The first post in this series can be found here.
The gospels are usually viewed as simply 4 equally true perspectives of the same events. But upon closer inspection, many of their differences are not just differences in perspective; often, they are contradictory. We’ve discussed a some of these issues already, but there are a few in relation to Jesus’s crucifixion that really stand out.
The Inscription
We’re told that when Jesus was crucified, he was mocked by a sign that hung above him, proclaiming him to be the “King of the Jews.” But the four gospels tell us that it said four different things: Mark 15:26 says, “The King of the Jews.” Matthew 27:37 says, “This is Jesus, the King of the Jews.” Luke 23:38 says, “This is the King of the Jews.” And John 19:19 says, “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.”
Granted, all four of these versions mean the same thing. But if there was just one sign, then it only said one thing. Why are there four different versions of what it says? If these were accounts just written by men, then it would be understandable for them to remember them slightly differently. But Christians believe that the Bible is verbally inspired by the Holy Spirit. Why would he give four different versions of the same sign?
Time of Death
Another discrepancy that might be surprising concerns the time of day that Jesus was crucified. John 19:14 shows us that Jesus was standing before Pilate when he was given the sentence of crucifixion, and the writer tells us that it was “about the sixth hour.” Of course, Jewish day started at sundown (or 6pm). They had twelve hours of night and twelve hours of daylight. So, when John 19 says it was “about the sixth hour,” Jews would have understood this to mean around noon.
Mark 15:25 says, “And it was the third hour when they crucified him.” Of course, this would have been at 9am. Verse 33 says, “And when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.”
The problem is apparent. Mark says they started crucifying Jesus at 9am, darkness fell across the land at noon, and at 3pm the darkness lifted and Jesus died. But John has Jesus standing before Pilate at noon. How can both accounts be true?
The common answer is that John is using Roman time, so that when he says “about the sixth hour,” he actually means 6am. This would certainly take care of the issue. However, there’s nothing in John to make us think that he’s using Roman time. Plus, John seems to use Jewish time in another place:
Jesus turned and saw them following and said to them, “What are you seeking?” And they said to him, “Rabbi” (which means Teacher), “where are you staying?” He said to them, “Come and you will see.” So they came and saw where he was staying, and they stayed with him that day, for it was about the tenth hour.
– John 1:38-39
This passage really only makes sense when counting time in the Jewish format. The disciples deciding to stay with him indicates that it was getting late in the day. If we are using Roman time, then the time of day would only be 10am. Obviously, that doesn’t really fit the passage. We could say that it’s 10pm, but that seems highly unlikely for a culture without electricity (plus, it says they stayed with him that “day,” instead of specifying night). But 4pm, the Jewish 10th hour, fits the scenario very well. If he used Jewish time here, why would he change it in chapter 19 without telling us?
Day of Death
But even if we ignore the inconsistencies with the time of Jesus’ death, it’s harder to ignore the day of it. Mark 14:12 tells us that Jesus’ disciples went to prepare the upper room for him on the day that the Passover lamb was sacrificed. This would be the day before Passover. In verse 17, we’re told that Jesus met with his disciples that evening, which would have been Passover. They ate their meal, and Jesus was arrested that night. According to Mark 15, Jesus was tried before Pilate that morning, and his crucifixion was begun at 9am that day. He was dead by 3pm on the Passover (Mk 15:33-38).
But John tells it differently. John 18:28 says:
Then they led Jesus from the house of Caiaphas to the governor’s headquarters. It was early morning. They themselves did not enter the governor’s headquarters, so that they would not be defiled, but could eat the Passover.
From this passage, it’s obvious that Passover had not arrived yet. In John 19 Jesus is receiving his sentence from Pilate, and verse 14 says, “Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover. It was about the sixth hour.”
Matthew, Mark, and Luke all agree that Jesus was crucified on the day of Passover. John says it was the day before. I recommend taking your time to go through the different accounts. The implications are pretty clear.
Finding Truth 
LOL! Please don’t thank me…
You and your believer chums have a lot to answer for. Only you can’t answer,can you?
From pedophile priests, to talking donkeys, to Global floods, to feeding thousands with scraps.
From virgin births to erroneous prophecies.
You have NO answer. Nothing but myth and false doctrine.
