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

Forum Index » Religion

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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. [/quote]

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.

[/quote]

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.

[/quote]

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. 
[/quote]

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. [/quote]

So in all the universe with the potential sextillion number of planets with potentially millions of them habitable - then with all the places on earth, Asia, south Pacific, Australia, the Americas - the god of the universe decides that only this little sliver of a population in the middle east can be let in on the super secret decoder ring and fancy handshake?

Nevermind that Jesus was meant to provide salvation for all humanity (and I guess all intelligent life in the universe?), that the "great flood" wiped out all people, yet only these people are the "chosen" people?

The disciples changing. Are you really that unaware of history? I will name Joseph Smith and Mormons, Jim Jones and the Peoples Temple, and David Koresh and Branch Davidians as relatively recent examples that all had a "failed leader" and the movement continues. If that's your best evidence, keep trying.  :roll: [/quote]

I don't know all those people but Joseph Smith had a harem and die hard followers. Muhammad also had a harem, worshippers, conquered lands. I am willing to bet all those people enjoyed worldly success or power over people even if they ultimately failed and died some horrible death.

Jesus accomplished nothing in life, led no armies, had no people fighting for him, had no money, abandoned by his closest friends, and was just generally a weak nobody. Not comparable at all. That a religion based on this weak nobody grew to be the largest religion on earth, attracting followers from all racial and cultural backgrounds, should at least light a question mark in everyone's mind.

But again as I said, you either see enough to believe or you don't. We all have free will. [/quote]

You're literally using something that gives you access to a world of information. Spend a few minutes and look them up.

Since you are unable or unwilling to learn something new, that shows how completely you have been blinded by your beliefs.

Of course I want a "loving" god instead of the brutal OT one. Of course I want the promise of eternal life existing in some beautiful place called heaven. I'd also like to live forever in Willy Wonka's chocolate factory or at the North Pole playing with all the new toys the elves make. That doesn't make Willy Wonka or Santa any more real.

But like any idea that has some merit to it, take liberty or freedom for example, it doesn't mean it comes from a divine source. Nor does it make Jesus or his supposed words and actions any more real.

[/quote]

I did look two of them up. They started some cult to sleep with underage women. Joseph Smith had a harem. Point still stands. Not like Jesus at all. [/quote]

Since you are failing to see parallels (you are really blinded by your beliefs), I'll stick with Joseph Smith since he has a similar trajectory.

Both claimed direct, personal communication with God - Jesus as both the son of God and God incarnate, while Joseph Smith had visions, including one in which he said God and Jesus appeared to him. Both challenged the religious dogma of their community resulting in new religious systems. Smith was at least smart enough to write down his religious revelations directly, instead of leaving it to a few fishermen and other working-class followers. Smith was contemporaneously persecuted – he was jailed multiple times and ultimately killed by a mob.

Like Jesus, after Smith’s death, his followers, most notably under Brigham Young, institutionalized the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This is similar to Peter.

I'm guessing you wouldn't say that you believe what Mormon's believe? Why not? Once you have your answer, apply that same criticism to Jesus. 
[/quote]

No, you fail to see how dissimilar they are because they don't know Jesus. there is ample evidence that Smith got rich off of his church, spiritually blackmailed his followers to give him their money and their women, and he even had political ambitions, and tried to run for president. And there was no resurrection of his church after his death. And if you think Mormonism is comparable to the popularity of Christianity, then you are just confused.

What you are failing to grasp is what makes Jesus unique is not that he founded his church with or during his life. It is his DEATH that founded a church. That is what begs for an explanation and is unparalleled in history. [/quote]

To put more coherently, christianity was founded on the event of a death. Not a revelation, not claims of prophecy, not achieving great power, but the death of Jesus. That should strike anyone not jaded and blinded as odd. [/quote]

What is odd is the inability to directly address pointed questions raised in the quoted sections that are included in this post. You should also study more history.

Jesus' death does not beg for any explanation. Nor, was christianity founded on the event of a death. It was founded by a group of people that started to reconsider the whole idea of prophets, people's relationship with their interpretation of a personal god, and why for such a chosen people, god's covenant and promises were being kept. [/quote]

I mean,.I really don't know what else to say if you don't understand that Christianity is founded on Jesus's suffering and death. None of the other things Jesus did or said matters if he did not suffer and die. You just simply don't understand christianity. That cross at every church is not just some symbol of Jesus. It is a reminder that the whole religion is centered on the cross (death).[/quote]

I'm the PP quoted here. Yes, I do understand what christians believe. What you don't understand is that that belief is not evidence for Jesus' divinity or being god incarnate. Jesus is no more divine than the golden plates that Joseph Smith used to crate the Book of Mormon are real. This is the parallel that you are blinded by.

This started with the premise that a poster said there was actual evidence that Jesus was divine. That premise was based on arguments put forward by NT Wright. Those arguments were rebutted. There is yet to be a reasonable counter to that rebuttal. [/quote]

I have no idea what you are arguing and i suspect, neither do you.  Why did early disciplines believe in a religion based on the suffering and death of a man if there was no part 2?  How did they convert people to this morbid, depressing religion?  I am failing to see ANY parallel with Joseph Smith, whose religion was not focused on his death at all.  He just simply died, as all humans do.

And i'm not seeing any rebuttal of Wright's arguments.  I'm sure you feel like you rebutted it though, but from the fact that you don't even understand the religion you are arguing against, it seems you are used to building up strawmen and rebutting them. [/quote]

Go back and read the post at 04/21/2025 09:56. It's included in the quotes section as well. There's your rebuttal.

Also, learn about Mormonism to see why there are plenty of parallels. Smith did not "just simply died". That is so factually incorrect that it shows your ignorance.

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics