while faith is used in regard to people and in god(s) and whatever else, there are differences, clearly.
it is not the same to hold a faith in a god, whom you only know based on what a few people claimed about god in ancients books and letters, as it is to have faith in a person whom you know intimately.
now, if a person never really met his wife, or had seen her, and never really spoke with her, then i can see where that is the same type of faith as it takes to believe in a god… except that even then we have seen other wives and women (presumably).
faith in people we know and faith in god, or imaginary beings, is something else.
“So I think there is enough evidence to say that christianity is more likely to be true than not true. In that case, and granted one can pull out at any time, I can’t see why anyone would think they needed more evidence – it just being more probable is enough.”
UnkleE continues to repeat his mantra that “the majority of scholars” agree with his position that the NT is historically reliable, but this is a ruse. The majority of “scholars” may believe that Jesus existed and that there was an empty tomb…but so what! The issue in question is the Resurrection, and I challenge UnkleE or any other Christian to demonstrate that the majority of historians, archeologists, etc. believe that a dead first century Jewish prophet was reaninmated by an ancient Canaanite god!
They can’t!
The evidence for this supernatural claim is based solely on assumptions and hearsay. There is no eyewitness testimony! Was Mark in the garden that day watching the women approach the tomb? No. Was Matthew, Luke, or John in the garden that day watching the women arrive to the tomb; the angels rolling the stone away; and the guards fainting? No. Was Matthew present in the Sanhedrin’s chamber when the Roman guards reported the body missing? Preposterous.
There were no eyewitnesses!
If the empty tomb story were true, don’t you think that Christians would have written down its exact location; marked it as a place of honor and pilgrimage? But none of the “eyewitnesses” ever writes down the exact location of the tomb or mentions that Christians come to pray at this holy site…”to this day”. That’s a problem, folks!
It is a silly story that any sixth grader can see is supernatural nonsense. Those of us who have been brainwashed to believe this story…because it warms our cockles, and gives us hope regarding our fear of death and the beyond…need to wake up and see the truth.
I wouldn’t expect you to think the Bible was inspired, whatever you might mean if you used those words. But if you came to believe in Jesus, on the basis of the NT as a historical text, the game changes.
So I take it you do not consider divine revelation something to be considered as evidence for Christianity. Again, this was drilled into me for so many years it’s hard to imagine, but I’m trying to see your perspective. I used to believe it was part of the core evidence. I also used to believe in special creation. Then I realized how, sadly, so much of what I believed was based on indoctrination. Coming down from that level of confidence and “evidence” can really shake you up. So perhaps that might be why I am less willing to put my trust in something that is only based on non-eyewitness accounts. Actually, I’m frequently skeptical of even eyewitness accounts for that matter.
But where the experts are largely in agreement, I see little alternative than to then accept what they say, – if the consensus is across viewpoints, then bias is largely eliminated.
Yeah, I do this too. Nothing’s ever for certain, but if both sides can agree on something it’s probably worth accepting. I accept that Jesus existed, was known for his teachings, was known for “healings”, was crucified by the Romans and was later believed to be “alive” in some sense by his followers. I don’t see this as needing any supernatural explanations.
There are some things that you have to make your mind up and then stick with it, while there are other things that you can give it a try and see what you think.
It sounds like you’re saying we don’t need as high of a standard because we can just try it out. A worldview is not so easy to try out. If this were true, people would be trying out all kinds of religions just to see how they pan out. But I think we base our worldviews on what we actually believe is true and this is difficult to change. The real difficulty, I think, is trying to justify those beliefs. In the case of Jesus, all we have is non-eyewitness accounts. Are there other instances where you would believe something supernatural occurred based solely on non-eyewitness accounts? I’m trying to figure out whether you’ve given Jesus a special pass and have perhaps lowered your standards for accepting something as true.
I would be okay with lowering my standards just for the sake of trying something out. But there would need to be some kind of additional evidence to confirm that I had made the right choice otherwise I’d have to abandon it. I think we do this in science and perhaps our careers and even trying to find our way out of the woods (to use your examples).
As the resurrection of the character Jesus of Nazareth is the one claim that Christianity is considered the major claim upon which Christianity is founded upon, apologists have devoted the larger part of their ministry to establishing the argumentative means to create a plausible scenario that will arrive at a presuppositional answer while giving an appearance of scholarly credibility.
There is an element of irony and a major dollop of hypocrisy that a a rank apologist such as Licona would state in his 2010 book that the resurrection of the saints as recorded in ”Matthew” must not be taken literally yet the resurrection of the character, Jesus of Nazareth must be considered an historical reality; a situation which (assuming Licona is not suffering from any recognised mental illness) clearly illustrates the man’s own self-doubt, and a weak attempt at trying to establish some credibility outside the apologetic ranks. An attempt that back-fired, as anyone who knows the story will attest.
Unklee uses a not dissimilar approach.
I have stated before and will state again, unklee is simply playing a game.
To him, it is merely a pissing contest, and his smug self-effacing style is aimed at demeaning rather than enlightening and teaching.
He considers the frustration of his ”adversaries” a victory, a characteristic notable by his continual demand that ”we” should accept the view point of ‘his’ experts.
His approach is presuppositional, lacks any sense of genuine integrity and has no more intellectual worth than has a Young Earth Creationist.
He is now ”entertaining” himself with Dave, who, I might add, is doing a very good job of exposing unklee for what he truly is.
As Gary notes above, the Unklee Mantra comes to the fore time and again, which suggests a fairly high level of indoctrination, one that is maintained by continuing to argue in this fashion.
Faith cannot be argued against. Because there is nothing that proves otherwise.There is always an answer: god works in mysterious ways.
If you can’t relate to his invisible friend then this is your problem – not his.