LikeLike
I love, love, love that this is here. I too have gone through the rigors of KNOWING the ”truth”, only to be thrown back by my stupid brain.
Nate, thank you. Truly thank you for not only doing mad amounts of research to plant the seeds of coherent thought that seems to flow from you like a deep well, but also thanks for not allowing hatred, or pride to ruin your presentation. No offense to Ark, I like your thoughts as well, but the hatred you have for believers, masks your logic and reason. You’ll do much better if you exercise respect just a tad more. But trust me, I know where your coming from.
My story is that I was raised in a united Pentecostal church. Born and bred by people who honestly practiced the bible way more than most religious circles. I was raised to believe that Jesus was god himself, and that to be saved, you must be baptized in Jesus name, and also must receive the Holy Ghost, not just through faith, but you must speak in tongues.
This is all biblical, so seemingly to me was absolutely reasonable and the only possibility.
My family was a little different in that we really didn’t follow other people much. This led to my brother and I being outcasts of sorts, because when all the other kids were speaking hasha kiado lama tse nova dingado and whatever else the spirit led them to say, we were trying our hardest to allow god to fill us, but it just wasn’t happening.
Finally when I was 15 it happened.
After years of going to the alter and crying my poor heart out because I knew how evil I was, with masturbation and such, I finally reached a point where I just did it.
I let the gibberish out of my mouth.
Honestly it was an amazing experience that I have yet to comprehend.
What I’ve come to reason, is that when surrounded by other people, when you allow yourself to do something as foolish as speak in tongues, it’s highly euphoric, because you get a high from doing something so non-sensible. It is like how you’d feel if you ran through the mall on Christmas weekend naked. You’d feel pretty high.
As I got older, I began to question things like modesty. We weren’t allowed to wear shorts, or shirtsleeve shirts, girls couldn’t wear pants, and their skirts had to be below the knee. They couldn’t cut their hair, at all, and the boys and girls were all but completely separated from each other. Cause we’d want sex and all.
Made sense to me.
Till I asked my pastor, “If the girls can wear skirts below the knee, why can I not wear shorts, if they’re below the knee?”
This was my first and sooooo far from last deductible reasoning.
I haven’t stopped.
Another core thing for me is that I lost my hearing down to about 20%, at the age of 15. Now being surrounded every week by people who preached that healing was at the tip of their fingers, I was constantly being prayed for.
This got personal.
I invested so many tears, heartache, pure faith that tonight was going to be the night I got my hearing back.
But no. God had other plans apparently. I didn’t have enough faith. God wanted me deaf. Umm…maybe I had sin in my life. That master bating again. Wicked wicked 15 year old boy.
Healing has been the one thing that has proven to me it’s all hocus. Logic and reason tell me that if people really believe in healing, they wouldn’t just be attending a building weekly and driving around with their little families to Olive Garden.
They would be in the hospital healing people. I mean, what kind of selfish prick has the ability to pray for someone, and just ignores everyone dying every day. Go to a hospital sometime and see how many people are there trying to pray for someone. There aren’t any. They’re too busy watching Fox News.
Am I an atheist? No way. This life is way to complicated for there to not be a supreme being. That much seems painfully obvious to me, which allows me to understand agnosticism, but my mind simply cannot comprehend how anyone can be an atheist. No offense it just doesn’t make sense to me, that this is all happening, and whatever started it, is not able to still exist.
I don’t believe god is love more than god is hate. I like to think of it more in terms of positive versus negative energy. Or maybe not even versus, but more a balance of.
Thanks for your time and let’s all keep pushing forward, seeking truth at all costs, never conforming to comfortable ignorance, but keeping stoked the fires and desires of understanding. After all, we have a brain made to reason, if it were not so, we wouldn’t have captured flame.
We are all evolving into something far greater than any of us. I believe god is in us all, regardless of belief.
Cheers.
LikeLike
Just to clear it, I don’t believe I know who or what god is, which I guess would make many say I should be an atheist, however, if all there was was humans, I’d say we are god. It all depends on the definition of god, which I suppose has as many meanings as there are concepts of “god”, which in turn shows that none could be “true” but all are possible. So maybe all are true. Maybe as soon as we imagine a concept of “god”, its born into existence. I like possibilities.
