide bombers die for their beliefs, almost daily. Should we assume they have the truth because of this?
The spread of Christianity is a special occurrence. I never said it was irrational to believe, so that is a strawman. I’m sure Muslims all believe their evidence that Muhammad is the final prophet from God is quite indisputable, but there are many that would disagree.
P
PickyPicky
Guest
Absolutely true; I thoroughly concur.
That is precisely what I have been saying throughout. It is by no means unreasonable to believe in Christianity, but nor is it possible to prove its truth (which is what the OP is about). To state the impossibility of proving its truth is not to state that it is not true.
P
PetraG
Guest
Well, first off, suicide you choose (and for which you know you will be glorified when you die) isn’t the same as accepting the chance that you might suffer horrendous torture and perhaps an inglorious martyrdom. The Christian martyrs were not suicidal!
But again I agree with you! Being willing to suffer martyrdom doesn’t prove the martyr’s beliefs are correct. It shows it is highly unlikely that the person doesn’t believe what they say they believe. That is not the same as proof that they believe the truth. It shows only that they themselves believe what they’re saying.
I think we’re talking past each other. I never said that there is proof for Christianity that it is impossible to reject. I’m saying that it is rational to believe it. When talking about a time and a premise that I think we can agree cannot be definitively proven (because of the reality of the circumstances and the extraordinary nature of the topic), the level of something a rational person can believe is about as high as the bar can get.
Catholics teach a concept called “invincible ignorance.” It means that a person who is honestly seeking the truth might not have the grace from God to accept it. The doctrine is that God alone knows who lacks that grace and who does not. The only thing required is a good faith effort to seek out and believe the truth. A person is not condemned out of hand for failing to accept the truth, because the possibility is there that the grace to believe might be withheld for a time for reasons known to God alone. A person who has the capacity to believe but refuses, on the other hand, would be culpable for refusing to believe.
I think that doctrine presupposes that it is possible for a person of sound mind and with a good faith desire to know the truth and conform himself to it could still fail to believe. In other words, the Catholic Church herself recognizes the possibility that the evidence for the Gospel does require faith, and faith is a gift that comes when God decides.
Last edited:
P
Pattylt
Guest
Wow! This is the first time that I’ve heard that it could be God withholding the grace for me to believe. Usually everyone accuses me of not doing something right or not listening for His response!
When I lost my faith over several years and spent them praying, crying and begging to come back…silence. I’ve always said that it seemed to me that God had left me and I sooo wanted him back. It never happened. Here I am agnostic to this day even though I still try to understand why I seem unable to believe.
Whatever Gods reasons, He is welcome to give me this grace to believe and have faith again. I still periodically ask…still silence…but it’s going to be in His time. Ok.
F
ForeverLearn
Guest
I agree.
I agree that it could be rational to believe. I also think it can be rational not to believe it.
I don’t think belief is a free will choice. You don’t believe things truly, just because you want to.
This leads to problems, specifically people thinking they “are not good enough” just because they don’t believe something.
Edit Above: I misread your text, so my comment is not really relevant to what you said.
Last edited:
B
Bon_Croix
Guest
I’m not aware of Isaiah 66:8 pointing to the 1948 proclamation. I view it in the birth of the Christ; a miraculous event. Anyways that is off topic.
The only way one could refute prophecy fulfillment in Christ (Law and the Prophets) is by tending to the notion that Christs disciples were perpetrators of a conspiracy or they were all deceived by a force (the devil as Jews and Christians know it).
A conspiracy was never proven by the Jews; neither was there a charge of conspiracy. The charge was Blaspheme. They never proved Blaspheme (that he wasn’t God), which would lend that Jesus was a liar. Yet there is no evidence in the Gospel that he was a liar.
