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 
Howie-
I won’t begrudge you taking that out of context. He said what he said. I feel much the same way. Besides, I’m guilty of taking things out of context as anyone else. And, I usually am not so kind as to admit to it.
Here’s the article I pulled that quote from. One of my favorites.
http://www.internetmonk.com/articles/D/doubts.html
LikeLike
Hey Josh,
No worries, I didn’t think you were trying to ignore, just wanted to make clear my viewpoint.
Your response is very good because the break-off point between us is not quite where I thought it was. Let’s continue if you’d like. The purpose for me in this dialogue and all others is not to show you why what I believe is right, but for us to learn a bit from each other and perhaps realize where the break-off points really are. There is nothing I love more than to have a good discussion and then agree to disagree in a respectful manner.
First, I’d like to make clear what I mean by “gospel truth” – by that I mean what you personally believe all others need to “do” or “believe” or “whatever other thing” to be “right” with the God that you believe in. If you believe that this is an oversimplification of your beliefs, and that there really isn’t some “gospel truth” or that there is no such thing as being “right” with the God you believe in then please clarify.
You said: “I believe God knows what would convince people who will believe. I also believe God knows who will not believe.”
You wrote this response in an interesting way, and I’d like to make sure I understand you precisely and if you worded it specifically that way on purpose. It looks like you believe that there are some people who are completely incapable of coming to a knowledge about the gospel truth that you believe in. By that I mean that for whatever reason there is absolutely nothing that can be done, absolutely no evidence whatsoever that would ever cause the person to know that the gospel truth is real. And those kind of people are also not capable of realizing that they need to make some action or decision or choice about the gospel truth that you believe in. Is my interpretation of your response correct or is it a bit more nuanced? Or was your wording just not clear? Sorry not trying to be anal, but if we want to truly understand each other we’ll both have to ask each other specific questions. You can ask me stuff too.
There are other important responses I have to other things you wrote but let’s take this in pieces.
LikeLike
Keep going guys, I for one am enjoying each and every comment, even when they seem redundant, sometimes redundancy is necessary for clarification and understanding, so keep beating this dead dog till its dust. 🙂
LikeLike
I agree with Mark. I had some points I was going to make, but I’m very interested in the direction of the conversation b/t Howie and Josh, so I’m just going to sit on the sidelines for now. Thanks, guys!
LikeLike
I for one have learned that Michael Spencer also seems to think there is a lack of evidence…
LikeLike
I’m working on a response to Howie. One question for you, Nate. How do you get your quotes to stand out so nicely in your comments?
LikeLike
Hi Josh,
You can achieve cool looking quotes with some HTML goodness. Just put whatever text you’re quoting inside “blockquote” tags. I’m not sure if this will show correctly in the comment, so bear with me — it would look like this:
<blockquote>Four score and seven years ago...</blockquote>LikeLike
Yeah, that turned out like I wanted. That will work.
Similarly, you can do things like this:
<em>italicize</em> -- the 'em' stands for emphasis<strong>bold</strong>
Anything you want to do with text can be done with HTML.
LikeLike
Verbal inspiration is a conservative Christian term. I certainly don’t believe that the words in the Bible were handpicked by God!
LikeLike
Howie-
Good stuff. Glad we got to a conversation instead of having a drop-off point. Apologies for anything I said making it seem like we couldn’t have an further discussion.
“The purpose for me in this dialogue and all others is not to show you why what I believe is right, but for us to learn a bit from each other and perhaps realize where the break-off points really are.”
I can get behind that. I freely admit there are times I’m trying to convince someone I’m right. Sometimes I just can’t help that impulse. It’s not always my intention in starting a conversation. Most of the time I’m really interested in the other person’s perspective, and it tends to turn into a grudge match of probing questions. I’m trying to get better about that.
“First, I’d like to make clear what I mean by “gospel truth” – by that I mean what you personally believe all others need to “do” or “believe” or “whatever other thing” to be “right” with the God that you believe in. If you believe that this is an oversimplification of your beliefs, and that there really isn’t some “gospel truth” or that there is no such thing as being “right” with the God you believe in then please clarify.”
