Why Christianity?

  • Thread starter Thread starter preyoflove
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
RobedWithLight:
Can you tell me which other religious founder claimed to be the true Son of God and is God Himself and **proved it **? Zoroaster, Mahavira, Mazdak, Mani, Buddha, Lao-tze or Confucius never even claimed to be God.
I can claim to be god, you can claim to be god, anybody can claim to be god. And the **proof **you speak of is not historical proof - the resurrection is a supernatural event, something outside of human history. You can believe it as a matter of faith but there is nothing in it related to “proof”.
The Sermon on the Mount as clearly recounted in St. Matthew’s Gospel (one of the “other” three Gospels you refer to) shows Jesus speaking in the first Person(“I” say to you…), which indicates His unearthly authority, in stark contrast to the Old Testament prophets who all spoke in the second Person(“The” Lord says this and that…) when relaying God’s message to His people.
Again, anyone can speak with authority, that demonstrates nothing. And anyone can write down decades after the fact that someone else spoke with authority - who’s to know?
Jesus accepted worship, which would have been unthinkable for any God-fearing Jew then as well as now (unless you want to be stoned to death) to accept, or even for angels, unless Christ Himself is indeed divine.

**Matthew 8:2 And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, . . . **

Matthew 9:18 . . . there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him, . . .
Ah, but the authors of these written words weren’t God fearing Jews, they were people directly opposed to the Jews and quite commonly put words into Jesus’ mouth.
Can you provide direct citations to substantiate your claims ?
Sure, as a starter you can read The Changing Faces of Jesus by Geza Vermes, a Fellow of the British Academy and Prof. Emeritus of Jewish Studies in the University of Oxford. He has a whole chapter on Jewish “holy men” of the time.
There are lots others.
 
40.png
patg:
I can claim to be god, you can claim to be god, anybody can claim to be god. And the **proof **you speak of is not historical proof - the resurrection is a supernatural event, something outside of human history. You can believe it as a matter of faith but there is nothing in it related to “proof”…
Not true. Witnesses account as proofs.
 
Just a few observations that haven’t been hit on yet::
  • What other religion can explain why we think? Atheism…? no?
  • The Trinity solves the solves the classic problem of the One and the Many. Atheism…? Islam…? no
  • What if man was not under the authority of a single Sovereign God? Try to get a polytheistic person to find complete consistency in their deities.
  • God interacts with man in a way that is both humble (the incarnation), yet retains His dignity as God (sinless life and the resurrection). I’m not aware of any other religious deities that have their “main players” that meet both of those extremes as Christ did and does. In that way, among others that have been pointed out, Christianity is “unique.”
You get what I mean about that last point? Like, God humbled Himself coming to earth in the form of a servant (Phil. 2) yet He still demands our respect as our judge. Those are two major extremes.
 
Also, in addition to all the great points above, be sure and tell your friend that the Catholic Church (and therefore Christianity) recognizes that there is truth in the other major world religions. Thus, the question, “Why Christianity” does not boil down to a simple “either/or” question: either Christianity has the truth or the others do. Rather, while the others (Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.) have truth, Christianity, and especially Christ Jesus in his incarnation (including life, death and resurrection) fulfills that truth.

By the way, to see the most recent “official” teaching of the Church on world religions, see Vatican II’s Nostra Aetate.

I would also argue that when you say Christianity is true, don’t merely allow that statement to be a referrent to the New Testament and the original words of Christ. Why? Christianity has developed over time (in the sense of Cardinal Newman) and our understanding is much fuller now than it was 1900 years ago. I say this because I believe the modern Catholic understanding of the person in “personalism” and various strands of phenomenology are important to being Catholic today…This is exactly why Buddhism and Hinduism (Upanishadic) fail, although very profound philosophically.

By the way, to respond to someone above, there are other instances of a god’s self-sacrifice in world religion/mythology: one is Parusha self-sacrifices himself in a Hindu account of creation.
 
