Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

What Is Evidence / How Do We Know What Is Real?


Hierophant

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, DarkBishop said:

I know this was supposed to technically be between you and Hierophant. But you have asked all of us for proof that we were Christians. What do you feel is your proof? I bet that it sounds a lot like our proof that we once believed. How does that make it a bazaar?

 

DB

I don't really know what your association is when you hear the word "Christian" there in America. But when here we ask unbelievers if how would they imagine a christian should be, they picture it in a very accurate manner saying that they should be holy, peaceful, lovely...what they know. But we believers can continue this list and add strength, faith, hope and such things are demonstrated when we have troubles. Humbleness,  meekness. 

 

You know all of them. The Bible says that we are living letters of the Gospel to others. So we, our everything when changed, is the very evidence. When someone is free of sinful power, so he stops living sinful life, and he has a power to overcome temptations. It is called the fruit of repentance. I do not know in which atheistic school it could be learnt but Jesus gives us that power. 

 

So when a christian is lack of such fruit then his repentance and faith is under the question!!!

When you enter the water and get out of it without any change, so it means that the baptism is not a baptism actually. A man enters the water as a sinner and gets out of it as a wet sinner. Nothing is changed. I had an occasion to do so once in my life. When i was 17. I was baptized without true repentance. And guess what. Nothing was changed in my life. Almost right after that I left the church and continued doing even more sins and living a more sinful way of life than I ever did before.

 

So what was wrong with the water? Maybe pastor was a wrong pastor? Maybe time was not correct? Of course no. But the faith was wrong, not biblical. 

 

Does it make sense for you, or it is just empty speach for all of you here? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, aik said:

I don't really know what your association is when you hear the word "Christian" there in America. But when here we ask unbelievers if how would they imagine a christian should be, they picture it in a very accurate manner saying that they should be holy, peaceful, lovely...what they know. But we believers can continue this list and add strength, faith, hope and such things are demonstrated when we have troubles. Humbleness,  meekness. 

 

You know all of them. The Bible says that we are living letters of the Gospel to others. So we, our everything when changed, is the very evidence. When someone is free of sinful power, so he stops living sinful life, and he has a power to overcome temptations. It is called the fruit of repentance. I do not know in which atheistic school it could be learnt but Jesus gives us that power. 

 

So when a christian is lack of such fruit then his repentance and faith is under the question!!!

When you enter the water and get out of it without any change, so it means that the baptism is not a baptism actually. A man enters the water as a sinner and gets out of it as a wet sinner. Nothing is changed. I had an occasion to do so once in my life. When i was 17. I was baptized without true repentance. And guess what. Nothing was changed in my life. Almost right after that I left the church and continued doing even more sins and living a more sinful way of life than I ever did before.

 

So what was wrong with the water? Maybe pastor was a wrong pastor? Maybe time was not correct? Of course no. But the faith was wrong, not biblical. 

 

Does it make sense for you, or it is just empty speach for all of you here? 

I guess it sounds like a fairy tale in your ears 👂   

 

😄 correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, aik said:

 

 they should be holy, peaceful, lovely...what they know. But we believers can continue this list and add strength, faith, hope and such things are demonstrated when we have troubles. Humbleness,  meekness. 

 

You know all of them.

 

Aik stated his evidence.  Sorry I interrupted the converstion, and will stay out of it now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EVIDENCE

 

If you pay attention, then evidence contains the word VID which means what can be seen, visual. So evidence is something that we can see. 

 

So if some of you think that we can see only what we can touch, or artefacts, or laboratory results, such  people are limiting the meaning of the word, therefore they limit themselves and close their mind for seeing evidences from God in fullness.

 

1) We can see also evidneces of the Holy Spirit. His work inside us in unvisible to others, but outcome of this work becomes visible to everyone. It happens because  God brought a new faith in us, not what we had before, and newness of the faith comes out as new behaviour. 

 

2) As well we can see the work of the Holy Spirit in miracle. Visible power of God. Saying miracle I do not mean that we pray and wait for healing while having medicines along with it. I mean miracle which cannot be explained by today's most developed scientific knowledge. You can say, well we do not know it yet, but we will reach it some time in the future and get known how it happens... Yes. sure. But the fact of knowing how it happens does not humiliate the power of God who does that miracle. If we find out that there was a strong wind by the p ower of which the Red Sea was split for Moses and Israelites, it does not mean that there was no miracle happened. 