If one were to remove the New Testament from the equation there would be nothing of the character Jesus of Nazareth to contend with.
Thus, all his experts would simply look very silly. So in effect, all the arguments are over a text. A text that has nothing outside its pages to back it.
However, what was unthinkable 50 years ago, is now not only in the public domain but also in the public conscience.
As Finkelstein and the minimalists have begun to unravel and undermine the foundational tenets of Judaism, reducing them to simple myth, so the new generation of scholars will do to Jesus of Nazareth and Christianity.
That the likes of unklee has been a Christian for over half a century does not diminish the falseness of his position.
But false though it may be, what unklee is actually saying is all the experts cannot possibly be wrong and the blog host has made a dreadful mistake by deconverting and is going to hell. Whether he like it or not.
right, scholars agreeing on, and being convinced that Jerusalem was a real place, and that Pilot and jesus and herod and the Apostles were real people, does not, by extension, validate the supernatural claims that are attached to them.
just as it’s accepted by scholars that Tecumseh was a real person, and that Troy was a real place, yet the scholars do not believe the miracles or prophecies attributed to him or the gods involvement at that place.
again, simple concepts.
the majority of scholars are in agreement…. sure, what do the majority agree on? the miracles and divine intervention, or that places, people and certain non-supernatural events were more than likely real?
Just want to say I’m very much appreciating your conversation. Your exchanges are how I often hope all exchanges about beliefs and reasons for belief will unfold. Unfortunately, the hostility that is often evoked (on both sides) makes this very difficult. I’m glad to see there are at least a few people out there who can actually talk about what each other believe without insulting, belittling, and chastising each other.
I’m glad to see there are at least a few people out there who can actually talk about what each other believe without insulting, belittling, and chastising each other.
Really Josh? After all this time you do not think that unklee is belittling and chastising? Smile …
How are those rose-tinted glasses holding up for you?
This pretty well sums it up. So long as a person believes this, no amount of “evidence” to the contrary will be accepted. Anything that smacks of non-existence will be explained away in the mind of the believer (using whatever means is necessary, including the opinion of “scholars”).
*****
If the empty tomb story were true, don’t you think that Christians would have written down its exact location; marked it as a place of honor and pilgrimage? — Gary
You can lay odds that the Catholic Church would have!
So if UnkleE and other Christians want to claim that there is “credible” evidence for the Resurrection, thereby, making it reasonable and rational for anyone to believe that this supernatural event occurred 2,000 years age. Will Christians then also admit that the evidence for the Mormon supernatural claim of Joseph Smith’s encounter with an angel of God is just as “credible” and just as “reasonable and rational” to believe?
In actuality, the Mormons have BETTER evidence than do Christians:
1. No one questions the historicity of Joseph Smith.
2. Joseph Smith lived less than 200 years ago. His life and deeds can be better studied than that of Jesus 2,000 years ago.
3. Mormons have 13 signed affidavits of KNOWN men who were willing to testify that they too saw the Golden Plates. These are TRUE eyewitnesses.
4. Three of the thirteen known men signed affidavits that they saw the angel!
In a court of law, this evidence would be much stronger than the evidence that Christians use to support their supernatural claim.
I know that Christians will respond that they know that the Mormon claims are false because the Book of Mormon is not consistent with the Christian Bible. But this is the exact accusation that Jews make against Christianity: the Christian New Testament is not consistent with the Old Covenant which God said was everlasting. Christians will respond that the New Covenant supercedes the Old Covenant and that we know this by God’s supernatural act of the Resurrection. But Mormons use the same argument, saying that we should accept the most recent revelation of God because of the supernatural appearance of God’s angel to Joseph Smith in upstate New York in 1830.
Christians can say that the angel Moroni got his Golden Plates mixed up, but based on their own standard of evidence for supernatural claims, they must believe that an angel of God really did appear to Joseph Smith, or admit their standard for supernatural evidence only pertains to their own supernatural claims, not that of anyone else.
If the empty tomb story were true, don’t you think that Christians would have written down its exact location; marked it as a place of honor and pilgrimage? — Gary
You can lay odds that the Catholic Church would have!
“Didn’t Constantine’s mum, Helena find it (the tomb of Jesus)?
Helena went to Jerusalem to find the evidence for Jesus, but that was almost 300 years after the alleged burial. Does she give evidence for choosing a tomb?
Why didn’t any of the Gospel writers tell us the exact location of the tomb? Why don’t the Gospel writers tell us that “to this day” (the time of the writing of that particular gospel, 65-90 AD) Christians regularly go to the empty tomb to pray and use the empty tomb as a means of converting non-believers: “See, this is the grave in which Jesus was laid and from which he rose from the dead. Look. No body.” But no Christian writer, whether in the canonical books of the NT, or in non-canonical writings ever mentions that Christians knew where the empty tomb is located!
If the most incredible event ever recorded in history happens in your town, wouldn’t you mark that location as a landmark? And if that location is associated with the cornerstone event in your religion, wouldn’t you mark that spot and make sure that every other believer (and non-believer) knew of its location, and continued to know its location for all time??
But no one apparently did.
Something’s wrong, Christians. Your story is full of gaping holes.
Nowhere in the Bible does anyone give any reference to a physical description of Jesus. Was he tall/short, thin/overweight, goodlooking/unattractive, etc. etc. We supposedly have four eyewitnesses but none of them tell us what Jesus looked like. And Paul never describes Jesus either, but since all he saw was a talking bright light, that shouldn’t surprise us.
die hard believers will just say the place wasnt identified because god didnt want people assigning holy significance to place or person or painting, being too much like idolatry.
but these excuses do not prove the bible, as many often pretend.
like gary has pointed out quite well, there are numerous natural (non-supernatural) explanations for why the tomb was empty (if Jesus was even buried, as Romans typically left the crucified to rot on their crosses).
there just isnt any good reason believe these outlandish claims, by these human authors. the majority of scholars think that there was no global flood, there was no exodus, and that the earth wasnt created or formed the way a literal reading genesis 1 reads.
the bible isnt trustworthy, and we wouldnt buy a claim that a virgin had a baby if it came from anyone or anywhere else…
I mean, this is what the children’s parable of the “Emperor’s New Clothes” was written for.