I can claim to be god, you can claim to be god, anybody can claim to be god. And the **proof **you speak of is not historical proof - the resurrection is a supernatural event, something outside of human history. You can believe it as a matter of faith but there is nothing in it related to "proof
You are very unimformed my friend . What do you think the good news is all about? THE RESSURRECTION… In space and TIME.

Believers as well as non believers historically validate the ressurrection as a HISTORICAL EVENT…a fact. The jews conspired to cover it up, the romans conspired to displace it as a lie. the apostles preached it w/o fear or ridicule. To believe otherwise is to say it is a scam. a hoax. But the evidence supports the event happened historically. Not just through the bible stories. Research the writings of people trying to suppress it. They revealed more about the ressurrection itself, than they do trying to discredit it.
 
40.png
patg:
I can claim to be god, you can claim to be god, anybody can claim to be god. And the **proof **you speak of is not historical proof - the resurrection is a supernatural event, something outside of human history. You can believe it as a matter of faith but there is nothing in it related to “proof”.
If I remember correctly, I asked you which founder of a religion actually claimed to be God Himself ? Now, I would like to repeat it here, if you wouldn’t mind: Are you aware of any religious founder who claimed to be God Himself?

Any one who claimes to be a god without founding some form of religious movement or system of worship is probably not serious about his claim.

Peace

Gerry 🙂
 
40.png
mrS4ntA:
Not true. Witnesses account as proofs.
Are you kidding? Have you ever been involved in the criminal justice system? In any court situation? In an accident?

Anyone writing about a fairly isolated event many years after it happened can freely invent all the witnesses they need to make their piont.

NOTE: I’m not saying they aren’t telling the truth, I’m just asserting that it is wrong to assume historical accuracy for something outside the realm of history.

Pat
 
40.png
RobedWithLight:
If I remember correctly, I asked you which founder of a religion actually claimed to be God Himself ? Now, I would like to repeat it here, if you wouldn’t mind: Are you aware of any religious founder who claimed to be God Himself?
Most Egyptian rulers and most Roman emporers claimed to be gods - it was a pretty common practice in those days.
Any one who claimes to be a god without founding some form of religious movement or system of worship is probably not serious about his claim.
The way it appears to me is that Jesus did not “found a religion”. He was a fully practicing Jew from birth up through and including the day he died. His followers created Christianity years after his death.

And to repeat what I said before: Jesus is only reported to claim to be God in John’s gospel which is so far separated from the other 3 in time, content, and Christology as to be almost useless as a “historical” record of what he actually said.

How convenient to be able to come up with lengthy word for word speeches containing quotes of your founder saying he was god many years after he was gone - quotes totally “missed” by the other writers.

Pat
 
40.png
patg:
Most Egyptian rulers and most Roman emporers claimed to be gods - it was a pretty common practice in those days.

Pat
You are correct in the sense that the practice of emperor-worship was quite common in the age of antiquity, although It is doubtful if Caligula and his fellow royals truly “founded” any religion which has endured to this day, or if they “founded” anything at all, save demand that their subjects worship them as “gods” on pain of death or imprisonment, although we don’t see their “religions” existing today, which does not lend any credibility to their claims of godhood either. Well, the Japanese emperor once claimed divine status as a direct descendant of a Sun -goddess, although it appears he later “renounced” it after the Second World War and their crushing defeat. So much for their claims of divinity, I’m afraid.

Gerry 🙂
 
40.png
preyoflove:
How do you respond to someone who ask, “So now you’ve convinced me that there is a God, why should I chose to be a Christian?”

Peace, so be it.

Stop, think. The founders of all the other religions are dead.

Christianity is the only one who has a living founder, Jesus Christ!
 
One final point. Pope John Paul II in 1989 reminded us that the Resurrection is, "in the first place a historical event, and took place in a precise context of time and place.

Come to think of it, if the Resurrection was a hoax, a big fraud, why were they willing to face the fierce wrath of the Jews, and the pagan Romans by claiming that Christ has risen and is therefore truly God. Why did they risk death if what they were all claiming, was a big lie.

