Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Christians doubt
While we’re on the subject of debates (ala Hitchens and D’Souza, see below), here’s one between a “Christian” and A.J. Jacobs, the self-described agnostic, unpracticing Jew who wrote The Year of Living Biblically, where Jacobs attempts to follow every rule in the Bible. Despite the ignorance and know-nothing attitude of the book’s central premise (a premise shared by so many ignorant and know-nothing Christians, I might add), the debate starts with a few nice thoughts. The “Christian,” Matt Labash, writes to Jacobs:
At first glance, I thought yours was going to be nothing but a jokey book-a one-note immersion-journalism stunt in which you pin the tail on the fundies and Orthodox Jews, showing the absurdity of the Bible by acting out its strangest parts [...] But you get well past the weirdness, too. At heart, this is a seeker’s book, a doubter’s odyssey. Like most of the best books of the Bible, such as Job and my absolute favorite (and yours), Ecclesiastes, it’s a book about an athletic contest: trying to wrestle God to the ground. Agnostics and atheists tend to think that believers never doubt, which couldn’t be further from the truth. Even Jesus doubted God at Gethsemane, and, according to Christian theology, He is God. If Jesus can doubt Himself, I’m not going to beat myself up for doing the same on occasion.
That’s a nice, fresh way to begin a debate with an agnostic. Think of it like the Hitchens-Wilson debate with a greater dose of satire.
back to top76 Comments to “Christians doubt”
The difference is that jesus never doubted the very existence of God.
He asked in Gethsemane that the appalling cup be taken away; obviously he believed in the existence of the one to whom he was speaking and that God had both power and interest in him and the world.
On the cross, Jesus quoted the Psalmist in asking “why hast thou forsaken me?” This is not a cry of agnosticism but of longing for the seemingly lost love of his Father.
Report comment to moderator
I wish I had time to read the book, because I like to know for myself what the author said, instead of someone’s interpretation. But alas, I’m currently reading Stephen Colbert’s book (”I Am America”), a vital book that all of America should read.
In any event, I’m a huge Doubter. I used to be totally unnerved by that. Not anymore. Once you stop worrying about being a doubter, you can sit back and enjoy the ride through life. I’m convinced that the more certitude a person expresses about something the more doubts they actually have.
I’m thinking of having the words “I doubt it” placed on my tombstone.
Report comment to moderator
Christians doubt.
Don’t push your luck Christians. God doesn’t like people who doubt Him. He could make your body explode if He wanted to. He’s watching you now. He can read your every thought. He enjoys torturing people in hell just because they don’t pray to Him enough. You better get rid of your doubts fast. Your best bet is play it safe. Never think. Never have an original thought. At every opportunity you should lie to your children about science. Remember, God is watching you. He demands your respect. He demands you deny any science that takes away His gaps. If for one second you deny any of the incredibly stupid miracles in the Bible, God could strike you dead. Your choice is think and go to hell, or close your mind and go to heaven.
Report comment to moderator
“Faith is at its best when it quits working.”
Think of it. It is “substance of things hoped for, evidence of things not seen.”
If all the loose ends were tied up, it wouldn’t be faith.
Report comment to moderator
I’m thinking of having the words “I doubt it” placed on my tombstone.
Are you sure about this?
Report comment to moderator
Kerna at #1: “He asked in Gethsemane that the appalling cup be taken away; obviously he believed in the existence of the one to whom he was speaking and that God had both power and interest in him and the world.”
Equally obviously, he had no idea that his death would be temporary, or that he was indeed God incarnate.
If you know you’re about to endure something that, however painful, will both break the curse of sin over all mankind forever and also, that you’ll be better than fine afterwards, why would you pray fearfully to be spared it?
Report comment to moderator
Prions are sort of like viruses, except they grow more slowly. Prions cause mad cow disease.
Memes are sort of like viruses, except they grow in your brain.
Premes are like preemies, except they are like memes, except they grow very slowly.
Christianity is the fastest growing meme in the brainisphere.
Radical Agnosticism is the slowest growing meme. It’s a preme.
However, it causes mad evangelical disease.
Don’t get mad.
Get even.
Even if you get it.
Report comment to moderator
Fundamentalist Christians doubt Jesus’ ressurrection the way psychotics question whether a delusion is real. Somewhere deep inside, reality is trying to be heard. But it feels so good to believe in immortality! So they stick with the lie come hell or high water.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
Once you’re dead, you’ll no longer doubt, regardless of your belief or non-belief now.
Even from the point of view of an atheist this is true, since once you die, you cease to exist, and you can’t doubt if you don’t exist.
From the Christian point of view, the non-believer will learn the truth when they die, even if they didn’t learn it or rejected it in life. It will just be too late.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG – My guess is you’ve never given birth to a baby, have you? (I know, dumb question.)
Though I knew I would have the joy of my eagerly-awaited newborn in my arms after going through the ordeal of childbirth, that thought did not make the fear or pain any less.
In fact, I was a bit more frightened with the 2nd child, knowing how hard it would be.
And, BTW, Jesus said that He & the Father are One, so obviously He did indeed know that He was/is God Incarnate. Jesus knew what going to the cross meant, but the human part of Him naturally feared the pain it would take to accomplish His goal.
Report comment to moderator
Mark 8:31, just after Peter’s confession of Christ: “And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.”
Mark 10:45 — “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”
That would seem to indicate that Jesus had a pretty good idea what He was doing, what would happen to Him, and what the results would be.
Report comment to moderator
BTW, excellent illustration, Karen. That’s one we men would overlook. Thanks for the enlightenment!
Report comment to moderator
STEVEG you state:
“Equally obviously, he had no idea that his death would be temporary, or that he was indeed God incarnate.”
STEVEG, Jesus did know that He was God the Son – There are many passages of Scripture to prove this:
9 – Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
10 – Believest thou not that the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works’ sake. John 14:9
STEVEG, the Scripture above proves that Christ KNEW that He was Deity – The passage below proves that Christ Jesus would raise from the dead in three days –
Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. John 2:19
He foretells his death by the Jews’ malice, Destroy ye this temple; I will permit you to destroy it. He foretells his resurrection by his own power; In three days I will raise it up. Christ took again his own life. Men mistake by understanding that according to the letter, which the Scripture speaks by way of figure. When Jesus was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered he has said this. It helps much in understanding the Divine word, to observe the fulfilling of the Scriptures. Matthew Henry
Report comment to moderator
TJ – As a mother, it was the first illustration that came to my mind.
