What is a fact?


2+2=4 is an undisputed fact (except by the contrarian).
The nature of G-d is disputed.

Certainly the words of God are disputed, as are those who speak/wrote the words for god that we can read today. 5 out of 6 people profess if not practice, some form of religious observance. The greater the distance in ideology among the religions, the more peaceful seemingly. The Krishna is not warring with Scientology.

The Truth should be discernable, don’t you think? Can the nature of God be determined as truthful as 2+2 apparent to everyone? I think so, though I can’t define it.

Mohammedans claim Jesus Christ did not die on the cross, but survived the Passion or was switched with an imposter at the last moment, then went to India.

Jews (some) say He was a extreme student of a respected rabbi turned magician that was killed by the Roman authority, though the Jewish authorities were not displeased or overly concerned.

Some say all of it is myth and legend.

Finding the Ark of the Covenant with supernatural tablets inside might convince the myth crowd to believe in God, but it would not resolve the Mohammedan/Catholic-Christian/Jewish dilemma.

The defense, rather than repudiation of certain behavior in other threads makes me wonder if fact, truth, and reason are all relative though I find that difficult to accept. Environment and indoctrination are significant factors, but I think Truth is stronger and obvious particularly if an individual is free to change if they decide to.

The Atheist may reason for lack of physical evidence the existence of God, and the Catholic may use Scripture & Catechism, as the Mohammedan the Qur’an & hadith; the Jew, the Talmud and Torah to prove His existance.

Is there a way to determine if reason is being suspended to accept something as a fact?

An aside: Is Muhammad the only non-Jew prophet? Meaning, all the OT prophets mentioned in the Koran and Torah were Jews as far as I know. Christ, accepted as only a prophet by Islam, was a Jew. Is that a significant factor to anyone?


There are many non-Jews who claimed to be prophets… Muhamamd, Joseph Smith, and so forth. I doubt any of them were prophets.


Actually even according to Jewish sources there are numerous accounts of non-Jewish Prophets, Job, Be’or, Balaam and Elihu to name a few.

And after this, in the New Testament Jesus (as) is reported to have warned the Jews that if they didn’t accept him, God’s favour would be taken away from them and given to another nation (Matthew 21:43); and he curses the fig tree (Matthew 21:19), symbolising that he is the last of the Jewish Prophets.


You are correct with the others. They make up a fairly small % in the grand scheme I suppose. Not all religions are prone to violence thankfully.

I was limiting my thinking to what/who Muhammad may have known. His extended family had influence in Mekka as I think you know so he was likely influenced by all the religious activity himself.

All of the Prophets Catholics recognize are Jews as they come from the OT. Saying rather I’d be surprised if they were not all Jews. It gives the recognized Prophet legitimacy imo. It was, I believe the reason the Jews were Choosen. Without it, what other fact could make Muhammad legit regardless of what he said about himself?

In other words, what authority does he have for people to listen to him?


here is a list of the biblical prophets…



[LEFT]Joshua 24:9[/LEFT]

'Then Balak the son of Zippor, king of Moab, arose and fought against Israel, and he sent and summoned Balaam the son of Beor to curse you.

Balaam was the son of Be’or and a false prophet.


Wow, if you’d actually read the link you just gave you’d see it said:
A prophet is not necessarily a Jew. The Talmud reports that there were prophets among the gentiles (most notably Balaam, whose story is told in Numbers 22), although they were not as elevated as the prophets of Israel (as the story of Balaam demonstrates). And some of the prophets, such as Jonah, were sent on missions to speak to the gentiles.”*


Job is a book of Wisdom, not a prophet. Don’t be too surprised I’ll accept the list of those that have been vetted.

Isaiah (Isaias)
Jeremiah (Jeremias)

Hosea (Osee)
Obadiah (Abdias)
Jonah (Jonas)
Micah (Micheas)
Habakkuk (Habacuc)
Zephaniah (Sophonias)
Haggai (Aggeus)
Zechariah (Zacharias)
Malachi (Malachias)

And after this, in the New Testament Jesus (as) is reported to have warned the Jews that if they didn’t accept him, God’s favour would be taken away from them and given to another nation (Matthew 21:43); and he curses the fig tree (Matthew 21:19), symbolising that he is the last of the Jewish Prophets.

You do understand the context here does not point to Mohamad, or do you think it does? What fact can you provide to make that assumption a conclusion?

Doesn’t it just make logical sense this is more probable? Why is this testimony invalid to you, being written and preserved within living memory of the events?

