What Type Of Evidence Would Cause An Orthodox Christian To Denounce Jesus Christ

[HeatherAnn]

...The above became part of the 27 New Testament books added to the 39 books of the Old Testament which became the sixty-six cannonical books we know as the Bible.

The spiritual witness of the Bible is the True Holy Spirit and the inspiration for the above, as opposed to the impersonator Holy Spirit as a lying spiritual witness of false revelation of other so-called Holy Books. The fact that it is real and gives people spiritual witness doesn't mean it is true, only that they have been truly deceived as the result of a counterfeit witness the Bible warns about....

You bring up some interesting points that I've been curious about... especially how the collection of books in the bible came to be considered cannon.

Although there are other perspectives, some biblical historians theorize that Christianity may have began with a group called Gnostics, some who believed Christ was a spirit, not a person.

Yet, many gnostic beliefs were too different from what early Catholic church leaders believed. So at the First Council of Nisaea, their beliefs were ignored, in favor of beliefs that were more in line with Catholicism...

The Council of Nisaea was an attempt to unify Christianity. Out of many Christian sects & their scripture interpretations, 4 were chosen... Matthew, Mark, Luke & John.

Discovering what the bible has been through, shook my faith, yet has also inspired new perspectives & interpretations of scriptures. Some were persecuted &/or killed for trying to translate the bible. King James had the bible written/translated to support kings' power . There are thousands of biblical versions... which makes me want to - learn Greek & Hebrew!... or more importantly - learn to discern spiritual messages by both reason & the Spirit.

I see the scriptures as spiritual lessons, not history lessons. History is his- story.

The beautiful thing about the bible is that it's full of parables, so everyone can learn, based on their level of understanding. We resonate with what is most in our hearts, & as we learn more in mind & heart, we'll resonate with deeper messages.

And this inner searching & learning is what Jesus taught, "The kingdom of God cometh not with observation... the kingdom of God is within you." -Luke 17

[Franktalk]

HeatherAnn,

When we look at the world using only the tools of the world and the logic of the world we only see the world reflect back at us. This is what science does. It examines the world with limited tools and limited boundaries. The results obtained by these methods are as expected. But if we open our mind to powers outside of this world and we open our mind to the purpose of the universe we see everything in a different light. No longer cut and dry and naturalistic our view includes intent instead of accidents, our view includes purpose instead of probability. Imagine that you were to examine a room filled with items. But you could only use a microscope to examine the room. After an hour if you had to describe the room your description would be accurate but would not really describe the room in terms that would be useful. But if you then examined the room with your eyes you would see a different picture one that would see the relationship of the parts. One that would include the intent of the designer and a more accurate understanding of the parts. By using our spiritual eyes we see the bigger picture.

[coolrok7]

Heather Anne, thanks for your response. A point concerning the historical nature of the council of Nicaea, it was to defend the Biblical teaching concerning the nature of Jesus as the Son of God. There was a person, Arius of Alexandria (this is the heresy of Charles Taze Russel, the founding father of the Jehovah's Witnesses of today) who was denying the deity of Jesus being God in the flesh (part of the Godhead of Father, Son, Holy Spirit).

The council that met really had nothing to do with establishing the Biblical cannon which came later. This council had representatives in the church from the different areas in the world of that time that were Christian. They were there to come to a decision on how to deal with the issue Arius was raising.

Roman Catholicism as it is today didn’t exist in the century of the council of Nicaea in Northwest Turkey (325 A.D.)

The statement he came up with is that, “once the son of God did not exist”. This would deny the eternal existence of Jesus as God Who became flesh. John 1:1-3 is one of the Biblical statements where Jesus is identified as “the word was God”:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. . . .And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (John 1:1-2, 14)

So in the Nicene Creed (based on Biblical teaching) the phrase was coined, “very God of very God, begotten not made” as part of the antidote for what Arius was teaching that was in denial of or in conflict with Biblical teaching.

Edited June 20, 2011 by coolrok7

[HeatherAnn]

FrankTalk,

Good point! Science will never be able to measure spirituality in a laboratory setting because it's not predictable, but more like serendipity - finding something of value that was not directly sought.

That's a good analogy of trying to capture the essence of a room through a microscope. There is so much we don't realize! We can't! We'd be too overwhelmed by all of the things constantly going on within & outside our bodies! Selective awareness is how we live. Yet, realizing we don't know everything is important, as is imagination, which is how most scientific hypotheses are created.

Coolrok,

Thanks for sharing more info. It's interesting to learn more about how religious beliefs have changed...

...Including how Jesus has been portrayed.

People tend to portray him according to their own culture - to relate & resonate with him most.

Yet, I can't help but wonder if this contributes to intolerance for other races.

I was surprised to see that most LDS images of Jesus are based on the image of Cesare Borgia...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cesare_Borgia

Based on archeological findings, Jesus is thought to look much different...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_of_Jesus

(scroll down to the image under "Emergence of Racial Theories.")