Report comment to moderator
Well, there are certainly passages where the gospels attribute those words to Jesus.
How do you know he really said them? How do you know that the men who wrote the gospels didn’t think, “We understand Jesus to be the Son of God, so to get that point across in this gospel I’m writing, I’ll have him say it?”
Karen, you’re right, I’ve not given birth. It would be something of a miracle if I did! However, would you pray to God to not have to give birth? “Take this child away from me?” If you had a miscarriage, would you feel that God had answered your prayer?
Because that’s what Jesus did. He didn’t pray for the strength to endure what was coming. He begged to be freed of the responsibility.
Doubt is not a bad thing. It requires you to periodically re-examine what you believe and why.
Report comment to moderator
How do you know he really said them?
Because we have reliable, credible, eye-witness testimony to that effect.
Doubt is not a bad thing. It requires you to periodically re-examine what you believe and why.
You may be on to something here. Have you doubted your own skepticism and considered that the gospels might actually be true in what they say about Jesus?
When I consider the question you posed above and read the gospels under the premise that “later generations of Christians just wrote their own convictions back into the gospels,” I find that kind of statement lacking. For instance, if that were true, we would find evidence that later controversies that emerged in the church (circumcision, spiritual gifts, etc.) would be written back into the gospel accounts. Instead we find exactly the opposite sort of thing happening: no one places a hint of those kinds of controversies on the lips of Jesus. So the suggestion is not really compelling.
On the other hand, we can read what that first generation of early Christians actually thought about Jesus and see that it meshes very well with the sorts of things the gospels report about Jesus. I can read the opening verse of Galatians (the earliest of Paul’s epistles) and see that Paul clearly did not think of Jesus as a mere man. I can read the opening verses of 1 Corinthians 15 and see what almost any scholar (and I mean conservative, liberal, and skeptical) agrees is an early (i.e., c. 30’s AD) Christian confession. This idea that the gospels are not accurate representations of the life of Jesus Christ does not really hold up to critical analysis.
Report comment to moderator
#9
It’s very hard for Christians not to pull Pascal’s Wager when this type of discussion comes up.
An obvious flaw is that as there are many religious beliefs, most exclusionary, you not only have to place a bet, you have to bet on the right number on the spiritual roulette table.
A deeper flaw is that God may not want somebody to say “Well, what have I got to lose. Sure, ‘I believe.” [Unconvincing voice--hard to convey in print.]
Deep Voice of God, equally hard to convey in print, “Show me you REALLY believe. Maybe I’ll throw in a little suffering just to test you out. Lose a family member or two, maybe add a little plague and paralysis. Just for starters. Show me you REALLY believe.”
Report comment to moderator
On the other hand, it’s hard for us Radical Agnostics to threaten people who won’t obey our wahfats (like fatwahs but need to go on a diet) with not hell and eternal sleep.
I’ll have to work something better into the Book of Agnosticism, which I am still digging up and trying to make look really old and translate back into the ancient language of tboudi. It’s very difficult to create a language from scratch though.
Report comment to moderator
“Christians doubt.”
They sure got plenty of weird things to doubt, especially the jesus myth, including the son of god claim, and the even more strange resurrection.
I wonder if they ever doubt the idea of using god-did-it to replace proven scientific facts like evolution. I wonder if it ever bothers Christians that every biologist in the world thinks creationists are know-nothing hicks. I wonder if Christians ever doubt they are doing the right thing when they lie to their children about science. I wonder if Christians ever worry about their reputation when they have to constantly deny scientific discoveries that conflict with god-did-it.
Report comment to moderator
Random.
I disagree that my comment is an instance of Pascal’s wager. The last sentence suggests it, but did you miss the second sentence?
Perhaps I should have worded it, “you can no longer doubt” – in this case, though no longer doubt doesn’t doesn’t mean certainty, it means you can’t doubt because you can’t do ANYTHING. You don’t exist. That’s not Pascal’s wager. It’s the only logical conclusion of the materialist.
Report comment to moderator
I know that epitaphs are written from the perspective of living, but when I read one, it’s as if it were from the point of view of the departed, no longer alive.
Report comment to moderator
TJ at #16: “You may be on to something here. Have you doubted your own skepticism and considered that the gospels might actually be true in what they say about Jesus?”
Sure I have. I’ve studied this issue, reading scholars on all sides of the debate, for about the past 20 years. I’ve considered the arguments and have reached my current conclusion (always subject to change as more information comes to my attention .. is yours?) after thinking, talking, reading and discussing these issues for a very long time.
What “reliable eyewitnesses” do we have? Before you answer “the gospel writers,” let me point out that (1) Luke says he was not an eyewitness and Matthew and Mark make no indication either way. Only John makes the specific claim that he was. (2) Any way you look at it, you’re having to take someone else’s word for it all.
I could come to this board and post a message that my friend Kenny is able to heal deaf people with just a touch of his hand. Don’t believe me? Why not? I’m an eyewitness! I saw him do it.
You’re choosing to believe the most amazing of ideas, that one specific man who lived 2,000 years ago was God Himself walking the Earth … based on nothing more than unverified stories written down at some uncertain time by people who might or might not have seen any of the events they describe.
Is that reasonable?
Report comment to moderator
“wahfats” = best new word of the week.
Report comment to moderator
It seems to me that all human beings have certain beliefs or ideas that we cling to. We have this amazing ability to build an elaborate framework around our beliefs and ideas. That elaborate framework enables us to explain away that which is contradictory or challenging to our beliefs and ideas. It also enables us to build a case for why our beliefs and ideas are right.
Then real life happens.
Most of us take a real beating, and come away realizing that the framework we built was no match for the storms of >i>real life.
I hope the Christians on here don’t think I look down on them for their faith, because I don’t. I’m very ok with whatever gets a person through life, as long as it doesn’t harm others or themselves (drug abuse, etc.). The way I look at it, we all believe in something, even if that something is nothing.
Report comment to moderator
Simon Greenleaf served as Royall and Dane Professor of Law at Harvard Law School – Greenleaf was an authority on common law evidence – The Dictionary of American Biography states that Greenleaf produced “the greatest single authority on evidence in the entire literature of legal procedure” - Simon Greenleaf as any Lawyer knows, was one of the founders of Harvard Law School – Greenleaf wanted to prove the Bible to be a myth, he wanted to dispel these myths which all Believers hold true regarding the Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John – However instead of proving them false, Greenleaf found them to be true, after examining ALL the evidence –
The following is what Simon Greenleaf found regarding the Gospels:
Simon Greenleaf after much research and study, found the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John to be TRUE –
Report comment to moderator
The more some people run their mouth, the more it proves how much they don’t know.
