Share your evidence for Christianity

Some people have pushed back on me saying I do not honestly consider the evidence for God and Jesus presented here. I think you might be right. So I thought I'd make a fresh start. What evidence is there that I am failing to consider?

I must say that I only consider empirical evidence when trying to figure out what is real (per the wildly successful scientific method). That is evidence we can see, measure, and test. An example of empirical evidence for God might be manna dropped from the sky or the sun turning to sack cloth. We can see, measure, and test those.

Sadly personal testimony, ancient unverifiable texts, and faith are not empirical evidence for miracles.

I can start us off. The oldest empirical evidence I know of for Jesus is the Codex Sinaiticus Bible. The oldest scrap of the NT is Unical 0189. Sadly the Codex was created 300 years after Jesus and nothing in it can be verified so it is not very compelling empirical evidence for claims of miracles. And Unical 0189 does not mention Jesus at all.

So - what evidence do you have that I am not considering?
 

docphin5

Member
If you are sincerely interested then see my OP "Alexandrian Hermetism Found in Christian Theology in this forum. It is a better OP because it defines the names/titles of deities as correlating with Egyptian/Greek theological ideas underlying our reality. And it demonstrates how the divine is both within our reality and outside it as originally conceived. It is evidence based and rational. no superstitions or myths required (other than to carry the underlying evidence-based, rational, truth within reality just as the shell of a walnut carries the seed within). But you have to be willing to accept the definition of "God", "Jesus", "Spirit" as originally conceived and not what Christian orthodoxy presumes and most especially not what you imagine they are. Start without preconceived ideas and come with an open mind.
 
Last edited:

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
You are rock solid proof of Christianity and the prophesies in the New Testament.
Mocking, slander and misc sins we are told to see,

Do you like Christianity because it gives you a check list of sins to commit?
 
If you are sincerely interested then see my OP "Alexandrian Hermetism Found in Christian Theology in this forum. It is a better OP because it defines the names/titles of deities as correlating with Egyptian/Greek theological ideas underlying our reality. And it demonstrates how the divine is both within our reality and outside it as originally conceived. It is evidence based and rational. no superstitions or myths required (other than to carry the underlying evidence-based, rational, truth within reality just as the shell of a walnut carries the seed within). But you have to be willing to accept the definition of "God", "Jesus", "Spirit" as originally conceived and not what Christian orthodoxy presumes and most especially not what you imagine they are. Start without preconceived ideas and come with an open mind.
Thanks! I'll read it later tonight.
 
Some people have pushed back on me saying I do not honestly consider the evidence for God and Jesus presented here. I think you might be right. So I thought I'd make a fresh start. What evidence is there that I am failing to consider?

I must say that I only consider empirical evidence when trying to figure out what is real (per the wildly successful scientific method). That is evidence we can see, measure, and test. An example of empirical evidence for God might be manna dropped from the sky or the sun turning to sack cloth. We can see, measure, and test those.

Sadly personal testimony, ancient unverifiable texts, and faith are not empirical evidence for miracles.

I can start us off. The oldest empirical evidence I know of for Jesus is the Codex Sinaiticus Bible. The oldest scrap of the NT is Unical 0189. Sadly the Codex was created 300 years after Jesus and nothing in it can be verified so it is not very compelling empirical evidence for claims of miracles. And Unical 0189 does not mention Jesus at all.

So - what evidence do you have that I am not considering?

You are either being hypocritical or at best inconsistent. You keep telling us that it is illogical to hold a belief for which there is no empirical evidence, yet you yourself hold a belief for which there is no empirical evidence, i.e, that all evidence must be empirical in nature.
 
You are either being hypocritical or at best inconsistent. You keep telling us that it is illogical to hold a belief for which there is no empirical evidence, yet you yourself hold a belief for which there is no empirical evidence, i.e, that all evidence must be empirical in nature.
I find it absurd for you to ask me to prove the value of empirical evidence when empirical evidence is the bedrock for every human discovery or construct. It feels like you are just messing with me. Which is fine :)

I think you cannot prove your faith so you are attacking the idea of evidence itself - which is madness. However, if you really do not acknowledge that empirical evidence is the best tool to understand reality then I have no idea how to even begin to it explain to you.

If your demand for proof of the value of empirical evidence is just a way to mess with me because you cannot prove your claims then I am not interested in discussing it further. If you really do not accept the validity of empirical evidence then I am not interested in discussing this further.

Thanks for the chat. You helped me understand you better. Have a great day.
 
