People who were once non-believers and now believe in God...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From PP: “What I don’t like is organized religion for the masses that dictates how you’re supposed to think. That’s where I pulled away from “church” but still believe in a higher being”.

This part of PP’s statement I agree w 1000%. I fell away from religion because I didnt like the organized part or that God would be used to exclude groups - LGBT or abortion supporters. I was religious growing up, fell out during college, and recently am very focused on daily prayer and my own personal relationship with God. That is the right balance for me. I feel such peace now and there is a difference in my life with prayer. I have always believed in God, but level of connection I have currently to my faith has increased and is strong. So to distill the why - I feel a strong connection through daily prayer and I feel a sense of peace and love that was not there in the same way without the daily prayer.

I’m the poster. I completely agree. I feel a relationship with God or whatever you want to call it (I call it God of the Universe 😂) has been great for me, but I don’t need a building or “community” to have that relationship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a long story. I got extremely lucky connecting with church community, which completely transformed my life and conception of the world. I was raised as an atheist, but changed my ways in early 20s. Even though I had a great childhood and was a happy kid/teen, I have to tell you - atheism is pretty depressing lol. Don't subject your kids to it, it's just sad. There is so much more to life.

What does being "raised as an atheist" mean? I understand being raised as a Catholic, or a Methodist, etc., because there are regular services that you go to and things you learn as a child, but my understanding is that atheism is a lack of that. Thus the question.

It means I was raised without any knowledge of God or religion. I was told by everyone (including my parents) from a very young age that such concepts are false, and obviously as a child didn’t question the validity of such statements.

I doubt the post above is honest. Most people raising kids without religion just say nothing about it at all.

If this was true, those same people wouldn't bother posting on DCUM religion forum.

They aren't posting in a "religion" forum. They are posting in a "Recent topics" forum.

Good point

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whether you want to admit it or not, you already believe in lots of things about how the universe works, how people should treat each other, the nature of love, and if you are living in the DMV — very likely — the importance of equality, justice, fairness, respect. And yet, you can’t scientifically “prove” any of these things and many societies across history have had no respect for them at all — including Ancient Rome before Jesus. You have a very strong faith, even if you don’t realize it.

Once you come to grips with the fact that we have all have faith and belief, it becomes easier to investigate what you truly believe, what are the origins of it, and whether or not there is a much deeper meaning and purpose in life.

No, nothing you said is true. Nothing you named is claimed by anyone to be a thinking being or supernatural. Those things you mention are all emergent properties of a brain and none exist without a brain.

So, fail. 100% fail.

From a historical perspective, what the PP said is entirely true. Most Americans such as yourself have no understanding of pre-classical antiquity history, specifically the predominant ethical mores and rules which societies lived by.

No, that is more BS. PP’s primary claim was that everyone has “faith”. And that is false, with anything other than an unreasonably broad definition.

Your pseudo intellectual word salad is designed to obscure the fact that your point is ridiculous.

I’ll use simple words so that you can understand.

PP used the word faith to mean “belief”, which is technically what it means, a belief in truth.

“Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting solely and implicitly on his authority and veracity; reliance on testimony”

And you, most likely, do have a deep belief (or faith) in things like the importance of fairness, justice, equality, and respect. These are not universally held ethical values as most westerners tend to mistakenly believe, but in fact a historically anomalous morality that evolved from one person, Jesus Christ.

It's YOUR belief that morality evolved from Jesus, not everyone's, and certainly not mine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whether you want to admit it or not, you already believe in lots of things about how the universe works, how people should treat each other, the nature of love, and if you are living in the DMV — very likely — the importance of equality, justice, fairness, respect. And yet, you can’t scientifically “prove” any of these things and many societies across history have had no respect for them at all — including Ancient Rome before Jesus. You have a very strong faith, even if you don’t realize it.

Once you come to grips with the fact that we have all have faith and belief, it becomes easier to investigate what you truly believe, what are the origins of it, and whether or not there is a much deeper meaning and purpose in life.

No, nothing you said is true. Nothing you named is claimed by anyone to be a thinking being or supernatural. Those things you mention are all emergent properties of a brain and none exist without a brain.

So, fail. 100% fail.

From a historical perspective, what the PP said is entirely true. Most Americans such as yourself have no understanding of pre-classical antiquity history, specifically the predominant ethical mores and rules which societies lived by.

No, that is more BS. PP’s primary claim was that everyone has “faith”. And that is false, with anything other than an unreasonably broad definition.

Your pseudo intellectual word salad is designed to obscure the fact that your point is ridiculous.

I’ll use simple words so that you can understand.

PP used the word faith to mean “belief”, which is technically what it means, a belief in truth.

“Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting solely and implicitly on his authority and veracity; reliance on testimony”

And you, most likely, do have a deep belief (or faith) in things like the importance of fairness, justice, equality, and respect. These are not universally held ethical values as most westerners tend to mistakenly believe, but in fact a historically anomalous morality that evolved from one person, Jesus Christ.