I like finding truth, I hate thinking I know truth,
LikeLike
Hi Mark!
Thanks so much for the kind comments! You’ve actually made my day — I love hearing from people like you. It always makes me feel good to know that others are finding their way toward reason and learning that there’s nothing wrong with asking questions.
I really identify with your story. How long ago did your de-conversion take place? Is this something you’re still in the middle of? I’d really like to hear more of your story.
Just a quick point about your current worldview. It seems to me that the term you’re looking for is “deist.” Just based on your description, I’d say that’s where you are right now. I’d recommend checking out deism.com — it’s a really great resource with tons of articles. And a frequent commenter here is kcchief01, who is also a deist. Great guy.
I completely understand that position. I held it for a while myself, but I had trouble imagining the personality of God enough (or even whether or not there was only one god…) to really maintain an actual belief. So I finally realized (after reading The God Delusion that I more closely identified with atheism than anything else.
Luckily, I think we’d both agree, that even if God exists, he probably doesn’t care a great deal if people believe in him or not. Otherwise, he’d make himself more known.
So for me, the mantra I’m left with is the one Marcus Aurelius gave:
Or for brevity’s sake, you can always substitute Bill & Ted’s:
Hope you’ll comment here frequently!
LikeLike
Hey Nate-
I do have a follow-up here. And, it’s a genuine discussion I’d like to have, not primarily a challenge to you. You said here:
“Luckily, I think we’d both agree, that even if God exists, he probably doesn’t care a great deal if people believe in him or not. Otherwise, he’d make himself more known.”
I think this is a rather common theme among a lot of the agnostics/atheists who comment on this site and others. There’s also a heavy reliance on evidence and reason. I may be wrong in the way I’m summarizing this particular view, so please correct me if that’s the case. It seems a lot of people hold the view that most, if not all, people would come to belief in God if he would just do a better job revealing himself. I think this statement would stand as a conclusion that needs to be supported by evidence. If that’s the case, then what is the evidence on which you base the conclusion that “most, if not all” people would accept/believe in/etc God if he did a better job revealing himself? Is it possible that some would reject him even in the face of such evidence? That some would delude themselves into thinking there is not enough evidence? That some would deceive themselves into thinking that one particular piece of evidence would be the “clincher” for them?
If it is not possible that people could and would still reject or refuse to believe in God despite “enough evidence”, on what do you base that conclusion?
Again, I’m just curious of your thought process here.
LikeLike
Hi Josh,
Thanks for the question! Do you know anyone that denies the existence of Barack Obama, even if they don’t like him as a president or individual?
LikeLike
Nate-
I appreciate your question and how it relates. However, I don’t think whether I know someone who denies the existence of Barack Obama is relevant to the question I asked you. I’m asking if you believe it is possible for someone, even after being shown evidence of someone or something, to deny, reject, or refuse to believe that person or things existence. And, if you believe it is not possible for someone to deny, reject, or refuse to believe in its/his/her existence, then what is the evidence on which you base the conclusion that everyone would accept/believe in/assent to its/his/her existence in that circumstance.
LikeLike
That one was more of a challenge ;-). Still, I really do want to know.
LikeLike
Hmm, I guess I think my question back to you very much does apply. I personally don’t know anyone that denies the existence of Obama, and you probably don’t either. The reason is that we have tons and tons of evidence for his existence, even though you and I have never actually seen him in person. So even though there are a number of people who disagree with him, dislike him, or even flat out hate him, no one questions his existence.
If God made himself known to each of us, there would be no denying him. Perhaps we would still choose to disobey him — the Bible is filled with examples of people who knew he existed, yet still rebelled. But no one could claim he didn’t exist.
If given enough evidence, everyone would believe in God. He would be an undeniable fact.
Do you disagree?
LikeLike
I would contend that belief alone is virtually useless. So yes, it stands to reason that taking the giant question marks of whether or not god exists and if so, who he is, leaves the decision to the individual as to whether or not to serve and obey god. Merely knowing that god exists does not automatically mean that everyone would care. There will always be humans who are more concerned with pleasing themselves than any higher power. In the end, I wholeheartedly agree with Nate that if there were an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent creator, then any eternal consequence MUST be based on obedience and treatment of fellow man, not whether or not the existence and character of god was properly deciphered from an ancient book of inconsistencies.