Is it only by Divine revelation that an illiterate man 600 years later can justly claim Acts of the Apostles false accounts? Common sense must be suspended to reach that conclusion, and therefore cannot be regarded as a fact.


Wow, indeed. Catholics do not take the Talmud as doctrine, but the Torah. See the other post for recognized prophets.

I also said I’d be surprised if there were…I’m not surprised yet. But thanks for trying.


Quran mentions that it has mentioned name of some ProphetsMessengers, and there are others whose names have not been mentioned, nevertheless GodAllahYHWH sent ProphetsMessengers in every part of the world and every nation.
Zoroaster, the ProphetMessenger has been mentioned in Quran under a title name ZulQurnain, quite two/three pages.

GodAllahYHWH is All-Knowing and All-Wise; one should invariably give Claim and Reason on all important issues from one’s Revealed Book; one shouldn’t try putting one’s own words into God’s mouth. Kindly let God speak for Claim and Reason and you would know the truth for sure.


Actually, when working in trinary, 2+2 is equal to 11. :thumbsup:

It seems to me this is an eternal question, something all will disagree on…


:tsktsk: :whacky: :nerd: :hmmm: :ehh: :rotfl:


It’s things like this which illustrate how some Christians are being terribily hypocritical in demanding Muslims have no right to interpret New Testament. Rejecting the Talmud (which Jews see as required to understand the Torah) as having any merit is effectively saying the Jews are a nation of idiots who’ve been totally misunderstanding most of their scripture for centuries. I’ve yet to be convinced why I should trust lay Christian’s knowledge of Jewish scriptures more than that of the Rabbis who have thousands of years of tradition behind them and spend their entire lives studying their faith, and I can refer you to several pieces of Rabbinic literature which speak of Job and Balaam as Prophets.

Regardless, the point is the Jews have never believed that only Jews can be Prophets; there are writings going all the way back to the 3rd Century saying this, and that’s as early as you get for Jewish literature, since before that it was almost entirely kept orally. On what authority can you say they’re all wrong? I don’t see anything in the New Testament that would contradict this.


Trinity according to Catholics is :
Jesus did not leave any account written by him to mention the above equation, Moses also made not mention of this in his famous Stone Tablets.


Heh, you misunderstand. I really meant “Trinary” The Base 3 number system. In it, 2 + 2 = 11.



That is really funny. First Firefox and now you. I’m getting some good laughs before I go to bed.

I didn’t say it was rejected as a source of wisdom but I don’t think it has ever been considered by the Church as its Doctrinal basis.

If you accept such care and devotion to that history, why do you reject it? Care must be taken not to fall into old ways.


It still made me laugh. Some things are welcome to go over my head. Concise writing and higher math like calculus have enough challenges.


Before we get too deep into this thread, let’s define some terms about the things people assert.

Truth Claims

Something is either true or not true. Two people who disagree cannot be both right. If we are both looking out a window and I assert, “It is raining outside.” And you assert, “No it isn’t.” Only one of us is right. It is either raining or it is not raining.

It is easy to imagine proof. That is, we can readily support the assertion with tangible proofs that are true/false in nature.

Value Claims

These are judgments about the quality of actions or things (calling something, good, immoral, beautiful). These are interpretations of qualities. A value claim has a spectrum of possible values (such as good, better, best). There is an inherent scale for the claim from invalid, poor, average all the way to very valid. Such views can be consistently held, but they can also seem contradictory.

To evaulate a value claim, we have to ask: Does it consistently or coherently fit with truths/values? Are they consistent with criteria for the truths/values?

Taste Claims

The personal preference, belief or opinion of an individual. Anyone can have an opinion. If I say, “I like raspberry sorbet.” I am expressing a personal preference. It has no value judgment nor is it a matter of True/False.

The Pitfalls

Where people run into problems is when a Value Claim is asserted as a Truth Claim. Worse yet would be a Taste Claim made as a Truth Claim. Value claims that are inconsistent; for example, if someone states, “There is nothing wrong with rape.” You could then ask them, “So it is okay if someone rapes you?” More than likely the answer will be no; and then we can see they are holding an inconsistent view. Lastly, it is dangerous ground to tread to deal with a Taste Claim except to acknowledge it for what it is. If I like hotdogs with mustard, but you are a vegan, neither of us are right or wrong, we are expressing our preference or opinion.

There, now that we have some common ground to go on, let’s now look at Truth as Truth, Value as Value and Taste as Taste.


Judaism does not consider Daniel a prophet. He never spoke with God and his message was meant for future generations only.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.