The fact that you resort to ad hominem does not enhance your look nor make your point any less inane.

The things you list are all emergent properties of the brain, which no one doubts exist and no one thinks have physical manifestations beyond the brain. To equate those things to a supernatural being for which there is no real evidence is ridiculous, and you should stop doing it.

All of those positions existed long before historical Jesus also. This has been shown in this forum alone many, many times.

Really, your posts are so 100% fail-laden that it is hard for me to believe you are a genuine poster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I investigated the claims of Christianity from a historic perspective. The bottom line is that there is strong evidence for the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Is it airtight? No. But nothing is airtight.

You're someone that I would be highly intrigued to meet IRL and discuss religion over coffee. However, without that, I am curious about your evidence for the death and resurrection.

I won't debate the scant, and inconclusive information related to an actual historic Jesus, but I am curious what your evidence is for him being divine, resurrected, etc.

I was the PP — and thank you, I love having thoughtful discussions with people about this subject!

Since we can’t have that discussion in real life …

I highly recommend reading NT Wright’s book The Resurrection of the Son of God. It is a 700+ page serious examination of the resurrection. While it is very long, the writing is done at a level that most people can understand it — the length is just due to the amount of detail.

I would then follow that up with Tim Keller’s A Reason for God (or do it in reverse order, it doesn’t really matter).

The thing is though — I tell people to read the Resurrection of the Son of God. And some people say “700 pages? nah, I am not going to read that.”

And I always find that response to be curious — after all, we are frequently told that it is religious people who don’t think or read.

But consider all of the things that we read in our lives; all of the social media scrolling; all of the cat videos and other frivolous things we watch. People don’t have time to read a single serious book on the resurrection, but find time to watch their favorite football team for 4 hours EACH Sunday.

The reality is that most people actively don’t want to think about these things. Which is fine. Be honest about it and own it. But don’t say that Christians aren’t the thinking ones.

Prior to becoming a Christian, even though I would tell everyone oh yeah, I am smart, well-read, etc., most of my life was filled with vapid subjects — politics, sports, money, women, porn, travel, social media, music.

Now that I am a Christian I can’t stop thinking about the things that really matter in life — why are we here, the meaning of life, the role of God, and yes, what it means that Christ died on a cross 2,000 years ago for me. I don’t think less — I think alot more now.

Based on my understanding, his whole argument, while well argued, is still built on theological sand.

Wright claims that the resurrection is the "best historical explanation" fails to account for the nature of miracles themselves. A resurrection is, by definition, the least likely event—so unlikely that no historian working by normal historical standards could affirm it as “probable.” Wright tries to bypass this by suggesting that no natural explanation accounts for the data. But, that’s simply an argument from ignorance: we don’t have a better explanation, so it must be a miracle. As the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Secondly, if Jesus was God incarnate—performing miracles, speaking divine truths, and fulfilling cosmic prophecy—why did no one write anything down during his lifetime? Why did his closest followers, the ones who supposedly witnessed the most extraordinary events in human history, not record them contemporaneously?

Instead, we get oral traditions passed around for decades, eventually written down by anonymous authors—often in Greek, not Jesus’ native Aramaic. For the resurrection itself, we have no eyewitness account, only secondhand reports of visions, empty tombs, and theological reflections.
Contrast this with the idea that God once wrote commandments on stone. If the Creator of the universe could etch divine law into rock for Moses, why couldn't Jesus' teachings and deeds have been written down on an indestructible material, protected from corruption or loss, to serve as a definitive witness for all time? Is that really beyond the power of an omnipotent deity who knew that some of humanity would require stronger evidence?

Next, Jesus, we’re told, was sent as a universal savior. But his life and ministry were shockingly local—confined to a sliver of the Roman Empire, among an oppressed minority population. His teachings reached, at best, a few thousand people in his lifetime.

Why didn’t God reveal Jesus to the world in a way that could transcend time, culture, and geography? Why entrust the most important truth in human history to oral gossip passed through untrained fishermen?

What about the millions of humans who lived and died in the Americas, Asia, or sub-Saharan Africa, entirely unaware of this message for centuries—millennia, even? How do you reconcile this with the idea of a loving, omniscient God who desires all people to be saved.

Third, if Jesus was divine and knew the stakes, why start his preaching around age 30? Why not as a child prodigy to ensure his message reached more people clearly and directly? Three years of ministry, in a world with no printing press, no media, and limited literacy, seems like a strange plan for universal salvation. Would an all-wise deity really entrust eternal truths to such a fragile and uncertain human network?