Mormons have paintings of Joseph Smith and detailed accounts of his physical appearance! So again, Mormonism has better evidence than Christianity. Will UnkleE, Josh, or Brandon please admit that Mormonism has evidence for their supernatural claim that equals if not exceeds the quality of evidence for Christianity’s central supernatural claim?
We supposedly have four eyewitnesses but none of them tell us what Jesus looked like.
Er …. in actual fact.There were one or tow more …
There were 5000 witnesses who were fed, then a further 4000,
Pilate and his wife saw him,
Herod saw him
Lazarus saw him
The Sanhedrin saw him
Ananias saw him
500 plus after the reserection saw him
His mum saw him
His dad saw him
His brothers and sisters saw him
Mary Magdalene saw him
I have already demonstrated that Mormons have just as credible, if not more credible, evidence for their supernatural claim as do Christians their supernatural claim. But what about other religions? If other religions have equally credible, if not more credible, evidence that THEIR god or gods can perform miracles, shouldn’t we believe that there are multiple gods, not just one god as Christians claim, and shouldn’t we honor these gods as equal to the Christian god??
The Hindus state that on one day in 1995, multiple Hindu idols/gods started drinking milk from spoons offered to them…AND THEY HAVE VIDEO PROOF! Christians don’t even have a physical description for their supernatural claim, but Hindus have video! Will UnkleE, Josh, and Brandon admit, therefore, that the supernatural claims of Hinduism are just as credible, if not MUCH more credible, than the Christian evidence?
I will post a video of the Hindu evidence below. You will see the milk literally disappear from the spoons! OMG! It’s a miracle! Let’s all start praying to Lord Krishna!
A mutual friend reminded me that I haven’t visited your site in a long while. Anyway, I read through your “Frustrated” post and was struck by how deeply your words rang true in my own experience. You may not have the time to even get to my comment (which I totally understand), but I thought I’d go ahead and chime in – on a whim.
First, let me just say that I skip the blood pressure medication and just head straight for the whiskey these days. Seems to be working… 😉
Second, something Rob Bell said recently really helped me (well, a lot of somethings he said have really helped me, but this one sort of applies to your frustration as well as mine, I think). For a long time after walking away from traditional evangelical theology, I would get bummed out, angry, frustrated, and a whole other gamut of emotions at the lack of communication anyone in that paradigm was willing to have on things they say their lives are hung on. I couldn’t understand why they didn’t want to at least discuss the problems we were having with their beliefs. At times I became enraged at the church leaders who kept people in the dark, unable to think for themselves, by continuing to preach guilt and fear. Other times I felt like the sheep enjoyed their lemming status – just being spoon fed a bunch of nonsense that left them with no responsibility to think things through. But then Rob said something that finally brought me peace:
Whatever someone else is doing, it’s working for them. Huh.
Suddenly the burden to deliver everyone from the diabolical control of the religion of christianity fell squarely OFF of my shoulders! It was a great feeling to finally come to know that it wasn’t my job to convince the sheep they needed to wake up and think. In fact, only the individual can ever come to the place where they wake up – no one else can do that for them. All I can ever do is BE. Be the best me I can be, in fact, is my only calling.
That said, I think the above paragraph is why I have not felt the need to become embroiled in the debates you so graciously host on your site. I have come to believe that not only is it not my responsibility to convince anyone of anything – I actually CANNOT do so. Working to that end just lumps me in the camp that has an agenda for relationships (the very thing that made me so angry at evangelicals who only make friends of “unbelievers” in order to convert them). I have given up all agendas towards others (well, probably not ALL 😉 ) – let’s say, I’m working to give up all of my agendas – save love. It sounds like you are in that position with your family now, as well. Since only love signifies, I’m glad for both of us. Sighing helps, but only if it’s a letting go of the goal to change someone else. We literally do not have that power. What they are doing works for them – for now. I don’t think it will continue to do so forever. People are waking up in droves and it’s going to continue to increase.
So, while I do believe there is a place for this type of debate forum, I no longer feel the need to participate in the ‘arguments’. I’m not going to convince anyone who is not already waking up, so my words just become so much empty wind.
Well, that was longer than I had intended. Thanks for letting me share my thoughts here, Nate.
I hope the best for you and your family on your continuing journey into truth,
C
Ask Christians how they know that Jesus was who he claimed he was and they will say: Miracles! Miracles! Miracles! Especially his greatest miracle—rising from the dead. But do Christians know that Jews have NEVER considered the performance of miracles as a sign of a true prophet or of a true revelation from God?
From Aish.com, a Jewish website:
Jewish Belief is Based Solely on National Revelation
Throughout history, thousands of religions have been started by individuals, attempting to convince people that he or she is God’s true prophet. But personal revelation is an extremely weak basis for a religion because one can never know if it is indeed true. Since others did not hear God speak to this person, they have to take his word for it. Even if the individual claiming personal revelation performs miracles, they do not prove he is a genuine prophet. All the miracles show ― assuming they are genuine ― is that he has certain powers. It has nothing to do with his claim of prophecy.
Judaism, unique among all of the world’s major religions, does not rely on “claims of miracles” as the basis for its religion. In fact, the Bible says that God sometimes grants the power of “miracles” to charlatans, in order to test Jewish loyalty to the Torah (Deut. 13:4).
