• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Overwhelming Historical Proof: Why do you doubt Jesus?

Akivah

Well-Known Member
Everyone, I apologize if I seem lie I'm attacking any of you. This was not my intention. I'm going to stop replying, you can't really prove a religion that stems from the heart. God bless.

Actually, the debate on this thread and elsewhere proves that jesus is not the future messiah. Once the actual messiah finishes doing all the prophecies, those actions will have proven that he is the messiah. No one can have any doubt or debate about it.
 

meghanwaterlillies

Well-Known Member
Actually, the debate on this thread and elsewhere proves that jesus is not the future messiah. Once the actual messiah finishes doing all the prophecies, those actions will have proven that he is the messiah. No one can have any doubt or debate about it.
WHAT lol ... heart eaters from the Aztec pyramids.. not about the people just some insight what history can show.
 

Akivah

Well-Known Member
Perhaps some of the Jewish members here on RF will respond to the prophecies you listed as foretelling the coming of Jesus. Many of the verses you listed are understood differently in a Jewish context.

Yeah Tumah did a good job of it on page 3 of this thread. Also a friend of mine is currently working through the 300 so-called prophecies about jesus. She's at around 130 and so far, they either aren't about the messiah, are mistranslated, or are completely made up.
 

Animore

Active Member
Before I respond to anyone, I'd like to say this conversation, at least in my eyes, is getting a bit out of hand. I am not going to reply to arguments, or as I
ve stated before, any rebuttal can be rebuttable, but I will respond to interesting thoughts to advance the conversation in a friendly manner. God bless.
 

Animore

Active Member
@NotOfTheWorld

I was thinking. I have a question for you.

(Example) I was always a spiritualist but never took it seriously until a couple of years ago when my grandmother passed away. I never thought of myself as a Buddhist but even if I wasn't, The Law of The Buddha still exists without me. It's the nature of life even if The Buddha himself and his sutras would never be a part of my life.

My question: Is your belief and relationship with Christ based on historical evidence or, if it were proven false that he did not exist, would that change your relationship with Christ?​

I ask because I usually compare what I don't understand and/or disagree with with how I see things. It may sound kind of an ego thing; and, well, it works

If The Buddha never existed, rebirth would still exist. We would still go through rebirth until we understand the true nature of life. It isn't dependent on The Buddha for this Law of life to exists. So, his disciples could have fibbed on The Buddha's teachings. That or The Buddha could have been a lier or a lunatic.

However, that is not what I believe. Regardless, the truth is the truth regardless of what I believe.

So, my belief isn't based on a source such as historical evidence. It's based on experience. It goes beyond needing a physical item to confirm the teachings (say sutras or scripture) but more of an intimate relationship with the spirits, family, and with life through The Buddha's teachings.

I wasn't raised in a Buddhist environment but a Christian one so I the heart-faith kind of sticks with the mind-faith. If it doesn't make sense in my mind, than my heart is just flying on a cloud. If it doesn't make sense in my heart, then I'm just doing repetitive motions and not rituals and worship.

So it's based on experience between the two. Yet, these things aren't dependent on an outside source.

Did historical evidence bring you to Christ? If not, if there were historical evidence that proved he didn't exist and the scripture were false, would that change your relationship with Christ?

and why?​
I think, honestly, it's a bit of both theological and archaeological evidence, combined with faith and the witness spiritually of how God helps me and others.

I've got to be honest with you, I'm not the best Christian. I disprove my own arguments with facts that I've already considered, and proven false. I'm a major sinner, and fall into temptation quite easily. I get overly riled up. My faith is that of a mustard seed chopped in half. But I keep going, I keep following my God, the Christian God, nd for one reason really. Because I know my God loves me. I know my God is merciful. I know my God helps me in times of need. I know that He's there with me, a sinner, every step of the way. Trust me, on a scale on a scale of 1-10 on how actively I act like Jesus, it's a four at best. Three or two is more accurate. But I know my God is patient with me. My God gives me grace upon grace. Yes, I'd say the proof I have is what fuels the fire, but it's not entirely what keeps it a passionate fire. The knowledge of my God's love for me. Trust me, I've always been skeptical. And I'm still trying to work through that. But I won't quit anytime soon, I'll tell you that. For the latter of the argument, it would, I'd say, drive me away for a bit. I wouldn't say entirely, however. A big portion of my testimony is the burning passion I have to study God's word. I'd say if such evidence were found there'd be a big period of fear, of doubt, but I wouldn't say that would stop me from getting answers. It wouldn't stop me from reading the Bible. It wouldn't stop me from standing on God's promise. Does that answer your question?
 

meghanwaterlillies

Well-Known Member
I think, honestly, it's a bit of both theological and archaeological evidence, combined with faith and the witness spiritually of how God helps me and others.