You are rock solid proof of Christianity and the prophesies in the New Testament.
Mocking, slander and misc sins we are told to see,

Do you like Christianity because it gives you a check list of sins to commit?
I do not see any evidence that explains why you believe Jesus Christ and God are real. If you are saying that my existence as a human is somehow evidence that Jesus rose from the dead then I just do not see the connection.
 
If you are sincerely interested then see my OP "Alexandrian Hermetism Found in Christian Theology in this forum.
I read your post - thank you. I am struggling to see how this is empirical evidence proving that Jesus Christ, God, and Christianity are real. Let me try and ask some questions and maybe you can help me:

You said, "good is real in our universe, for good is a value we place on things that are beneficial to us; and scripture asserts that “God is good”, therefore, one may argue as the first century, philosophers, sages, and apostles did, that “God” (in the Greek model of the Divine) is real." I do not understand how the human concept of 'good' proves the Christian God. Also, the concept of 'good' is not empirical evidence. It is just human opinion. So I am lost on this one.

I also do not understand how the table is evidence that God is real. Can you help me understand how that table somehow proves that God is real and the other false gods are not? I am sure I am missing something really basic.

I am trying to be sincere and genuinely understand your evidence. Thank you for any help.
 
I find it absurd for you to ask me to prove the value of empirical evidence

I never asked you to prove the value of empirical evidence. Give empirical evidence that I ever asked you to prove the value of empirical evidence.

I'm well aware of its value. I am also aware of the value of a dollar bill, but that hardly means it can buy happiness. Read carefully what I DID say:

You are either being hypocritical or at best inconsistent. You keep telling us that it is illogical to hold a belief for which there is no empirical evidence, yet you yourself hold a belief for which there is no empirical evidence, i.e, that all evidence must be empirical in nature.
 

docphin5

Member
I read your post - thank you. I am struggling to see how this is empirical evidence proving that Jesus Christ, God, and Christianity are real. Let me try and ask some questions and maybe you can help me:

You said, "good is real in our universe, for good is a value we place on things that are beneficial to us; and scripture asserts that “God is good”, therefore, one may argue as the first century, philosophers, sages, and apostles did, that “God” (in the Greek model of the Divine) is real." I do not understand how the human concept of 'good' proves the Christian God.
First, you have to be careful about what definition you are using as "God". I am drawing from the Greek model of the divine, not Jehovah, not Trinitarian as some argue it (although the Table illustrates a "Triad"). The table illustrates specifically what "God" I am talking about. For example, God, being both outside and within creation, the distinction being that the God within creation (as His own Son) is limited.

Second, no one can prove the unknowable, infinite God (as we are limited by our capabilities). We can only know of him and about him from creation which is why "No one knows the Father except the Son". (I realize you don't see scripture as credible but I am trying to tie what I am saying back into scriptures for those who might.).

Also, the concept of 'good' is not empirical evidence. It is just human opinion. So I am lost on this one.
I don't disagree that good and evil are values that we place on things. But you should agree that rational people may develop a consensus on what one is versus the other, for example, beneficial versus harmful to us. Most rational people would agree that good and evil are real in our world. I think Catholics may deny evil exists for theological reasons but outside of partisan purposes most people recognize the empirical existence of good and evil.

I also do not understand how the table is evidence that God is real. Can you help me understand how that table somehow proves that God is real and the other false gods are not? I am sure I am missing something really basic.
Again, the table defines what the Son/Christ are so be careful about preconceived ideas. Look closely, the table associates the son of God with our reality. The "Jesus Christ" and the "Son" are defined as the substance and values present within creation. There are many different names for them depending upon the culture and/or age of civilization, but the table shows their association to our reality. (For the Christians there is Ephesians 1:10 "Christ, the sum of all things"). Simply, the Son/Christ are real and from our reality we can infer God's existence. To infer God's existence requires more explanation in the OP but the Table provides the initial framework to begin that discussion.

I am trying to be sincere and genuinely understand your evidence. Thank you for any help.
I will take you at your word for now and do my best.

P.S. I prefer to respond in my OP if you don't mind because this OP will soon be cluttered with many versions of "God" and "Jesus" that are poorly defined and confound the explanations found in my OP, for example, Christ/Son are the sum of "all things" which precludes him from being a solitary human on earth as orthodoxy teaches (that is a whole other topic: mythicist/historicist debate). My OP clearly defines the terms "God" and "Jesus" so it should be easier to follow.
 
Last edited:

Gus Bovona

Member
I never asked you to prove the value of empirical evidence. Give empirical evidence that I ever asked you to prove the value of empirical evidence.