 

3) Also we can visualise prophecies, another work of the Holy Spirit taday. There are prophecies in the Bible which happened, also we have prophecies today in churches. If a church denies such things or just does not practice it because of doctrinal issues or lack of faith etc. then it does not mean that there are no prophecies in churches. In this item i have to notice that false prophecies overflow today. Our brotherhood also is aware of false prophecies and we are strict in this issue. We also suffer lack of prophetic actions now, but it is. Prophecies about healings, about daily issues of believers, and about churches globally. 

 

These are evidences also. Spiritual evidences, but one cannot deny a miraculous healing when it happens in front of him. That is why many surgeons believe that there is some greater power in heaven, because they saw much. 

 

@Hierophant @Weezer @DarkBishop @Joshpantera @pantheory @TABA and others  please comment it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since you invited me back, I will say one more thing.  You are giving circumstantial evidence that can't be proven.  It is "hearsay".   Not hard evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Weezer said:

Since you invited me back, I will say one more thing.  You are giving circumstantial evidence that can't be proven.  It is "hearsay".   Not hard evidence.

cannot be proven?

 

What you said now is out of sound thinking. What prove? If you see it and communicate with it, what prove else do you want? Are you serious saying that? Prove is needed when we speak about things that we did not see. We need to get documents, items and so on. But what we see needs not a prove. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, aik said:

1) We can see also evidneces of the Holy Spirit. His work inside us in unvisible to others, but outcome of this work becomes visible to everyone.

@Hierophant @Weezer @DarkBishop @Joshpantera @pantheory @TABA and others  please comment it. 

 

No, that's not evidence to me.  You are probably experiencing something, and attributing it to the Holy Spirit, but you aren't providing me any evidence that the Holy Spirit actually exists.  It could be some other entity, or it could be something that exists only in your imagination.  You have provided no way to verify your claim, and therefore I do not accept it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Astreja said:

 

No, that's not evidence to me.  You are probably experiencing something, and attributing it to the Holy Spirit, but you aren't providing me any evidence that the Holy Spirit actually exists.  It could be some other entity, or it could be something that exists only in your imagination.  You have provided no way to verify your claim, and therefore I do not accept it.

Your atheology closed your mind sister. If you get your mother healed of a disease that led her to death, it cannot be my imagination. An imagination does not heal, it is fake to think so. Imagination cannot delete a 4 stage cancer for example. An imagination cannot glue bones to each other. An imagination cannot bring to life. and so many many testimonies are in the church. Explore it better. I remember it was you said that you never were a christian. This is your chance to learn what it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, aik said:

cannot be proven?

 

What you said now is out of sound thinking. What prove? If you see it and communicate with it, what prove else do you want? Are you serious saying that? Prove is needed when we speak about things that we did not see. We need to get documents, items and so on. But what we see needs not a prove. 

I will explain this in a different way.  Yes, you have given evidence of your faith, which is a feeling you have inside yourself, and is probably demonstrated by your life.  But that is not evidence of the object of your faith.  That is what I had in mind when I said it was circumstancial or hearsay.  You have no "hard" evidence of Jesus or God. And that is all I am going to say on this subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, aik said:

EVIDENCE

 

If you pay attention, then evidence contains the word VID which means what can be seen, visual. So evidence is something that we can see. 

 

So if some of you think that we can see only what we can touch, or artefacts, or laboratory results, such  people are limiting the meaning of the word, therefore they limit themselves and close their mind for seeing evidences from God in fullness.

 

1) We can see also evidneces of the Holy Spirit. His work inside us in unvisible to others, but outcome of this work becomes visible to everyone. It happens because  God brought a new faith in us, not what we had before, and newness of the faith comes out as new behaviour. 

 

2) As well we can see the work of the Holy Spirit in miracle. Visible power of God. Saying miracle I do not mean that we pray and wait for healing while having medicines along with it. I mean miracle which cannot be explained by today's most developed scientific knowledge. You can say, well we do not know it yet, but we will reach it some time in the future and get known how it happens... Yes. sure. But the fact of knowing how it happens does not humiliate the power of God who does that miracle. If we find out that there was a strong wind by the p ower of which the Red Sea was split for Moses and Israelites, it does not mean that there was no miracle happened. 

 

3) Also we can visualise prophecies, another work of the Holy Spirit taday. There are prophecies in the Bible which happened, also we have prophecies today in churches. If a church denies such things or just does not practice it because of doctrinal issues or lack of faith etc. then it does not mean that there are no prophecies in churches. In this item i have to notice that false prophecies overflow today. Our brotherhood also is aware of false prophecies and we are strict in this issue. We also suffer lack of prophetic actions now, but it is. Prophecies about healings, about daily issues of believers, and about churches globally. 