I've got to be honest with you, I'm not the best Christian. I disprove my own arguments with facts that I've already considered, and proven false. I'm a major sinner, and fall into temptation quite easily. I get overly riled up. My faith is that of a mustard seed chopped in half. But I keep going, I keep following my God, the Christian God, nd for one reason really. Because I know my God loves me. I know my God is merciful. I know my God helps me in times of need. I know that He's there with me, a sinner, every step of the way. Trust me, on a scale on a scale of 1-10 on how actively I act like Jesus, it's a four at best. Three or two is more accurate. But I know my God is patient with me. My God gives me grace upon grace. Yes, I'd say the proof I have is what fuels the fire, but it's not entirely what keeps it a passionate fire. The knowledge of my God's love for me. Trust me, I've always been skeptical. And I'm still trying to work through that. But I won't quit anytime soon, I'll tell you that. For the latter of the argument, it would, I'd say, drive me away for a bit. I wouldn't say entirely, however. A big portion of my testimony is the burning passion I have to study God's word. I'd say if such evidence were found there'd be a big period of fear, of doubt, but I wouldn't say that would stop me from getting answers. It wouldn't stop me from reading the Bible. It wouldn't stop me from standing on God's promise. Does that answer your question?
mustard seed in half; lol
wildest runs your best, your awesome.
"Easy is simple, simple is not quit easy"..
 

Animore

Active Member
Actually, the debate on this thread and elsewhere proves that jesus is not the future messiah. Once the actual messiah finishes doing all the prophecies, those actions will have proven that he is the messiah. No one can have any doubt or debate about it.
Last rebuttal, on the more of a theological side. This isn't to miraculously turn you to Christ. It's only to end the argument, so that we can go about our lives in peace.

What you call "proof" is only your idea. You say I'm taking it out of context when you and Tumah are using YOUR context of the scripture. If you would remove this scripture, then you remove half of the prophecies (regardless of the ones that could be taken out of context.) Obviously, you believe in the prophecies. The prophecies that Jesus fulfilled quite specifically, stated throughout the Old Testament books. You search for the coming Messiah, when He's right in front of your faces.

God bless. Thanks for the building of faith in Christ.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
It seems you're blind. The scripture is my historical proof, but just for you, I'll add more. I'll get back to you.
My own view is a little removed from yours, NOTW. First of all, "scripture" describes an immense amount of writing (which is all "scripture" means, anyway). Second, there's a huge amount of this scripture that is so ambiguous that it can be understood in all sorts of ways by all sorts of people. Third, all of the scripture of the New Testament was written considerably after the life and death of Jesus, and almost exclusively NOT by eye-witnesses to the events they purport to describe. The first NT scripture, after all, was written by Paul/Saul, who never met Jesus, and who frankly didn't care at all about most of the stuff the Gospels speak of! And the Gospels themselves were written even later, by people who knew even less about Jesus. (I am assuming, by the way, that there was an actual Jesus, possibly of Nazareth, or of Bethlehem, almost certainly not of both!).

But the biggest point about "scripture" is this: it is understood to be "revelation" (small "r"), or the revealed "Word" of an omniscient deity. Now, it should be perfectly plain and obvious to anyone that an omnipotent deity Who could reveal "truth" to one or a few people (Noah, Abraham, Moses, a cranky batch of prophets, Paul, and so forth) could just as easily reveal it to every single soul in the universe. And what makes this an important point is simply this: the scripture you speak of, this "revelation," is such an awful way to achieve the same understanding in all people that just in Christianity alone it has resulted in some 38,000 sects! And far too often led to religious conflict among Christians (let alone other religions), and the torture and murder of those who don't happen to read that very same scripture in quite the same way as somebody else does.