Last, Wright ultimately tries to argue that the resurrection is the best explanation for why the disciples changed from despair to hope, and why Christianity emerged so rapidly. But this is a theological assumption wrapped in historical language. People have experienced visions, founded religions (including ones you would probably call fringe or wrong such as Mormons or Scientologists), and died for their beliefs throughout history—none of which proves that the beliefs are true.
Saying “they wouldn’t have believed unless something extraordinary happened” assumes what it's trying to prove. From a secular standpoint, natural explanations (hallucinations, grief, myth-making, reinterpretation of failed expectations) are far more plausible than a literal reversal of death.

If Jesus really rose from the dead, God had countless ways to make it clear to everyone—indestructible writings, direct global communication, a longer ministry, or just a resurrection that actually happened in front of hostile Roman officials with pen and parchment in hand. Instead, we're left with a few ambiguous texts, decades after the fact, written by believers to other believers, preserved through theological filter and tradition.

If this is your best case for Jesus being divine and/or the resurrection, it falls into the same trap as many apologetic works: it tries to sound like history while relying entirely on faith that God intended things to be this way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am still an atheist but choose to follow Christian teachings because Christianity is the foundation of western civilization and responsible for the morality and societies that do the most good for humanity.

Does that mean that Christianity is also responsible for the wars that western civilization fought in Jesus' name?

To some extent. If they weren’t warring over Jesus, they would be warring over property lines or the FSM.

War, slavery, and prostitution have always existed and will always exist. No religion will completely eliminate these human desires.

I don't think Christianity provides more of a moral framework or goodness to the world than any other control system, religious or legal, that provides for mass population control of certain behaviors. And often that control was excerted by squashing existing systems which had worked just fine for centuries by great force, murder and torture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a long story. I got extremely lucky connecting with church community, which completely transformed my life and conception of the world. I was raised as an atheist, but changed my ways in early 20s. Even though I had a great childhood and was a happy kid/teen, I have to tell you - atheism is pretty depressing lol. Don't subject your kids to it, it's just sad. There is so much more to life.

What does being "raised as an atheist" mean? I understand being raised as a Catholic, or a Methodist, etc., because there are regular services that you go to and things you learn as a child, but my understanding is that atheism is a lack of that. Thus the question.

+1
And many atheists are cultural Christian or whatever and still celebrate holidays.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I investigated the claims of Christianity from a historic perspective. The bottom line is that there is strong evidence for the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Is it airtight? No. But nothing is airtight.

You're someone that I would be highly intrigued to meet IRL and discuss religion over coffee. However, without that, I am curious about your evidence for the death and resurrection.

I won't debate the scant, and inconclusive information related to an actual historic Jesus, but I am curious what your evidence is for him being divine, resurrected, etc.

I was the PP — and thank you, I love having thoughtful discussions with people about this subject!

Since we can’t have that discussion in real life …

I highly recommend reading NT Wright’s book The Resurrection of the Son of God. It is a 700+ page serious examination of the resurrection. While it is very long, the writing is done at a level that most people can understand it — the length is just due to the amount of detail.

I would then follow that up with Tim Keller’s A Reason for God (or do it in reverse order, it doesn’t really matter).

The thing is though — I tell people to read the Resurrection of the Son of God. And some people say “700 pages? nah, I am not going to read that.”

And I always find that response to be curious — after all, we are frequently told that it is religious people who don’t think or read.

But consider all of the things that we read in our lives; all of the social media scrolling; all of the cat videos and other frivolous things we watch. People don’t have time to read a single serious book on the resurrection, but find time to watch their favorite football team for 4 hours EACH Sunday.

The reality is that most people actively don’t want to think about these things. Which is fine. Be honest about it and own it. But don’t say that Christians aren’t the thinking ones.

Prior to becoming a Christian, even though I would tell everyone oh yeah, I am smart, well-read, etc., most of my life was filled with vapid subjects — politics, sports, money, women, porn, travel, social media, music.

Now that I am a Christian I can’t stop thinking about the things that really matter in life — why are we here, the meaning of life, the role of God, and yes, what it means that Christ died on a cross 2,000 years ago for me. I don’t think less — I think alot more now.

Based on my understanding, his whole argument, while well argued, is still built on theological sand.

Wright claims that the resurrection is the "best historical explanation" fails to account for the nature of miracles themselves. A resurrection is, by definition, the least likely event—so unlikely that no historian working by normal historical standards could affirm it as “probable.” Wright tries to bypass this by suggesting that no natural explanation accounts for the data. But, that’s simply an argument from ignorance: we don’t have a better explanation, so it must be a miracle. As the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Secondly, if Jesus was God incarnate—performing miracles, speaking divine truths, and fulfilling cosmic prophecy—why did no one write anything down during his lifetime? Why did his closest followers, the ones who supposedly witnessed the most extraordinary events in human history, not record them contemporaneously?