At least that’s my opinion.
Graham
LikeLike
I think your question applies, Nate. I just don’t think it fully answers the question. Whether I know anyone who denies the existence of Barack Obama doesn’t tell me anything about whether people can continue to deny the existence of something for which they’ve been shown evidence. You don’t know anyone who denies the existence of Obama. That still doesn’t give me any real information toward my question to you. I’ll try to rephrase.
Are you aware of anyone who has been given “enough evidence” about something, yet continues to deny that thing exists/has happened/etc? If so, then I don’t think you can make this statement
“If given enough evidence, everyone would believe in God. He would be an undeniable fact.”
Is this really true? Again, similarly to my question above, how do you KNOW that EVERYONE would believe in God if given “enough evidence”? I guess what I feel you need to do is show me that whenever ANYONE is given “enough evidence” for something they ALWAYS assent to the truth of the thing for which they’ve been given “enough evidence”. I’m wondering if you feel that this has already been established somehow and I should grant it to you? I don’t think you have established it.
LikeLike
I think the burden of proof is actually on you. I can’t prove that something always happens without having access to every single person who has ever lived. Instead, if you know examples of people disbelieving in something for which there is adequate evidence, then please let me know.
Even if we take the moon landing as an example, since some people think it was a hoax, I imagine even they would be convinced if they could be given more evidence. I can’t think of an instance where someone would still not be convinced of something if they were only given enough evidence. I mean, that’s what “enough” evidence means…
Are you trying to say that evidence is irrelevant? Or are you saying it would be impossible for God to give more evidence of his existence?
I think we may be making this more complicated than it has to be. When people first discovered America, if they had described a rhinoceros to a Native American, it’s likely the native wouldn’t be able to visualize what was being described. They might not even believe that such a creature could exist. But if they saw one, they would instantly believe. Why wouldn’t they?
By the same token, if God actually made himself known to each of us, why would anyone try to deny it? What would be the point? It would be like denying Obama exists, or denying the existence of rhinos. It’s ludicrous to even posit such a thing.
The only reason we can actually question God’s existence is that he’s completely hidden from us. Otherwise, blogs like mine would have nothing to talk about. 🙂
LikeLike
Josh, maybe you’re making too much out of this. There is some evidence for alien abductions, But I don’t find the evidence compelling enough to believe even though Fox Mulder believes wholeheartedly.
Are Fox and I privy to same evidence? Is Fox more trustworthy of the sources, etc? But Nate’s point isnt in points like that. That is where god is – up there with aliens and bigfoot.
Some argue there is great evidences, but the evidences for such isn’t the same as it for the verification as to whether the president of the United States is a real person or not. He is saying that god presented himself at least as concretely as Obama had as president, then people wpuild indeed believe he is real just as much as they believe Obama is real. Obama is president of the USA and that’s undeniable.
Whether or not they like him or would be willing to submit to him is another question. nate’s question retort makes perfect sense.
LikeLike
Hey Josh,
A few points here:
1. If God were all powerful, all knowing and all loving then he would know exactly what it took to convince every one of his creation that He existed. Not only would He know, He would have the ability to cause those things to come about that would convince those people. This doesn’t destroy their free will – they still have the ability to choose to reject Him and not allow Him into their hearts. But they would at least be aware that that was actually a real choice they needed to make. According to your belief after one dies they will be fully aware of this (at least that’s what most Christians suggest when they ask “what will you say to God when you appear before Him?”) – why on earth couldn’t He make this clear now when we have the chance to make the choice. Better yet why not give us the choice after we die? But of course not – I’ll tell you why not – because this whole belief in afterlife is a very powerful fear factor that makes total sense of creating a great many converts. Why not have it as a part of your belief system. It all seems very human to me.
2. Even if you have problems with #1, this whole question you ask really misses the main point that most of us are trying to make here. There are tons and tons of people in the world who definitely are not convinced that the God that you believe in is real. Do you really think that the vast majority of Buddhists really deep down know that Jesus is God and that they need to accept Him into their hearts?