[Franktalk]

HeatherAnn,

We can look back at history and say many things about the path that scripture took. It may even shake your faith if you think that man was in control of the Word. Rest assured that has never been the case. The message that is required is what made it through. If God wanted more then more would have come through. It is a measure of faith that we have what we need. After all scripture is but a stepping stone. The more sure spiritual communication is the true source of knowing. The Holy Ghost is the witness.

After all we are talking about God. The additional scripture from the Book of Mormon is not new. It is the same message.

We fool our self thinking we are in control. I will tell you that you can not die until it is your time, and when it is your time nothing can stop you from dying. Of course we can tempt God by jumping off a cliff then God will allow our free will to be exercised.

[Jeff K.]

Heather Anne, thanks for your response. A point concerning the historical nature of the council of Nicaea, it was to defend the Biblical teaching concerning the nature of Jesus as the Son of God. There was a person, Arius of Alexandria (this is the heresy of Charles Taze Russel, the founding father of the Jehovah's Witnesses of today) who was denying the deity of Jesus being God in the flesh (part of the Godhead of Father, Son, Holy Spirit).

The council that met really had nothing to do with establishing the Biblical cannon which came later. This council had representatives in the church from the different areas in the world of that time that were Christian. They were there to come to a decision on how to deal with the issue Arius was raising.

Roman Catholicism as it is today didn’t exist in the century of the council of Nicaea in Northwest Turkey (325 A.D.)

The statement he came up with is that, “once the son of God did not exist”. This would deny the eternal existence of Jesus as God Who became flesh. John 1:1-3 is one of the Biblical statements where Jesus is identified as “the word was God”:

So in the Nicene Creed (based on Biblical teaching) the phrase was coined, “very God of very God, begotten not made” as part of the antidote for what Arius was teaching that was in denial of or in conflict with Biblical teaching.

Actually it was designed to keep a fracturing empire united, and was supervised and controlled by a non Christian, or pagan if you will. There were many interpretations and Constantine chose those interpretations most facile in dealing with the unification of Rome. The various councils of Nicea (and there were many) were constantly being finessed with scholarly review and work, but in the end the doctrine had the imprint of a non-Christian emperor. It would also deal with Meletus as well as others. Winning group gets to make doctrine other groups? Well, history is written by the winners, so I hear

There were many debates and compromises, but no revelation. Needless to say, Nicene was indeed a method by which doctrine and creeds were established.

Did it establish canon?

Promulgation of canon law

The council promulgated twenty new church laws, called canons, (though the exact number is subject to debate[40]), that is, unchanging rules of discipline. The twenty as listed in the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers are as follows:[41]

1. prohibition of self-castration 2. establishment of a minimum term for catechumen (persons studying for baptism) 3. prohibition of the presence in the house of a cleric of a younger woman who might bring him under suspicion (the so called virgines subintroductae) 4. ordination of a bishop in the presence of at least three provincial bishops and confirmation by the Metropolitan bishop 5. provision for two provincial synods to be held annually 6. exceptional authority acknowledged for the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome (the Pope), for their respective regions 7. recognition of the honorary rights of the see of Jerusalem 8. provision for agreement with the Novatianists, an early sect 9–14. provision for mild procedure against the lapsed during the persecution under Licinius 15–16. prohibition of the removal of priests 17. prohibition of usury among the clergy 18. precedence of bishops and presbyters before deacons in receiving the Eucharist (Holy Communion) 19. declaration of the invalidity of baptism by Paulian heretics 20. prohibition of kneeling during the liturgy on Sundays and during the Pentecost (the fifty days after Easter). Standing was the normative posture for prayer at this time, as it still is among the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholics.[42]

On July 25, 325, in conclusion, the fathers of the council celebrated the Emperor's twentieth anniversary. In his farewell address, Constantine informed the audience how averse he was to dogmatic controversy; he wanted the Church to live in harmony and peace. In a circular letter, he announced the accomplished unity of practice by the whole Church in the date of the celebration of Christian Passover (Easter).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea#Meletian_schism

[jo1952]

I hope I don't have any "anti-LDS rhetoric", by which I swear, other than that I believe that Christ is the Head of the Catholic Church. But I wouldn't care about physical evidence for the Book of Mormon. I have to have my doubts as to the "testimonies" of those who claim to you that they would instantly become LDS. I believe they have said it to you. Maybe it was for its shock value, to impress upon you first, how willing they are to change, and secondly, how convinced they are that they are correct. I would not go so far as to say they are lying. But I do not think they know themselves very well if they imagine that they could do such an about face. I do not offer either a willingness to change, nor a claim to superior knowledge, especially about non-Catholic faiths. In regards to my own faith, I have decided who I think followed the Apostles. What they believe, I want to believe, whatever it was. I believe in the physical realities of the Catholic faith, and I probably shouldn't speculate as to what I might do if I could be convinced that they were parables. Who can know themselves so well?