Instead, we get oral traditions passed around for decades, eventually written down by anonymous authors—often in Greek, not Jesus’ native Aramaic. For the resurrection itself, we have no eyewitness account, only secondhand reports of visions, empty tombs, and theological reflections.
Contrast this with the idea that God once wrote commandments on stone. If the Creator of the universe could etch divine law into rock for Moses, why couldn't Jesus' teachings and deeds have been written down on an indestructible material, protected from corruption or loss, to serve as a definitive witness for all time? Is that really beyond the power of an omnipotent deity who knew that some of humanity would require stronger evidence?

Next, Jesus, we’re told, was sent as a universal savior. But his life and ministry were shockingly local—confined to a sliver of the Roman Empire, among an oppressed minority population. His teachings reached, at best, a few thousand people in his lifetime.

Why didn’t God reveal Jesus to the world in a way that could transcend time, culture, and geography? Why entrust the most important truth in human history to oral gossip passed through untrained fishermen?

What about the millions of humans who lived and died in the Americas, Asia, or sub-Saharan Africa, entirely unaware of this message for centuries—millennia, even? How do you reconcile this with the idea of a loving, omniscient God who desires all people to be saved.

Third, if Jesus was divine and knew the stakes, why start his preaching around age 30? Why not as a child prodigy to ensure his message reached more people clearly and directly? Three years of ministry, in a world with no printing press, no media, and limited literacy, seems like a strange plan for universal salvation. Would an all-wise deity really entrust eternal truths to such a fragile and uncertain human network?

Last, Wright ultimately tries to argue that the resurrection is the best explanation for why the disciples changed from despair to hope, and why Christianity emerged so rapidly. But this is a theological assumption wrapped in historical language. People have experienced visions, founded religions (including ones you would probably call fringe or wrong such as Mormons or Scientologists), and died for their beliefs throughout history—none of which proves that the beliefs are true.
Saying “they wouldn’t have believed unless something extraordinary happened” assumes what it's trying to prove. From a secular standpoint, natural explanations (hallucinations, grief, myth-making, reinterpretation of failed expectations) are far more plausible than a literal reversal of death.

If Jesus really rose from the dead, God had countless ways to make it clear to everyone—indestructible writings, direct global communication, a longer ministry, or just a resurrection that actually happened in front of hostile Roman officials with pen and parchment in hand. Instead, we're left with a few ambiguous texts, decades after the fact, written by believers to other believers, preserved through theological filter and tradition.

If this is your best case for Jesus being divine and/or the resurrection, it falls into the same trap as many apologetic works: it tries to sound like history while relying entirely on faith that God intended things to be this way.

+1. This - "Why entrust the most important truth in human history to oral gossip passed through untrained fishermen?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a long story. I got extremely lucky connecting with church community, which completely transformed my life and conception of the world. I was raised as an atheist, but changed my ways in early 20s. Even though I had a great childhood and was a happy kid/teen, I have to tell you - atheism is pretty depressing lol. Don't subject your kids to it, it's just sad. There is so much more to life.

What does being "raised as an atheist" mean? I understand being raised as a Catholic, or a Methodist, etc., because there are regular services that you go to and things you learn as a child, but my understanding is that atheism is a lack of that. Thus the question.

+1
And many atheists are cultural Christian or whatever and still celebrate holidays.

Athiesm is a strong position. It is not an indifference. Children of atheists are explicitly told that the stories are nonsense. The kids are taught values and morals but distinctly and explicitly separate from religious teachings. And the holidays they celebrate are pagan in origin, Christmas, Halloween, hunting Easter bunny eggs, Valentine’s Day, and they don’t go to church for any of it. People of all backgrounds are able to celebrate these wholly void of any Christian elements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a long story. I got extremely lucky connecting with church community, which completely transformed my life and conception of the world. I was raised as an atheist, but changed my ways in early 20s. Even though I had a great childhood and was a happy kid/teen, I have to tell you - atheism is pretty depressing lol. Don't subject your kids to it, it's just sad. There is so much more to life.

What does being "raised as an atheist" mean? I understand being raised as a Catholic, or a Methodist, etc., because there are regular services that you go to and things you learn as a child, but my understanding is that atheism is a lack of that. Thus the question.

+1
And many atheists are cultural Christian or whatever and still celebrate holidays.

Athiesm is a strong position. It is not an indifference. Children of atheists are explicitly told that the stories are nonsense. The kids are taught values and morals but distinctly and explicitly separate from religious teachings. And the holidays they celebrate are pagan in origin, Christmas, Halloween, hunting Easter bunny eggs, Valentine’s Day, and they don’t go to church for any of it. People of all backgrounds are able to celebrate these wholly void of any Christian elements.

