Care to look at a few competing doctrines in terms of their plausibility:?

Question

(1) There is no God.

(2) There is a God, but all of our religions have distorted Her reality. Jesus was just an ordinary prophet who happened to become the center of a myth-making cult. God loves everyone and has never been concerned about what a person believes. After death, all people, Christians and non-Christians, simply merge with the Deity in a loving embrace.

(3) Christianity is the one true religion, and (my version) is the truest version of it.

Most Christians seem to be basically committed to (3). Needless to say, I've put my money on (1). But let's say that we knew, with absolute certainty that I'm wrong and that either (2) or (3) is true.

[I will be right back with more details to complete the question (you must click on this again)].

How much money would you be willing to wager on the divinity of Jesus? Would you bet your life on it? You might say that you already have bet your life, but that isn't precisely true. You have invested a lot of time, energy, and emotion in your belief. But given the benefits you say you get from your faith, this seems less like an investment and more like a withdrawal of funds. Forget about the consolations of your faith for a moment and ask yourself how sure you are that (2) is wrong and (3) is right.


I'm going to go out on a limb here and attempt to read your mind: I suspect that if the truth of proposition (2) were revealed to you in a glorious epiphany, you would be both powerfully consoled (who wouldn't?) and not at all surprised to learn that the doctrine of Christianity was basically wrong. If a revelation of (2) wouldn't utterly surprise you, how can you claim to be so sure that Jesus was the son of God?

David M:
Would your revelation be any different in nature than the revelations that Hindus and Muslims have told me about?

If not, why would I take them more seriously. Also, if they were not different, why would you not question them more?

Cindy: you probably have a different definition of the word prophet than I (or most people).

Cindy: thanks for the definition, but again this illustrates my point. Divine inspiration can mean many things to different people: Was this prophet inspired only once? Was it for a period of two months? Did it mean that EVERYTHING he/she said was guided by God? Did God mearly motivate the person to speak about what he thought was the truth? Perhaps Jesus did his best but was just wrong about somethings. He would not have been lying, just wrong (maybe only wrong sometimes). He may have confused some of God's will his own preconcieved notions.

Well, after talking with Charles, I have learned he claims to be a thiest. So most thiests would agree with #2. In that case, the question did not really apply to him. But thank anyway.


Still, no one has really tried to answer the questions I've proposed.

Answer 1

First of all #2 is dead wrong and here is why.

If Jesus Christ were "just" an ordinary prophet, then all than he said must be true, not one bit can be false or he becomes 100 Percent a false prophet.

God states in his word prior to giving us Jesus Christ, that he is a jealous God and forbids us from worshipping false idols, meaning he does most certainly care about what we believe, and we had better believe in HIM and all he has done, all he is doing and all that he will yet do.

Number # 3 is also incorrect. Christianity is the one true worship of God, but not my version of it. Gods and Gods alone and he left us his word to read so that we can know if we are being taught falsly by man or woman. If we do not know Gods word, then we are open to being taught against the word.

SO, as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord our God and study his divinely inspired written word, not our own version of what we would like it to be.

EDIT: just for you a copy of the definition of prophet take right out of a dictionary.
proph·et (prŏf'ĭt) Pronunciation Key
n.
A person who speaks by divine inspiration or as the interpreter through whom the will of a god is expressed.

Again, Jesus either spoke complete truth as to the will of God, or he spoke falsely, we do not get to pick and choose what we like or dislike, we must accept it or reject it in its whole.

EDIT 2: I am sorry that I gave you the impression that I believe that Jesus Christ is or was a prophet. He was and is not. He is part of the trinity of God, the father. Jesus, the son. And the holy spirit, the comforter.

Biblically prophets spoke the truth that God gave them. There are many prophets written about in the bible , namely Isaiah, who provided many clues as to the identity of the Messiah. Also, David provided clues as to the Messiah and what would happen to his earthly body.

Both of these men that I speak of here were prophets, speaking the truth of GOD, they were still very human and made very human mistakes and were sinful. However, when it comes to writing down what God wanted written or told, they did as they were told by GOD.

Jesus Christ had an earthly body, but we are told that even when tempted, he remained sinless in his human form. He was never referred to as a prophet in the bible.
I was simply stating that "if" he were a simple human prophet, his words from God would have to be all truth or all lies.

Islam states that Jesus Christ was just another prophet, but in doing so, they deny the truth in his words. So, basically they would have to declare him a false prophet.

Answer 2

You have not studied the Bible have you!

1 The proverbs of Solomon son of David, king of Israel:
2 for attaining wisdom and discipline;
for understanding words of insight;

3 for acquiring a disciplined and prudent life,
doing what is right and just and fair;

4 for giving prudence to the simple,
knowledge and discretion to the young-

5 let the wise listen and add to their learning,
and let the discerning get guidance-

6 for understanding proverbs and parables,
the sayings and riddles of the wise.

7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge,
but fools despise wisdom and discipline.

Answer 3

I am sorry, but I was under the impression that you were going to offer competing doctrines. But you haven't done that. Let's pick one, say 1.

Precisely how is that a competing doctrine. What argument put in propositional form can you offer that 1 is true?

Doing that is offering a look at a competing doctrine.

HTH

Charles

[Late edit]
Still waiting. What competing doctrine?

HTH

Charles

Answer 4

You seem pretty sure that it is anything but 3, so why don't we get to be sure that it is nothing but 3? I find 1 to be most implausible, with 2 being a close 2nd.

Answer 5

Jesus is the son of God. He is the savior and King of Kings and I would bet my life on it.

Answer 6

What if I already had a revelation and it was different from yours? Would it change you? Probably not. Peace be with you

Answer 7

What about:

(4) None of the above.

That would be an option I would vote for!