Proof of God or Christ without a holy book

by Awen 131 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Awen

  In some previous posts I have asked certain questions that still haven't been answered. So without going back to those threads and possibly de-railing them I thought it best to make a new topic. Please bear with me.

  I have asked certain ones to prove the existence of God or Christ without referencing any Biblical writings or characters. I was promptly directed to certain Biblical characters who didn't have a Bible but learned through the holy spirit about Christ.

  Apparently they didn't understand the part about not referencing the Bible nor anything contained in it (which would include the Holy Spirit as defined in the Bible).

  It would seem to me that if YHWH and Jesus (or a variation of name of the Son of God in the Bible) were proveable then there would be many references outside of the Bible.

  Are there?

  This is important because it has been stated ad nauseum that the Bible isn't a reliable source of information about God (as many lies have been told) and therefore shouldn't be used.

  So if a person took this train of thought and ran with it to it's logical conclusion it would seem impossible to know anything about God or his Son without the Bible.

  What is reliable in the Bible and what is not? How are we to know the difference?

  The Son coming to Earth and giving his life as a ransom has been shown as "proof" of his existence, yet this is a direct reference to the Bible as it contains the narrative of the events being discussed. What texts exist that speak of this that aren't part of the Bible? I would omit texts written by Christians as they are logically gonna be referencing the Bible in their arguements.

  Also the arguement that people wouldn't have put their lives on the line for a lie can also be disproven as many JW's have done the same by refusing blood transfusions or various other religions have sacrificed their children to what turned out to be false gods.

  One might look at the world around us and say "there's proof of God." I would counter with "which god?" Just because the Bible gives a creation account doesn't mean it's true, especially when science has debunked a lot of the Genesis account and not to mention the comments about the Bible being unreliable.

  If it's unreliable, then stop referencing it in your talking points. Either it's a valid source or it's not. You can't have it both ways.

  Also how do you know that the "voice in your head" is actually that of Christ? It could seemingly be something else.

  Where is the definite proof that it is Christ?

  Simple belief isn't enough. I could believe the "voice in my head" is the Tooth Fairy or more plausible my own subconscious. This seems to be the case when confronted with difficult questions about the origin of the universe, how a scripture should be interpreted or pretty much any other question. Ask the "voice in your head" if E=MC2 is really correct and if it's not, then give the mathematical formulae for what is really truth. Seems simple enough.

  I would reason that not receiving an answer would be more proof that you're simply talking to yourself and not the Son. Why would the Son refuse to answer a question that would only exalt his name and prove his existence to people who weren't present in Bible times.

  Also something was mentioned in another post about people always asking for a sign and this was an indication of their wickedness. Really? Yet how many of us have asked the GB for proof that they are guided by the Holy Spirit? How many of us have left that faith because we discerned that it wasn't being led by God at all? Yet to now question another person(s) who claim to reveal things to us (that they received from the Son through the voice in their head) is somehow wrong..

  Really?

  I know that some will think I am being mean or disrespectful. I'm not really. I'm simply asking questions that many of us often hide from (myself included). If it's real then it can stand up to questioning.
• 

  tec

  I have asked certain ones to prove the existence of God or Christ without referencing any Biblical writings or characters.

  God and/or Christ cannot be proven (to someone else anyway). Otherwise there would be no debate. No question.

  This is important because it has been stated ad nauseum that the Bible isn't a reliable source of information about God (as many lies have been told) and therefore shouldn't be used.

  The bible is not one book, though it has been turned into one book by us. But in reality, it is many different accounts... many of which are witness accounts to Christ. Are they hearsay? Yes. But so are all historical accounts.

  So I look at the gospels and letters as separate witness accounts TO/OF Christ. Not to mention all of the many letters/accounts that aren't in the bible at all.

  His teachings, his morals, his deeds. What I choose to do with that is up to me. Perhaps I choose simply to think he was a moral man. Perhaps I choose to think that all those people lied. Perhaps I choose to believe that He is the image/truth of God. Perhaps I choose to follow Him. Perhaps I even choose to pray, to ask for ears that hear and eyes that see, perhaps I ask for understanding or gifts of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps I even receive confirmation of these things - for me.

  What is reliable in the Bible and what is not? How are we to know the difference?

  I ask and wait for undertanding. It has often been given to me, and what has not YET been given, I don't doubt will be given, if I need it to be.

  But I didn't always do that. I began simply by trying to follow Christ. (I still do this) I also measured everything in the bible against Christ's teaching and deeds. Everything. So that I at least looked to what we have of him (in writing) before any other writing. There is also consistency among teachings (love, mercy, forgiveness), spread throughout different writings.

  Either it's a valid source or it's not.