And we all know that most of the Apostles died as martyrs while in the act of preaching the Gospel in obedience to Christ’s command. Peter was crucified, Paul was beheaded, and just before dying, they never renounced Him. Who would be so utterly foolish to die for something that is a big lie, when they could have simply claimed it was a hoax, a joke, and in the process save their lives.

We can be certain they were threatened, and perhaps it is even plausible that there were attempts to bribe them (like Judas was) to either publicly renounce Jesus, or at least keep silent about the whole matter.

Why Christianity? The answer is perfectly obvious.

Gerry 🙂
 
40.png
RobedWithLight:
One final point. Pope John Paul II in 1989 reminded us that the Resurrection is, "in the first place a historical event, and took place in a precise context of time and place.
Is the Resurrection really an historical event? What causes you to think that? How do you know that the story of the Resurrection (or the Gospels in general) is not a work of fiction?
40.png
RobedWithLight:
And we all know that most of the Apostles died as martyrs while in the act of preaching the Gospel in obedience to Christ’s command. Peter was crucified, Paul was beheaded, and just before dying, they never renounced Him.
We all know? Well, I don’t. I know that many people, including myself, either deny or doubt the historical existence of the apostles on the basis of what they think is poor historical evidence.

Why do you believe that the apostles existed? I am curious.

RobedWithLight said:
Who would be so utterly foolish to die for something that is a big lie, when they could have simply claimed it was a hoax, a joke, and in the process save their lives.

I agree with you that that would be foolish.

But, did you ever think that perhaps the apostles, if they even existed, merely* thought* that the religion which they were promoting was true? I am sure that you know that what someone thinks is true does not necessarily make it true. For example, take the 9/11 terrorists. They thought that their particular interpretation of Islam was true and that they would go straight to heaven for what they believed would be an act* of martydom*.

Another example would be the mass suicide of the Heaven’s Gate cult. They *thought *that there was an alien spacecraft behind that comet waiting to take them away.

It is safe to say that there was no alien spacecraft and that the beliefs of the 9/11 terrorists were untrue.

Clarkal
 
I don’t have time to tackle every statement in this thread that I think is erroneous, but I’ll tackle this one.
40.png
RobedWithLight:
  1. Christ did miracles which no other founder of a religion before Him ever did and no other religious founder after Him was able to repeat.
One could say that Muhammad did miracles which no other founder of a religion before Him ever did and no other religious founder after Him was able to repeat. This claim obviously proves nothing, however.

But, there were founders of religion before and after Christ’s time that supposedly performed the same or similar miracles as He supposedly did. From memory, these are a few examples:
  1. Zoroaster, the founder of the religion Zoroastrianism, is said to have healed the sick and restored sight to the blind. Zoroaster predates Christ.
  2. Buddha, who also predates Christ, is said to have walked on water.
  3. Muhammad, who is said to have lived around 570 to 632 AD, is said to have multiplicated food, cured the sick, and restored sight to the blind.
Want more? Try a book on world religions and their founders or simply search the web with Google.

Clarkal
 
40.png
RobedWithLight:
If I remember correctly, I asked you which founder of a religion actually claimed to be God Himself ? Now, I would like to repeat it here, if you wouldn’t mind: Are you aware of any religious founder who claimed to be God Himself?
What about Krishna?
Any one who claimes to be a god without founding some form of religious movement or system of worship is probably not serious about his claim.
Why do you say that? In Hinduism divine incarnations are quite common, but not to found a new movement, but to renew the traditional system. Who needs a new system anyway?
 
A little bit of actual history recorded by NON believing officials or historians:

Cornelius Tacitus 1st century: one of the greatest roman historians- wrote to Ceasar in the time of NERO concerning the death of Jesus and the CHRISTUS followers in Rome. "Christus, the founder was put to death by Pilate…a pernicious superstition, repressed for a time …broke out again…in ROME.

Lucian of Samosata 2nd century: greek writer. He wrote satire on the christians…who were founded by a man, who introduced novel rites…was crucified on that account…They think they are immortal…despise the God of greece… do not fear death.