Of the thousands of religions in human history, only Judaism bases its belief on national revelation ― i.e. God speaking to the entire nation. If God is going to start a religion, it makes sense He’ll tell everyone, not just one person.
Maimonides states (Foundations of Torah, ch. 8):
The Jews did not believe in Moses, our teacher, because of the miracles he performed. Whenever anyone’s belief is based on seeing miracles, he has lingering doubts, because it is possible the miracles were performed through magic or sorcery. All of the miracles performed by Moses in the desert were because they were necessary, and not as proof of his prophecy.
What then was the basis of [Jewish] belief? The Revelation at Mount Sinai, which we saw with our own eyes and heard with our own ears, not dependent on the testimony of others… as it says, “Face to face, God spoke with you…” The Torah also states: “God did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us ― who are all here alive today.” (Deut. 5:3)
Judaism is not miracles. It is the personal eyewitness experience of every man, woman and child, standing at Mount Sinai 3,300 years ago.
“So I take it you do not consider divine revelation something to be considered as evidence for Christianity. Again, this was drilled into me for so many years it’s hard to imagine, but I’m trying to see your perspective.”
I can understand how you are finding this. In philosophy (epistemology), there are two basic ways we can know things. Foundationalism builds all our belief on a basic foundation (e.g. “I think, therefore I am”, or “I will assume my senses give me true information”), while coherentism denies there are any basic beliefs, and truth is known by beliefs which all cohere into a workable and realistic whole. I think most people intuitively think of foundationalism, but consistency of belief is important too.
If we are foundationalists, we cannot build our beliefs on divine revelation unless either (1) we can believe that revelation is properly basic, or (2) we build that belief in revelation on some other foundation that is basic. I can’t see how we can assume (1) without begging the question, so I think (2) is the way to go. So the basic foundation of my belief is evidence (I guess assuming our senses give us true information) and on the basis of that evidence I believe in Jesus and in God, and on that basis I believe the scriptures are inspired, but I define what I mean by that from the evidence.
If we are coherentists, we choose what beliefs hold together the best. We still wouldn’t start with divine revelation, because coherentism doesn’t start with anything, but we might consider that divine revelation fits into the whole better than any other belief.
I dunno if that makes things clearer or muddier! 🙂
“Yeah, I do this too. Nothing’s ever for certain, but if both sides can agree on something it’s probably worth accepting. I accept that Jesus existed, was known for his teachings, was known for “healings”, was crucified by the Romans and was later believed to be “alive” in some sense by his followers. I don’t see this as needing any supernatural explanations.”
It clearly doesn’t need any supernatural explanation, in the sense that one can believe in those things without supernatural explanation, as many scholars do. But the question (I think) is whether the supernatural explanation fits better. Many people assume it does or it doesn’t, but not many attempt to demonstrate that. NT Wright is one historian who has attempted to demonstrate that NT history makes more sense if interpreted christianly.
My thinking goes like this. Here is a man who we can believe certain things about him and his teachings are historically true. Was he telling the truth? Were his biographers telling the truth? The main barrier to belief is our natural scepticism against the supernatural. But if God exists, and if we think Jesus seems truthful, then it isn’t difficult to believe he did miracles, really was resurrected and was indeed God;s son (whatever that actually means). So is there corroborating evidence that God exists?
We have philosophy and science asking questions about the origin and fine-tuned design of the universe, which (in my view) theism answers better than atheism (which doesn’t really have answers yet to those questions). We have humanity, which we almost all can’t help believing has free will, a true moral sense, reliable cognitive faculties and we are truly conscious of ourselves as individuals, all things that theism can explain but atheism struggles to explain, and in many cases is now denying the reality of. Then we have individual human experience – divine healings, visions, and other experiences of God, a few of which are well documented and are increasingly being examined scientifically.
All those things point (to me) to the God Jesus taught about actually existing. The only significant argument I find against that conclusion is the great evil and suffering in the world, much of which is explained by human choices, but ultimately God (if he exists and created the universe) must take some responsibility for. But we can only judge the world as evil if we have an objective moral standard, and only God can (IMO) guarantee that, so that blunts the argument a little.
We each decide for ourselves how the evidence balances out, but I find it quite convincing. And so my belief in Jesus is confirmed.
“It sounds like you’re saying we don’t need as high of a standard because we can just try it out. A worldview is not so easy to try out. If this were true, people would be trying out all kinds of religions just to see how they pan out. But I think we base our worldviews on what we actually believe is true and this is difficult to change.”
Yes, I agree we can’t just try out belief without believing in it. My comment was based on the question of how much evidence we need. If we think the evidence we have points to Jesus being probably true (i.e. at least better than 50% probability) but we think the evidence isn’t yet sufficient to make a decision, then I think giving it a try is honest and sensible. I wouldn’t suggest suddenly throwing oneself into becoming a priest or anything, that wouldn’t be honest, but I think one could reasonably start to try living a little more according to Jesus’ teachings (probably wouldn’t do anyone any harm!) and praying and asking God to confirm one’s tentative choice.
“The real difficulty, I think, is trying to justify those beliefs. In the case of Jesus, all we have is non-eyewitness accounts. Are there other instances where you would believe something supernatural occurred based solely on non-eyewitness accounts? I’m trying to figure out whether you’ve given Jesus a special pass and have perhaps lowered your standards for accepting something as true.”
I am open to other supernatural claims, but am generally slightly sceptical unless there is good documentation. But saying “non-eyewitness accounts” isn’t really correct about Jesus. The stories the historians accept are indeed eyewitness accounts (where else would they have come from?), just transmitted orally for about 40 years. In those days, that was a reliable method of passing on the main points of the stories, though they were allowed to be creative in some of the minor details. (All this has been fairly well documented now.) So they weren’t all finally written down by eyewitnesses (though some of the stories probably were), but they were still eyewitness stories.