If it were only that simple....sigh. The individuals my comments pointed to are students of Theology. They were being quite sincere in their statements. I am frightened for their sakes because they have no real relationship with the Holy Ghost. They have intellectualized their belief systems to the point that they seem to have no original thoughts of their own to try to explain what they believe. They depend upon the writings of scholars who agree with what they are being taught.

Indeed, "who can know themselves so well"? Everyone has the potential of falling away. That is why "enduring" is taught so abundantly in the LDS Church. The path for that endurance is a prescription which includes, but is not totally inclusive of prayer, striving to become Christ-like, keeping the commandments, faith, repentance, prayerful study of scripture, obtaining our own personal testimony rather than only depending upon the testimonies of others, and gaining discernment of the Holy Ghost's influence and promptings, etc. I have faith that if we are doing our best at what we should be doing that God will not allow us to be led astray. It would only be through our own foolish choices and giving up good habits of following the prescription that could cause us to not recognize any warnings the Holy Ghost is giving us. In fact, if we should stop listening to Him, or become unworthy recipients, He will not dwell within us.

If our life's journey is easy, we will not learn anything. Spiritual "evidence" trumps physical evidence. This can only be understood spiritually.

Regards,

jo

Edited June 20, 2011 by jo1952

[jo1952]

In my experience, a full understanding of the "problem of evil" has been sufficient for some classical theists to abandon their theism.

It has been my experience that it is the perception of the "problem of evil" which has been sufficient for some classical theists to abandon their theism. This does not equate to "a full understanding"; but rather to their own view of the problem of evil. My perception of the problem of evil reveals that this "problem" MUST exist in order for mankind to benefit from the knowledge of good and evil. We cannot progress without it.

Genesis 3:22

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Regards,

jo

[jo1952]

I already have the evidence so there is no evidence that can change it. The orthodox faith is the standard based on the resurrection of Jesus Christ attested to by the eyewitnesses who saw Him post the resurrection and who wrote it down in what became Scripture. The evidence would have been the body of Jesus as he had plenty of enemies that would have gladly showed it if they had it:

The above became part of the 27 New Testament books added to the 39 books of the Old Testament which became the sixty-six cannonical books we know as the Bible.

The spiritual witness of the Bible is the True Holy Spirit and the inspiration for the above, as opposed to the impersonator Holy Spirit as a lying spiritual witness of false revelation of other so-called Holy Books. The fact that it is real and gives people spiritual witness doesn't mean it is true, only that they have been truly deceived as the result of a counterfeit witness the Bible warns about.

To the atheist or agnostic they are given the opportunity to believe just as those of religious faith and they have rejected it to the point of unbelief as the door on the inside is being knocked on by Jesus. They (as well as the ones who have been deceived) need to pay attention and open the door and let Him in as he won't knock the door down.

1 John 5:5-10 (emphasis added)

5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?

6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.

10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.

The Bible teaches us it is the Spirit (ie, the Holy Ghost) who gives witness to our spirit on the earth; not the words that are in the Bible. The words in the Bible which record the testimonies of men who saw and knew Christ in the flesh do not have the power to witness to our spirit. They can point to Christ and encourage us to desire to believe in Christ - which leads to having faith; but on the earth it is the Holy Ghost who has the power of God to witness to our spirit.

Regards,

jo

[jmordecai]

For me, as an EV, I take a holistic approach.

1. My faith is not blind, and must rest on facts.

My faith rests on the preponderance of the evidence that points to Jesus Christ being a real historical person, crucified, and resurrected. Real tangibles such as Jews coming out of Judaism and Gentiles joining this new Christianity. Tangibles such as the temple wall in Jerusalem, Straight Street in Damascus, and the fact that Jews exist today. These and countless archaeological evidences and ancient historical witnesses lend credibility to the historicity and accuracy of the biblical texts.

2. Biblical prophecy

Daniels seventy-sevens, the Messianic prophecies, the restoration of Israel and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD are hard for me to ignore.

3. The teachings work

Unlike the worship of rats and cows (i.e. Hinduism), the teachings (i.e. 10 commandments) produce tangible results in the form of a healthy and civilized persons and societies.

4. Universal application

I would expect God's true religion—assuming his intent is to save the masses—to be universal and pervasive, not a fringe population. I see that exclusively in Christianity, from African tribes, to South Korean villages to Brazil, North America and Europe. Half the global population outside of China and India profess to be Christian.

5. The experiential

While certainly the experiential is an evidence of faith, the experiential of itself simply cannot be the only measurement for me, as all faiths have it—i.e. Islam has Sufism, Buddhism has Nirvana, Hinduism has Moksha, LDS have burning is bosom, etc. All of these can be false, but not all are true, thus we have no way to arbitrate which religion is true based on the experience alone. While we can get an 'experience' in any religion, we can not satisfy all of the items above in all religions.

For me, if the preponderance of the evidence supported that the best explanation is that Jesus Christ was a mythical person, then my faith is worthless.

[Franktalk]

For me, if the preponderance of the evidence supported that the best explanation is that Jesus Christ was a mythical person, then my faith is worthless.