Pliny the younger 112 AD : Govenor of Bithynia in ASIA MINOR. he writes of a disturbance of christians. He seeks counsel of how to handle and treat them. So many were being killed w/o any effects, he wondered if they could try something else!

Secular writer TALLUS 52 AD. wrote of darkness on the earth that was unexplainable…dated at the time of the crucifixion.

There are many other NON believing people or historians of their day that record events IN HISTORY validating christian occurrences.

There is no doubt about the HISTORICAL events that took place at CALGARY and the years to follow.
 
40.png
RMP:
There is no doubt about the HISTORICAL events that took place at CALGARY and the years to follow.
Yes, but what were those HISTORICAL events? I always wondered about the many hundreds of people who rose to life from their tombs to rejoin society - you would think someone besides one gospel writer might have made note of that.
 
RMP,
40.png
RMP:
A little bit of actual history recorded by NON believing officials or historians:

Cornelius Tacitus 1st century: one of the greatest roman historians- wrote to Ceasar in the time of NERO concerning the death of Jesus and the CHRISTUS followers in Rome. "Christus, the founder was put to death by Pilate…a pernicious superstition, repressed for a time …broke out again…in ROME.
“Their founder, one Christus, had been put to death by the procurator, Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius.” – Tacitus

The referred to passage of Tacitus appeared in his *Annals. *He was not writing to Caesar.

Tacitus wrote the passage sometime after 117 A.D. Nero died in 68 A.D. This was not the time of Nero. I think that what you meant was that Tacitus was writing *about *the time of Nero. His Annals are, afterall, a history of the emperors from Julian to Nero.

Tacitus does not identify where he obtained the information about this “Christus” or “Christians”. Some think that this information is not first hand information and that Tacitus came upon this information from his dealings with Christians, either directly or indirectly, and merely reported it. This seems rather plausible.

Some also note that Pontius Pilate is referred to as procurator. The appropriate title would have been “prefect.” Some think that this is evidence that Tacitus obtained his information from Christian sources

In addition, the passage appears word for word in the writings of Sulpicius Severus, in the fourth century, where it appears with other “myths”. This is also believed to detract from the validity of the passage of Tacitus.
40.png
RMP:
Lucian of Samosata 2nd century: greek writer. He wrote satire on the christians…who were founded by a man, who introduced novel rites…was crucified on that account…They think they are immortal…despise the God of greece… do not fear death.
The satirical writings of Lucian are from the second century. This isn’t exactly good historical evidence for the existence of a man that supposedly died in 33 A.D. It is highly probable that his information came from Christian sources.

One should also remember that Lucian was just a comedian, not an historian.
40.png
RMP:
Pliny the younger 112 AD : Govenor of Bithynia in ASIA MINOR. he writes of a disturbance of christians. He seeks counsel of how to handle and treat them. So many were being killed w/o any effects, he wondered if they could try something else!
Well, the report of Christians being a disturbance proves nothing except that Christians existed in 112 A.D. It does not prove that Jesus actually existed and rose from the dead.

However, I am unfamiliar with the part about Christians being hard to kill. Where did you read this?
40.png
RMP:
Secular writer TALLUS 52 AD. wrote of darkness on the earth that was unexplainable…dated at the time of the crucifixion.
What we know of Thallus comes from ninth-century Byzantine writer George Syncellus who quoted a third-century Christian historian called Julius Africanus who quoted a person named “Thallus”. Now isn’t that a fun game of historical “telephone”?

Anyway, the works of Julius are lost, however, so it is really difficult to assess the validity of what Thallus wrote.

In addition, nobody really knows anything about Thallus. We don’t even know if “Thallus” is his correct name.
40.png
RMP:
There are many other NON believing people or historians of their day that record events IN HISTORY validating christian occurrences.
Well, if you like, you can continue to offer passages of those certain historians that you think validate the Christian story, and I will offer some of the reasons as to why skeptics either reject and/or doubt them.

Or, you could just do a google search.

Clarkal
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top