Atheism can be strong, but isn't for some people - they simply don't believe in God. Some atheists had religion drummed into them as children, some never believed and maybe some heard about religion and thought it was ridiculous. Maybe some of them thought "hey, this sounds great." I don't know of anyone like that. Atheism CAN be an indifference to religion. Yes, the stories are nonsense, like any fairy tale and yes, Christian holidays generally have pagan origins.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I investigated the claims of Christianity from a historic perspective. The bottom line is that there is strong evidence for the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Is it airtight? No. But nothing is airtight.

You're someone that I would be highly intrigued to meet IRL and discuss religion over coffee. However, without that, I am curious about your evidence for the death and resurrection.

I won't debate the scant, and inconclusive information related to an actual historic Jesus, but I am curious what your evidence is for him being divine, resurrected, etc.

I was the PP — and thank you, I love having thoughtful discussions with people about this subject!

Since we can’t have that discussion in real life …

I highly recommend reading NT Wright’s book The Resurrection of the Son of God. It is a 700+ page serious examination of the resurrection. While it is very long, the writing is done at a level that most people can understand it — the length is just due to the amount of detail.

I would then follow that up with Tim Keller’s A Reason for God (or do it in reverse order, it doesn’t really matter).

The thing is though — I tell people to read the Resurrection of the Son of God. And some people say “700 pages? nah, I am not going to read that.”

And I always find that response to be curious — after all, we are frequently told that it is religious people who don’t think or read.

But consider all of the things that we read in our lives; all of the social media scrolling; all of the cat videos and other frivolous things we watch. People don’t have time to read a single serious book on the resurrection, but find time to watch their favorite football team for 4 hours EACH Sunday.

The reality is that most people actively don’t want to think about these things. Which is fine. Be honest about it and own it. But don’t say that Christians aren’t the thinking ones.

Prior to becoming a Christian, even though I would tell everyone oh yeah, I am smart, well-read, etc., most of my life was filled with vapid subjects — politics, sports, money, women, porn, travel, social media, music.

Now that I am a Christian I can’t stop thinking about the things that really matter in life — why are we here, the meaning of life, the role of God, and yes, what it means that Christ died on a cross 2,000 years ago for me. I don’t think less — I think alot more now.

Based on my understanding, his whole argument, while well argued, is still built on theological sand.

Wright claims that the resurrection is the "best historical explanation" fails to account for the nature of miracles themselves. A resurrection is, by definition, the least likely event—so unlikely that no historian working by normal historical standards could affirm it as “probable.” Wright tries to bypass this by suggesting that no natural explanation accounts for the data. But, that’s simply an argument from ignorance: we don’t have a better explanation, so it must be a miracle. As the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Secondly, if Jesus was God incarnate—performing miracles, speaking divine truths, and fulfilling cosmic prophecy—why did no one write anything down during his lifetime? Why did his closest followers, the ones who supposedly witnessed the most extraordinary events in human history, not record them contemporaneously?

Instead, we get oral traditions passed around for decades, eventually written down by anonymous authors—often in Greek, not Jesus’ native Aramaic. For the resurrection itself, we have no eyewitness account, only secondhand reports of visions, empty tombs, and theological reflections.
Contrast this with the idea that God once wrote commandments on stone. If the Creator of the universe could etch divine law into rock for Moses, why couldn't Jesus' teachings and deeds have been written down on an indestructible material, protected from corruption or loss, to serve as a definitive witness for all time? Is that really beyond the power of an omnipotent deity who knew that some of humanity would require stronger evidence?

Next, Jesus, we’re told, was sent as a universal savior. But his life and ministry were shockingly local—confined to a sliver of the Roman Empire, among an oppressed minority population. His teachings reached, at best, a few thousand people in his lifetime.

Why didn’t God reveal Jesus to the world in a way that could transcend time, culture, and geography? Why entrust the most important truth in human history to oral gossip passed through untrained fishermen?

What about the millions of humans who lived and died in the Americas, Asia, or sub-Saharan Africa, entirely unaware of this message for centuries—millennia, even? How do you reconcile this with the idea of a loving, omniscient God who desires all people to be saved.

Third, if Jesus was divine and knew the stakes, why start his preaching around age 30? Why not as a child prodigy to ensure his message reached more people clearly and directly? Three years of ministry, in a world with no printing press, no media, and limited literacy, seems like a strange plan for universal salvation. Would an all-wise deity really entrust eternal truths to such a fragile and uncertain human network?

Last, Wright ultimately tries to argue that the resurrection is the best explanation for why the disciples changed from despair to hope, and why Christianity emerged so rapidly. But this is a theological assumption wrapped in historical language. People have experienced visions, founded religions (including ones you would probably call fringe or wrong such as Mormons or Scientologists), and died for their beliefs throughout history—none of which proves that the beliefs are true.
Saying “they wouldn’t have believed unless something extraordinary happened” assumes what it's trying to prove. From a secular standpoint, natural explanations (hallucinations, grief, myth-making, reinterpretation of failed expectations) are far more plausible than a literal reversal of death.