For example, see post #3.
Report comment to moderator
Simon Greenleaf made this statement:
Report comment to moderator
QWERTY loves to shake up the tree, so I usually just smile about those comments because they show so little understanding about Christ or Him Crucified and what that all meant.
I pray that QWERTY will repent of his/her sins and recieve Christ as Lord and Savior and grow to love Christ more than self.
In fact, I pray that for all of us, myself even more than others, as one who broke EVERY commandment.
Report comment to moderator
#18
That’s why I wrote #20
Which reminds me of the joke about telling jokes by the numbers.
Report comment to moderator
I agree with #22 and #23
In terms of the history argument for Biblical inerrancy, most of the scholars who study Biblical history are drawn to that study by their belief. I am a little bit curious, but I am curious about many things, and easily distracted. I am reluctant to spend years immersing myself in studying ancient text and learning ancient languages.
It does not surprise me that most Biblical scholars are convinced that what they study “proves” what they started out believing. Some do not, however.
Which at best is like circumstantial evidence. It does not “prove” anything.
Who killed JFK? Really?
Who killed RFK? Really?
Who killed MLK? Really?
Who killed Abe Lincoln? Really.
What brought down the twin towers? Really?
If there is serious doubt about any of these hugely documented events of modern times, certainly there is no doubt about the “overwhelming” evidence of Palestine a couple of thousand years ago. [s]
Report comment to moderator
Random
Simon Greenleaf wanted to prove the Gospels and the Bible to be false, because he took the ‘time’ then found the ‘Gospels’ to be accurate –
Bringing up all of the ‘who’s’ and ‘really’s?’ doesn’t make sense when applied to the ancient manuscripts of the Bible -
Report comment to moderator
“as one who broke EVERY commandment”
Then you must have violated the whatever the commandment is about murder, twpeck. Who did you murder?
Some of the commandments are useless. Other commandments are so obvious any child could have written them. What is strange are the people who believe the myth some god wrote them, as if no human could ever figure out killing is wrong.
Report comment to moderator
But Victoria, Greenleaf didn’t “prove” anything. He constructed arguments, which may be good or not good. I’ll accept that he believed what he wrote, but that doesn’t mean he was right.
As another example, many people are impressed with C.S. Lewis’s famous “trilemma” … in brief, he said, A man who went around making the claims Jesus did would be either a liar, a lunatic or the Lord.
The most obvious weakness in Lewis’s argument is that it’s basically a dare. “Are you gonna call Jesus crazy? Well? Are you?”
The much more serious weakness in it is that it allows three possibilities when in reality there are several more:
1. Jesus didn’t say those things at all, his later followers wrote them back into the gospels.
2. Jesus said things that his followers misunderstood.
3. The gospels were fictional from the start and Jesus never existed.
(I do NOT believe #3, I hasten to add, but it is a legitimate possibility that Lewis’s trilemma overlooks.) In short, the trilemma is based on the assumption that the events in the gospels actually happened, and in just the way they are presented. If you introduce the possibility that the gospels were not written by people standing their watching Jesus and taking notes, the premise crumbles.
Greenleaf did his work in the late 19th Century, so the whole field of 20th Century scholarship was unavilable to him. I suspect he wanted to believe it (no matter what he claimed) and found ways to rationalize the belief.
Report comment to moderator
STEVEG -
I understand that YOU aren’t able to UNDERSTAND –
You, Night Train, and I posted back and forth on:
Christians say UK gay-bashing law tromps religious freedom
You weren’t able understand that either, so this is no surprise -
Report comment to moderator
Random: #42 right back at ya.
Report comment to moderator
#25/27 – “Simon Greenleaf” died over 150 years ago before modern biblical scholarship or the “Origin of Species.” Simon Greenleaf is almost as irrelevant to this discussion as posts 25 and 27.
Report comment to moderator
CS Lewis is indeed absolutely incorrect here, regardless of whether one agrees with SteveG’s unorthodox criticisms. There are two obvious problems. First, the “liar, lunatic, or Lord” formulation is a false dichotomy. One may say things in error without being a liar and one may be deceived without being a lunatic. Secondly, however, Lewis argues that one cannot deny Christ’s claims to Sonship while still holding him to be a fine moral teacher. This is, however, incorrect. If Lewis were arguing the reverse (i.e. that one cannot acknowledge his Sonship without also acknowledging his moral teachings) he would be entirely correct, but the argument is not equally sound both ways. If someone is the Son of God, it logically follows that their moral teachings must be true, however if someone’s moral teachings are true it does not follow that they must therefore be the Son of God. Further, it does not follow that because one’s moral teachings are true that all of their claims are true. The argument against liberal christians fails entirely.
Report comment to moderator
SPINOZA
I have read some of your posts, and I’m not impressed – You know next to nothing about the Bible, or it authenticity -
Report comment to moderator
Dear chronophobes,
Archimedes died centuries before the development of sophisticated indoor plumbing. Yet I still can’t fill my bath to the brim and get in without soaking the floor.
Take care,
SG
Report comment to moderator
Wow, stephen! You are smarter than C.S. Lewis? How impressive.
Report comment to moderator
Yep, because anytime someone claims someone else is wrong they’re also claiming to be smarter than them.
Report comment to moderator
When Christ came to Earth, and fulfilled his promise, he became “the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the root of David, who hath prevailed to open the book, and to open the seven seal thereof “..Rev.5:5
Now, we can assume that Christ’s having prevailed, allowed for the pouring out of the vials, (cup of wrath in Rev Ch.16) as well as the loosening of the seals. And I suppose the sounding of the trumpets.
Now what context is the word cup used by the prophets, as relating to the latter days ?
“cup of trembling” , “cup of his fury” several times in Is Ch.51.
You have the same idea brought forward in Jer.Ch. 25, 51:7
Now what was Jesus doing in Mt.Ch 26
The key is what he said in Vs. 29.
“..I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my father’s kingdom”
Up to that point he had been doing everything he was meant to do to prepare for what he had to do.
It wasn’t his crucifixion he was anxious about. It was the cup of wrath to be poured out on all nations in the end.
That is what he was praying could be avoided.
And what happened, after he prayed to the Father about this?