  It can be a valid source of information about someone/something without being an inerrant source. And of course it is limited in that it records only a portion of the life of Christ and His teachings. But even what people witnessed to IN those writings, was that the Holy Spirit will teach, and lead us into all things.

  The Holy Spirit. Not the bible. The bible has probably hindered that. Without it, witness accounts would have been passed on orally, people wouldn't be so locked into 'the letter', and their minds/hearts might be more open to recieving spiritual things over proof.

  Peace to you,

  Tammy
• 

  Ding

  There are a LOT of people who believe in the existence of God who don't believe the Bible.

  Obviously their concept of God might be at variance with how God is portrayed in the Bible.

  Some reasons (besides subjective feelings or holy books) for their belief in God might include:

  -- Complexity of the universe (stars, galaxies, gravity, DNA, subatomic particles, biochemistry, "irreducible complexity," etc.)

  -- Order of the universe (how would the big bang produce the order we observe?)

  -- Existence of moral values which transcend mere human choice or preference

  -- Inadequacy of the atheistic evolution hypothesis to explain how the universe sprang into existence from nothing or how life evolved from non-life

  As far as Christ is concerned, taken together, the Talmud, Josephus, Tacitus, and Pliny the Younger (all non-Christian historical sources) indicate that Jesus lived at the time the Bible says he did, that many Jews considered him to be the Messiah, that he was a controversial rabbi with an approximately 3 year ministry, that he was crucified under Pilate, that his followers claimed that he rose from the dead, that they stopped observing many traditions which the Jews had observed for millennia (including changing their "holy day" from Saturday to Sunday because of their belief in Jesus' resurrection), that they began observing "communion" as a symbol of their understanding of the sacrificial nature of his death, that they claimed to have seen him work many miracles, that many people began worshiping him as God and referring to him as Lord, that many of his original disciples were martyred rather than recant their claims personally to have seen him and spoken with him on several occasions after his death, that they made many converts and planted many congregations throughout the Middle East and Europe, and that a new religion sprang from this ministry of a crucified rabbi.

  Of course, this doesn't prove that the Bible's claims are true.

  But it does offer non-Christian evidence that Jesus was an historical person and that many people of his time believed that these things were true and that these beliefs about a crucified carpenter / rabbi transformed their lives and their views of God, even to the point that they willingly laid down their lives proclaiming that Jesus had triumphed over the grave.

  To tie it together, if Jesus did indeed rise from the dead -- as those original disciples (who were in a position to know for sure) claimed and proclaimed -- that would be strong evidence for the existence of God and the authentication his teachings and theirs.
• 

  Awen

  @ Ding

  Josephus, Tacitus, and Pliny the Younger all lived after Jesus died. They never met him. So all their accounts are based upon the words of others which cannot be investigated.

  This is a nice website that pretty much debunks the historical references outside of the Bible that you mentioned.

  http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

  Again no disrespect meant to anyone, just showing evidence contrary to what was posted.
• 

  Awen

  @ Tammy

  I applaud what you stated about your beliefs.

  I am curious though that had you not had an exposure to Christianity would you still believe that the being you converse with is in actuality Christ?

  While I am not trying to disprove the existence of a God, what I am suggesting is that because the Bible is unreliable as a source it seems likely that any contact with Biblical characters would also be something to doubt. If the voice tells you "I am Christ", how are you or I to know they are speaking truth? How does anyone know they aren't being deceived? I am not suggesting you are, but merely asking what definitive proof you have? A moral code and good works as presented in the Bible are hardly proof as there exists many such figures and similar moral codes in other religions.

  There is a fellow in Queensland, Australia who says he is Jesus Christ returned. Many people have put faith in him and are actively following him. Yet I am sure you and others (myself included) would think such a thing quite silly. Yet despite the Bible's admonition that false Christs and Messiahs would arise and mislead many, people still follow this man. What proof (other than his own words) has he offered to them?

  So if a follower who claims to "hear" Christ cannot offer substantive proof (having a firm basis in reality and therefore important, meaningful, or considerable), then how are they to convince others that what they have heard is Truth?

  Obviously they can't.

  It might be proof to themselves but that isn't enough to cause people to believe in Christ. The Apostles had certain abilities that proved beyond a doubt (according to the Bible, an unreliable source) that Christ had empowered them to represent him and spread his message.

  If this is the same Holy Spirit that they received then you and many others should be able to heal the sick, raise the dead, walk on water, cure the blind and infirm.

  Can you do any of these things?

  We both know the answer to this question.

  But if it's good enough for you then that is fine. I have no qualms about people believing in things because it brings them comfort, but don't expect others to believe in Christ based simply upon your word (or that of others). Real tangible proof is needed because we have been decived by the likes of the WTS and are now highly skeptical of anyone claiming this ability.