If you believe the message of the Bible then faith is of great worth and evidence means nothing. When Jesus took the few loaves and few fishes and fed thousands He performed a great miracle. Later as the crowds grew again He said that they gather for food not for the Miracles or the Word. They were ruled by their belly. Requiring evidence is declaring that you are ruled by your brain instead of your heart. Thomas required evidence but Christ said it is better to have faith and not require evidence. We have built into us the light of Christ which knows right from wrong, it also knows good from evil. This moral compass can be strengthened or it can be ignored. Those who seek faith by evidence have placed their moral compass under a rock. They have no faith they instead have a trail of data and artifacts. My faith tells me not to believe my lying eyes. You may find this statement very odd so let me give you some examples of what I mean. If tomorrow someone uncovered a pot made 4000 years ago and it said that Lucifer was god then my faith tells my eyes it is a lie. If however you examine the pot and try and place it into your collection of evidence and then balance your view of God with this new piece to the puzzle then you have no faith. You instead blow in the wind of stuff and not faith. But a pot can be easily ignored and is a weak example. Let us say that next week someone you know is killed with others in a car wreak. You go down to the morgue to identify the dead and you see several bodies laying on tables. A man comes into the room and raises the dead. You see this with your own eyes. Then this person comes over to your dead friend. They say that if you worship them they will bring back your dead friend. What do you do?

There will come a time when lying wonders will be there for all to see. If your faith is strong then you will see these as lying wonders. If you have no faith you will see these as evidence.

[coolrok7]

Coolrok,

Thanks for sharing more info. It's interesting to learn more about how religious beliefs have changed...

...Including how Jesus has been portrayed.

People tend to portray him according to their own culture - to relate & resonate with him most.

Yet, I can't help but wonder if this contributes to intolerance for other races.

I was surprised to see that most LDS images of Jesus are based on the image of Cesare Borgia...

HeatherAnn, intolerance in Christianity for example based on the race of a person is not acceptable behavior. Being intolerant of sin (or bad behavior) is a part of the Christian faith but being a racist is not acceptable for a person professing faith in Jesus Christ as a Christian:

But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. (Galatians 3:23-29)

From the Old Testament the emphasis was on the Law of God as it came through Moses. In the New Testament, Jesus came to fulfill the Law of God perfectly given through Moses (actually gave the Law to Moses as part of the Godhead before He became a man in the first century to die for us all and to pay for our sin in failing to obey the Law of God).

John the apostle wrote this concerning both of them (the bolded part):

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me. And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. (John 1:14-17)

The above statement (underlined) was about John the Baptist who was actually born before Jesus so the reference, “he was before me”, is to Jesus’ existing as God before His entrance into the world as the only begotten Son of God.

In the context of things changing as you mention, having a standard the Bible became in time for Christian belief as a way to measure how one is being faithful to it as the standard.

It was delivered first by word of mouth in the context of the events as they were happening and then put to writing in what is known as Scripture as a written record for instruction (for Christianity the bible being both Old/New Testament):

These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly: But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. (1 Timothy 3:14-16)

And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. . . .It is a faithful saying: For if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him: . . . If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us: If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself. Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers. Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (2 Timothy 2:2, 11-15)

This is why the importance of knowing the historical context of written history and to understand properly why we believe what we do today as there is a lot on inaccuracy concerning these councils and what they actually were about. Also no one has a photograph as to how Jesus actually looked.

There is a history of the paintings down through history as to what he could have looked like but no one knows for sure (which is somewhat irrelevant as to Who He was and what He did.

Once again the council of Nicea in part was addressing the denial of Arius of Alexandria of Jesus existence as God before the incarnation of Jesus in the flesh. The Gnostics deny this also for their teaching denied God would have anything to do with the physical world. Jesus was the creator of the physical and came to redeem it. This is why John the apostle wrote this:

Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: (1 John 4:1-2)

The gnostics denied this so they were not Christians but were part of the heresy of the time period so John in part here wrote against their teaching. Their teaching was held by them to be this secret knowledge or "gnosis' that the apostles didn't have so they were trying to rewrite the Biblical record which explains the why of all the other non-cannonical writings which some today would argue for their inclusion into the Biblical cannon.

[jmordecai]

If you believe the message of the Bible then faith is of great worth and evidence means nothing.

The message of the Bible: that Jesus Christ lived, died and was resurrected had better be rooted in fact or the whole premise is false. Paul makes that very point in 1 Cor. 15:4 "if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith." I don't accept the notion that evidence and faith are mutually exclusive. Again, faith is only as useful as what you place it on. A person's faith in a rope to secure him climbing a mountain is only as good as the strength of that rope. Likewise all religions require faith, but not all have a strong rope to put it on.

Requiring evidence is declaring that you are ruled by your brain instead of your heart.

When you say 'heart' over mind, are you proposing an emotion condition? Ancient Judaism made no such distinction between the mind and heart. The notion that our minds are not part of the equation is certainly not biblical. I submit our 'hearts' cannot fully embrace what our minds reject.