He comes back, and Peter, who is supposed to represent the Church is asleep.
He said “What, could ye not watch with me one hour? (this would be the hour of temptation referred to in Rev 3:10) Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit is indeed willing, but the flesh is weak.
He is saying “here I am going to bat for you, asking if my duty to pour wrath out on the world can be avoided, and you, Peter,(the church) can’t even stay awake one hour?
He tried twice more only to return to a sleeping Peter. At that point, Christ realized that it has to happen this way.
It wasn’t a moment of weakness.
It was a moment of incredible mercy, and undeserved love.
Report comment to moderator
#22: Any way you look at it, you’re having to take someone else’s word for it all.
But this statement is true of all sorts of “knowledge.” I believe that George Washington lived and was President of the United States of America, but I am relying on someone else’s testimony of this. I am reasonably sure you believe in neo-Darwinian evolution, but I doubt you have actually conducted the various experiments yourself to “prove” this. The problem is even more severe when it comes to ancient history (where the number of witness, for example, are far fewer than with someone like Washington). For instance, if you believe that Caesar crossed the Rubicon, you would be resting this belief on far flimsier evidence than what we find in the gospel accounts. And yet the skeptic believes one unapologetically while discounting the other. This seems to betray a certain bias. This is why I asked the question about whether you had actually doubted your skepticism.
As far as reading from both sides of the issue for two decades, given your comments about the eyewitness testimony of the gospels, I find that hard to believe. I do not (let me emphasize) think you are being deceitful, but I do think you may be selective with your sources, or (my guess) the sources you are using might be selective with their own findings. For example, Luke makes it clear that he relied on eyewitness testimony in the recording of his gospel (as well as Acts); we have extremely strong historical evidence that Mark’s gospel was from the eyewitness testimony of Peter. If you (or the sources you mention) simply pass over that without considering it to be of value, then it is difficult to believe that those sources have much value, imo.
Report comment to moderator
Here’s a helpful article (with lots of nice footnotes) on the historicity of the NT:
http://www.bethinking.org/resource.php?ID=207
Report comment to moderator
What I found interesting and which has yet to be discussed is how the agnostic writer found solace not in the faith he viewed but in the anceint rituals. Most rote, rite and rituals have nothing to do with the actual beleif system but act as a means to provide comfort. A Buddhist uses hundreds of rituals in mediatation but its all beside the point which is to find inner peace — the rituals only serve to center the individual and empty the mind.
With this in mind, perhaps the thread has taken the wrong turn in arguing the rationality of religion. Its not the rationality which is religion’s greatest strength but the rituals it prescribes.
Report comment to moderator
HRW
“Its not the rationality which is religion’s greatest strength but the rituals it prescribes.”
Rituals save no one, there is no strength in a ritual which has no foundation from God Almighty –
Only a relationship with Jesus Christ saves anyone -
Report comment to moderator
TJ at #43 said the most interesting thing yet on this thread. To my noting that people believe in Christ based on taking someone’s word for it, TJ said:
But this statement is true of all sorts of “knowledge.” I believe that George Washington lived and was President of the United States of America, but I am relying on someone else’s testimony of this. I am reasonably sure you believe in neo-Darwinian evolution, but I doubt you have actually conducted the various experiments yourself to “prove” this. The problem is even more severe when it comes to ancient history (where the number of witness, for example, are far fewer than with someone like Washington). For instance, if you believe that Caesar crossed the Rubicon, you would be resting this belief on far flimsier evidence than what we find in the gospel accounts. And yet the skeptic believes one unapologetically while discounting the other. This seems to betray a certain bias. This is why I asked the question about whether you had actually doubted your skepticism.
This is true, but there are some important differences. Let me take these one at a time.
George Washington’s presidency is very well attested to by many documents written at the time, by many more written later, and by the complete absence of any contradicting accounts.
Evolutionary science is based on the work of literally thousands of scientists over the past 150 years, and has been strengthened over and over by new discoveries, DNA and the resulting genomic/genetic science most recently. It too is not based on just taking someone’s word for it, but on the accumulated work.
I also do believe Ceaser crossed the Rubicon, not just from the eyewitnesses that saw him do it, but from the later events that followed his return to Rome.
Now, the key point I want to make here is twofold. First, Ceaser’s crossing of the Rubicon requires no supernatural events to be true. I believe a man crossed a river, not that he walked across it. I do not have to believe that Ceaser rose from the dead, or healed the blind, or anything like that.
Second, nothing of personal consequence hangs on whether Ceaser crossed the Rubicon. If some evidence came to light that suggested he really did not, all it means is historians have to rethink some of what they thought they knew about that period of Rome’s history. If Jesus isn’t the Son of God, however, the consequences are far greater because it undermines the central tenet of one of the dominant world religions.
TJ further said: “As far as reading from both sides of the issue for two decades, given your comments about the eyewitness testimony of the gospels, I find that hard to believe. I do not (let me emphasize) think you are being deceitful, but I do think you may be selective with your sources, or (my guess) the sources you are using might be selective with their own findings. For example, Luke makes it clear that he relied on eyewitness testimony in the recording of his gospel (as well as Acts); we have extremely strong historical evidence that Mark’s gospel was from the eyewitness testimony of Peter. If you (or the sources you mention) simply pass over that without considering it to be of value, then it is difficult to believe that those sources have much value, imo.”
Let give you a very short spiritual bio so you’ll know. I was raised in the United Methodist Church and remained active in it until I was in college. At that time, I began to seriously question a few key things … mainly, why if there is but one true religion, are there so many other religions, and why do they all have a clear geographic center? That is, I was brought up in a Christian home in a largely Christian culture, so I was a Christian. Someone just like me but born in a place where Buddhism was the dominant religion would probably be a Buddhist. Someone just like me born in Tehran would probably be a Muslim. And so on.
It seemed clear to me at that time that religion was mostly cultural. People usually believe what they grew up being taught, and when they converted away from it, it was usually because they had a personal issue with their parents or other aspects of that culture.
But a bit later on in my 20s, after my father passed away, I started re-examining it. I met with the new pastor of the church I’d grown up in a few times, returned to the faith, and read apologetics voraciously. Josh MacDowell, John Stott, Norman Geisler, Tony Campolo, NT Wright, William Lane Craig, Francis Schaeffer and even Dr. Veith, along with many others. For several years, I was quite devout.