So, we can deduce that the only other viable option is that he wasn’t who he thought he was (he was deceived). Then it would lend that the 12 Apostles were deceived as well as the bishops of today and all in between. The life of St. Paul (as a Jewish persecutor of the Early Church) shines a light on this. Was St. Paul before his conversion right in his beliefs about Jesus, but wrong after his conversion? If so, Paul either had to all of a sudden have some force acting against him (either the devil or the conspiring 12 Apostles). Yet, St. Paul was willing to suffer persecution by Jews after his conversion. And the charge against him was sedition; . The life of Paul attests to the nature of Jesus as God. Paul’s Scriptural support for his case, per Acts, was Isaiah 6: 9-10, “You shall indeed hear but not understand”. Shortly after, the Second Temple was destroyed and hasn’t been rebuilt. All this is evidence for Christianity.
As to whether there is proof of Judaism… Again, look at scripture and tradition in Judaism.
The only way one could refute prophecy fulfillment in Christ (Law and the Prophets) is by tending to the notion that Christs disciples were perpetrators of a conspiracy or they were all deceived by a force (the devil as Jews and Christians know it).
A conspiracy was never proven by the Jews; neither was there a charge of conspiracy. The charge was Blaspheme. They never proved Blaspheme (that he wasn’t God), which would lend that Jesus was a liar. Yet there is no evidence in the Gospel that he was a liar.
So, we can deduce that the only other viable option is that he wasn’t who he thought he was (he was deceived). Then it would lend that the 12 Apostles were deceived as well as the bishops of today and all in between. The life of St. Paul (as a Jewish persecutor of the Early Church) shines a light on this. Was St. Paul before his conversion right in his beliefs about Jesus, but wrong after his conversion? If so, Paul either had to all of a sudden have some force acting against him (either the devil or the conspiring 12 Apostles). Yet, St. Paul was willing to suffer persecution by Jews after his conversion. And the charge against him was sedition; . The life of Paul attests to the nature of Jesus as God. Paul’s Scriptural support for his case, per Acts, was Isaiah 6: 9-10, “You shall indeed hear but not understand”. Shortly after, the Second Temple was destroyed and hasn’t been rebuilt. All this is evidence for Christianity.
As to whether there is proof of Judaism… Again, look at scripture and tradition in Judaism.
Last edited:
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
I’m not keen on the word ‘prove’. To me, proof is a mathematical or logical demonstration which achieves an incontestable conclusion from some uncontested premises. The trouble is that in normal conversation premises are very rarely uncontested, and the arguments drawn from them rarely incontestable.
However, the OP itself, other than the title, does not ask for proof. It asks for “sound rational arguments”, which is much more approachable. Still, if we are to avoid the pitfalls often mentioned above - arguments which go along the lines of ‘Christianity must be true because the Christian scriptures say it’s true’ - then we need to be very clear about our definitions, and what, exactly, we want demonstrated. Does the OP demand that Christianity is exclusively true, or that it is among many truths? When Rose asks: “Does it really matter which religion is followed” she implies that she is looking for arguments for exclusivity - that Christianity is true and Buddhism, say, or Shinto, is false. This has been addressed, albeit somewhat half-heartedly, by numerous popes. Salvation, say any number of encyclicals, is attainable by people who are outside of the Church, if they are excused through ignorance beyond [their] control. This is the concept of ‘invincible ignorance’, very well explained by Petra above.
So perhaps we are attempting to demonstrate that Christianity is at least one valid way of achieving eternal life. I think that’s probably easier than demonstrating that it is the only way. But now we must decide what we mean by Christianity. Is Roman Catholicism more valid than Orthodox Christianity? Or Methodism, or Mormonism?
It is interesting that C.S. Lewis, whose works are recommended above, specifically rejected Catholicism. “To us the terrible thing about Rome is the recklessness (as we hold) with which she has added to the depositum fidei – the tropical fertility, the proliferation, of credenda.”
Still, on a ‘Catholic Answers’ forum I suppose we must be thinking of the Roman Church, especially as much reference has been made here to the depositum fidei so disparaged by ‘Protestants’.
Christ was fairly concise about the essence of his message: Love God and love your neighbour. “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” The OP rather echoes this: “does it really matter which religion is followed as long as people try their best to be good people?”, so it sounds as if she has already “accepted Christianity…”. So what does she mean by going on with “… in all its fullness”?
