Why Believe in Christianity over all other religions?

[medicforlife]

Originally Posted by Graemy

I was talking about this. You quoted from the bible to prove that claims made in the bible were true. Your outside sources only support that the people existed, not what actually happened in the bible. You can use all the sources in the world, but there are limits to how and what they can prove. As an example, there is no archeological evidence for any of these miracles.

OK...I follow you. I'm believing what the eyewitnesses said as recorded in the Bible.

[Graemy]

Originally Posted by medicforlife

OK...I follow you. I'm believing what the eyewitnesses said as recorded in the Bible.

OK, that's fine. That is what makes it a religion. Buddhist sutras have tons of eyewitness accounts too, it's just that you don't believe they are true, and as a result, you probably wouldn't accept them as reputable sources.

[medicforlife]

Originally Posted by Graemy

OK, that's fine. That is what makes it a religion. Buddhist sutras have tons of eyewitness accounts too, it's just that you don't believe they are true, and as a result, you probably wouldn't accept them as reputable sources.

What eyewitness accounts are you refering too? I have not read any and cannot say whether they are true or not.

[Graemy]

Pretty much eye witness accounts of the Buddha's teachings and I think a miracle or two if I remember correctly. The Diamond Sutra in particular is said to be a conversation of the Buddha. For reference, under the society tab to the left, you can find religious texts transcribed to text files here on totse. The point here is that it doesn't matter. I could write down my eye witness account of a psychic, it doesn't make it automatically true. Belief in some one's words doesn't make them true. You have to trust that they aren't lying, or that their perception of the events is correct.

[medicforlife]

Originally Posted by Graemy

Pretty much eye witness accounts of the Buddha's teachings and I think a miracle or two if I remember correctly.


The Diamond Sutra in particular is said to be a conversation of the Buddha. For reference, under the society tab to the left, you can find religious texts transcribed to text files here on totse.


The point here is that it doesn't matter. I could write down my eye witness account of a psychic, it doesn't make it automatically true. Belief in some one's words doesn't make them true. You have to trust that they aren't lying, or that their perception of the events is correct.

What miracles are you thinking of and who were the witness? I will check out the tab you mentioned - Thanks!


What is wrong with relying on the eyewitness testimonies that are in the Bible? What evidence is there that what they said is a lie or incorrect? What did they have to gain by lying? In reality, all but one apostle was put to death for their belief and preaching of the mircles of Jesus Christ. Did they not really believe what they saw or did they die for what they thought could have been a lie? I doubt it!

[Graemy]

Originally Posted by medicforlife

What miracles are you thinking of and who were the witness? I will check out the tab you mentioned - Thanks!


What is wrong with relying on the eyewitness testimonies that are in the Bible? What evidence is there that what they said is a lie or incorrect? What did they have to gain by lying? In reality, all but one apostle was put to death for their belief and preaching of the mircles of Jesus Christ. Did they not really believe what they saw or did they die for what they thought could have been a lie? I doubt it!

I can't remember any of the miracles, if there were any. The witnesses were the first people he taught(similar to the apostles).

If you can rely on the eyewitnesses of the Bible, then you can rely on the eyewitnesses of every religion with them. This creates a contradiction since Christianity says other religions are false, so you would have to deny other eyewitnesses while selecting ones that are favorable to your argument.

I don't think that they would die for something they knew was a lie. Jesus could have really thought he was the son of god and might not have been. Maybe he thought he was something he wasn't, and others believed him. Son of god or not though, his message was good.

[Iehovah]

Originally Posted by medicforlife

... snipped lots of proof that these people existed...

Thanks for making my point for me. I don't doubt that these people existed at all. So did the Prophet Mohammad. It doesn't prove they did anything miraculous.

As for the "eyewitness accounts" of the Bible, catch a clue. The Bible isn't the equivalent of CNN - those "gospels" are simply the writings of people who knew and interacted with Jesus - writings that were reviewed, examined for acceptable content, and assembled on the decision of those that ultimately decided exactly which books would or would not constitute the Old and New Testaments.