You are right, I’d probably want better reports today, because (1) we live in an information age, and (2) there are so many uncorroborated stories. But the gospels stories are multiply attested, and caused such a great change in history and the lives of those individuals, that that gives them a different sort of credence. But again, it comes down to probabilities. If the christian explanation is the most probable, and I think it is for the reasons I’ve given, then why would I go with a less probable explanation?
“I would be okay with lowering my standards just for the sake of trying something out. But there would need to be some kind of additional evidence to confirm that I had made the right choice otherwise I’d have to abandon it. I think we do this in science and perhaps our careers and even trying to find our way out of the woods (to use your examples).”
Most christians feel their experience of God in daily life is very real and convincing. I’m a bit of a spiritual insensitive, so I can’t say that honestly. But what I can say is that my life since believing confirms my belief in a lower key way and is consistent with it. Others, such as Nate, presumably wouldn’t say even that, so everyone is different. I can only say how it is for me.
Thanks again. Sorry this was so long, but there was a lot of meat in your last comment.
And if Jesus’ alleged miracles don’t persuade people to believe, Christians next appeal to the alleged fulfillment of OT prophecies by Jesus. How many times, dear skeptic friends, have you been told the following by a Christian:
“You, Mr. or Ms. Skeptic, are creating your own interpretation of the Bible from the English translation. To understand the Bible correctly, you must go to the original texts in the original languages of Greek and Hebrew to know what the authors were really saying. You are not a Hebrew or Greek scholar. We Christians have many, many highly educated Greek and Hebrew Bible scholars. How dare you challenge the overwhelming majority of Bible scholars who say that Jesus DID fulfill OT prophecies.”
Ok. True enough. I am not a Greek or Hebrew Bible scholar. I don’t speak a word of either language. But in regards to the Hebrew OT, I know a group of people who should know the meaning of Hebrew, and of Jewish history, much better than any evangelical Hebrew scholar, sitting in some Southern Baptist university in Chattanooga: the Jews!
Let’s see what the REAL experts in Hebrew say about the alleged Jesus messiah prophecies in the OT. Again, from the Jewish website Aish.com:
Mistranslated Verses “Referring” to Jesus
Biblical verses can only be understood by studying the original Hebrew text ― which reveals many discrepancies in the Christian translation.
A. Virgin Birth
The Christian idea of a virgin birth is derived from the verse in Isaiah 7:14 describing an “alma” as giving birth. The word “alma” has always meant a young woman, but Christian theologians came centuries later and translated it as “virgin.” This accords Jesus’ birth with the first century pagan idea of mortals being impregnated by gods.
B. Suffering Servant
Christianity claims that Isaiah chapter 53 refers to Jesus, as the “suffering servant.”
In actuality, Isaiah 53 directly follows the theme of chapter 52, describing the exile and redemption of the Jewish people. The prophecies are written in the singular form because the Jews (“Israel”) are regarded as one unit. Throughout Jewish scripture, Israel is repeatedly called, in the singular, the “Servant of God” (see Isaiah 43:8). In fact, Isaiah states no less than 11 times in the chapters prior to 53 that the Servant of God is Israel.
When read correctly, Isaiah 53 clearly [and ironically] refers to the Jewish people being “bruised, crushed and as sheep brought to slaughter” at the hands of the nations of the world. These descriptions are used throughout Jewish scripture to graphically describe the suffering of the Jewish people (see Psalm 44).
Isaiah 53 concludes that when the Jewish people are redeemed, the nations will recognize and accept responsibility for the inordinate suffering and death of the Jews.
Ok, so according to the Old Testament, the Holy Word of God, miracles do not prove that Jesus was the messiah or God. And, the messianic prophecies of the “Suffering Servant” and the “Virgin Birth” are inventions by early Christians. That isn’t just the opinion of liberals and atheists, that is the opinion of Jews. Any fair minded person can see that neither passage is saying what Christians say they do, so what is left as evidence that Christianity is the one, true Faith?
Answer: “Most christians feel their experience of God in daily life is very real and convincing. I’m a bit of a spiritual insensitive, so I can’t say that honestly. But what I can say is that my life since believing confirms my belief in a lower key way and is consistent with it.”
Yes, those warm, fuzzy feelings! (Cue the elevator music…or, “Just as I Am”, will do too)
“I feel so at peace, secure, and all goose-bumpy when I pray to Jesus, so it just can’t be imaginary! And I remember that time when I prayed and asked Jesus to heal me of my sinus infection…and he did…so that is overwhelming proof, to me (and it should to any other reasonable person who isn’t a God-hating, hell-bound, conscience-seared atheist), that Jesus is the Almighty Ruler of the Universe!”
Finding Truth 
All good things must come to an end (well most of them!). 🙂
LikeLike
while faith is used in regard to people and in god(s) and whatever else, there are differences, clearly.
it is not the same to hold a faith in a god, whom you only know based on what a few people claimed about god in ancients books and letters, as it is to have faith in a person whom you know intimately.
now, if a person never really met his wife, or had seen her, and never really spoke with her, then i can see where that is the same type of faith as it takes to believe in a god… except that even then we have seen other wives and women (presumably).
faith in people we know and faith in god, or imaginary beings, is something else.
this is really a simple and basic concept.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“So I think there is enough evidence to say that christianity is more likely to be true than not true. In that case, and granted one can pull out at any time, I can’t see why anyone would think they needed more evidence – it just being more probable is enough.”