That He (your version of Him) has clearly not made Himself obvious to the world, but yet then holds people accountable when they doubt your belief seems so counter to an all powerful and all knowing God that loves His creation. Your agreement with knowing that you are probably wrong with about 1/3 of what you say you know and don’t even know what third that is also seems to run counter to this whole idea that this God would hold us accountable to these kinds of deep questions about metaphysical reality. Do you really think that these truths of metaphysical reality are more obvious than the existence of Barrack Obama or the existence of your friends and your family? For me they honestly don’t came anywhere near that level of certainty. It’s like night and day.
LikeLike
Hey Nate-
I don’t think the burden’s on me. You said “If given enough evidence, then everyone would believe in God.” That is a claim to universal knowledge made by you. Is it not? Therefore, in order to make that claim you have to be able to provide evidence that it is true. I’m asking for that evidence. I’m trying to play by your rules here, right? That, in order to make a claim to knowledge we have to be able to provide the evidence to back that claim up?
I don’t think I’m making too much out of this. I’m just trying to focus in on one piece of the discussion here: the assertion that God has not provided enough evidence. Your statement that “everyone” would believe if given “enough evidence” presupposes that “everyone” always believes things for which there is “enough evidence”. So, you do have to show that everyone always does that. Perhaps it is true that you cannot prove that is the case. However, if you can’t prove that is the case, then you can’t rest a part of your argument on the claim that “if given enough evidence, everyone would believe in God.” Don’t you have to be able to back that up?
LikeLike
Whoa… I just dont have the words.
Josh, what does “enough” mean?
So it’s your position that people wont believe something if they have enough evidence?
Is it your position that everyone really believes in god, but just pretends they dont?
LikeLike
Howie-
You said a whole lot in that comment. I think what I’m trying to get at here is whether or not we know of people who have been given “enough evidence” for something, yet continue to deny it. One example I’m thinking of is evolution. I think there is an abundance of evidence for evolution out there. Whether people avail themselves of the evidence or not is up to them. However, there are people out there who have looked at all the evidence, and continue to debate whether evolution actually happened. Yet, the scientific community has largely landed on evolution as the best explanation for the evidence they’ve found. So, from my perspective I see that people are definitely prone to seeing the evidence “from their perspective”, and then denying that the evidence is really evidence because it doesn’t match up with their perspective. I think there are several other examples like this as well. So, what do we know from this? That people are capable of being shown pretty darn good evidence, and then discounting it as unreliable or inconclusive because of their perspective. If we know this about people, doesn’t it follow that the same COULD be true about the evidence for a god? Nate is saying the opposite of what I observe in people, so I’m asking him to provide some evidence that he is right in the face of what I think we all see in a lot of different groups of people.
You said that the evidence for God doesn’t match up to that for Obama “for you”. That’s exactly the point I’m getting at. I still believe that I could be wrong about what I believe. What it seems to me is that Nate is arguing that he doesn’t think he could be wrong about what he believes. Just because a host of people don’t believe the evidence for a given event is valid and convincing does not mean that evidence is invalid. Like I think we can all agree, we see this in a number of different examples.
LikeLike
I fully admit that my statement is a generality. In fact, there are people who refuse to accept reality when it’s presented to them, but we usually call that “insanity.” So, to limit our discussion to the sane, I think my statement is generally true. Can you provide examples of cases where substantial portions of a population refuse to accept things even when they’ve been proven?
I feel more like you’re trying to nit-pick a particular choice of words so you can avoid the overall argument. Even if you don’t like the way I’ve phrased it, Graham, Howie, and William have all provided supporting arguments that I think are very sound.
Since we’re all dancing around the issue, what evidence do you think God has provided that counts as “enough”?
LikeLike
Could you be wrong that Obama exists? Only in the philosophical, “what if reality isn’t reality”, kind of way.
But aside from all that, since you’ve noticed this tendency in people, does it seem reasonable to you that God would expect us all to figure out all the things Howie so eloquently stated? My whole point is that God could have made it all a lot simpler — surely you can concede that?
LikeLike
Josh, you are one stubborn man.
The Obama argument fits perfectly and seems to me as well, that there is plenty of evidence that, as Nate said, “sane” people do not deny the existence of things that are evident to them.
