/christian/ - Christianity

Religious discussions and spirituality

SAVE THIS FILE: Anon.cafe Fallback File v1.1 (updated 2021-12-13)

Want your event posted here? Requests accepted in this /meta/ thread.

Max message length: 5120

Drag files to upload or
click here to select them

Maximum 5 files / Maximum size: 20.00 MB

Board Rules

(used to delete files and postings)

Christianity Proofs thread Anonymous 03/09/2021 (Tue) 22:32:22 No.465
this thread is for various proofs of the truth of christianity and evidence which supports the bible since i lost my old folder which contained alot of stuff this could include stuff like miracles, philosiphical proofs or historic evidence
>>735 Anon, I always think about how just because sun rises and sets regularly on a set period of time, the fact this is a common occurrence as well as many other things does not make it any less incredible and Creation should not be taken for granted. People have been led astray by sin and gradually filtered these things out, darkening themselves (Romans 1:21 - "Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.") until gradually they become cold and dead inside. As it says in Matthew 24:12, "And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold." If we are branches, then Christ is the vine, and without God we can do nothing. John 15:5, "I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing." Also 1 Thessalonians 5:18, "In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you."
>>738 >Also 1 Thessalonians 5:18, "In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you." Thanks Anon, appreciated. I've been forgetting to do that much lately. :)
>>737 >People most often intentionally choose not to be convinced. Yet God is sovereign over ultimate fate. If salvation were left to man alone, we would all be doomed against the letter of the law. You would do well not to become a Pelagian; he was convinced that the vast majority of Christians were going to Hell because logic charged all to obey God unfailingly and though Christ opened the door, it was up to men to earn their own salvation. Augustine and Jerome appealing to the universal mercy of Christ and in the mantle of Saint Paul expounded the doctrine of the original sin of Adam and the impossibility of man to perfect himself under his own volition being a slave to sin. Any merit we have before God was not our own work but that of Christ's atoning sacrifice alone. Understanding this, in humility we must be bountiful in our charity, that some transformation may bring the light to the incredulous, even to those deplore the faithful, as did Saul before Damascus, or Augustine in his youth.
>>740 >Pelagian Doesn't the Pelagian philosophy deny original sin? You can be sure I'm not in that category Anon. I consider it pretty obvious that both God's will, and our will are fundamental to the salvation of a follower of Jesus Christ. However (of course) God isn't limited to the timespace of this universe. His transcendent nature allows for "Those He foreknew, He predestined", and without violating any man's free will. This seems almost like an irreconcilable mystery, but is really merely an artifact of our currently being constrained to just the timespace dimensions of this universe. God hasn't such constraints (and neither will we ourselves after our deaths), and He can sovereignly move on our behalves to so order events in our lives to bring us to the foot of the cross of Jesus Christ, and to eternal life thereby. Pretty wonderful and comforting to know we don't (indeed, can't) have to get everything just perfect in this life to be able to accept Christ's lordship over our lives.
>>704 >>588 But anon, there are a lot of lies being spread around about the Scriptures - that they are historically innacurate, that they are contradictory, etc. People may misinterpret the Scriptures because they read it with misconceptions in mind. Shouldn't we try to defend the Scriptures and clarify what they mean? In Acts 8:27-37, we read that an Ethiopian man had trouble understanding Scripture, so Phillip helped him out. Shouldn't we be like Phillip, helping people to understand the scriptures better so they can come to Christ? The Apostle Peter told us to: >"sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear" (1 Peter 3:15) Now, I'm not saying that we should not have the Bible as out final authority. In terms of doctrine we should not go beyond what is written (1 Corinthians 4:6). But, as Peter said, we should always be ready to defend and explain the scriptures if it will bring people to Christ - if that means relying on extra-biblical sources (not as a source of doctrine but as confirmation of Scriptural doctrine), then so be it.