I'm well aware of its value. I am also aware of the value of a dollar bill, but that hardly means it can buy happiness. Read carefully what I DID say:

You are either being hypocritical or at best inconsistent. You keep telling us that it is illogical to hold a belief for which there is no empirical evidence, yet you yourself hold a belief for which there is no empirical evidence, i.e, that all evidence must be empirical in nature.

P1 - We presuppose the three laws of logic.
P2 - We seek to understand the nature of reality (= how the universe works, = what is real, etc.).
P3 - One possible way to accomplish P2 is to first observe reality, and then to think logically about those observations.
P4 - When we try P3, we see that it is reliable.
P5 - When we try anything other than P3, we see that it is not reliable.

All we need is to presuppose logic, adopt the goal of understanding the world, try some approaches, and we then see which methods tell us accurately about reality. No need to ground a belief in empiricism empirically in any of that.

Now, you can disagree with P1, P2, P4, or P5 (P3 isn't really a claim to disagree with, I think), but that's a different conversation from whether empiricism needs to be grounded empirically. It doesn't.
 
P1 - We presuppose the three laws of logic.
P2 - We seek to understand the nature of reality (= how the universe works, = what is real, etc.).
P3 - One possible way to accomplish P2 is to first observe reality, and then to think logically about those observations.
P4 - When we try P3, we see that it is reliable.
P5 - When we try anything other than P3, we see that it is not reliable.

All we need is to presuppose logic, adopt the goal of understanding the world, try some approaches, and we then see which methods tell us accurately about reality. No need to ground a belief in empiricism empirically in any of that.

Now, you can disagree with P1, P2, P4, or P5 (P3 isn't really a claim to disagree with, I think), but that's a different conversation from whether empiricism needs to be grounded empirically. It doesn't.
If you have any evidence that can be seen, heard, touched, smelled or tasted which proves that all things real must be able to be seen, heard, touched, smelled or tasted, please present it.
 

Tiburon

Member
If you are sincerely interested then see my OP "Alexandrian Hermetism Found in Christian Theology in this forum. It is a better OP because it defines the names/titles of deities as correlating with Egyptian/Greek theological ideas underlying our reality. And it demonstrates how the divine is both within our reality and outside it as originally conceived. It is evidence based and rational. no superstitions or myths required (other than to carry the underlying evidence-based, rational, truth within reality just as the shell of a walnut carries the seed within). But you have to be willing to accept the definition of "God", "Jesus", "Spirit" as originally conceived and not what Christian orthodoxy presumes and most especially not what you imagine they are. Start without preconceived ideas and come with an open mind.
If this is the case then we aren't talking about "Christianity".
 

docphin5

Member
If this is the case then we aren't talking about "Christianity".
There is a lot of overlap between Christian orthodoxy, gnostic Christianity, Hermeticism, and Egyptian theology because they all existed together a long time ago. Some scholars assert and I agree that Paul's teachings in his letters are gnostic. Some scholars assert that Hermetism was incorporated into Christianity. Which is why it is important to clearly define the terms when discussing a theological perspective or idea.
 

Tiburon

Member
There is a lot of overlap between Christian orthodoxy, gnostic Christianity, Hermeticism, and Egyptian theology because they all existed together a long time ago. Some scholars assert and I agree that Paul's teachings in his letters are gnostic. Some scholars assert that Hermetism was incorporated into Christianity. Which is why it is important to clearly define the terms when discussing a theological perspective or idea.
That maybe so but it is not what is recognised by most Christians as Christianity.
 

docphin5

Member
That maybe so but it is not what is recognised by most Christians as Christianity.
It wasnt that long ago that most Christians did not recognize each other as Christians (Protestant vs Catholic). Times change and so does our knowledge of things.
 

Tiburon

Member
You are rock solid proof of Christianity and the prophesies in the New Testament.
Mocking, slander and misc sins we are told to see,

Do you like Christianity because it gives you a check list of sins to commit?
Yes. Only Yesterday I seethed a kid in its mother’s milk. Tick that one off.

 
I never asked you to prove the value of empirical evidence. Give empirical evidence that I ever asked you to prove the value of empirical evidence.

I'm well aware of its value. I am also aware of the value of a dollar bill, but that hardly means it can buy happiness. Read carefully what I DID say:

You are either being hypocritical or at best inconsistent. You keep telling us that it is illogical to hold a belief for which there is no empirical evidence, yet you yourself hold a belief for which there is no empirical evidence, i.e, that all evidence must be empirical in nature.
I yield. I am not sure how else to discuss this. So if you want to say that I am a hypocrite then I accept that.

If you find any empirical evidence that proves your faith I'd love to discuss it. However, I do not find it interesting to keep saying that empirical evidence is the best way to understand the universe.

:)
 
Top