If Jesus really rose from the dead, God had countless ways to make it clear to everyone—indestructible writings, direct global communication, a longer ministry, or just a resurrection that actually happened in front of hostile Roman officials with pen and parchment in hand. Instead, we're left with a few ambiguous texts, decades after the fact, written by believers to other believers, preserved through theological filter and tradition.

If this is your best case for Jesus being divine and/or the resurrection, it falls into the same trap as many apologetic works: it tries to sound like history while relying entirely on faith that God intended things to be this way.

+1. This - "Why entrust the most important truth in human history to oral gossip passed through untrained fishermen?"

The Lord works in mysterious ways? (Mysterious, for sure. So mysterious that it's like the Lord isn't working at all)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I investigated the claims of Christianity from a historic perspective. The bottom line is that there is strong evidence for the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Is it airtight? No. But nothing is airtight.

You're someone that I would be highly intrigued to meet IRL and discuss religion over coffee. However, without that, I am curious about your evidence for the death and resurrection.

I won't debate the scant, and inconclusive information related to an actual historic Jesus, but I am curious what your evidence is for him being divine, resurrected, etc.

I was the PP — and thank you, I love having thoughtful discussions with people about this subject!

Since we can’t have that discussion in real life …

I highly recommend reading NT Wright’s book The Resurrection of the Son of God. It is a 700+ page serious examination of the resurrection. While it is very long, the writing is done at a level that most people can understand it — the length is just due to the amount of detail.

I would then follow that up with Tim Keller’s A Reason for God (or do it in reverse order, it doesn’t really matter).

The thing is though — I tell people to read the Resurrection of the Son of God. And some people say “700 pages? nah, I am not going to read that.”

And I always find that response to be curious — after all, we are frequently told that it is religious people who don’t think or read.

But consider all of the things that we read in our lives; all of the social media scrolling; all of the cat videos and other frivolous things we watch. People don’t have time to read a single serious book on the resurrection, but find time to watch their favorite football team for 4 hours EACH Sunday.

The reality is that most people actively don’t want to think about these things. Which is fine. Be honest about it and own it. But don’t say that Christians aren’t the thinking ones.

Prior to becoming a Christian, even though I would tell everyone oh yeah, I am smart, well-read, etc., most of my life was filled with vapid subjects — politics, sports, money, women, porn, travel, social media, music.

Now that I am a Christian I can’t stop thinking about the things that really matter in life — why are we here, the meaning of life, the role of God, and yes, what it means that Christ died on a cross 2,000 years ago for me. I don’t think less — I think alot more now.

Based on my understanding, his whole argument, while well argued, is still built on theological sand.

Wright claims that the resurrection is the "best historical explanation" fails to account for the nature of miracles themselves. A resurrection is, by definition, the least likely event—so unlikely that no historian working by normal historical standards could affirm it as “probable.” Wright tries to bypass this by suggesting that no natural explanation accounts for the data. But, that’s simply an argument from ignorance: we don’t have a better explanation, so it must be a miracle. As the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Secondly, if Jesus was God incarnate—performing miracles, speaking divine truths, and fulfilling cosmic prophecy—why did no one write anything down during his lifetime? Why did his closest followers, the ones who supposedly witnessed the most extraordinary events in human history, not record them contemporaneously?

Instead, we get oral traditions passed around for decades, eventually written down by anonymous authors—often in Greek, not Jesus’ native Aramaic. For the resurrection itself, we have no eyewitness account, only secondhand reports of visions, empty tombs, and theological reflections.
Contrast this with the idea that God once wrote commandments on stone. If the Creator of the universe could etch divine law into rock for Moses, why couldn't Jesus' teachings and deeds have been written down on an indestructible material, protected from corruption or loss, to serve as a definitive witness for all time? Is that really beyond the power of an omnipotent deity who knew that some of humanity would require stronger evidence?

Next, Jesus, we’re told, was sent as a universal savior. But his life and ministry were shockingly local—confined to a sliver of the Roman Empire, among an oppressed minority population. His teachings reached, at best, a few thousand people in his lifetime.

Why didn’t God reveal Jesus to the world in a way that could transcend time, culture, and geography? Why entrust the most important truth in human history to oral gossip passed through untrained fishermen?

What about the millions of humans who lived and died in the Americas, Asia, or sub-Saharan Africa, entirely unaware of this message for centuries—millennia, even? How do you reconcile this with the idea of a loving, omniscient God who desires all people to be saved.

Third, if Jesus was divine and knew the stakes, why start his preaching around age 30? Why not as a child prodigy to ensure his message reached more people clearly and directly? Three years of ministry, in a world with no printing press, no media, and limited literacy, seems like a strange plan for universal salvation. Would an all-wise deity really entrust eternal truths to such a fragile and uncertain human network?