>>742 Not that Anon, but I agree with your perspective on this topic, and I certainly affirm 1 Peter 3:14-22 https://biblehub.com/bsb/1_peter/3.htm We're going to suffer for Christ in this life for our faith. After all, God Himself intentionally allows us to go through this test, for our ultimate benefits in eternity & preparing us to judge angels and all our other, unimaginably amazing experiences to come then. Indeed, 1 Peter 3:15-16 is kind of a cornerstone passage for the topic of this thread; Christianity Proofs.
>>742 Yes, if people are not in line with the word of God, then it is up to someone to bring this to their attention. If they want to place manmade tradition over Scripture, they should be warned, about what Christ said in Mark 7:7-13. If someone wants to go beyond what is written, it is a risk that comes with consequences; they could end up being wrong. So we should be careful where we draw the line between Biblical doctrine, as presented, versus what we draw from it. I say this because it is important to realize that God has given us his word and every person is to base their understanding on what they learn there. Like it says in Jer. 2:13, "For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water." Again 1 John 2:27, "But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." Now, people have raised concerns about differing interpretations. Of course we know that there exists unbelievers who "wrest [...] the scriptures, unto their own destruction." (2 Peter 3:16). But Peter also tells us in the same epistle, "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." (2 Peter 1:20) This can only be true if God who inspired his word is working in our lives today. Hence, the apostle could write, "For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father." (Ephesians 2:18). And also, "I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase." (1 Corinthians 3:6-7). So our role as I see it would be to bring people's awareness to the Scriptures, pointing out where someone has gone against what is written, including "teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." (Matthew 15:9). Then it is up to them to receive God's word or else hold the truth in unrighteousness, and we have cast the seed of the word in this way. We also need to love others like God does in order for this to work. Hence, "And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing." (1 Corinthians 13:2) Furthermore, of course we need to be in God's will first in order to be effective, hence removing the log from our eye before helping the lost brother with a speck in his eye. Otherwise we might be saved, but not be an effective witness.
>>741 >Doesn't the Pelagian philosophy deny original sin? Yes, in its original form. Theological rant ahead as I found it one of the most interesting controversies of the church: It argues that man's logic is enough to earn salvation, and therefore each man is obliged to live a sinless life by reason and those that fail to do so have earned destruction by their own free will. A soteriology of works in which Christ doesn't seem to have an active role in mediating for the world. Pelagius was a die-hard ascetic after his philosophy and thought it was a solution to a church he thought was degenerating as more and more converted after the adoption of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire. He thought these customary Christians did not live up to the standards of the martyrs and saints that preceded them. He started protesting after encountering Augustine's work in a public lecture and found it objectionable, as he thought the idea of original sin gave license to believers to blame their faults on nature than the weakness of their will. He misses that original sin extends sympathy to sinners and makes all men equal before Christ in their redemption, that Christ came to save normal human beings and not just super-monks. Strangely, Pelagianism was popular with rich Romans, and modern liberals think Pelagius was some jolly defender of free will against the dour Augustine when the opposite was true. Augustine understood that man's true living freedom was only found in Christ and that it should be brought to as much of the world as possible, whereas Pelagius simply thought salvation was the final privilege of slavish devotion to the law rather than the full-hearted embrace of God through the gift of grace. There's no impulse to conversion in there, and it could practically be a secular philosophy because there isn't a faith in there. There is alao semi-Pelagianism, which is a weak form that is ambivalent on the impact of original sin as it conjectures that in the order of salvation man can by logic initiate his journey, that seems illogical by its construction as man's salvation is only made possible by the fact that Christ extended his love to humanity on the cross. Without his act as predicate, salvation is just a conjecture; without the real crucifixion, atonement, and resurrection Christian religion