Thomas required evidence but Christ said it is better to have faith and not require evidence.

Jesus never made such a contrast. He purposefully showed himself post-resurrection to all his disciples. Thomas, who had not yet seen him, rightfully demanded too, and Jesus allowed him to inspect his scars. This was necessary so the Apostles could be witnesses to the resurrected Jesus. Christianity lives or dies on their witness.

We have built into us the light of Christ which knows right from wrong, it also knows good from evil. This moral compass can be strengthened or it can be ignored. Those who seek faith by evidence have placed their moral compass under a rock. They have no faith they instead have a trail of data and artifacts.

This is a false dichotomy. Again you're pitting faith against evidence as though they are mutually exclusive. Faith is what you do with the evidence. If there is no evidence, then we have nothing to put our faith on.

My faith tells me not to believe my lying eyes.

Were those 'lying eyes' who witnessed Jesus Christ resurrected?

[mfbukowski]

I was surprised to see that most LDS images of Jesus are based on the image of Cesare Borgia...

http://en.wikipedia....i/Cesare_Borgia

I would be interested to find out where you got that idea.

[mfbukowski]

The purpose of this post is to show that your "evidences" are not unique to an EV approach

For me, as an EV, I take a holistic approach.

1. My faith is not blind, and must rest on facts.

My faith rests on the preponderance of the evidence that points to Jesus Christ being a real historical person, crucified, and resurrected. Real tangibles such as Jews coming out of Judaism and Gentiles joining this new Christianity. Tangibles such as the temple wall in Jerusalem, Straight Street in Damascus, and the fact that Jews exist today. These and countless archaeological evidences and ancient historical witnesses lend credibility to the historicity and accuracy of the biblical texts.

I would of course agree on the same Biblical evidences, if one wants to see them as "evidence", and incidentally I do. However, I am aware that taken on themselves, they prove nothing more probably there was a prophet named "Jesus" who was later "created" into what he is seen as by Christians today. Please note, I myself believe, as a TBM, that Jesus was the Christ, but I believe that such evidence as you have cited here proves nothing. One cannot deduce from historical evidence that Jesus was in fact the annointed Son of God who was the Word, who came to earth and died and was resurrected and thus atoned for our sins.

Of course I believe that, but nothing in history can possible "prove" that. Period. End of story.

2. Biblical prophecy

Daniels seventy-sevens, the Messianic prophecies, the restoration of Israel and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD are hard for me to ignore.

i won't debate that, because in fact I believe it. But one can see anything one wants to in prophecies. Especially if they were self-fulfilling- ie: the stories which show them being "fufilled" were crafted after the the stories which showed them to be "prophecies". This is the same criticism that is made sometimes against, for example, Joseph Smith "finding" prophecies about himself in the Book of Mormon. Such criticisms actually apply just as directly to the Bible.

3. The teachings work

Unlike the worship of rats and cows (i.e. Hinduism), the teachings (i.e. 10 commandments) produce tangible results in the form of a healthy and civilized persons and societies.

Take away the cheap shots at Hinduism, and I would agree. But guess what. What you have said is straight out of Alma 32.

4. Universal application

I would expect God's true religion—assuming his intent is to save the masses—to be universal and pervasive, not a fringe population. I see that exclusively in Christianity, from African tribes, to South Korean villages to Brazil, North America and Europe. Half the global population outside of China and India profess to be Christian.

I would not disagree, again, but guess what? If you look at the statistics, both Islam and Buddhism have a few followers too.

5. The experiential

While certainly the experiential is an evidence of faith, the experiential of itself simply cannot be the only measurement for me, as all faiths have it—i.e. Islam has Sufism, Buddhism has Nirvana, Hinduism has Moksha, LDS have burning is bosom, etc. All of these can be false, but not all are true, thus we have no way to arbitrate which religion is true based on the experience alone. While we can get an 'experience' in any religion, we can not satisfy all of the items above in all religions.

Yeah, but "all the terms above" don't amount to anything but stories, if you want to look at it that way. No "proof"!

For me, if the preponderance of the evidence supported that the best explanation is that Jesus Christ was a mythical person, then my faith is worthless.

Class him as "mythical" or not- it doesn't matter to me. All you are saying is that you have a testimony of Jesus being the Christ- same as I do.

Good for you!

[mfbukowski]

The message of the Bible: that Jesus Christ lived, died and was resurrected had better be rooted in fact or the whole premise is false.

Yeah but the whole thing becomes an epistemological problem.

There's no way to "know" it's a "fact"

We are all taking a shot in the dark. Get over it and get on with life!

That's why we call it "faith"- the substance of things hoped for!

[coolrok7]

. . .The Bible teaches us it is the Spirit (ie, the Holy Ghost) who gives witness to our spirit on the earth; not the words that are in the Bible. The words in the Bible which record the testimonies of men who saw and knew Christ in the flesh do not have the power to witness to our spirit. They can point to Christ and encourage us to desire to believe in Christ - which leads to having faith; but on the earth it is the Holy Ghost who has the power of God to witness to our spirit.