UnkleE continues to repeat his mantra that “the majority of scholars” agree with his position that the NT is historically reliable, but this is a ruse. The majority of “scholars” may believe that Jesus existed and that there was an empty tomb…but so what! The issue in question is the Resurrection, and I challenge UnkleE or any other Christian to demonstrate that the majority of historians, archeologists, etc. believe that a dead first century Jewish prophet was reaninmated by an ancient Canaanite god!
They can’t!
The evidence for this supernatural claim is based solely on assumptions and hearsay. There is no eyewitness testimony! Was Mark in the garden that day watching the women approach the tomb? No. Was Matthew, Luke, or John in the garden that day watching the women arrive to the tomb; the angels rolling the stone away; and the guards fainting? No. Was Matthew present in the Sanhedrin’s chamber when the Roman guards reported the body missing? Preposterous.
There were no eyewitnesses!
If the empty tomb story were true, don’t you think that Christians would have written down its exact location; marked it as a place of honor and pilgrimage? But none of the “eyewitnesses” ever writes down the exact location of the tomb or mentions that Christians come to pray at this holy site…”to this day”. That’s a problem, folks!
It is a silly story that any sixth grader can see is supernatural nonsense. Those of us who have been brainwashed to believe this story…because it warms our cockles, and gives us hope regarding our fear of death and the beyond…need to wake up and see the truth.
LikeLiked by 2 people
G’day to you too UnkleE,
So I take it you do not consider divine revelation something to be considered as evidence for Christianity. Again, this was drilled into me for so many years it’s hard to imagine, but I’m trying to see your perspective. I used to believe it was part of the core evidence. I also used to believe in special creation. Then I realized how, sadly, so much of what I believed was based on indoctrination. Coming down from that level of confidence and “evidence” can really shake you up. So perhaps that might be why I am less willing to put my trust in something that is only based on non-eyewitness accounts. Actually, I’m frequently skeptical of even eyewitness accounts for that matter.
Yeah, I do this too. Nothing’s ever for certain, but if both sides can agree on something it’s probably worth accepting. I accept that Jesus existed, was known for his teachings, was known for “healings”, was crucified by the Romans and was later believed to be “alive” in some sense by his followers. I don’t see this as needing any supernatural explanations.
It sounds like you’re saying we don’t need as high of a standard because we can just try it out. A worldview is not so easy to try out. If this were true, people would be trying out all kinds of religions just to see how they pan out. But I think we base our worldviews on what we actually believe is true and this is difficult to change. The real difficulty, I think, is trying to justify those beliefs. In the case of Jesus, all we have is non-eyewitness accounts. Are there other instances where you would believe something supernatural occurred based solely on non-eyewitness accounts? I’m trying to figure out whether you’ve given Jesus a special pass and have perhaps lowered your standards for accepting something as true.
I would be okay with lowering my standards just for the sake of trying something out. But there would need to be some kind of additional evidence to confirm that I had made the right choice otherwise I’d have to abandon it. I think we do this in science and perhaps our careers and even trying to find our way out of the woods (to use your examples).
LikeLiked by 2 people
As the resurrection of the character Jesus of Nazareth is the one claim that Christianity is considered the major claim upon which Christianity is founded upon, apologists have devoted the larger part of their ministry to establishing the argumentative means to create a plausible scenario that will arrive at a presuppositional answer while giving an appearance of scholarly credibility.
There is an element of irony and a major dollop of hypocrisy that a a rank apologist such as Licona would state in his 2010 book that the resurrection of the saints as recorded in ”Matthew” must not be taken literally yet the resurrection of the character, Jesus of Nazareth must be considered an historical reality; a situation which (assuming Licona is not suffering from any recognised mental illness) clearly illustrates the man’s own self-doubt, and a weak attempt at trying to establish some credibility outside the apologetic ranks. An attempt that back-fired, as anyone who knows the story will attest.
Unklee uses a not dissimilar approach.
I have stated before and will state again, unklee is simply playing a game.
To him, it is merely a pissing contest, and his smug self-effacing style is aimed at demeaning rather than enlightening and teaching.
He considers the frustration of his ”adversaries” a victory, a characteristic notable by his continual demand that ”we” should accept the view point of ‘his’ experts.
His approach is presuppositional, lacks any sense of genuine integrity and has no more intellectual worth than has a Young Earth Creationist.
He is now ”entertaining” himself with Dave, who, I might add, is doing a very good job of exposing unklee for what he truly is.
As Gary notes above, the Unklee Mantra comes to the fore time and again, which suggests a fairly high level of indoctrination, one that is maintained by continuing to argue in this fashion.
Faith cannot be argued against. Because there is nothing that proves otherwise.There is always an answer: god works in mysterious ways.
If you can’t relate to his invisible friend then this is your problem – not his.
If one were to remove the New Testament from the equation there would be nothing of the character Jesus of Nazareth to contend with.
Thus, all his experts would simply look very silly. So in effect, all the arguments are over a text. A text that has nothing outside its pages to back it.
However, what was unthinkable 50 years ago, is now not only in the public domain but also in the public conscience.
As Finkelstein and the minimalists have begun to unravel and undermine the foundational tenets of Judaism, reducing them to simple myth, so the new generation of scholars will do to Jesus of Nazareth and Christianity.
That the likes of unklee has been a Christian for over half a century does not diminish the falseness of his position.
But false though it may be, what unklee is actually saying is all the experts cannot possibly be wrong and the blog host has made a dreadful mistake by deconverting and is going to hell. Whether he like it or not.
That’s how sincere unklee is.
Something to think about, isn’t it?
LikeLike
right, scholars agreeing on, and being convinced that Jerusalem was a real place, and that Pilot and jesus and herod and the Apostles were real people, does not, by extension, validate the supernatural claims that are attached to them.
just as it’s accepted by scholars that Tecumseh was a real person, and that Troy was a real place, yet the scholars do not believe the miracles or prophecies attributed to him or the gods involvement at that place.
again, simple concepts.
the majority of scholars are in agreement…. sure, what do the majority agree on? the miracles and divine intervention, or that places, people and certain non-supernatural events were more than likely real?