An omniscient God who does not know that "pass-it-on," especially of highly ambiguous text, is guaranteed to garble any message can hardly be really omniscient. In fact, such a deity, after so long an experiment and so consistently poor results, must be really quite stupid!

I am reminded of something that President Abraham Lincoln once said during the years before he abolished slavery in the United States: "I am approached with the most opposite opinions and advice, and that by religious men, who are equally certain that they represent the Divine will. I am sure that either the one or the other class is mistaken in the belief, and perhaps in some respects both. I hope it will not be irreverent for me to say that if it is probable that God would reveal his will to others, on a point so connected with my duty, it might be supposed he would reveal it directly to me; for, unless I am more deceived in myself than I often am, it is my earnest desire to know the will of Providence in this matter. And if I can learn what it is I will do it!"
 

Animore

Active Member
My own view is a little removed from yours, NOTW. First of all, "scripture" describes an immense amount of writing (which is all "scripture" means, anyway). Second, there's a huge amount of this scripture that is so ambiguous that it can be understood in all sorts of ways by all sorts of people. Third, all of the scripture of the New Testament was written considerably after the life and death of Jesus, and almost exclusively NOT by eye-witnesses to the events they purport to describe. The first NT scripture, after all, was written by Paul/Saul, who never met Jesus, and who frankly didn't care at all about most of the stuff the Gospels speak of! And the Gospels themselves were written even later, by people who knew even less about Jesus. (I am assuming, by the way, that there was an actual Jesus, possibly of Nazareth, or of Bethlehem, almost certainly not of both!).

But the biggest point about "scripture" is this: it is understood to be "revelation" (small "r"), or the revealed "Word" of an omniscient deity. Now, it should be perfectly plain and obvious to anyone that an omnipotent deity Who could reveal "truth" to one or a few people (Noah, Abraham, Moses, a cranky batch of prophets, Paul, and so forth) could just as easily reveal it to every single soul in the universe. And what makes this an important point is simply this: the scripture you speak of, this "revelation," is such an awful way to achieve the same understanding in all people that just in Christianity alone it has resulted in some 38,000 sects! And very often to religious war among Christians (let alone other religions), torture and murder of those who don't happen to read that very same scripture in quite the same way as somebody else does.

An omniscient God who does not know that "pass-it-on" is guaranteed to garble any message can hardly be really omniscient. In fact, such a deity, after so long an experiment and so consistently poor results, must be really quite stupid!

I am reminded of something that President Abraham Lincoln once said during the years before he abolished slavery in the United States: "I am approached with the most opposite opinions and advice, and that by religious men, who are equally certain that they represent the Divine will. I am sure that either the one or the other class is mistaken in the belief, and perhaps in some respects both. I hope it will not be irreverent for me to say that if it is probable that God would reveal his will to others, on a point so connected with my duty, it might be supposed he would reveal it directly to me; for, unless I am more deceived in myself than I often am, it is my earnest desire to know the will of Providence in this matter. And if I can learn what it is I will do it!"
All I'm going to say is I respect your beliefs, and let's agree to disagree. There's no point in continuing to reply to every argument. Even a cretin is smart enough to know not everyone has the same beliefs. God bless.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
All I'm going to say is I respect your beliefs, and let's agree to disagree. There's no point in continuing to reply to every argument. Even a cretin is smart enough to know not everyone has the same beliefs. God bless.
Agreed, but you did not begin by offering "beliefs." You claimed to offer "Overwhelming Historical Proof." Quite a different thing. I'm happy to respect your beliefs, too, and won't challenge them. I only challenge claims to factual truth that cannot be demonstrated to be so.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Before I respond to anyone, I'd like to say this conversation, at least in my eyes, is getting a bit out of hand. I am not going to reply to arguments, or as I
ve stated before, any rebuttal can be rebuttable, but I will respond to interesting thoughts ...
Priceless. :D
 

Animore

Active Member
Agreed, but you did not begin by offering "beliefs." You claimed to offer "Overwhelming Historical Proof." Quite a different thing. I'm happy to respect your beliefs, too, and won't challenge them. I only challenge claims to factual truth that cannot be demonstrated to be so.
Yes, that was a stubborn idea to put such a thing as that for the title, and that's on me. I apologize. It was in the heat of the moment.
 