Regards,

jo

jo, this statement from the apostle Peter that I would agree with which makes the Biblical writings the standard to test any spiritual witness with. Mormon leadership even appeals to it. The problem comes in when Mormons do the reverse and make their writings the standard coupled with what I believe is a lying spirit witnessing to them which is why we end up not agreeing on certain doctrine which is specifically Mormon, not Christian:

Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. . . .We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. (1 John 4:1,6)

Mormon General Authority Milton R. Hunter in his book, “The Gospel Through The Ages,” had this to say concerning the Bible (additional comments by others):

In fact, the New Testament contains. . .teachings. . .of. . .the Man of Galilee. This book, therefore will be our standard of judgment or the norm by which we measure the Gospel truths of all the dispensations. (p.91)

We appeal to the Bible to prove. . .truths received through the restoration. . .are in accord with its teachings. (A Marvelous Work and a Wonde, LeGrand Richards, p.1)

The doctrines of false teachers will not stand the test when tried by the accepted standards of measurement, the scriptures. (Doctrines of Salvation, Joseph Fielding Smith, p.188)

Take up the Bible, compare the religion of the Latter-day Saints with it, and see if it will stand the test. (Journal of Discourses, Brigham Young, 16:46)

The Holy Spirit is not going to testify against what is already written in the Bible (as is the case for the Mormon so-called “Holy Spirit” that does contradict the “it is written”):

For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2 Peter 1;17-21)

[jmordecai]

I would of course agree on the same Biblical evidences, if one wants to see them as "evidence", and incidentally I do. However, I am aware that taken on themselves, they prove nothing more probably there was a prophet named "Jesus" who was later "created" into what he is seen as by Christians today. Please note, I myself believe, as a TBM, that Jesus was the Christ, but I believe that such evidence as you have cited here proves nothing. One cannot deduce from historical evidence that Jesus was in fact the annointed Son of God who was the Word, who came to earth and died and was resurrected and thus atoned for our sins.

Of course I believe that, but nothing in history can possible "prove" that. Period. End of story.

I agree that the evidences do not prove that Jesus is the Son of God, but I think the resurrection is very compelling and gives us a reason to believe he is.

... Such criticisms actually apply just as directly to the Bible.

What self-fulfilling prophecies in the Bible are you referring to?

Take away the cheap shots at Hinduism, and I would agree. But guess what. What you have said is straight out of Alma 32.

Nothing 'cheap' about my Hinduism comments. I simply stated the facts that they worship rats and cows, and hence suffer from overpopulation, disease and starvation from it.

I would not disagree, again, but guess what? If you look at the statistics, both Islam and Buddhism have a few followers too.

Not nearly as pervasive but yes they do have large numbers, and that should be considered. Not all large religions are true, but the true religion should be large. That is why I take a holistic approach.

Yeah, but "all the terms above" don't amount to anything but stories, if you want to look at it that way. No "proof"!

I agree, personal experiential testimonies are not proof but subjective, and should be evaluated accordingly.

Class him as "mythical" or not- it doesn't matter to me...

It does matter, otherwise we might as well believe in fairy tales.

There's no way to "know" it's a "fact"... That's why we call it "faith"- the substance of things hoped for!

We have facts, which are the evidences. Now we must derive conclusions based on them. I have faith that I too will be resurrected because the best explanation when looking at the facts is that Jesus was resurrected. You seem to be arguing to have faith for faiths own sake.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

For me, as an EV, I take a holistic approach.

1. My faith is not blind, and must rest on facts.

My faith rests on the preponderance of the evidence that points to Jesus Christ being a real historical person, crucified, and resurrected. Real tangibles such as Jews coming out of Judaism and Gentiles joining this new Christianity. Tangibles such as the temple wall in Jerusalem, Straight Street in Damascus, and the fact that Jews exist today. These and countless archaeological evidences and ancient historical witnesses lend credibility to the historicity and accuracy of the biblical texts.

If we establish and accept the premise that Jesus was an actual historical person, that is one thing. But how does this help you know that Jesus is the Son of God and the Savior of the world and that he died for YOUR sins too? How do historians know these things that I just mentioned, in such a manner that you can put your greatest trust in what they say?

2. Biblical prophecy

Daniels seventy-sevens, the Messianic prophecies, the restoration of Israel and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD are hard for me to ignore.

If we establish and accept the premise that the Bible contains prophecies that came to pass, how does this help you know that Jesus is the Son of God and the Savior of the world and that he died for YOUR sins too? Or is such knowledge really that important?

3. The teachings work

Unlike the worship of rats and cows (i.e. Hinduism), the teachings (i.e. 10 commandments) produce tangible results in the form of a healthy and civilized persons and societies.

Hinduism, Confucianism, Zoroastrianism, Mormonism, etc. all these religions teaches a moral code and its been working for a long time. How does this help you know that Jesus is the Son of God and the Savior of the world and that he died for YOUR sins too? Or is such knowledge really that important?