Last, Wright ultimately tries to argue that the resurrection is the best explanation for why the disciples changed from despair to hope, and why Christianity emerged so rapidly. But this is a theological assumption wrapped in historical language. People have experienced visions, founded religions (including ones you would probably call fringe or wrong such as Mormons or Scientologists), and died for their beliefs throughout history—none of which proves that the beliefs are true.
Saying “they wouldn’t have believed unless something extraordinary happened” assumes what it's trying to prove. From a secular standpoint, natural explanations (hallucinations, grief, myth-making, reinterpretation of failed expectations) are far more plausible than a literal reversal of death.

If Jesus really rose from the dead, God had countless ways to make it clear to everyone—indestructible writings, direct global communication, a longer ministry, or just a resurrection that actually happened in front of hostile Roman officials with pen and parchment in hand. Instead, we're left with a few ambiguous texts, decades after the fact, written by believers to other believers, preserved through theological filter and tradition.

If this is your best case for Jesus being divine and/or the resurrection, it falls into the same trap as many apologetic works: it tries to sound like history while relying entirely on faith that God intended things to be this way.

NP here and I think these are good questions. Part of how I think of it, is that Christianity is all about a personal God, not the high and somewhat theoretical, all powerful Gods of some other religions. What this means is that this God chooses to reveal himself in power but also in a lot of subtleties that require context. You know how in real life sometimes you really get to know someone through "small" acts, perhaps something only a select few are privy to because understanding of those acts require a lot of context? Somethings that may seem meaningless to the unacquainted but powerful to those who have the context?

That context is why God chose a particular people, Israel, and trained them to act a certain way, to see God a certain way, and to worship God a certain way. It is within that context that Jesus's impact becomes meaningful. When Jesus says, for example, that he and the father are one (aka that he is God), that has a very specific meaning to the Jewish people. When he says he comes as a servant, or when he tells the parable of the prodigal son, or the good shepherd, those stories carry the weight that they do precisely because they are told in the context of the Jewish people, who have had a particular view of a God ingrained in them. If a random person just appeared in China and said these things, it would mean something totally different, or maybe a feel good story, but they would not have the same meaning.

Also, I do believe the change in the disciples after the resurrection is the best evidence that something very weird took place. Name one other movement where the leader failed to accomplish anything, and died in humiliation, and yet that movement thrived. It is not just that the disciples made great personal sacrifices, it is that many of them completely changed. Peter before the resurrection was cowardly and betrayed Christ (by failing to admit his association with Christ). Then he turns around and becomes Saint Peter, crucified upside down in Rome? What happened to make this man do a total 180? None of the disciples got any personal benefit. All except one, I think, died horrible deaths.

[Anonymous]

^^^ asking sincerely how any of that would be any different if it was all made up?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^^ asking sincerely how any of that would be any different if it was all made up?

+1 I was thinking along the same lines. Who knows if any of that actually happened?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I investigated the claims of Christianity from a historic perspective. The bottom line is that there is strong evidence for the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Is it airtight? No. But nothing is airtight.

You're someone that I would be highly intrigued to meet IRL and discuss religion over coffee. However, without that, I am curious about your evidence for the death and resurrection.

I won't debate the scant, and inconclusive information related to an actual historic Jesus, but I am curious what your evidence is for him being divine, resurrected, etc.

I was the PP — and thank you, I love having thoughtful discussions with people about this subject!

Since we can’t have that discussion in real life …

I highly recommend reading NT Wright’s book The Resurrection of the Son of God. It is a 700+ page serious examination of the resurrection. While it is very long, the writing is done at a level that most people can understand it — the length is just due to the amount of detail.

I would then follow that up with Tim Keller’s A Reason for God (or do it in reverse order, it doesn’t really matter).

The thing is though — I tell people to read the Resurrection of the Son of God. And some people say “700 pages? nah, I am not going to read that.”

And I always find that response to be curious — after all, we are frequently told that it is religious people who don’t think or read.

But consider all of the things that we read in our lives; all of the social media scrolling; all of the cat videos and other frivolous things we watch. People don’t have time to read a single serious book on the resurrection, but find time to watch their favorite football team for 4 hours EACH Sunday.

The reality is that most people actively don’t want to think about these things. Which is fine. Be honest about it and own it. But don’t say that Christians aren’t the thinking ones.

Prior to becoming a Christian, even though I would tell everyone oh yeah, I am smart, well-read, etc., most of my life was filled with vapid subjects — politics, sports, money, women, porn, travel, social media, music.

Now that I am a Christian I can’t stop thinking about the things that really matter in life — why are we here, the meaning of life, the role of God, and yes, what it means that Christ died on a cross 2,000 years ago for me. I don’t think less — I think alot more now.

Based on my understanding, his whole argument, while well argued, is still built on theological sand.