 

These are evidences also. Spiritual evidences, but one cannot deny a miraculous healing when it happens in front of him. That is why many surgeons believe that there is some greater power in heaven, because they saw much. 

 

@Hierophant @Weezer @DarkBishop @Joshpantera @pantheory @TABA and others  please comment it. 

 

Since aik has invited 'others' to comment, I will.

 

His three points about evidence being seen can only be accepted by us here, in this forum, by faith.

 

Here in this forum we cannot see them because we do not have any faith.

 

And the bible itself tells us that things NOT SEEN with our eyes must be accepted by faith.

 

Hebrews 11 : 1

 

Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.

 

Here in this forum we do not see any of aik's three points because we do not have any faith.

 

And that is why we continue to ask him for evidence that we can see.

 

So far he hasn't presented any.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Weezer said:

I will explain this in a different way.  Yes, you have given evidence of your faith, which is a feeling you have inside yourself, and is probably demonstrated by your life.  But that is not evidence of the object of your faith.  That is what I had in mind when I said it was circumstancial or hearsay.  You have no "hard" evidence of Jesus or God. And that is all I am going to say on this subject.

Who said that one is a hard evidence and another is not? You said this. What is hard for you it does not mean it is so. For example you have water poured on a table and a kid playing with a glass of water in your house. You may think that the kid has done this, but the real situation is a leakage in the roof. So what is a harder evidence? no one. You just go and check. 

 

So what I have outside which comes from my faith it is a proof of my faith. Like smoke is a proof of burning wood etc. There is no additional need for proving that the smoke is a smoke ever, or that wood or what material it is, is being burnt. Am i right or not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And now I have a question for aik.

 

Suppose there are two witnesses who give evidence in a court of law.

 

Witness A says that he was at a certain place at a certain time, but can provide no other evidence than his word that this is true.

 

Witness B says that he was at a certain place at a certain time and his testimony is supported by the testimony of others who saw him there at that time, by CCTV footage of him there, by evidence of his phone call from that place and by evidence of his use of his credit card there.

 

Which testimony, A or B, will the court be more likely to believe, aik?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

Here in this forum we do not see any of aik's three points because we do not have any faith.

 

And that is why we continue to ask him for evidence that we can see.

 Walter, you are contradicting to yourself. You correctly mention that you cannot see evidence because of absence of faith. And it is true. So you never hope to have any evidence from God without faith. Whenever you come to God with faith you will be given with evidences from God. And continuation of verses you bring tells us about this.

 

⁶ But without faith it is⁶  impossible to please him⁶ : for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that⁶  he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.Hebrews 11:6
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, aik said:

Who said that one is a hard evidence and another is not? You said this. What is hard for you it does not mean it is so. For example you have water poured on a table and a kid playing with a glass of water in your house. You may think that the kid has done this, but the real situation is a leakage in the roof. So what is a harder evidence? no one. You just go and check. 

 

So what I have outside which comes from my faith it is a proof of my faith. Like smoke is a proof of burning wood etc. There is no additional need for proving that the smoke is a smoke ever, or that wood or what material it is, is being burnt. Am i right or not?

 

Your interpretation of what constitutes hard evidence is not accepted by us.

 

This is.

 

 

If you can't meet the burden of proof as described here, citing evidence that is relevant to us and that is more reliable than your word, then we are not obliged to believe you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

And now I have a question for aik.

 

Suppose there are two witnesses who give evidence in a court of law.

 

Witness A says that he was at a certain place at a certain time, but can provide no other evidence than his word that this is true.

 

Witness B says that he was at a certain place at a certain time and his testimony is supported by the testimony of others who saw him there at that time, by CCTV footage of him there, by evidence of his phone call from that place and by evidence of his use of his credit card there.

 

Which testimony, A or B, will the court be more likely to believe, aik?

Of course B.

 

And I have my mother alive. God gave her the life. At that time I had not thought about Walter who will ask for evidence to show him, like radiography or whatever, that is why I have not kept it. And I do not need to keep it. Because if you have not faith, you will never believe even if I show you multiple papers. And even if you see those papers it will not make you to be closer to God than you are now. You will accept that it happened, but you will not be closer to God because of your knowledge. Because only faith can do it.

 

Jesus never said He who has information about me will inherite the Heaven. Jesus said He who believes that it is Me, will enter the Heaven. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Your interpretation of what constitutes hard evidence is not accepted by us.