[medicforlife]

Originally Posted by Graemy

I can't remember any of the miracles, if there were any. The witnesses were the first people he taught(similar to the apostles).

If you can rely on the eyewitnesses of the Bible, then you can rely on the eyewitnesses of every religion with them. This creates a contradiction since Christianity says other religions are false, so you would have to deny other eyewitnesses while selecting ones that are favorable to your argument.

I don't think that they would die for something they knew was a lie. Jesus could have really thought he was the son of god and might not have been. Maybe he thought he was something he wasn't, and others believed him. Son of god or not though, his message was good.

If anyone has anything better to offer than the claims, the deeds, and the sacrifice of Christ then perhaps I would go that way. But since no one else has anything better to offer than Jesus and since no one else has fulfilled prophecies, performed miracles, raised people from the dead, risen from the dead, and promised to return for his people, than we are forced by reason and the evidence to continue to believe in Jesus, his teachings, and the truth that Christianity represents as is found in him.

Christianity is true and we are not deceived because Christianity is based on the person of Jesus who fulfilled prophecy, claimed to be God in flesh, performed many miracles, died, and physically rose from the dead, because it is consistent with reason, facts, and shows evidence of God's inspiration. And finally, all other religious systems are either unverifiable or irrational thereby disqualifying them as being true.

[Iehovah]

Originally Posted by medicforlife

If anyone has anything better to offer than the claims, the deeds, and the sacrifice of Christ then perhaps I would go that way. But since no one else has anything better to offer than Jesus and since no one else has fulfilled prophecies, performed miracles, raised people from the dead, risen from the dead, and promised to return for his people, than we are forced by reason and the evidence to continue to believe in Jesus, his teachings, and the truth that Christianity represents as is found in him.

Christianity is true and we are not deceived because Christianity is based on the person of Jesus who fulfilled prophecy, claimed to be God in flesh, performed many miracles, died, and physically rose from the dead, because it is consistent with reason, facts, and shows evidence of God's inspiration. And finally, all other religious systems are either unverifiable or irrational thereby disqualifying them as being true.

I like how you say "irrational and unverifiable" in the same post as talking about raising people from the dead and fulfilling prophecies, things supposedly done by dead people, witnessed by dead people, and completely unprovable by anyone today.

[medicforlife]

As for the "eyewitness accounts" of the Bible, catch a clue. The Bible isn't the equivalent of CNN

Thank goodness...The fact is that the Bible has not been rewritten. Take the New Testament, for example. The disciples of Jesus wrote the New Testament in Greek and though we do not have the original documents, we do have around 6,000 copies of the Greek manuscripts that were made very close to the time of the originals. These various manuscripts, or copies, agree with each other to almost 100 percent accuracy. Statistically, the New Testament is 99.5% textually pure. That means that there is only 1/2 of 1% of of all the copies that do not agree with each other perfectly. But, if you take that 1/2 of 1% and examine it, you find that the majority of the "problems" are nothing more than spelling errors and very minor word alterations. For example, instead of saying Jesus, a variation might be "Jesus Christ." So the actual amount of textual variation of any concern is extremely low.

those "gospels" are simply the writings of people who knew and interacted with Jesus - writings that were reviewed, examined for acceptable content, and assembled on the decision of those that ultimately decided exactly which books would or would not constitute the Old and New Testaments

You must be referring to the "lost books" of the Bible. From cults to the New Age, people make all sorts of claims about how the Bible is missing books, books that help justify what they hope to believe. Sometimes people claim that the Bible was edited to take out reincarnation, or the teaching of higher planes of existence, or different gods, or ancestor worship, or "at-one-ment" with nature.
The "lost books" were never lost. They were known by the Jews in Old Testament times and the Christians of the New Testament times and were never considered scripture. They weren't lost nor were they removed. They were never in the Bible in the first place.

The additional books were not included in the Bible for several reasons. They lacked apostolic or prophetic authorship, they did not claim to be the Word of God; they contain unbiblical concepts such as prayer for the dead in 2 Macc. 12:45-46; or have some serious historical inaccuracies.