LikeLike
Dave & unkleE-
Just want to say I’m very much appreciating your conversation. Your exchanges are how I often hope all exchanges about beliefs and reasons for belief will unfold. Unfortunately, the hostility that is often evoked (on both sides) makes this very difficult. I’m glad to see there are at least a few people out there who can actually talk about what each other believe without insulting, belittling, and chastising each other.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Really Josh? After all this time you do not think that unklee is belittling and chastising? Smile …
How are those rose-tinted glasses holding up for you?
LikeLiked by 1 person
God exists after all … — unkleE
This pretty well sums it up. So long as a person believes this, no amount of “evidence” to the contrary will be accepted. Anything that smacks of non-existence will be explained away in the mind of the believer (using whatever means is necessary, including the opinion of “scholars”).
*****
If the empty tomb story were true, don’t you think that Christians would have written down its exact location; marked it as a place of honor and pilgrimage? — Gary
You can lay odds that the Catholic Church would have!
LikeLiked by 3 people
So if UnkleE and other Christians want to claim that there is “credible” evidence for the Resurrection, thereby, making it reasonable and rational for anyone to believe that this supernatural event occurred 2,000 years age. Will Christians then also admit that the evidence for the Mormon supernatural claim of Joseph Smith’s encounter with an angel of God is just as “credible” and just as “reasonable and rational” to believe?
In actuality, the Mormons have BETTER evidence than do Christians:
1. No one questions the historicity of Joseph Smith.
2. Joseph Smith lived less than 200 years ago. His life and deeds can be better studied than that of Jesus 2,000 years ago.
3. Mormons have 13 signed affidavits of KNOWN men who were willing to testify that they too saw the Golden Plates. These are TRUE eyewitnesses.
4. Three of the thirteen known men signed affidavits that they saw the angel!
In a court of law, this evidence would be much stronger than the evidence that Christians use to support their supernatural claim.
I know that Christians will respond that they know that the Mormon claims are false because the Book of Mormon is not consistent with the Christian Bible. But this is the exact accusation that Jews make against Christianity: the Christian New Testament is not consistent with the Old Covenant which God said was everlasting. Christians will respond that the New Covenant supercedes the Old Covenant and that we know this by God’s supernatural act of the Resurrection. But Mormons use the same argument, saying that we should accept the most recent revelation of God because of the supernatural appearance of God’s angel to Joseph Smith in upstate New York in 1830.
Christians can say that the angel Moroni got his Golden Plates mixed up, but based on their own standard of evidence for supernatural claims, they must believe that an angel of God really did appear to Joseph Smith, or admit their standard for supernatural evidence only pertains to their own supernatural claims, not that of anyone else.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Didn’t Constantine’s mum, Helena find it?
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Didn’t Constantine’s mum, Helena find it (the tomb of Jesus)?
Helena went to Jerusalem to find the evidence for Jesus, but that was almost 300 years after the alleged burial. Does she give evidence for choosing a tomb?
Why didn’t any of the Gospel writers tell us the exact location of the tomb? Why don’t the Gospel writers tell us that “to this day” (the time of the writing of that particular gospel, 65-90 AD) Christians regularly go to the empty tomb to pray and use the empty tomb as a means of converting non-believers: “See, this is the grave in which Jesus was laid and from which he rose from the dead. Look. No body.” But no Christian writer, whether in the canonical books of the NT, or in non-canonical writings ever mentions that Christians knew where the empty tomb is located!
If the most incredible event ever recorded in history happens in your town, wouldn’t you mark that location as a landmark? And if that location is associated with the cornerstone event in your religion, wouldn’t you mark that spot and make sure that every other believer (and non-believer) knew of its location, and continued to know its location for all time??
But no one apparently did.
Something’s wrong, Christians. Your story is full of gaping holes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mores the point, Gary, why didn’t anyone give a physical description of Jesus?
LikeLiked by 2 people
You are absolutely, correct, John.
Nowhere in the Bible does anyone give any reference to a physical description of Jesus. Was he tall/short, thin/overweight, goodlooking/unattractive, etc. etc. We supposedly have four eyewitnesses but none of them tell us what Jesus looked like. And Paul never describes Jesus either, but since all he saw was a talking bright light, that shouldn’t surprise us.
LikeLiked by 2 people
die hard believers will just say the place wasnt identified because god didnt want people assigning holy significance to place or person or painting, being too much like idolatry.
but these excuses do not prove the bible, as many often pretend.
like gary has pointed out quite well, there are numerous natural (non-supernatural) explanations for why the tomb was empty (if Jesus was even buried, as Romans typically left the crucified to rot on their crosses).
there just isnt any good reason believe these outlandish claims, by these human authors. the majority of scholars think that there was no global flood, there was no exodus, and that the earth wasnt created or formed the way a literal reading genesis 1 reads.
the bible isnt trustworthy, and we wouldnt buy a claim that a virgin had a baby if it came from anyone or anywhere else…
I mean, this is what the children’s parable of the “Emperor’s New Clothes” was written for.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mormons have paintings of Joseph Smith and detailed accounts of his physical appearance! So again, Mormonism has better evidence than Christianity. Will UnkleE, Josh, or Brandon please admit that Mormonism has evidence for their supernatural claim that equals if not exceeds the quality of evidence for Christianity’s central supernatural claim?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Er …. in actual fact.There were one or tow more …
There were 5000 witnesses who were fed, then a further 4000,
Pilate and his wife saw him,
Herod saw him
Lazarus saw him
The Sanhedrin saw him
Ananias saw him
500 plus after the reserection saw him
His mum saw him
His dad saw him
His brothers and sisters saw him
Mary Magdalene saw him
And the hits just keep on coming.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I have already demonstrated that Mormons have just as credible, if not more credible, evidence for their supernatural claim as do Christians their supernatural claim. But what about other religions? If other religions have equally credible, if not more credible, evidence that THEIR god or gods can perform miracles, shouldn’t we believe that there are multiple gods, not just one god as Christians claim, and shouldn’t we honor these gods as equal to the Christian god??