4. Universal application

I would expect God's true religion—assuming his intent is to save the masses—to be universal and pervasive, not a fringe population. I see that exclusively in Christianity, from African tribes, to South Korean villages to Brazil, North America and Europe. Half the global population outside of China and India profess to be Christian.

Shouldn't God's true religion indicate for sure whether it is His intent to save the masses or not? I believe it IS his intent to save the masses, and yet we also read in Matthew 7:14 "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."

5. The experiential

While certainly the experiential is an evidence of faith, the experiential of itself simply cannot be the only measurement for me, as all faiths have it—i.e. Islam has Sufism, Buddhism has Nirvana, Hinduism has Moksha, LDS have burning is bosom, etc. All of these can be false, but not all are true, thus we have no way to arbitrate which religion is true based on the experience alone. While we can get an 'experience' in any religion, we can not satisfy all of the items above in all religions.

If a Hindu person experiences the joy of serving his fellow man, and a Mormon does, and an orthodox Christian does, why must at least 2 of those experiences be false? I don't think that a mechanical approach to determining God's true religion is very reliable either as the only measurement.

For me, if the preponderance of the evidence supported that the best explanation is that Jesus Christ was a mythical person, then my faith is worthless.

Some people make the claim that the preponderance of the evidence supports that Jesus cannot be who he claimed to be. Eventually, in the realm of faith and God's true religion, a person is required to take a leap into a place he cannot see with his natural eyes. That could be called by some "blind faith" and I wouldn't have a problem with that. That's just the way it is, IMO.

[mfbukowski]

I agree that the evidences do not prove that Jesus is the Son of God, but I think the resurrection is very compelling and gives us a reason to believe he is.

Again, I believe in the resurrection, but surely you don't believe "by reason" that people come back to life do you?

How do you know that the whole thing is not made up? How do you know that it was only Jesus who was resurrected and not some "other mythological figure" (Again- I believe that Jesus actually lived AND resurrected- my question is about how you can KNOW that- I have to clarify that every time because I am finding it leads to major misunderstandings when I don't)

What self-fulfilling prophecies in the Bible are you referring to?

Again, I have a testimony of the Bible, but since you want "evidence" which I don't believe exists, how do you KNOW that some Old Testament writer didn't prophecy about the savior- based on myths which he was taught, someone believed in the story, and a couple of thousand years later, some other pious person who believed the story thought that Jesus fulfilled the prophecy?

Examples might be Isaiah and Paul. On this view, Isaiah wrote what was later (falsely) interpreted as "prophecies", and then later people like Paul or other Christians just used the stories (fables) of Jesus, years after they supposedly happened, to "fill in the blanks" of the legends they took to be prophecy with made up stories about this person Jesus who had lived 50 or 100 years earlier? How do you KNOW that did NOT happen?

You can't!

Not nearly as pervasive but yes they do have large numbers, and that should be considered. Not all large religions are true, but the true religion should be large. That is why I take a holistic approach.

Got it. Religion is true by majority rule. The truest religion is the one with the most followers despite how long it has been around etc. How many Christians were there relative to world population in 150 AD? Oops, I guess then Christianity is not true.

I agree, personal experiential testimonies are not proof but subjective, and should be evaluated accordingly.

Yep. That's exactly what i suggest too- subjective evaluation. And when you prove anything about religion "objectively" please let me know, because no one has ever done so yet. Prove the resurrection objectively and scientifically please. Dig up a body and bring him back to life with a hundred scientists observing. Good luck on that one.

It does matter, otherwise we might as well believe in fairy tales.

You are missing the point- I believe they are true, but you have given me no REASON (because none exists) to believe they are NOT "fairy tales".

We have facts, which are the evidences. Now we must derive conclusions based on them. I have faith that I too will be resurrected because the best explanation when looking at the facts is that Jesus was resurrected. You seem to be arguing to have faith for faiths own sake.

Uh huh. Best explanation? Come on! The best explanation is that it is stories and legends! Get on the phone, and call the scientists and tell them you are going to resurrect someone. No one will even show up. You have no facts. There ARE NONE. All you have is FAITH, which is fine with me!

All you have is testimony, just the same as mine.

[mfbukowski]

Some people make the claim that the preponderance of the evidence supports that Jesus cannot be who he claimed to be. Eventually, in the realm of faith and God's true religion, a person is required to take a leap into a place he cannot see with his natural eyes. That could be called by some "blind faith" and I wouldn't have a problem with that. That's just the way it is, IMO.

Right you are!

There is no refutation for this, and I have tried for years for a single person who claims that there is "rational evidence" for Jesus being the Christ to be able to prove it, and there has not been a single one.

Testimony is the only way one can know.

So how does one know which testimony is "true" becomes the question, and I am convinced that the reason there can be "true testimonies" pointing to other faiths, is that God knows what we need individually to come unto Christ.