But it ultimately didn’t hold because I could not make myself ignore other points of view as well, and eventually I found Christianity harder and harder to hold onto. I moved back into a searching phase and over the past 10-12 years, I’ve settled into sort of a Deism that I find both intellectually and spiritually satisfying. It is a “fit.”
So yes, I have read all sides, and yes I have read many evangelical scholars. So I hope that addresses your doubts.
Report comment to moderator
I’m really not convinced by the appeal to the authority Greenleaf. Appeal to authority is one of Aristotle’s logical errors. But if we are going to appeal to authority — and I say this as someone who thinks there probably is a God, but I’m not a Christian and I do doubt — professional PHILOSOPHERS (those with PhDs in philosophy), whose craft defines as search for TRUTH, tend towards or are disproportionately atheists. Indeed, Allan Bloom, after Leo Strauss secretly exclaimed that no true philosopher could believe in God.
Report comment to moderator
Although my path here is not anything like SteveG’s path, his comment makes a lot of sense to me.
Many people go from atheism to fervent religious belief. Such cases cause great whooping and hollering on the part of other religious believers.
Some people go from fervent religious belief to caustic atheism. Much whooping and hollering, etc., except from the atheists.
Some people go from religious belief to quiet deism. Some people go from religious belief to quiet agnosticism.
I go around and make a lot of noise for cheap yuks. Everybody else hopes I will get serious some day. I hope my gravestone says … oops, forgot, no gravestone. Cheapest, least inconvenient disposal for me. Maybe with a little ipod in the ground quietly giggling and chuckling.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG, thank you for your revealing post and for the kind nature of your post. Of course, I have a bit of quibbling to do, but with the late hour (nearly midnight, while I await the end of the Indians/Red Sox game) I will be brief.
First, to insist upon the same level of evidence/testimony concerning modern historical events verses ancient ones is not a realistic one. Of course you understand that we are not going to have the same sort of testimony about Caligula as we would about Washington, and I doubt anyone would serious suggest this. To impose a 21st century level of information on an ancient culture would simply be too much. The problem, though, is if one accepts a level of testimony in one case of ancient history while rejecting it in another. This would be an example of special pleading.
I think you have done that with the Rubicon account. I chose that for a special reason. There are only 4 accounts of this historical event, and three of these apparently borrow from the fourth (at most, only one eyewitness, and I’m not sure this is even true; I’m going on memory here, but I think the accounts are pretty far removed from the time of the event — much further than, say, the NT gospels). You are wrong to suggest there are “no supernatural events” that took place in the account (one of the accounts has Caesar receiving some sort of advice from a disembodied spirit, I believe). You are also incorrect to say “nothing of personal consequence hangs on whether Ceaser crossed the Rubicon.” I know of no historical scholar who would agree with a statement like that. To the contrary, that one event changed Roman history (and, consequently, world history) thereafter. And yet I am guessing you have accepted this one historical event with no questions asked (received information, which is generally accepted as a source of knowledge, as long as it is deemed reliable) and yet reject historical occurrences chronicled in the NT, which generally stand on better testimony. This is what I meant by betraying a bias.
At any rate, I stand corrected with regard to the authors you have read. Some of those are good (Stott, Wright, Craig, and Schaeffer), some I would not particularly recommend (Campolo, McDowell, and Geisler). There’s some good stuff in there, but if one is wedded to certain presuppositions, then one will still cling to one’s position, regardless of the “evidence” that exists (which is why it is important to explore the biases I mentioned before). Aside from possibly Schaeffer and Craig, I’m not sure how much those authors go into the philosophical ramifications of one’s beliefs, which is mainly where my interests lie (nitpicking over evidences can be fun for a while, but with my short attention span I lose interest rather quickly
).
Oh well, I’ve rambled too long, and the Red Sox have won. Have a good evening.
Report comment to moderator
Oh, one more thing I overlooked — this statement (and the surrounding argument) I would also disagree with: “It seemed clear to me at that time that religion was mostly cultural.”
You yourself are a refutation of that statement. You grew up in Christian culture (by your own admission), and yet you chose not to remain Christian. Couldn’t the same be said for other religions as well? If not, how is this not also some form of special pleading? Furthermore, this kind of “cultural conditioning” argument shouldn’t stop with religious practices. Perhaps someone more clever than I could argue that you have been culturally conditioned to think the way you are now thinking, and therefore such thinking is incorrect for the same reason that you suggest being religiously conditioned by a culture is incorrect (perhaps “incorrect” is not the best word to use, and I am not trying to place words in your keyboard, but it is late, so please bear with me). But to make the cultural argument and then suggest that you have a better basis to make your views seems to be somewhat of an arbitrary position, imo. But, obviously, if you somehow escaped the “trap” of culture, then it would be fair to say that those in other cultures could likewise escape their own “traps” (and Christianity is doing remarkably well in traditionally “non-Christian” setting such as the Far East).
Report comment to moderator
Christians doubt?
My faith in the Red Sox waivers pretty much every year. But my faith in God? Never!
Jesus never doubted either.
Report comment to moderator
TJ
Why would you not recommend Josh McDowell? Has he written anything that is FALSE? If you have something against why Josh McDowell should not be “recommended” plase give your reasons.
I noticed last night you felt a certain “pedestrain” thought against Josh McDowell’s books, am I wrong?
Report comment to moderator
TJ at #50 said:
I think you have done that with the Rubicon account. I chose that for a special reason. There are only 4 accounts of this historical event, and three of these apparently borrow from the fourth (at most, only one eyewitness, and I’m not sure this is even true; I’m going on memory here, but I think the accounts are pretty far removed from the time of the event — much further than, say, the NT gospels). You are wrong to suggest there are “no supernatural events” that took place in the account (one of the accounts has Caesar receiving some sort of advice from a disembodied spirit, I believe). You are also incorrect to say “nothing of personal consequence hangs on whether Ceaser crossed the Rubicon.” I know of no historical scholar who would agree with a statement like that. To the contrary, that one event changed Roman history (and, consequently, world history) thereafter. And yet I am guessing you have accepted this one historical event with no questions asked (received information, which is generally accepted as a source of knowledge, as long as it is deemed reliable) and yet reject historical occurrences chronicled in the NT, which generally stand on better testimony. This is what I meant by betraying a bias.
I confess I haven’t read the accounts of Ceasar crossing the Rubicon, but if one account does have him speaking to a spirit, that’s a good example.
There’s no doubt that Ceaser returned to Rome and that there was a civil war as a result. Whether he actually crossed the river or not is immaterial. So on the one hand, I accept it because it’s generally the story that’s told, but on the other hand, if it’s not true, not much changes. The conflict between Ceasar and Pompey happened, either way.