 

This is.

 

 

If you can't meet the burden of proof as described here, citing evidence that is relevant to us and that is more reliable than your word, then we are not obliged to believe you.

You are not ibliged to believe anybody and anything ever, my friend. But when you twist meaning of things, it is against you and those who follow you with shut eyes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, aik said:

 Walter, you are contradicting to yourself. You correctly mention that you cannot see evidence because of absence of faith. And it is true. So you never hope to have any evidence from God without faith. Whenever you come to God with faith you will be given with evidences from God. And continuation of verses you bring tells us about this.

 

⁶ But without faith it is⁶  impossible to please him⁶ : for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that⁶  he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.Hebrews 11:6
 

 

No, I have not contradicted myself.

 

Your three examples of evidence should stand on their own merits WITHOUT needing me to believe them by faith.

 

What I hope for has nothing to do with the evidence you present to us.

 

Your evidence shouldn't require anything from me other than to see it using my eyes.

 

Not my faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, aik said:

Of course B.

 

And I have my mother alive. God gave her the life. At that time I had not thought about Walter who will ask for evidence to show him, like radiography or whatever, that is why I have not kept it. And I do not need to keep it. Because if you have not faith, you will never believe even if I show you multiple papers. And even if you see those papers it will not make you to be closer to God than you are now. You will accept that it happened, but you will not be closer to God because of your knowledge. Because only faith can do it.

 

Jesus never said He who has information about me will inherite the Heaven. Jesus said He who believes that it is Me, will enter the Heaven. 

 

And now you have contradicted yourself, aik.

 

You say that witness B's testimony would be more likely to be accepted by the court.

 

Because it is supported by evidence independent of Witness B.

 

But the example you gave about your mother is not independent of you.

 

You are presenting evidence to us like witness A.

 

And so we do not believe you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, aik said:

You are not ibliged to believe anybody and anything ever, my friend. But when you twist meaning of things, it is against you and those who follow you with shut eyes. 

 

And you have just contradicted yourself again, aik.

 

You just agreed that a court would be more likely to believe witness A rather than witness B.

 

And yet the link I posted deals with what a court of law will accept as admissible evidence.

 

You agreed with it.

 

Since you and I agree on what a court will accept as admissible evidence, how can I be twisting anything?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, aik said:

 

 

So what I have outside which comes from my faith it is a proof of my faith. Like smoke is a proof of burning wood etc. There is no additional need for proving that the smoke is a smoke ever, or that wood or what material it is, is being burnt. Am i right or not?

 

No, you are wrong.

 

You are wrong because smoke is proof of burning wood, but faith is not proof of faith.

 

The same thing cannot be a proof of itself.

 

That is a circular argument and all circular arguments are false.

 

Therefore you are wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

No, you are wrong.

 

You are wrong because smoke is proof of burning wood, but faith is not proof of faith.

 

The same thing cannot be a proof of itself.

 

That is a circular argument and all circular arguments are false.

 

Therefore you are wrong.

get rest Walter. Do not read much. It is not useful for you. Let others speak please. I got your point. You are a good man I hope. Take care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, aik said:

get rest Walter. Do not read much. It is not useful for you. Let others speak please. I got your point. You are a good man I hope. Take care.

 

Who are you to judge what is useful for me?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  1 hour ago, aik said:

You are not ibliged to believe anybody and anything ever, my friend. But when you twist meaning of things, it is against you and those who follow you with shut eyes. 

 

And you have just contradicted yourself again, aik.

 

You just agreed that a court would be more likely to believe witness A rather than witness B.

 

And yet the link I posted deals with what a court of law will accept as admissible evidence.

 

You agreed with it.

 

Since you and I agree on what a court will accept as admissible evidence, how can I be twisting anything?

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

You invited me to comment on what you'd written, aik.

 

Let me now invite you to answer my question.

 

 

Since you and I agree on what a court will accept as admissible evidence, how can I be twisting anything?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:
Since you and I agree on what a court will accept as admissible evidence, how can I be twisting anything?

 Let us start with what i said about the smoke and fire. I was not offering consider the same as a proof to itself. I was telling that the smoke is a proof of fire. Just as an example. And if you see smoke you do not need to prove it is smoke oir not, you see it. And if you see the changed behaviour in similar situation of the same person it is a proof of his faith being changed and what faith is in him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Who are you to judge what is useful for me?

 

 

i was kidding

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.