/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>829397

Believe me, brother, I do believe Christ existed. I only worry that the apologists I've been listening to for so long are mislead or misleading me about how confident we can be in the resurrection.

Thank you for sharing that picture about the Shroud. I'll keep it in mind. God bless you.

>>829403

As far as historicity goes, there has not been a group of people who has published more decisive, substantial apologetics than the protestants. We Catholics default to tradition, we believe the testimony of the Apostles to be true because the Church says so, but the protestants, God bless them, put everything together to prove to the unbelievers that Our Lord is an historical reality. You should check our Michael Jones on YouTube (Inspiring Philosophy) and other Christians doing these sorts of apologetic works. We Catholics (and the Orthodox brothers) are more emotional I think, we have all sorts of miraculous confirmations of our faith, great relics like the Shroud of the Painting of Our Lady of Guadalupe, Eucharistic miracles and all sorts of unexplainable relics, and these things usually suffice, so we just hold the traditions, the teachings of the Mother Church and the testimonies of the Apostles to be true.

God bless you, brother. Our Lord is not a coercive God, He doesn't overwhelm you with proof of His existence. So don't feel too bad for having doubts, and take solace in the fact that supernatural confirmation of your faith does indeed exist.

>>829411

The fact of the matter is that no one has been able to replicate the Shroud. And there has been tons of clown science published trying to disprove it. And again, it's not like the Shroud is even the only explainable relic of it's kind, only that it unequivocally points to the historical Jesus of Nazareth.

Your timeline disregards the testimony of the Apostles. Basic logic dictates that these people wouldn't die for a lie. Regardless, the wealth of sources that testify Jesus' existence completely overshadows other historical figures that you uncontroversially believe to have existed. The myth hypothesis is unhistorical lunacy.

>>829412

I'm not challenging the historicity of Jesus, I'm supporting it. The timeline is just non-apostle sources in early Christianity.

I don't agree that the shroud unequivocally points to Jesus, and that's not a problem.

>>829415

I've misunderstood your post. I don't think that you faith should be contingent on any object, but having read extensively on the topic to my mind there is very little doubts regarding the Shroud. You should read on it because it's also a great evangelisation tool and God has granted us this relic for the conversion of souls.

>>829416

I've looked into it. There's plenty of cause to doubt, starting with the Bible's distinction of a separate face cloth in John 20.

It's tenuous and in my opinion there's better avenues to pursue.

Relics in general are just off-putting to a westerner. It's weird, especially if someone is skeptical. Think about the alleged holy foreskin.

>>829417

>I've looked into it. There's plenty of cause to doubt, starting with the Bible's distinction of a separate face cloth in John 20.

Yes. And that separate cloth also does exist and is also a relic. Again, no one has been able to reproduce the Shroud using modern technology. It's like pointing at grass and saying that some medieval guy must have counterfeited it. The unique properties of the Shroud have not been duplicated.

>Relics in general are just off-putting to a westerner.

Maybe according to your cultural sensibilities, brother, but many westerners celebrate these objects. Again, your faith should not be contingent upon these things, but these also exist for the conversion of souls.

>It's weird, especially if someone is skeptical. Think about the alleged holy foreskin.

Nah, I disagree. Precisely because these things have mysterious, unexplainable properties they create cognitive dissonance in the minds of unbelievers. It's a foot in the door to break scepticism. As for the Holy Foreskin, if such a thing did exist, it would be a relic of incalculable value.

>>829417

>starting with the Bible's distinction of a separate face cloth in John 20

Check out the Sudarium of Oviedo. It has been confirmed as a complementary relic to the Shroud. They match by every forensic standard.

>>829391

its impossible to prove a negative through conjecture alone, so the claims of christianity are virtually unfalsifiable. historic debates on this are pretty much futile, take refuge in that. although they're useful for apologetics.

>>829455

What do you mean by "refuge?" I was, previously, under the impression that there was good positive evidence for the claims of Christianity, now I'm not so certain. What I'm asking for is a defense of the evidence, if one is possible. I'm not looking for assurance that Christianity can't be proven wrong, and it wouldn't satisfy me to know that it can't.

>>829391

You could have posted in this thread https://8kun.top/christian/res/828692.html

but whatever

Isn't this the same youtuber who thought that when Christians refer to objective morality they mean morality that everyone agrees upon which, incase you didn't know, is not objective morality

>>829403

Those antagonistic sources are interesting because several of them claim that Jesus was a sorcerer or magician, which implies that the miracles Jesus performed were seen by said sources or at least a fairly large amount of people. Not sufficient evidence per say, but interesting none the less, considering that if Jesus never performed any miracles His critics wouldn't try to make them out to be tricks or witchcraft

>>829487

Oh, you're right, my bad. I guess I wanted to make a new thread so we could have a general for historical evidence, but I should've thought about bumping that one.

Also, it wouldn't surprise me if he did say that, Paulogia can be kind of disingenuous.

What is the issue with Habermas' minimal facts approach?

There has been plenty

Faith is a gift from God.

I humbly prayed for faith, and I got it.

If you have faith, you don't need proof.

Stop being a doubting Thomas who wastes his effort on finding "proof" and get on your knees and humbly pray for faith.

>>829391

I found this debate helpful.

https://invidio.us/vJGRgxkzrjA

Sean McDowell is an actual expert in the field. He has a youtube channel (Dr. Sean Mcdowell) with some videos responding to Paulogia as well.

The evidence of the resurrection is quite good my friend. Find peace in our Lord Jesus Christ.

I will also say that reason alone does not lead one to God. For every argument in favor of God there is a counter argument. That is not to say all of them are good, but I think if a person believes in God solely because of reason they have set themselves up for failure. True christian faith is a gift from God. It is an intervention between a person and the Almighty. Faith should not stem from reason alone.

The greatest and most solid faith comes from God touching a person's heart. A person can have full faith in the Lord solely by God's intervention in their life. Reason is good. And Christianity is a reasonable faith regardless of what any critic might claim. But one should not devote themselves to God solely because of reason. Reason is impersonal, and God is not. Believe in the person of Jesus. He will not betray you.

I say all this because I get too caught up sometimes in evidence and miss what really matters, a relationship with God.

>>829411

There is a reason why eyewitness reports are mostly in the Bible, they are in the Bible because they are eyewitness reports.

Think about it. If one is compiling books about someone, wouldn't they gather all reports? Of course that if there were another reports, they would be in the Bible and you would reject them also.

You rejected beforehand what you're looking for.