On the other hand, if Jesus did not rise from the dead, a LOT changes. Do you not really see a difference? Nothing eternal rides on whether Ceaser crossed the Rubicon, it’s just a matter of revising the understanding of history if he didn’t. For a Christian, everything that could possibly matter rides on the New Testament’s accuracy. For that reason, I think they are very different kinds of questions.
Do you believe Ceasar spoke to a spirit? If not, why not? Legends grow up around great people, so perhaps he made a great impression and so some legends found their way into the story. And maybe Jesus made a great impression and so legends found their way into his story.
And by the way, I don’t reject the historicity of the New Testament wholesale. I do think that the writers tell us a lot of genuine fact. But I’m not obligated to believe every word of it literally, so I apply reason and common sense to it.
Report comment to moderator
TJ at #51, you’ve misread my statement about cultural factors just a bit. I did not say that a person is automatically going to grow up believing what they learned in their culture.
But do you deny that it’s a powerful part of our identity? A small child becomes familiar with what his parents expose him to, and as he grows up and grows older, those things are familiar and reminiscent of “home.” One associates those early experiences with the comfort and warmth of a good homelife, if the homelife was good.
For me, it’s a Methodist church. I can attend a Methodist service and I know the hymns by heart and I’m familiar with the patterns of the order of worship. I can recite the creeds without needing to look at the words. And it feels comfortable and makes me feel secure and protected, because it was something I did nearly every week for 25 or so years with my family.
But if you’re a small child growing up in a Muslim home in the Middle East, it’s those patterns that are going to feel familiar and remind you of home when you get older.
People certainly can and do choose to leave behind their old faith and embrace a new one, or leave faith behind altogether. And it may be easier to do in an open society like America where, especially if you live in a larger city, you’re going to know people who are Jewish or Muslim or Hindu, and those things will be, if not as homelike as your church, not totally foreign either.
And that is why different regions of the world have different religions that are most prevalent. In the West, we can credit Constantine for spreading Christianity beyond the Mediterranean throughout Europe, and then the Europeans for bringing it to America. But if Constantine had not done that, we’d probably be mostly pagan in America, following whatever the old European nature religions would have developed into, and Christianity might never have gotten any farther than Rome and Athens.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG, Christianity had spread far farther than Rome or Athens before Constantine’s dad was even a glint in his dad’s eye. What Constantine did was make it a “legal” religion and thereby ended persecution of Christians that had existed sporadically in those early centuries. There is some debate over whether this was a good thing: some do not think that the rise of “Christendom” is necessary beneficial (I would tend to agree with them, although I would admit some good things resulted). But Christianity spread and flourished usually in the midst of controversy: those Christians who came to these shores, for instance, were generally fleeing oppression in Europe. To think that Europe would have still been pagan in the 17th century is very speculative. Christianity was winning converts from paganism by the fistfuls long before Constantine came onto the scene. I would rather credit the spread of Christianity in the west to the faithful sharing of the gospel by missionaries and the like.
Report comment to moderator
Ooops, it appears I overlooked a few posts.
# 53: Relax, Victoria. Josh McDowell is a good Christian and a fine human being. He is a good popular writer. He is not the best Christian apologist out there (which was my point). I simply meant if I were recommending an apologist for a non-Christian to read, he would not be it. I might a few other reasons to offer up (at least one theological one), but this captures what I meant. It was not meant to be an accusation or slight against Mr. McDowell.
# 54: With the Caesar example, I was deliberately using a secular example from world history to demonstrate the bias that often is aimed at the gospel accounts by supposedly “neutral” folks. The same folks who accept the Caesar account uncritically (a way of obtaining knowledge, going back to my original post), which is an historical account that relies upon limited sources (most of which are not eyewitness), has at least a supernatural element to it, and was world-changing. And yet a different standard is applied to a reading of the Christian gospels. Now, if this is the case, an honest thinker needs to take a step back and ask why he or she is using different standards. Excuses can be offered up, but the reason for the bias needs to be considered.
Report comment to moderator
TJ, your point at #56 is well taken, I oversimplified the spread of Christianity pre-Constantine. But I do stand by the point I was trying to get to. People believe what they’re taught about religion. Those who converted to Christianity did so because someone told them about it and persuaded them. Many more people heard about it and said no, thanks, I’ll stick with what I already believe.
It seems to me that a God who loves everyone in the world, would reveal Himself to everyone in the world equally. Why start by becoming the local deity of one of the many nomadic tribes in the Middle East and then count on humans to spread knowledge about you over thousands of years, while meanwhile many other false ideas florurished and took hold elsewhere?
Are all the gentle, peace-loving, alms-giving Buddhists who never heard of Christ before Christianity reached them going to hell because of what they didn’t know?
That is one of the appeals of Deism to me. I believe God reveals himself through the universe, through nature, and through the moral sense that humans have. That IS an equal and global revelation that all can see.
Think of God as the one light shining, and all the religions of the world as the stories, rituals and codes humans have developed in their effort to understand the light.
Per Ceasar … what you’re missing is that you do not have to believe the supernatural event to accept the mundane. Whether or not Ceaser spoke to a spirit is immaterial to whether he crossed the river. And for that matter, whether he crossed the river is immaterial to whether he returned to Rome from Gaul, with all the consequences that followed that action.
With the gospel accounts, whether or not Christ returned from the grave is not only relevant, it’s pivotal.
So yes, it is and should be a different standard. The reason for the bias is, no one is saying I am damned if I don’t believe Ceasar crossed the Rubicon.
If someone found a contemporary document that described the route Ceasar took in returning to Rome and crossing the Rubicon were not part of it, historians would say, well, we have to revise our understanding of what happened.
If someone found a contemporary document that described Jesus’s body still lying in the tomb nine days after the crucifixion, Christians would fall all over themselves declaring it an obvious fraud, no matter how good its credentials were.
Therein lies the difference.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, I have admitted there is a difference between a secular historical reference and an historical reference with religious trappings. My point is that we rely on reliable eyewitness testimony as a form of knowledge. One has far more eyewitness support than the other, and yet you are suggesting that we reject the one that actually has the better evidence, simply because of the supernatural elements (even though the first has such elements, albeit to a different degree). This is the bias I mentioned before. But, if we are not going to agree here, then I am willing to drop it.