Animore

Active Member
how does the above quoted post from you help advance the conversation?
As I stated in the post I made before, I will be responding to posts that advance the conversation in a friendly manner, and all I did was reply to a friendly comment. As for Jayhawker Soule, I just pointed out that the comment that he made was irrelevant.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
All I'm going to say is I respect your beliefs, and let's agree to disagree. There's no point in continuing to reply to every argument. Even a cretin is smart enough to know not everyone has the same beliefs. God bless.
You miss the point. The point being: because of its base nature Biblical scripture is far from being an unimpeachable source of truth. As Evangelicalhumanist points out

1. None of NT scripture writing is based on eye witness accounts.The earliest such texts being letters (not records for posterity) written between about 50 and 62 AD by Paul to various early Christian communities. And to think everything Paul (and the NT's other writers) was told and relaid was absolutely accurate is naive. So, right off the bat doubt has come rest on every word in the book. How can anyone be sure word X is what was truly meant? One can't. How can anyone be sure phrase X is what was truly meant? One can't. How can anyone be sure passage X is what was truly meant? One can't, UNLESS one goes into denial about the uncertainty of Biblical writings. And when one considers how the Bible has changed as it was passed down through the last 2,000 years denial becomes a perversion of reason.

2. Considering what a diverse, even contradictory, religion Christianity has turned out to be can anyone really believe god was behind the whole effort and this is what he had in mind? One only has to ask, why would god allow his inspired word to be so misconstrued so as create conflict that has even lead to killings among Christianity's followers. Even today the Bible comes in so many variations that it supports denominations that number in the tens of thousands. Think this is what god had in mind when he supposedly inspired the writers and subsequent interpreters to preserve his word? If not, then why has he allowed it to happen? My guess is that he doesn't care. . . . should he exist, that is.

3. So if one insists the Bible, the NT in particular, is inerrant or just the inspired word of god, one has to conclude that the god of Abraham is an incompetent deity, OR that he's just messin' around with his creation.


.
 
Last edited:

Animore

Active Member
You miss the point. The point being: because of its base nature Biblical scripture is far from being an unimpeachable source of truth. As Evangelicalhumanist points out

1. None of NT scripture writing is based on eye witness accounts.The earliest such texts being letters (not records for posterity) written between about 50 and 62 AD by Paul to various early Christian communities. And to think everything Paul (and the NT's other writers) was told and relaid was absolutely accurate is naive. So, right off the bat doubt has come rest on every word in the book. How can anyone be sure word X is what was truly meant? One can't. How can anyone be sure phrase X is what was truly meant? One can't. How can anyone be sure passage X is what was truly meant? One can't, UNLESS one goes into denial about the uncertainty of Biblical writings. And when one considers how the Bible has changed as it was passed down through the last 2,000 years denial becomes a perversion of reason.

2. Considering what a diverse, even contradictory, religion Christianity has turned out to be how can anyone believe god was behind the whole effort and this is what he had in mind? One only has to ask, why would god allow his inspired word to be so misconstrued so as create conflict that has even lead to killings among Christianity's followers. Even today the Bible comes in so many variations that it supports denominations that number in the tens of thousands. Think this is what god had in mind when he supposedly inspired the writers and subsequent interpreters to preserve his word? If not, then why has he allowed it to happen? My guess is that he doesn't care. . . . should he exist, that is.

3. So if one insists the Bible, the NT in particular, is inerrant or just the inspired word of god, one has to conclude that the god of Abraham is an incompetent deity, OR that he's just messin' around with his creation.


.
You miss the point as well. I'm not going to argue. I simply stated that everyone has their own beliefs. Why you chose to create such a large rebuttal of a post that was not even intended to be an argument in favor of my original post is beyond my conception.
 

McBell

Admiral Obvious
As I stated in the post I made before, I will be responding to posts that advance the conversation in a friendly manner, and all I did was reply to a friendly comment. As for Jayhawker Soule, I just pointed out that the comment that he made was irrelevant.
So you are only going to respond to friendly posts but you are not going to limit yourself to friendly responses?
 
Top