is a moralistic fable on the same ground as Stoicism or Buddhism. The wholesale integrity of Christianity, and its fruit in enabling full human happiness, are what convicts the most that it alone, among all the spiritual traditions humanity claims to be efficacious, is the one that is derived from the ultimate transcendent God. Lastly, there is the pseudo-Pelagianism of Catholics (and some Protestants), where somehow despite having in its stead all the church doctrines that would enable them to come to an accurate evaluation (indeed, they claim to be Augustinians) they instead preach an entire galaxy of redemptive rituals that vainly transplant the mystery of grace from a thorough transaction between the believer's conscience and God to ceremonies. Ceremonies may confirm; that was the original intention, alongside devotion and celebration. In their misguided manner though, they seem to promote a confusion of the outward showing of the work of grace for being the work of grace that comes through faith itself, and gone on doing that for the past five centuries despite having it pointed out to them as corrupting the original message of the gospels, despite even having such policies in their catechism as "baptism by intention" (that is, if a man intends to be baptized into Catholicism but dies before undergoing the ceremony by their own admission is rendered saved). If anything, all the decorum is derivative of their desire to invoke the adulation afforded to the kings and emperors of old, but not towards God -- instead, towards the political ambitions and worldly lusts of the Roman Curia. Let the glory be to God, amen.
>>742 I see what you mean, friend. But when Philip helped the ethiopian, he explained the scripture to him and made him understand what it meant. He didn't use extra-scriptual proofs to show that the Bible is accurate. Furthermore, the Bible also says >The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. This is written twice in the Bible. So wouldn't it just be better to witness to people from the Bible and pray that the Lord would convict their heart unto repentance to obey the gospel of salvation? Remember also that trying to prove the Bible to unbelievers would also waste precious time in debates. Time you could use to witness to other people who could potentially hear the Lord's Holy Word, wouldn't you agree, anon?
>>747 Remember what it says also in John 8:47, which Jesus openly said to the scribes and Pharisees, "He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God." And again John 10:2-5 tells us, "he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers." Further in John 10:26-28, "But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." >Remember also that trying to prove the Bible to unbelievers would also waste precious time in debates. The fact that there are people who choose not to believe in the Bible reflects the truth of what God said, that there would be some that would not believe. All things contained in Scripture need to be fulfilled. At worst, we can be a warning to people who may never believe. Or at best, what we tell them is rejected now, but in the future some of these people will realize it was right and repent based on what happens in the future. If someone just wants to debate and dramatise rather than what they ought to have which is a good faith conversation, just remember the conclusion of the following passage: 1 Timothy 6:3-5 >3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; >4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, >5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself. And also 2 Timothy 2:24-26 >24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, >25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; >26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.
>>748 Amen. Well said, anon. Thank you for sharing.
>>747 >>748 False teachers are a different question entirely than people who are led astray by them. In Matthew 23:37, we hear Jesus say to Jerusalem, "how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" There are atheist/cultist/heretical teachers to whom those passages against the Pharisees applies, but from my experience, most people who follow them are simply ignorant of the truth of scripture. Whenever the churches of God were given over to heresies in New Testament times, did the Apostles just say "meh, they don't believe the Gospel because they knowingly deny it, so it's no use arguing with them"? No! Paul and the other Apostles wrote to these churches, correcting their error and explaining the Gospel to them - these very letters are part of inspired scripture. There are very good reasons why the Apostle Paul repeatedly says things like "Be not deceived" (1 Corinthians 6:9), "Be not deceived; God is not mocked" (Galatians 6:7), " Beware lest any man spoil you" (Colossians 2:8), so on and so forth. Unfortunately, a grrat many people have been decieved by liars. There is a reason why the Bible says Satan "deceiveth the whole world" (Revelation 12:9). Many of the people who see street preachers, unfortunately, have been told by other people that Christians are just insane or primitive, and thus ignore their call to repentance. The Bible itself, not just people who believe it, is the target of slander these days. Paul tells us to expose the works of darkness (Ephesians 5:11). We should expose the lies directed against the Bible with whatever means we have.