It seems to me that a God who loves everyone in the world, would reveal Himself to everyone in the world equally.
This comment assumes a few things that you might need to work out. First, it assumes that God is required to love all human beings, which the Bible does not teach. Secondly, it assumes that all forms of love must be displayed equally for it to actually be “love” (I love my wife and I love my friends and I love my neighbors, but obviously the love I show to each group is not something to be equivocated). Lastly, it assumes that God has not sufficiently revealed Himself to human beings in the world. The Bible would teach something different, that God has sufficiently revealed Himself in creation (Psalm 19; Romans 1), even though sinful human beings suppress that knowledge.
What is surprising to me is that you would make this statement after you informed me that you had read the “Christian side” of the issue. I would think that some of those authors you mentioned (but not all, which is part of the reason I would not have recommended some) would have addressed such things as the nature of unregenerate human beings, the difference in general and special revelation, the meaning of God’s love. If they did not, or if this is new info, then I would suggest that you have not completely explored the issue from the Christian POV.
Report comment to moderator
On the first point, see, the issue is I do not agree that the resurrection of Christ has reliable eyewitness testimony. It really has none. Even the gospels do not record anyone actually seeing Jesus walk out of the tomb, let alone the people actually writing the documents. There are claims that people saw him alive later, but is that not hearsay? Luke wrote based on eyewitness accounts, he says. Mark learned what he wrote from Peter, according to the traditional understanding. But all of this is based on testimony about testimony.
Is there a bias against the supernatural? Perhaps, but only a reasonable one based on the understanding that the supernatural is, by its very definition, something that contradicts nature. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Ceasar’s talking to a spirit is an extraordinary claim, but it’s not relevant to the larger account.
“First, it assumes that God is required to love all human beings, which the Bible does not teach.”
Yes, but then your statement assumes that the Bible is the final and correct authority. That’s a faith statement, not an established fact.
“Lastly, it assumes that God has not sufficiently revealed Himself to human beings in the world. The Bible would teach something different, that God has sufficiently revealed Himself in creation (Psalm 19; Romans 1), even though sinful human beings suppress that knowledge.”
The first part of that accords with what I said. However, God did NOT reveal the series of propositional statements about the fact and nature of Christ to all. According to the Christian account, events happened and human beings spread the word about them in their own human, limited, way.
“I would think that some of those authors you mentioned (but not all, which is part of the reason I would not have recommended some) would have addressed such things as the nature of unregenerate human beings, the difference in general and special revelation, the meaning of God’s love.”
They did. However, just because I read it in books doesn’t obligate me to agree with it. I *understand* those points. I just don’t find them to be compelling anymore.
Report comment to moderator
“There are claims that people saw him alive later, but is that not hearsay?”
No, that would not be hearsay, any more than Caesar’s statement that “the die is cast” is hearsay. The books of Acts makes it very clear that one of the qualifications of being an Apostle was being an eyewitness of the resurrection. The resurrection was an important part of the preaching in the book of Acts. And you admitted that you though John’s Gospel functioned as an eyewitness account (if I understood you correctly). Certainly that gospel makes it clear that there were many eyewitnesses.
“Yes, but then your statement assumes that the Bible is the final and correct authority. That’s a faith statement, not an established fact.”
That is correct, but perhaps it is a misunderstanding of “faith” on the part of the non-Christian (which is how I got messed up in this thread to begin with). I’m not going to repeat all those quotes (they are still above), but only observe that a statement that denies this (i.e., “the Bible is not the final and correct authority”) is likewise a “faith” statement. We all make axiomatic presuppositional assumptions about the world. I would suggest that certain assumptions (e.g., God exists and has revealed Himself). I would argue that acceptance of this statement is self-verifying to some degree (from a position of the impossibility of the contrary, much like a negative proof in Geometry), while denying such a statement leads to obvious contradictions in one’s worldview.
Report comment to moderator
Ooops, book, not “books.” And “thought” not “though”. I miss the preview button.
Report comment to moderator
I just want to thank both TJ and SteveG for their sustained contributions to this thread. I’ve enjoyed following this; lurking.
Exchanges like this are why I come here.
thanks,
Travis
Report comment to moderator
TJ – 57
Thanks for your answer regarding Josh McDowell –
I don’t agree that he is not one of the best, his teaching to thousands and thousands of University students and adults, have helped them see PROOF, which is evident in the Word of God – Especially regarding fulfilled prophecy in the New Testament and within the years since Christ died on the Cross –
Many non-Believers want proof as to the authenticity of Scripture which ‘PROPHECY’ fulfilled, can offer very quickly as Josh McDowell has proven – McDowell is hardly a “pedestrian” apologist – I found the comment YOU made few days ago to reveal an attitude of superiority which isn’t warranted – The TWO men you mentioned have done far more than the average author, or pastor, dedicating their lives to give out the Word of God – See post # 60 “Whirled Views 10.17“- – - “standard Josh McDowell/Lee Strobel stuff that usually gets recommended (the are both fine gentlemen, I just don’t cotton much to their methodology — a bit pedestrian, imho).” As you may or may not know, Josh McDowell was a large part of ‘Campus Crusade for Christ’ one of the largest Christian organizations going across the US with Bill Bright who led the way –
As far as “Relax” it was a question, relaxing had nothing to do with it – Certainly one can ask you a question -
Report comment to moderator
Yes, Victoria, no offense intended, but you can sometimes come out swinging awfully quickly, and I was trying to avert that.
I actually like one of Lee Strobel’s books (The Case for Christ), but I’m not sure that I would recommend it to an unbeliever. This is even more so true with McDowell. It’s not that they are “wrong”, it’s just that I think there might be better stuff out there. Evidential apologetics is useful, but I think it fails to take into account the natural state of man as a sinner (even in his thinking/reasoning). It assumes that an unregenerate person can reason without suppressing the knowledge of God. Of course, God can certainly use such information, and the information does well to disspell certain objections to the Christian faith, but faithful apologetics must allow address the presuppositions/philosophical assumptions of the unbeliever, and these gentlemen do not do that. No offense was intended.
Report comment to moderator
I actually read the Case for Christ. An interesting read but one which has a predetermined conclusion. Similar to many academics and/or lawyers, Strobel navigates the facts so they steer to an unmistable conclusion. Although I don’t remember where I detected missteps and unsupported conclusions, he doesn’t make a clear cut case. Yet he is impressive enough that I would have no problem to hire him as a lawyer.