  I had to come to grips with the fact that certain questions just weren't being answered or sometimes I was blatantly wrong about things. I had to realize I didn't have the Holy Spirit (as defined in the Bible) at all.

  I do still feel I have a relationship with God, but I don't identify God as YHWH nor Christ any longer. The facts, historical or otherwise simply don't support this belief.
• 

  yourmomma

  "I have asked certain ones to prove the existence of God or Christ without referencing any Biblical writings or characters. I was promptly directed to certain Biblical characters who didn't have a Bible but learned through the holy spirit about Christ."

  This made me choke on my hawian punch.
• 

  still thinking

  marking to follow where this thread may lead...cheers
• 

  LV101

  Josephus was alive during Christ's life --- is that not right? Obviously, I need to check out your referenced website and read.
• 

  Awen

  Titus Flavius Josephus (37 - c. A.D. 100),[2] also called Joseph ben Matityahu ( Yosef ben Matityahu)

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

  Notice that Josephus was born 5 years after Jesus died.

  There is a contradiction in some of his writings concerning Jesus that many scholars deem a forgery.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#Arguments_against_authenticity

  And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.[14]

  The above quotation from the Antiquities is directly contradicted by the equivalent historic account given in the Jewish Wars, that does not mention the martyrdom of James and cites the death of Ananus as the reason for the beginning of the destruction of Jerusalem. From the surviving fragments of The Jewish Wars: "I should not be wrong in saying, that with the death of Ananus began the capture of the city, and from that very day on which the Jews beheld their high priest and the guardians of their safety, murdered in the midst of Jerusalem, its bulwarks were laid low, and the Jewish state overthrown."

  Isaac Mayer Wise believed that while the passage itself was historically accurate, the phrase "who was called Christ" was the addition of a Christian transcriber.[16] Notable freethinker John Remsburg in his 1909 book, The Christ agreed the "who was called Christ" passage was a 3rd century addition citing the then popular view based on a c. 170 CE work by Hegesippus that put the death of James the Just at c. 70 while the Josephus account puts it at c. 64.[17][18][19][20] Remsburg's theory that the passage was added in as a marginal note by a Christian copyist and later incorporated into the main text by a later copyist was reiterated by George Albert Wells in 1986
• 

  tec

  I am curious though that had you not had an exposure to Christianity would you still believe that the being you converse with is in actuality Christ?

  I never said that I did converse with any being. I said I often receive understanding when I ask for and/or seek it. Sometimes when I don't ask for and/or seek it. Understanding as in I might now know the answer and the reasons for something that I previously did not understand.

  I have not had a back and forth, as a conversation usually is.

  I have received gifts of the spirit as well... love, patience, mildness, endurance. Things I had not received prior to asking. I could not get them on my own, even though I tried.

  Now in answer to your quesiton, had I not had any exposure to Christianity, then I probably would not credit them to Christ. How could I, unless that was also revealed to me?

  While I am not trying to disprove the existence of a God, what I am suggesting is that because the Bible is unreliable as a source it seems likely that any contact with Biblical characters would also be something to doubt

  Again, it is not just one source.

  Lets say you had ten witnesses to a car accident. All ten knew a car hit another car, but they got some details wrong... chances are that there was a car accident. You just might not know if the car was an intrepid or a grand am. Or if it was pink, or red. Then you also got personal observances, that might be in conflict - how fast, if the driver seemed impatient or drunk or whatever... Etc.

  You know the event happened... you just don't know all the details.

  From here, I would say that one can go to Christ and ask for understanding. That is what I do.

  I am not suggesting you are, but merely asking what definitive proof you have?

  I don't have proof. I am just one more person trying to give her witness, and as honestly as possible. What anyone else does with that is up to them.

  So if a follower who claims to "hear" Christ cannot offer substantive proof (having a firm basis in reality and therefore important, meaningful, or considerable), then how are they to convince others that what they have heard is Truth?

  See everything above.

  If this is the same Holy Spirit that they received then you and many others should be able to heal the sick, raise the dead, walk on water, cure the blind and infirm.

  Should be able to yes. But only speaking for myself, I know that I don't have the same (strength of) faith as the apostles. Besides all that, different gifts do different things. We receive what we receive, what I trust is what we need to build the body of Christ... not what we decide we will recieve. Not our will, but His (God's) will.

  but don't expect others to believe in Christ based simply upon your word (or that of others)

  I don't.

  Awen, I follow Christ because I love Him. It is as simple as that. I believe in God, the Father of Christ, because I trust Christ. That also, is as simple as that.

  Any evidence I have recieved after that has just served to... um... supportmy faith in Him. Strengthen it as well. But I followed and loved Him first. I still do.

  Peace to you,

  Tammy