>>756 Heh, don't let it go to your head Anon, but you seem to me to be inspired by the wisdom of the Holy Spirit. It's pretty refreshing to see such council here. It's a deep mystery to me where the inspired, eternal, holy wisdom of God Himself crosses over into the temporal realm. But plainly, it does. Again, drawing on 2 Peter (he was quite the fisherman, yes?) : >but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. https://biblehub.com/2_peter/1-21.htm I strive regularly to discern the Holy Ghost's wisdom on a topic. My calling seems to regularly draw me into discussions on science and philosophy in this regard. As you point out, there are already many imminent men who have addressed the biblical and theological implications, so it's of little account for me to attempt addressing such matters on that playing field; It's already been well-rehearsed. :^)
>>744 > say this because it is important to realize that God has given us his word and every person is to base their understanding on what they learn there. digits confirm.
Open file (529.44 KB 854x595 numbers31.png)
Seeing as Numbers 31 is among the most abused passages by atheists, this should be useful
>>482 Yes you could be sacrificed for someone's sins like a sacrificial lamb, it is murder for accepting their sins, it is their fault and they murder you for it. Do you accept this as your destiny?
Open file (1.59 MB 1920x1080 kjv_7.png)
>>762 Proverbs 3:5-6 >Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.
Open file (911.35 KB 1280x720 physicalism debunked.png)
Not a proof of God, but intimately related. Physicalism is proven false. How can computation objectively exist when the language that is being computed does not objectively exist and is subjectively defined. Once you realize physicalism is incorrect, dualism (and monotheism as the best form of dualism) soon follows. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUjQWxMJsQY&ab_channel=imsmarturnot
>>482 The Original Sin never made any sense to me. It paints God as completely unjust. >Children of Adam is guilty of a sin that Adam made. >that means if your father killed someone, you deserve to be executed too. The only way to salvation is to accept Christ >so the people who lived and died before Christ came along are doomed to burn in hell forever, without any way out >the same goes for infants who died before they can even understand words. Jesus's Sacrifice also makes no sense >God demands his son to be sacrificed to forgive humanity's sins, instead of just forgiving them >Said son also knows that he's coming back later, so it's not really a sacrifice >He's just taking a hiatus
Open file (88.98 KB 398x400 cicular genetic code.png)
Open file (68.67 KB 828x608 The-Genetic-Code.jpg)
>>1119 One exceptionally provocative objective evidence for a mind behind the creation of life is the genetic code. This isn't just some haphazard arrangement but is rather a highly-specific and near-perfectly optimized code. -A. It can't be a 'frozen accident' as Francis Crick would call it -- it's near-perfect. There's simply no evolutionary pathway to explain it's appearance. -B. It's a highly-specific code. Given the 20 amino acids, and permutations of the codons possible, it would take ~10^54 random searches per second if you both grant a naturalistic means for testing assembly (how does that work, btw?), and allow the entire age of the universe to explain the appearance of the genetic code. There simply isn't enough time. -C. This isn't just a single code, but rather is at least six different coding systems all wrapped up in the same substrate. Again, near-perfect optimization & a highly-specific code. -D. Every normal encounter in life tells us that codes come from minds. They simply don't occur in a happenstance way -- codes come from minds. While there's probably been other insights gained more recently, these four fundamentals have been clearly known for more than a decade. They are certainly highly predictive characteristics of an intentionally-designed coding system, rather than some chance assemblage. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics + dirt simply do not display these characteristics, regardless of timeframe.
>>1203 >dirt comes to life by itself where's the life on mars my boy, your "evolution" should have evolved to survive it.