Being punished for not having the right perspective seems far fetched for a being that desires community with reasonable humans, after all, god supposedly created us for companionship, why didn’t he just make us like dogs if he needed us to have the right perspective in order to believe in him perfectly? You can abuse your dog all you want and it will still be loyal, humans have a much lower tolerance for respecting a being that is abusive.
Nate, thanks for your response, it made my day as well, my wife witness me laughing and nearly jumping for joy that I have finally found a forum to share the burdens of the metaphysical world with, it is a gem in the rough for sure.
I have begun reading The Age of Reason and before I could get to page 5, I was already blown away with the observations of Paine, as well as stupefied at my own lack of making these observations myself, I tend to take pride in my bullshit radar. Thanks much for the reference, I will make good use of it.
It’s hard to define when my deconversion took place. The questions began I would say around 17, I stopped going to church around 21 and now I am 31 so it’s a journey that has gradually led me to here.
Now where is here? I would say I am a deist, if it weren’t for the word “abandoned”. I feel like if there is a god, there’s little evidence that there is any abandon. I would suggest that rather he has left us to rule this place and evolve into something more.
However, I have trouble with any definition of god, as I can’t seem to stop saying “he”, or “him”, etc…
I cannot say I am an atheist, at least as far as what I feel atheism is. I see as little proof that there is no god, as there is god.
I looked at your 6 types of atheists and I definitely feel connected to seeker-theist.
William, Howie, and Graham, you guys are awesome, I truly experience joy reading your insights, Josh, thanks so much for having the backbone to keep fighting for what you believe in, in the face of heavy opposition, good stuff!
LikeLike
Examples of people ignoring evidence? How about people ignoring the warnings that multitasking while driving is dangerous. Many, maybe even the majority, of people do not believe they will cause an accident or die because their experience outweighs the evidence. “I’ve never been in a fatal accident” almost always outweighs the story of someone’s car getting demolished because they looked down to text.
Someone who is addicted will almost always operate in opposition to the evidence. Nearly everyone ruining their loves with a substance will deny that the evidence – often people In their family telling them exactly what is happening – applies to them.
I think we can be blinded and believe what we want to believe. I think the danger comes when we feel we are not blinded by something. I am afraid of not having enough information. I often believe I might be mistaken. I am always searching for reasons I should or should not believe. I think saying that I know god can’t be real because not everyone believes he exists is to underestimate the human ability to deceive ourselves or be deceived. Something can be true, yet the truth of it be denied by a large number of people.
And, this is what scripture teaches. That we have all been led astray. We all have turned from God. You asked for evidence that I find convincing. I know I’ve said this before, but one of the main reasons I believe Christianity, on an intellectual level, is because of its description of human beings. I may not like to admit it, but much of the depravity described in scripture I can see plainly in myself. Christianity strikes me as true because of the bitter truth it communicates. It isn’t something I “want” to believe (who would want to believe they are utterly lost and cannot save themselves), yet it draws me powerfully with the picture of a God who welcomes all despite who we are. It just isn’t something I imagine making up – I’d imagine a god who punishes people and enjoys bringing judgment on those who disobey. This is not the God revealed in Jesus.
I’ll dovetail on that last paragraph with a quote from Michael Spencer. I would’ve typed this, but he says it a lot better than me.
“Ultimately, I am persuaded of the truth of the Bible by its presentation of Jesus. I cannot explain or unpack this reasoning, for it comes down to an encounter with a person. Those who are Christians know well what I mean. You know what it is like to see no evidence of God in the world, in the church or in the mangled mess of your own heart, yet to be drawn powerfully after the Jesus of the scriptures. You know what it is like for Christians to act completely contrary to anything resembling Jesus, and to be sickened by their mistreatment of people in the name of God, yet to know that you cannot abandon Jesus himself as flawed, because you know the resemblance between Jesus and those who claim to follow Him is superficial at best.
The portrait of Jesus in the four Gospels towers above the paltry whinings of modernists, the thrown pebbles of critics and the repeated foibles of a scandalous church. Jesus is not the creation of any person or any tradition. He alone, of all the versions of a human soul, radiates the undoubtable evidence of “God with us” that other spiritual leaders only hint at. Jesus alone defies categorization and trivialization. He towers over history, culture and the human heart. This is no portrait of human longing or an exercise in wishful thinking about what we might become. This Jesus is, as John said, the Word made flesh.”