As I have said before, if you are a drunk on skid row, and God sees the only way to bring you to Christ is the Salvation Army, will he give you a "testimony" that the Salvation Army is "true"? Absolutely!

If the only truth you have, perhaps because of how you were raised etc is Catholic or Evangelical or simply because that is the path you need, leads you to Christ, God will affirm it as "true" I am convinced.

On the other side, our progression will continue and we will go from grace to grace and learn more and more about what we need to be like Christ. Honestly one of the major reasons I am LDS is because I am firmly convinced that our progression does not stop at death- and that God will continue leading us in the spirit world.

The LDS church is the only one which teaches this principle, therefore for me this is a major "reason" to be LDS. There is no way I am about to believe that God holds us responsible for what we could not possibly know in this world, or that he sends his children who do NOT find the right path in this life to a burning h*** for eternity- it just does not make sense in any way whatsoever.

So God leads us here to the best path for us individually and then we can seek further light and knowledge on the other side. I think this is clearly scriptural as well, with the usual scriptures we cite as evidence that it is a teaching of the savior.

And of course, it must be accepted all on a testimony which is the only way WE individually can know God- not because someone else tells us it is "true", not history, not someone's idea of what is "rational" etc.

The only possible "evidence" is testimony. Period.

[jmordecai]

If we establish and accept the premise that Jesus was an actual historical person, that is one thing. But how does this help you know that Jesus is the Son of God and the Savior of the world and that he died for YOUR sins too? How do historians know these things that I just mentioned, in such a manner that you can put your greatest trust in what they say?

I've already answered this above. The resurrection is compelling that Jesus is the Son of God, but it is not absolute proof, and that's where faith comes in. Otherwise it's putting the horse before the buggy to say that we can have faith in Christ without first establishing that he is a real person.

Shouldn't God's true religion indicate for sure whether it is His intent to save the masses or not? I believe it IS his intent to save the masses, and yet we also read in Matthew 7:14 "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."

I would say 1 out of 3 would be few. Yet 1 out of 3 out of six billion would be two billion. It's all perspective.

If a Hindu person experiences the joy of serving his fellow man, and a Mormon does, and an orthodox Christian does, why must at least 2 of those experiences be false? I don't think that a mechanical approach to determining God's true religion is very reliable either as the only measurement.

I can't say if the individual experience is true or false, as its subjective only to that person. However I can say that despite the experiences, Hinduism, Mormonism and orthodox Christian cannot all be equally true. If the experiential is the only measurement then we have no way to arbitrate between them.

Some people make the claim that the preponderance of the evidence supports that Jesus cannot be who he claimed to be.

Some say Jesus is a myth, some believe in Darwinism, some in global warming. Everybody gets to look at the data and make up their own minds.

[Vance]

The problem comes in when Mormons do the reverse and make their writings the standard coupled with what I believe is a lying spirit witnessing to them which is why we end up not agreeing on certain doctrine which is specifically Mormon, not Christian:

Nah,

The problem is when Evangelical Christians don't have the Spirit help them correctly understand what the Scriptures really mean. And then they start condemning others for not agreeing with them.

That is when the trouble starts.

The Holy Spirit is not going to testify against what is already written in the Bible

True! That is EXACTLY what we have been trying to get you to understand.

(as is the case for the Mormon so-called “Holy Spirit” that does contradict the “it is written”):

Nah, it just contradicts the false interpretation of non-Spirit guided individuals and organizations.

Edited June 20, 2011 by Vance

[mfbukowski]

I can't say if the individual experience is true or false, as its subjective only to that person. However I can say that despite the experiences, Hinduism, Mormonism and orthodox Christian cannot all be equally true. If the experiential is the only measurement then we have no way to arbitrate between them.

They cannot be "equally true" if they are objective facts, like scientific facts. But guess what? They are not like that! They are not "true" like "The capital of the US is Washington DC" is true

It's about the right way for each of us to learn about Christ- and there is nothing objective about that.

There is no "objective" way to teach everyone- some learn by reading, some by hearing, some by math reasoning, some by linguistic reasoning.

And there is a HUGE variation in what you are acknowledging as "Christian" belief anyway. Is the eucharist the literal Body and Blood of Jesus or not? "It can't be both"

Should one be immersed in Baptism or not? "It can't be both"

Are we predestined or not? "It can't be both"

Yet you live with these ambiguities and call everyone (except us) "Christian". Guess what? THERE IS NO WAY TO ARBITRATE ANY OF THIS ANYWAY!

God leads and directs us using the best way he has to get through to us and that is all we can know. Nothing is "objective" here, what is "true" is what works for the individual to bring them closer to Christ.

[Jeff K.]

The only legitimate conversion process is the Pauline process on the road to Damascus where a man desiring to do the Lord's work is taken by the spirit and the truth is manifest to that person. There is no intellectual route that can trump the spirit, there is philosophical stance from a true seeker (by true I mean one willing to follow where the spirit leads) that can be deviated from a path towards God.