Sure. I’ll do my best to clarify a bit here. What I believe in terms of doing something to be “right” with God is that God Himself has already accomplished everything necessary for us to be “right” with Him. Anything that was broken in our relationship with God has been reconciled in what God did through Jesus on Calvary. That’s a one-way action. Our sins are atoned for. Period. What do we need to do? Ours is to respond to God’s offer. It seems to me like you want to nail down whether there is specific information a person needs to know, understand, and assent to in order to be “right” with God. In a way this is true. God became human, lived the life we ought to live, suffered the consequences we deserve to suffer, and rose again so that we can share in the reconciliation He earned. You’re right, that is specific information I believe to be true. However, there are instances even in scripture where people did not have access to that specific information, yet we are led to believe they were made “right” with God. Abraham is one. Moses, David, Enoch, Joseph, etc. All of these people are, at the very least strongly implied in the NT, made “right” with God. So, I believe it is not outside the bounds to infer there will be many other people from many other times who are made “right” with God, through some other means, despite not having direct access to the information we’re talking about here. The OT (Daniel) and the NT (Revelation) both teach that people from “every tribe and tongue” will be present at the renewing of all things. So, I do not believe that someone has to have the information about Jesus, understand it, acknowledge it as true in order for God to have reached that person. It doesn’t seem to jive with scripture, so I don’t see why it has to be necessary for the sake of discussion.
So, jumping off from there I would say that God can reach any person of any time in any culture in order to evoke a response. What happens then is our choice, and our choice alone. However God reveals Himself, we can either accept that or reject it.
“You said: “I believe God knows what would convince people who will believe. I also believe God knows who will not believe.”
You wrote this response in an interesting way, and I’d like to make sure I understand you precisely and if you worded it specifically that way on purpose. It looks like you believe that there are some people who are completely incapable of coming to a knowledge about the gospel truth that you believe in. By that I mean that for whatever reason there is absolutely nothing that can be done, absolutely no evidence whatsoever that would ever cause the person to know that the gospel truth is real. And those kind of people are also not capable of realizing that they need to make some action or decision or choice about the gospel truth that you believe in. Is my interpretation of your response correct or is it a bit more nuanced? Or was your wording just not clear”
You are correct. I wrote that in a specific way on purpose. Again, I don’t think what happens can necessarily be fully described by “coming to a knowledge about the gospel truth”. That is certainly part of the process in may cases, but I don’t think it’s scriptural, or common sense, to say that is the only way God can operate, and the only way a person can accept His offer. And, I wouldn’t say that someone is “incapable” of accepting God’s offer. I would say that they have the choice to accept or reject – again, in whatever form the revelation takes – and that some people will reject it. That might seem like splitting hairs, and maybe it is, but I see a bit of a difference there. Also, I wouldn’t say that “those kind of people are not capable of realizing that they need to make some action or decision”. If I’m right about God being able to reveal himself to anyone, then I can follow that and it makes sense that every person, then, has the opportunity and the capability of responding to God in the way He reveals Himself to that person.
Footnote. I want to make clear that I believe what Jesus lived, accomplished, and continues to do now on our behalf is actually true. By what I’ve written, I’m not saying that it doesn’t matter whether any of Jesus’ story is true. What I am saying is that His actions opened to door for ALL of humanity to have access to God without the barriers that were there as a result of our turning from God. If someone responds to God’s revelation in a way that does not involve their direct knowledge of Jesus’ life and works, that does not negate Jesus’ life and works. It is not, and was never, our knowledge that saves us in the first place. It is God who saves, always has been that way, and that was represented in Jesus. To say that we have to have knowledge of something, understand it, and assent to it is to put all of the onus on us (and this, after reading in scripture that we have imperfect understanding, and we only see through a foggy mirror, and we all have turned away from God, etc). That we provide the vital piece to salvation is not the broad teaching of scripture. God alone saves. We respond to the offer of salvation.
LikeLike
So in your belief we can be acceptable or right with god whether or not we believe in him or have knowledge of him? …because god has already fixed what was broken?
If man can do nothing to show himself saved (because god does all the saving) is there anything that a man should do, or can do to be right with god? Or, is everyone already right with god through Christ, whether they believe him or not, and what we figure out through these discussions has no bearing to anything of value?
LikeLike
Hey William-
“So in your belief we can be acceptable or right with god whether or not we believe in him or have knowledge of him? …because god has already fixed what was broken?”
Not necessarily without having knowledge of Him. I think we can have knowledge about Him without necessarily being aware that we have that knowledge, or that it’s about Him.
“If man can do nothing to show himself saved (because god does all the saving) is there anything that a man should do, or can do to be right with god? Or, is everyone already right with god through Christ, whether they believe him or not, and what we figure out through these discussions has no bearing to anything of value?”