Wright claims that the resurrection is the "best historical explanation" fails to account for the nature of miracles themselves. A resurrection is, by definition, the least likely event—so unlikely that no historian working by normal historical standards could affirm it as “probable.” Wright tries to bypass this by suggesting that no natural explanation accounts for the data. But, that’s simply an argument from ignorance: we don’t have a better explanation, so it must be a miracle. As the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Secondly, if Jesus was God incarnate—performing miracles, speaking divine truths, and fulfilling cosmic prophecy—why did no one write anything down during his lifetime? Why did his closest followers, the ones who supposedly witnessed the most extraordinary events in human history, not record them contemporaneously?

Instead, we get oral traditions passed around for decades, eventually written down by anonymous authors—often in Greek, not Jesus’ native Aramaic. For the resurrection itself, we have no eyewitness account, only secondhand reports of visions, empty tombs, and theological reflections.
Contrast this with the idea that God once wrote commandments on stone. If the Creator of the universe could etch divine law into rock for Moses, why couldn't Jesus' teachings and deeds have been written down on an indestructible material, protected from corruption or loss, to serve as a definitive witness for all time? Is that really beyond the power of an omnipotent deity who knew that some of humanity would require stronger evidence?

Next, Jesus, we’re told, was sent as a universal savior. But his life and ministry were shockingly local—confined to a sliver of the Roman Empire, among an oppressed minority population. His teachings reached, at best, a few thousand people in his lifetime.

Why didn’t God reveal Jesus to the world in a way that could transcend time, culture, and geography? Why entrust the most important truth in human history to oral gossip passed through untrained fishermen?

What about the millions of humans who lived and died in the Americas, Asia, or sub-Saharan Africa, entirely unaware of this message for centuries—millennia, even? How do you reconcile this with the idea of a loving, omniscient God who desires all people to be saved.

Third, if Jesus was divine and knew the stakes, why start his preaching around age 30? Why not as a child prodigy to ensure his message reached more people clearly and directly? Three years of ministry, in a world with no printing press, no media, and limited literacy, seems like a strange plan for universal salvation. Would an all-wise deity really entrust eternal truths to such a fragile and uncertain human network?

Last, Wright ultimately tries to argue that the resurrection is the best explanation for why the disciples changed from despair to hope, and why Christianity emerged so rapidly. But this is a theological assumption wrapped in historical language. People have experienced visions, founded religions (including ones you would probably call fringe or wrong such as Mormons or Scientologists), and died for their beliefs throughout history—none of which proves that the beliefs are true.
Saying “they wouldn’t have believed unless something extraordinary happened” assumes what it's trying to prove. From a secular standpoint, natural explanations (hallucinations, grief, myth-making, reinterpretation of failed expectations) are far more plausible than a literal reversal of death.

If Jesus really rose from the dead, God had countless ways to make it clear to everyone—indestructible writings, direct global communication, a longer ministry, or just a resurrection that actually happened in front of hostile Roman officials with pen and parchment in hand. Instead, we're left with a few ambiguous texts, decades after the fact, written by believers to other believers, preserved through theological filter and tradition.

If this is your best case for Jesus being divine and/or the resurrection, it falls into the same trap as many apologetic works: it tries to sound like history while relying entirely on faith that God intended things to be this way.

NP here and I think these are good questions. Part of how I think of it, is that Christianity is all about a personal God, not the high and somewhat theoretical, all powerful Gods of some other religions. What this means is that this God chooses to reveal himself in power but also in a lot of subtleties that require context. You know how in real life sometimes you really get to know someone through "small" acts, perhaps something only a select few are privy to because understanding of those acts require a lot of context? Somethings that may seem meaningless to the unacquainted but powerful to those who have the context?

That context is why God chose a particular people, Israel, and trained them to act a certain way, to see God a certain way, and to worship God a certain way. It is within that context that Jesus's impact becomes meaningful. When Jesus says, for example, that he and the father are one (aka that he is God), that has a very specific meaning to the Jewish people. When he says he comes as a servant, or when he tells the parable of the prodigal son, or the good shepherd, those stories carry the weight that they do precisely because they are told in the context of the Jewish people, who have had a particular view of a God ingrained in them. If a random person just appeared in China and said these things, it would mean something totally different, or maybe a feel good story, but they would not have the same meaning.

Also, I do believe the change in the disciples after the resurrection is the best evidence that something very weird took place. Name one other movement where the leader failed to accomplish anything, and died in humiliation, and yet that movement thrived. It is not just that the disciples made great personal sacrifices, it is that many of them completely changed. Peter before the resurrection was cowardly and betrayed Christ (by failing to admit his association with Christ). Then he turns around and becomes Saint Peter, crucified upside down in Rome? What happened to make this man do a total 180? None of the disciples got any personal benefit. All except one, I think, died horrible deaths.

So what if "something very weird took place". I mean, really, so what?