>>1209 >where's the life on mars Bad example given that there is proof that the planet has strong indications of nuclear activity at some point in its past, which so far hasn't been proven to happen naturally.
>>1210 Right the nuclear wars on Mars, gotcha.
I find this useful https://pastelink.net/2w1ne
>>1320 not clicking on that shit. What's in the link?
Open file (125.59 KB 1360x1480 Capture.PNG)
>>1321 Lots of biblical archaeological links, apparently.
>>1323 >Lots of biblical archaeological links, apparently. No just malware >>1322 Mod may want to delete the post >>1320
>>1325 Interesting. Which malware scanner is >>1322?
>>1321 This anon >>1323 is right; but considering quickly that 1. there's terrible formatting, 2. there's an advertisement on the very top of the list for a travel tour, and 3. the guy uses the stupid, redundant, and (((Jewish))) BCE/CE dating scheme, I don't have much confidence of the usefulness of that list. >>1325 >Only 2 scanners out of 89 are triggered >One calls the link a phishing site >malware What? >>1327 The website Virus Total
The prophecy of Daniel 9.24-27 is one that I like to use, with the 'weeks' being interpreted as seven year periods in accordance with past precedence in Leviticus 25.8 and other places. This prophecy undeniably came true. It predicts Christs' death, the destruction of the Temple, the end of sacrifices, and it even gives a time-frame during which these events would occur. It's the perfect proof. Plus, Jesus refers to this prophecy in Matthew 24:15.
Open file (136.18 KB 504x680 Joe Giant.jpg)
Open file (116.55 KB 640x625 Red Sea crossing.jpg)
Open file (229.06 KB 600x1008 Man in Geologic Column.jpg)
Open file (4.26 MB 1292x8757 the shroud.png)
Does anyone have contemporary evidence for Jesus? Like evidence for around the time he was alive?
>>1739 Isn't Josephus from around the Apostolic Era? Didn't he have similar colleagues? Also, do bear in mind that not just anything was written down back then. Paper was not cheap, and copying down letters was not fast. Historians especially only wrote down what they thought was important. Thus the phrase, "it is written."
>>2609 The accusation is that Christians edited the manuscripts of Josephus later on to include further mention of Jesus and the church.
>>2613 And how could they possibly know that.
>>2613 Even having said this, most scholars believe that at least one of the two mentions in Josephus is legitimate (the one that mentions Him and James), and that the other probably has a historical core to it that may have been added to. >>1739 Every letter of Paul, the Gospels*, Josephus, the letter of Mara bar Serapion, etc. *the scholarly estimations for the dating of the Gospels are predicated on the assumption that Jesus could not have predicted the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD
>>2621 "because we guessed lol"
>>2623 That's one hell of an assumption, considering what was right there for Him to see even without divine foresight.
>>2629 Especially in light of >>1707
>>2613 The main point of Josephus would be the Testimonium Flavianum, and that bit was certainly edited, but not subtly, at all. Keep in mind, Josephus was a non-messianic Jew. >About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. >For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. >And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. >He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. >And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared It seems fairly clear to me that the second and fourth quote are inserted later, since there is no way a Jew would say that. The "if indeed one ought to call him a man", I'd interpret as sardonic humor on Josephus' part, but it may also be an insert that's meant to be read literally. There likely used to be passages that called Jesus a criminal or something, and some scribe replaced them at some point.
>>2632 So he said something about Jesus that indicated His reality, but we can't be sure what.
>>2635 Essentially, yes. Christ mythicists would like to think that this totally discredits any usage of Josephus as extra-biblical evidence for Christ, but it doesn't obviously.
Anyone got proofs about the Holy Fire? What about the Incorrupt?
Open file (5.99 MB 2282x1869 josephus-james.png)
Open file (4.63 MB 2282x1869 josephus-jamesd.png)
>>2635 Josephus talked about James the brother of Jesus. I recently put together some sources to prove this, see the attached images.
>>2695 Explain?
>>2727 One is the sacred fire which manifests on Pascha in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. The other is the manifestation of abnormally preserved, even fragrant bodies of pious elders and Saints in the Christian faith. Have you never heard of either phenomenon?

Report/Delete/Moderation Forms

no cookies?