I think these discussions do have value because I believe that this kind of interaction is the way that some come to revelation about God. I also think they have value because wanting to find the truth is something most of us seem to strive toward. With regards to the first half of this paragraph, I’d say we are already made right with God by what He has done through Jesus. We do have the option to choose not to accept that, I believe. That is our part in this. There’s nothing we can do in terms of “earning enough gold stars to get into heaven”. We’re offered the opportunity, and it’s my belief that we can choose to refuse it. What can we do now? I believe those who have come to a revelation about God can, and usually do, communicate that to others. Whether that’s through discussions like this, helping people we come across who are in need, giving of our wealth to help those who don’t have enough, or whatever. I don’t think a person “needs” to do these things to “earn” salvation, but I’d wager that someone who would refuse to do these activities has likely not yet met God or has refused Him.
LikeLike
Hey Josh,
What you express is quite confusing and I think William’s response to you shows how confusing it really is. You seem to be dancing between Universalism (the belief that we are all saved by God because he is so loving) and the more conservative evangelical viewpoint.
You say there is nothing we can do, but yet in the same breath you say that we need to respond and accept the offer. Response and acceptance are actions and things that God would require of humans to do to be right with him, so you can’t also say “God did it all, period” and then go on to say that there is something we need to do. It is very difficult to respond to that, because frankly if God requires absolutely nothing of us then that would mean that he does not hold us accountable for anything we do or don’t do. If that is the case then the particular argument that I have been stating doesn’t really apply to your belief – but that isn’t quite what you believe. You need to settle on something clearly because this may possibly be important – do you believe there is anything you need to tell others that they need to do (and the word “do” includes things like accepting or responding) in order to know that they are right with God? You seem to be saying yes in some sense. And you are also saying that it isn’t really all that clear exactly what people must do (or accept) to be right with God. But it seems like this is just way too vague for something that is so incredibly important as our eternity. And that is the whole point of the argument. If there is something that needs to be accepted or responded to for our eternal welfare (and I know you don’t believe in a physical hell, but I think you do believe in some form of badness and goodness in the afterlife depending on peoples choices) then why doesn’t God make that clear?
LikeLike
Howie-
I appreciate what you’re saying, and I know Nate has told me the same thing in various discussions. I think I just disagree that “accept” constitutes “doing something” to “earn” salvation. Maybe we have reached that point that is an impasse?
LikeLike
That’s fair Josh. That may actually be something we can kindly agree to disagree on. I’m cool with that.
But I’d like to try a little bit more to clarify things here because I’m not so sure we totally disagree on that one. First I am ok with not using the word “earn”. But let’s see if we at least agree on the following description of your belief: If people choose not accept something (unfortunately it isn’t really clear what the something is) then they will not be right with God.
Do you agree with that statement?
LikeLike
Not to add too heavily to what Howie posted or to be too repetitive, but i’d like to ask the same basic question another way.
*How does one accept god or Jesus?
I know how i used to answer this question when I was a believer, but I dont think my version of christianity was the same as yours.
LikeLike
I don’t want to disrupt the conversation here, so just treat this as an observation — one that doesn’t even have to be commented on.
Josh, I think you are being torn between your conscience and scripture. You know that the Bible teaches that people should serve God. In the Old Testament, this meant following the Law of Moses — in the New Testament, it’s accepting Jesus as the Christ. This is what fits into the “acceptance” portion of what you were describing above.
At the same time, as a conscientious, moral, intelligent person, you realize that if God expects us to respond to his invitation of salvation, then we must all understand the invitation. So when you look at the world around you and see so many thoughtful people who aren’t Christians, you’re left in a quandary.
A more hard-lined Christian would say that non-believers actually know that Jesus is the son of God, but for some reason, they don’t want to accept him. Of course, you understand that there are some logical inconsistencies with that position — after all, why would anyone willingly take God’s displeasure over simply accepting what they already know is true? Especially since Christianity is not a burdensome religion?
But to take the alternative, that these people sincerely don’t realize that Jesus is the son of God, leaves two other big problems. One, if these people are simply ignorant, yet they still must believe in order to be saved, why doesn’t God do more to overcome their ignorance? The other possibility is that they don’t actually have to believe in Jesus, because God will save them anyway. But this position runs counter to many passages, and it makes everyone wonder what all the fuss is about. Why spend so much effort teaching people about the gospel when they’ve already been saved?
I think Howie’s right. It seems like you need to pick a particular path, because right now, it feels like you’re stuck in limbo about it all. You don’t seem to know if people need to respond to Jesus or not, you don’t seem to be clear on what that response should even look like, nor are you clear about what repercussions there are for not responding in the right way.
LikeLike
So I’m going to step in at this point and be very blunt. I’m sorry if this is offensive, but since Nate’s blog is about “Finding Truth” I want to put it out there.