I’m guessing she’s asking whether we can demonstrate that Christ was the son of God, or that he rose from the dead, or that the depositum fidei are valid. As it happens, I think we can, although we will have to start with a clear understanding of what we mean by “the son of God.”
However, the OP itself, other than the title, does not ask for proof. It asks for “sound rational arguments”, which is much more approachable. Still, if we are to avoid the pitfalls often mentioned above - arguments which go along the lines of ‘Christianity must be true because the Christian scriptures say it’s true’ - then we need to be very clear about our definitions, and what, exactly, we want demonstrated. Does the OP demand that Christianity is exclusively true, or that it is among many truths? When Rose asks: “Does it really matter which religion is followed” she implies that she is looking for arguments for exclusivity - that Christianity is true and Buddhism, say, or Shinto, is false. This has been addressed, albeit somewhat half-heartedly, by numerous popes. Salvation, say any number of encyclicals, is attainable by people who are outside of the Church, if they are excused through ignorance beyond [their] control. This is the concept of ‘invincible ignorance’, very well explained by Petra above.
So perhaps we are attempting to demonstrate that Christianity is at least one valid way of achieving eternal life. I think that’s probably easier than demonstrating that it is the only way. But now we must decide what we mean by Christianity. Is Roman Catholicism more valid than Orthodox Christianity? Or Methodism, or Mormonism?
It is interesting that C.S. Lewis, whose works are recommended above, specifically rejected Catholicism. “To us the terrible thing about Rome is the recklessness (as we hold) with which she has added to the depositum fidei – the tropical fertility, the proliferation, of credenda.”
Still, on a ‘Catholic Answers’ forum I suppose we must be thinking of the Roman Church, especially as much reference has been made here to the depositum fidei so disparaged by ‘Protestants’.
Christ was fairly concise about the essence of his message: Love God and love your neighbour. “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” The OP rather echoes this: “does it really matter which religion is followed as long as people try their best to be good people?”, so it sounds as if she has already “accepted Christianity…”. So what does she mean by going on with “… in all its fullness”?
I’m guessing she’s asking whether we can demonstrate that Christ was the son of God, or that he rose from the dead, or that the depositum fidei are valid. As it happens, I think we can, although we will have to start with a clear understanding of what we mean by “the son of God.”
P
Pattylt
Guest
I went through this. It’s awful! It’s when I finally accepted that I did not and could not believe that I finally found peace and happiness. My agnosticism was a part of me but not my entire definition nor worth. I’ve been pretty happy and at peace with my existence ever since!
P
PetraG
Guest
That is what I meant by “refusing.” People can decide not to believe something not because they don’t think it is true but because accepting it as true requires too much effort or too much risk (for instance).
I was kind of just finishing the thought. No, it doesn’t mean someone who is invincibly ignorant is “not good enough.” That’s actually a very high standard, because the person is credited with making a good faith effort to know the truth and conform themselves to it. The person has done all they can, and anyone who has done more has only grace to thank, rather than their own efforts.
After all, in the Final Judgement, Jesus said there would be those among the righteous who would say to Him, " Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ (Matt 25:31-40) Obviously, these were not people who were serving because they saw the Lord clearly, but they were acting on what they did see. This is someone who did the right as they had the light to see the right. They’re given full credit.
B
Bon_Croix
Guest
BAck to St. Paul, the only thing that one could think would cause Paul to turn from a persecutor of Christians to Sedition would be something of value. Yet there is no mentions of this in the Bible. In fact, just the opposite is mentioned. It was the Jews who offered something of value to Judas Iscariot in exchange for the whereabouts of Jesus, so that they could arrest him.
In Truth, it was the Jews who were guilty of sedition (if you believe Jesus is the Messiah). In fact, I am aware of no Jewish scripture which says Jesus is not the Messiah. Again, this is evidence for Christianity.
In Truth, it was the Jews who were guilty of sedition (if you believe Jesus is the Messiah). In fact, I am aware of no Jewish scripture which says Jesus is not the Messiah. Again, this is evidence for Christianity.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
I’m aware of no reason why there would be. I’m also unaware of any Jewish scripture concerning Mohammed or Joseph Smith. This must be evidence for Islam and Mormonism.
- Status