LikeLike
Thanks, MJM 🙂
LikeLike
Josh,
I appreciate your bravery here. I think it would be very reasonable if you tried to grab some friends to “back you up”, because I don’t like that it’s 3 (or maybe even 4 or 5) on 1.
I haven’t seen how any of your recent comments respond to what I drew out in my point #1 above. What part of what I wrote is incorrect? Is the God you believe in not able to know what would convince people of His truth? Or does He know and is not capable of causing those things that would convince to occur? Or does He know and also have the power to do those things, yet chooses not to do those things?
Now I am going to guess at what your answer is based on this and previous threads we’ve had with you on this topic. I believe you would say “no” to all 3 questions above. I think what you believe is that He has done all of those things that cause people to know the gospel truth that you believe in (and by that gospel truth I mean all that would be required to be “right” with God, according to what you believe). It seems like what you are saying is that all people who say they do not believe this gospel message that you believe in are actually being dishonest. They actually believe it but are saying that they don’t because they prefer for some reason to reject it. All the Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims, Buddhists, agnostics, atheists, Jains, Jews, etc. all really truly know that your belief system is the correct one but they prefer not to follow it so they say that they really don’t believe it.
Josh, I just can’t believe that what I wrote in the last paragraph is actually true. Could I be wrong – sure, but is what I wrote really what you believe? If it is then we may just need to agree to disagree and give up on this one. At some point in a dialogue you kind of realize where the break-off point is between the 2 parties and I think this is where it is.
But for argument’s sake, lets say that I could believe what I wrote about all those Hindus etc above. If I could believe something like that then it seems like I could also believe the same thing about the Jewish faith. Orthodox Jews believe that Jesus worship is polytheism, and worse idolatry because it raises a human up to be like God. If I am going to strain credulity by assuming everyone really knows your beliefs are true, then that would open it up for me to come to a similar conclusion – that all Christians (and others) are really truly aware of the truth of Judaism, but they say they aren’t because they have some reason to reject it. In fact that makes more sense, because there are more reasons to reject Judaism given that following it is not such an easy thing to do.
Again I’ve written too much.
LikeLike
Josh,
I’d also like to quote Michael Spencer:
“You know what it is like to see no evidence of God in the world, in the church or in the mangled mess of your own heart”
Yes, I am taking it out of context to some extent, but this is exactly what we are trying to say, and even though it is taken a little out of context I think it still fairly shows some level of concession to the exact point we are making.
My wife and I have some Christian and Catholic friends who are able to express their faith in a much more reasonable way. One friend of ours put it quite succinctly – “I can’t say that what I believe is the truth, and I certainly don’t believe it is obvious that it is true, but it works for me and so I don’t see a reason to not follow it.”
LikeLike
Hey Howie-
Wasn’t trying to ignore you. I’m not as good at following every response and answering it. I was trying to follow Nate’s. here goes.
“Is the God you believe in not able to know what would convince people of His truth?”
I believe God knows what would convince people who will believe. I also believe God knows who will not believe.
“Or does He know and is not capable of causing those things that would convince to occur?”
I do not believe God is capable of forcing someone to believe in Him. If someone is going to refuse Him, my belief is that God cannot alter that.
“Or does He know and also have the power to do those things, yet chooses not to do those things?”
I believe God reaches out to all in one way or another. I do not believe He can force someone to believe.
I don’t believe people are being dishonest. I think they really believe the things they say, as I really believe what I say. I think your explanation of Gods’s judgment is an oversimplification. I do not believe God condemns people just because they believe the wrong things. After all, I think we all have at least some things wrong. Jesus’ picture of God is acceptance of even those who didn’t know or recognize Him as the Messiah. People from other groups whom Jews would have ostracized. People reacted to Jesus when He revealed Himself. Some accepted. Some rejected. The same for today. Who am I to say how, when, or in what way Jesus will reveal Himself. I would never judge whether another person has or will accept Him. I’m simply trying to describe Him the best I know how because I believe Him.
I would agree with your friend that I don’t think it is obvious that Christianity is true. I see many more reasons to believe it than not. I can stand with him in that statement.
LikeLike