@Josh, what you “believe” is ludicrous. It has no basis in any religious text. Based on what you have posted on many threads here (I read everything that is posted, I just rarely post) it seems rather obvious that your belief structure is comprised of what you think sounds nice and safe. And given that I don’t believe in the veracity of the Bible, I’m ok with that. Until you begin to evangelize your own beliefs and debate points in a forum like this. Then I just don’t understand your reasoning. When I was a Christian (same vein as Nate) any time i was involved in a religious discussion, I used as many examples of chapter and verse as possible to strengthen my stance. I could still do that today – if the Bible were internally consistent. But if God has preordained who is saved (which is silly to me) then evangelism and debate are completely pointless. At MOST you contend that we could gain knowledge of God. But from where? You seem to pull most of your answers from your own opinion (even more than the oft-criticized atheists/agnostics with “it seems that God would…”
“I think we can have knowledge about Him without necessarily being aware that we have that knowledge, or that it’s about Him”
What?!? Where do you get this idea? And how in the world can you actually believe it?
I’m sorry. I know this post is a pretty blatant attack. But I just don’t understand your endgame.
LikeLike
Josh,
What is true is not determined by vote, and I am never persuaded by something just because a whole bunch of people agree – I’m sure there are a bunch of people reading on the sidelines hoping you can somehow get through to us stubborn agnostics. 🙂 But I do think it’s important for you to try and work out what you believe on this in a bit more clear fashion, because it seems to be of utmost importance. Even if there isn’t an afterlife if a God exists I would still put it at utmost importance to try and make clear what it is that has to happen for me to be right with that God.
If you would still like to continue I’d learn more about your belief if you respond to my question and William’s as well.
And Nate’s last comment expresses very eloquently exactly my own viewpoints on this.
Cheers,
Howie
LikeLike
Covering the last few comments:
I think you all are right. I was trying for something specific in my answers and I think I just muddled everything up. Let me try to clean up at least a little bit of the mess.
First let me say this: my understanding of who God is and how he behaves comes from Jesus’ example. He alone is the representation of God in human flesh. It is clear from His teaching that it is possible for people to completely misunderstand God despite being intimately familiar with scripture. He told the Pharisees this all the time. Jesus was constantly reaching out to, healing, eating with, touching, and offering salvation to people the Jews wouldn’t associate with. Jesus showed how far God’s love and grace is beyond even our wildest imagination. He was always telling parables of ridiculous generosity and outrageous grace and salvation. I start there. All other scripture is valuable for many other purposes, but Jesus Himself teaches that they must be understood in view of Him and His revelation of God (Road to Emmaus discussion). Outside of an understanding of Him, scripture is easily misunderstood and misapplied. It always has to be centered on Jesus, and the unfathomable love and grace He showed that God has toward us.
I was purposefully vague because I was trying to answer a question that I thought was underlying some of what Howie was asking me. That question is “What about people who never hear of Jesus in their life on earth?” (If this was not underlying the questions, then I really was off the mark. Apologies for that) God is gracious and merciful, and reaches out to the lost and marginalized throughout scripture. So, if we can all agree that there have likely been some people who never hear of Jesus, then I believe it is consistent with Jesus’ character that He would still reach them somehow. As to what exactly they must know, my inclination from scripture is that a person must at least acknowledge that they are in need of salvation and they cannot provide it for themselves. If that seems unscriptural, then we have different views of Jesus.
I may have been wrong in aiming at this issue, so let me branch off.
Now, what about those who have heard the gospel message. You’re all right. In that scenario we have been given more of the complete revelation, so we then are responsible for responding to more of the revelation. I don’t believe it is consistent to say that someone who has never heard of Jesus is rejecting Him because they haven’t demonstrated they’ve accepted Him by saying “I believe in Jesus”. That seems totally counter to who Jesus is. However, for those who have knowledge of who Jesus is and what He’s done, this they must respond to.
Howie: must we respond? Yes, we must respond. I can get behind your statement that “if people choose not to accept salvation they will not be made right with God.” I was trying to make a particular point with what I was writing, but I think I got a little out of hand.
William: How does one accept god or Jesus? By acknowledging their need for a savior, and recognizing that savior must come from outside themselves (generally and vaguely speaking). For those who have been made aware of Jesus’ life and work, accepting Jesus as savior is the response.
