Merged Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth - (Part 2)

[DOC]

And which part of that so called evidences should be used to choose the "true" christian denomination?

Christ said "I am the vine and you are the branches (plural). He didn't say I am the vine and you are the branch (singular).

 

[Marduk]

There are no gods. Maybe you could find something better to do with your time than arguing works of fiction are real.

Bishop Len Brennan "What other Gods are there Crilly"
Father Ted Crilly " Errr, false Gods"

 

[ynot]

Ynot, I see you are from New Zealand. I guess you can't get the text from page 31 from the link given in the first post. I believe only US residents can get the page. If I get the time, which I don't have now, I will try to post the passage from that page by typing it out.

THanks for the offer but don't bother. I will take Pure Argent's word that it's "long-winded and pointless".

 

[DOC]

God has provided no actual evidence...

There is plenty of historical evidence for Christ. In the Christian religion Christ is God in the flesh. So the Christian religion does have evidence for God.

 

[Marduk]

There is plenty of historical evidence for Christ. In the Christian religion Christ is God in the flesh. So the Christian religion does have evidence for God.

but he was a Jew. So you're really worshipping jewish Messiahs aren't you

 

[Ignosticist]

Christ said "I am the vine and you are the branches (plural). He didn't say I am the vine and you are the branch (singular).

Oh, so, all denominations are equally true? interesting! I wonder why they have called each other heretics and had its members make war and kill each other...

By the way, does this "branches" thing also apply for Islam? (it is after all, believed (by those that believe in it) to be the next, true and final step after Christianity...)

 

[Nonpareil]

There is plenty of historical evidence for Christ.

No, there isn't.

In the Christian religion Christ is God in the flesh. So the Christian religion does have evidence for God.

Circular logic.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Yes, evidence, much of which I gave in the 500 page thread mentioned in post #1.

"much of which"?

How about the rest of it?

Will another 500 pages complete the evidence?

 

[Ignosticist]

There is plenty of historical evidence for Christ. In the Christian religion Christ is God in the flesh. So the Christian religion does have evidence for God.

And in the buddhist religion, Siddhārtha Gautama is buddha in the flesh... There is plenty of historical evidence for Siddhārtha Gautama. So the buddhist religion does have evidence for buddha

So... this is some kind of duopoly? The only true religions are Christianity and Buddhism?

Oh, please do not forget that in islam, Muhammad is god's prophet, in the flesh... that has to count for something... doesn't it?

 

[DOC]

but he was a Jew. So you're really worshipping jewish Messiahs aren't you

Then I assume you believe Christ was the Jewish Messiah?.

 

[DOC]

And in the buddhist religion, Siddhārtha Gautama is buddha in the flesh... There is plenty of historical evidence for Siddhārtha Gautama. So the buddhist religion does have evidence for buddha...

But many Buddhists don't believe in God.

 

[Ignosticist]

Then I assume you believe Christ was the Jewish Messiah?.

I believe he believes you believe that... and he is just following along for the sake of enjoying the discussion...

 

[The Dark Lord]

There is plenty of historical evidence for Christ.

There is certainly way more evidence for Muhammad. Yet I am sure you don't believe he is the last true prophet or whatever it is that Muslims believe about him. Which brings me back to the question you ignored: Do you think you would be a Christian if you grew up in Iran?

In the Christian religion Christ is God in the flesh. So the Christian religion does have evidence for God.

Do you actually believe that anybody capable of rational thought would be swayed by this "logic"?

 

[Pope130]

Then I assume you believe Christ was the Jewish Messiah?.

"He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy!" The Life of Brian.

 

[Ignosticist]

But many Buddhists don't believe in God.

And many Christian (maybe all?) do not believe in Buddha. But I do not see the relevancy of that.

You said:

There is plenty of historical evidence for Christ. In the Christian religion Christ is God in the flesh. So the Christian religion does have evidence for God.

And I am just saying that, if that is your level for evidence, I can equally say that:

There is plenty of historical evidence for Siddhārtha Gautama. Siddhārtha Gautama is Buddha in the flesh. So the Buddhist religion does have evidence for Buddha...

Now, if you hold that your sentence is proof of god existence and Christianity as an evidence supported religion, then, you must also hold that my sentence, which is pretty much identical, and has as much evidence as yours to back it up, is also a proof of Buddha existence, and Buddhism as an evidence supported religion.

Am I correct? (Remember, by the standard of evidence you are presenting, if you prove Buddhism not true, you also prove Christianity no true)

 

[Ignosticist]

Do you actually believe that anybody capable of rational thought would be swayed by this "logic"?

I am willing to accept that "logic" as long as DOC accepts that logic means Buddhism is equally "true"

 

[Sun Countess]

Wow. That introduction from the OP was....massively underwhelming. It basically says there's plenty of evidence if you're willing to accept that the evidence is hiding behind some sort of magic curtain. Everybody has the opportunity to see the curtain and it's your choice to believe that there's evidence behind the curtain. If you ask "God" to pull back the curtain and allow you to look, then the evidence becomes less valuable somehow.

Or something. Basically it's a long-winded way of saying, "If you want to believe it, you can believe it. If you don't want to believe it, well, then there's no hope for you. The evidence is there. Behind the curtain. No, I'm not going to show you."

There is plenty of historical evidence for Christ. In the Christian religion Christ is God in the flesh. So the Christian religion does have evidence for God.

Wait. What? Where exactly is the evidence for God? The Heaven's Gate cult believed that there was a spaceship travelling behind the Hale-Bopp comet. There is no evidence that the spaceship existed, simply an assertion. Similarly, the "evidence" that Jesus is some sort of God in the flesh is nothing more than an assertion.

 

[DOC]

There is certainly way more evidence for Muhammad...

Muhammad never claimed to be God, never performed miracles (at least according to writings within about 200 years of his death), and is still in his grave.

 

[Brombadil]

Then you want God to perform a miracle for each and every generation, every 20 years or so, so that each generation will love him because of the miracle.

I like your attempt to lock people into A or B only solutions without considering option C.
Lets try:

Problem: How can a hypothetical god show people for eons to come he is the one true god with irrefutable evidence that is timeless?

Easy answer: Being all powerful, this has many easy solutions. "God" could create a talking eternal bleeding bush that is suspended in mid air upside down that for inexplicable reasons never ceases to stop burning, and will speak to anyone about god and his word to anyone that passes by and asks.

Just create any kind of supernatural monument that floats/eternally burns/whatever that never degrades and shares the teachings of X religion.


Aside from us thinking about a solution, who cares? The way you presented this statement makes it seem like what we ask is an inconvenience to an ALL powerful creator? He apparantly made the universe right? Wouldn't something better than a 5th hand ancient garbage book be a no-brainer?

 

[SezMe]

500 pages, here we come.