Report comment to moderator
Yet he is impressive enough that I would have no problem to hire him as a lawyer.
LOL, HRW. I think the point of Strobel’s book (and the reason it has a “predetermined conclusion”) is that it is supposed to represent his own quest to find out the answers to those questions he poses in the book. In other words, he is acting like a investigative reporter (which he was, right?) and interviewing the experts and seeing where the evidence leads. At least I think it was supposed to be his premise.
OK, you want to know the truth? I did actually recommend it to an unbeliever once. He didn’t like it. Fine, see, that colors my decision.
Report comment to moderator
TJ at #61 said: No, that would not be hearsay, any more than Caesar’s statement that “the die is cast” is hearsay.
The story of Caesar saying that is hearsay. Someone, other than Caesar, claimed he said it. Did he? Or did someone later say that he did because it’s a very nice, pithy statement?
I don’t know either way, and neither do you or anyone else alive today.
Per #67, I haven’t read Strobel’s book, but I have read any number of books written as dialogues in which the person taking the side that the author hopes to prove wrong conveniently always says just what the author needs him to say. It is not an effective technique. (I am not speaking just of Christian apologetics, though I’ve certainly seen the technique used in them; but it shows up a lot by people who apparently think it is impressive.)
Report comment to moderator
TJ
Yes, that was exactly the premise of the book. However since he reached his conclusion before the final copy of his book, he like any good attorney left out the evidence that contraidicted his viewpoint.
Perhaps your friend doesn’t like lawyers. Despite its obvious evangelism, its well written.
Report comment to moderator
# 68: I used “the die is cast” because it is an historical statement (or usually accepted that way) associated with Caesar and the event we have discussed, the crossing of the Rubicon. However, if anything that is not autobiographical is classified as “hearsay,” then it is very difficult to see how we can know anything of this sort from ancient history with any certainty whatsoever. That’s usually not the way folks tackle history, however.
Report comment to moderator
Hearsay simply means what someone says they heard. It’s not automatically wrong for that reason, but the more steps you get from the original source, the less reliable it is.
If I may, in terms of the Christ story and in particular the resurrection, I think that trying to establish the historicity of any individual aspect of it is probably not the best way to go.
Historians look not just at documents in isolation but also in their larger context. A single document that reports a particular fact is less compelling than if a dozen of them do. (Assuming they are all roughly contemporaneous… one document written by an eyewitness may be more compelling than a dozen written two centuries later.)
With the resurrection, you have the very clear fact that something happened, whatever it was, compelling enough to hold the disciples together after their Master was taken from them, and to come to an understanding, theologically, of the significance of the events, and to devote the remainder of their lives to spreading the good news.
That’s what believers like you should challenge skeptics like me to deal with, more than any one incident recorded in some place or other.
Report comment to moderator
Steve, appreciate your comments again, particular the next to last paragraph.
One last thing I was wondering about (did not consider this until this morning): you mentioned N.T. Wright as one of those authors you had read in the past. I was wondering if you had read Wright’s The Resurrection of the Son of God? I would suspect no, not because of something lacking within you, but because a) it’s fairly recent (2003) and b) it’s rather lengthy (around 800) pages. I am reading it VERY slowly. The reason I mention it, though, is that it touches on some of the very same issues we have been discussing. And I am not suggesting that you rush out and buy it (I would probably not recommend it to an unbeliever, if for no other reason that size alone!). However, I thought you might be interested in the following lecture by Wright, free for download: http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/resources/NTWright.mp3
This is essentially a short summary/discussion of the information in the book. And who knows, it might whet your appetite for more (it is the reason I decided to purchase the book). Enjoy!
Report comment to moderator
I’ll check out the lecture although I’m about to be traveling for a few days so it will be midweek at least before I can.
I actually do not recall the title of the book of his I read, and a search on Amazon turns up nothing that sounds familiar, so it may be out of print. I believe it was called “Is The New Testament History?” or something to that effect, but I may be confusing it with something else.
I wanted to emphasize though, that during the period of time when I was reading Christian apologetics most avidly, I was (first) trying to find a way to return to that faith with my mind intact and (later) a practicing Christian. So if I was going to find it lastingly compelling, that’s when it would have happened.
The problem with any polemic work is the author is trying to prove a point and will therefore necessarily present opposing points of view in the weakest light possible. No one who is trying to prove something will present another view and say, “Of course, this completely undoes my argument.”
Report comment to moderator
Victoria #54: Many non-Believers want proof as to the authenticity of Scripture which ‘PROPHECY’ fulfilled, can offer very quickly as Josh McDowell has proven
See, even when I was a believer, I found his claims of “fulfilled prophecy” to be really weakly argued. For the most part, they’re circular arguments, and often the “prophecies” he cites were not originally prophecies at all but simply lines in the Psalms or other writings.
Example of circular reasoning: Isaiah predicted the “suffering servant” would be “bruised for our transgressions” and Jesus was. To accept that as a fulfilled prophecy, you have to already believe that Jesus was crucified to pay for sin, in which case you don’t need the proof.
Another circular prophecy is the prediction in Daniel 9:24-26 that the Messiah will be killed for iniquity. Actually it says, “will be cut off and have nothing,” which if you consider the resurrection, doesn’t seem to fit anyway. But again, this is “fulfilled” in Jesus only if you already believe he is he Messiah, and was killed for iniquity.
Example of non-prophecy prophecy: The Romans did not break Jesus’s legs, as predicted in the Psalms. But to accept that as fulfilled prophecy, you have to believe that the Psalms were prophecies, rather than the simple poems they’ve always been taken as.
Another example of that is Jesus’s cry of “My God why have you forsaken me?”, sometimes said to be a “fulfilled prophecy” but much more likely just a man repeating a well-known line in his darkest time.
If a prophet in the Bible clearly had predicted something that happened after the Bible was finalized, then you’d have something. Are there any such things?
Report comment to moderator
To clarify what I said in #74 … Christians believed that Jesus was the Messiah who was crucified to pay for sin, so they can look back to earlier prophecies that that would happen and say, yes, that was fulfilled.
But if you’re a doubter, it shows nothing. Viewed by someone who is not inside the faith system, it just looks like believers interpreted events to make them fit the framework they had already established. The Messiah was believed to be someone who would be killed for human sin, Jesus was killed, his followers decided that he was the one the prophets had spoken of.
Report comment to moderator
Instant Payday Loan…
You can infer from divisional finance managers who know about Visalia frequently propose cash advance loans…
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!