LikeLike
Graham-
What I believe may be ridiculous. I can accept that. I’m not in any way trying to be safe. I’m trying to balance what I know about Jesus with what I know about the world. I think reading scripture in a vacuum without consideration for what actually takes place in reality is ridiculous. Just quoting scripture with people who don’t find it consistent or reliable doesn’t really seem to get us anywhere, does it? I guess I don’t understand why I would just stick to scripture in a discussion like that. Seems silly. And, yes, I try to extrapolate what I know about scripture to the world. After all, if God exists he created us and this world. I can’t just read a text written 2000 years ago to another people and assume it applies directly to everyone with no thought for what is different about the world and people. Sometimes holding onto scripture in favor of all other options in a discussion like this just doesn’t make sense. That’s my opinion. And, I certainly might be wrong (about that, or everything). Finally, why do I comment here? Because we’re all searching. If I don’t put my beliefs put there for discussion, how will I ever be able to examine them honestly. If I don’t seek any feedback or critique I’ll never get outside of my own head.
LikeLike
I have to say that, for a collection of people who think there are a lot of problems with scripture, you all are very committed to keeping as close to it as possible without allowing it to “breath”. I find that interesting. Thought I’d share. 🙂
LikeLike
*breathe
LikeLike
Ok Josh I think that is clearer and maybe we’ve gotten a little off topic, but I think it helps to at least clarify things. The main point is that you believe people are held accountable for not choosing to accept salvation, and are not right with God.
I’d like to take this back to the original statement that you questioned Nate on. Nate said this: “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.” Now I agree with this and I think Nate worded it carefully by saying “probably”. You challenged this by saying that in order to make that argument we need evidence that “people would accept/believe in/etc God if he did a better job revealing himself” But I believe the argument is not dependent on that.
So I’m going to give another shot at explaining my view on this, and I’m going to give a shot at an analogy. The analogy isn’t meant to be perfect, but it is just to illustrate one point in this discussion:
There are several speed limits in the city I live in that I believe are set too low. For example there is one that is set at 30mph which I think would be very safe if it were set to 40. Now I would very much like to ignore that sign and drive 40. But even though I want to ignore the sign I would never attempt to say that the sign doesn’t exist or that it really says 40. The certainty level I have about the sign existing and saying 30 is so incredibly high that I would not fault anyone for calling me insane if I said that I believed the sign didn’t exist. My free will has never been violated in this circumstance. I am totally free to not observe that sign. In fact I am even free to take on some strange philosophical argument that says “well we don’t really know anything so I’m going to say that we don’t really know that the sign exists”. But I don’t because again my certainty level about the sign is so incredibly high.
So again, going back to my original argument: if God is all knowing then He would know exactly what it is that causes me to have that level of certainty about things. It’s not just the speed limit sign. It’s the existence of my family, friends, enemies, and even political leaders who I may not take a liking to at all. I wouldn’t say they didn’t exist, because it goes way beyond reasonable for me. If God is all knowing He would know exactly what things would need happen in order for me to have that level of certainty about His existence… He would know this for everyone who He has created. If He was all powerful He would have the ability to cause the things to happen that would cause people to have that level of certainty about His existence. Free will does not come into play here at all. He would not be forcing me to accept Him. I could still reject Him. He would not even be forcing me to believe that He existed. I could still take on a strange philosophical viewpoint that says I don’t believe He exists because we don’t really know anything at all.
And the point that I think we all agree on is that the evidence for His existence is not at the level of the evidence we have to believe all the other examples of things that we believe with extremely high levels of certainty. For me it is night and day…. I realize it isn’t as big for you, but your Michael Spencer quote (and I read the page link too) concedes that there are reasons to doubt. You’ve admitted yourself that it’s not that obvious.
So if there is a God who is all knowing and all powerful then it does seem given the above that “He probably doesn’t care a great deal if people believe in him or not”.
To be honest, the whole idea of accountability that I brought up is really an extra part to this argument – it says that God couldn’t be loving if He holds us accountable to doubting His existence when there are reasonable arguments for doubting it.
My story is that a while back I really believed that Jesus was God and that he died for my sins. My first year after I became a Christian I believed that very strongly. The next 4 years was a growing bag of doubts as I continued to find more and more problems in the bible and with the proofs that I thought were so solid. During this entire time I sought after God intensely and asked many fellow believers what I was doing wrong, because I didn’t seem to feel like God was anywhere and my doubts were growing. In the end the hiddenness of this God was a big factor in my finally concluding that I couldn’t honestly claim that I believed in the Christian message. There were other reasons but that was a very big one. The problem of evil didn’t even come into play interestingly enough (although now I do understand the difficulty expressed by that argument as well).
LikeLike
Yeah, Howie. I see the points you’re making. Thanks for bringing us back to that point. I know God has revealed himself in ways that are not totally obvious. I also believe that, as humans, we can take evidence of something and deny it. I don’t think I was totally off with what I was saying, but I agree it wasn’t as strong as I was initially thinking.
Glad you read the article. I love Michael Spencer because of his brutal honesty. Something I wish I could find more of among Christians.
LikeLike