The Hindus state that on one day in 1995, multiple Hindu idols/gods started drinking milk from spoons offered to them…AND THEY HAVE VIDEO PROOF! Christians don’t even have a physical description for their supernatural claim, but Hindus have video! Will UnkleE, Josh, and Brandon admit, therefore, that the supernatural claims of Hinduism are just as credible, if not MUCH more credible, than the Christian evidence?
I will post a video of the Hindu evidence below. You will see the milk literally disappear from the spoons! OMG! It’s a miracle! Let’s all start praying to Lord Krishna!
LikeLiked by 1 person
LikeLiked by 1 person
i can drink milk from a spoon.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hi, Nate,
A mutual friend reminded me that I haven’t visited your site in a long while. Anyway, I read through your “Frustrated” post and was struck by how deeply your words rang true in my own experience. You may not have the time to even get to my comment (which I totally understand), but I thought I’d go ahead and chime in – on a whim.
First, let me just say that I skip the blood pressure medication and just head straight for the whiskey these days. Seems to be working… 😉
Second, something Rob Bell said recently really helped me (well, a lot of somethings he said have really helped me, but this one sort of applies to your frustration as well as mine, I think). For a long time after walking away from traditional evangelical theology, I would get bummed out, angry, frustrated, and a whole other gamut of emotions at the lack of communication anyone in that paradigm was willing to have on things they say their lives are hung on. I couldn’t understand why they didn’t want to at least discuss the problems we were having with their beliefs. At times I became enraged at the church leaders who kept people in the dark, unable to think for themselves, by continuing to preach guilt and fear. Other times I felt like the sheep enjoyed their lemming status – just being spoon fed a bunch of nonsense that left them with no responsibility to think things through. But then Rob said something that finally brought me peace:
Whatever someone else is doing, it’s working for them. Huh.
Suddenly the burden to deliver everyone from the diabolical control of the religion of christianity fell squarely OFF of my shoulders! It was a great feeling to finally come to know that it wasn’t my job to convince the sheep they needed to wake up and think. In fact, only the individual can ever come to the place where they wake up – no one else can do that for them. All I can ever do is BE. Be the best me I can be, in fact, is my only calling.
That said, I think the above paragraph is why I have not felt the need to become embroiled in the debates you so graciously host on your site. I have come to believe that not only is it not my responsibility to convince anyone of anything – I actually CANNOT do so. Working to that end just lumps me in the camp that has an agenda for relationships (the very thing that made me so angry at evangelicals who only make friends of “unbelievers” in order to convert them). I have given up all agendas towards others (well, probably not ALL 😉 ) – let’s say, I’m working to give up all of my agendas – save love. It sounds like you are in that position with your family now, as well. Since only love signifies, I’m glad for both of us. Sighing helps, but only if it’s a letting go of the goal to change someone else. We literally do not have that power. What they are doing works for them – for now. I don’t think it will continue to do so forever. People are waking up in droves and it’s going to continue to increase.
So, while I do believe there is a place for this type of debate forum, I no longer feel the need to participate in the ‘arguments’. I’m not going to convince anyone who is not already waking up, so my words just become so much empty wind.
Well, that was longer than I had intended. Thanks for letting me share my thoughts here, Nate.
I hope the best for you and your family on your continuing journey into truth,
C
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ask Christians how they know that Jesus was who he claimed he was and they will say: Miracles! Miracles! Miracles! Especially his greatest miracle—rising from the dead. But do Christians know that Jews have NEVER considered the performance of miracles as a sign of a true prophet or of a true revelation from God?
From Aish.com, a Jewish website:
Jewish Belief is Based Solely on National Revelation
Throughout history, thousands of religions have been started by individuals, attempting to convince people that he or she is God’s true prophet. But personal revelation is an extremely weak basis for a religion because one can never know if it is indeed true. Since others did not hear God speak to this person, they have to take his word for it. Even if the individual claiming personal revelation performs miracles, they do not prove he is a genuine prophet. All the miracles show ― assuming they are genuine ― is that he has certain powers. It has nothing to do with his claim of prophecy.
Judaism, unique among all of the world’s major religions, does not rely on “claims of miracles” as the basis for its religion. In fact, the Bible says that God sometimes grants the power of “miracles” to charlatans, in order to test Jewish loyalty to the Torah (Deut. 13:4).
Of the thousands of religions in human history, only Judaism bases its belief on national revelation ― i.e. God speaking to the entire nation. If God is going to start a religion, it makes sense He’ll tell everyone, not just one person.
Maimonides states (Foundations of Torah, ch. 8):
The Jews did not believe in Moses, our teacher, because of the miracles he performed. Whenever anyone’s belief is based on seeing miracles, he has lingering doubts, because it is possible the miracles were performed through magic or sorcery. All of the miracles performed by Moses in the desert were because they were necessary, and not as proof of his prophecy.
What then was the basis of [Jewish] belief? The Revelation at Mount Sinai, which we saw with our own eyes and heard with our own ears, not dependent on the testimony of others… as it says, “Face to face, God spoke with you…” The Torah also states: “God did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us ― who are all here alive today.” (Deut. 5:3)
Judaism is not miracles. It is the personal eyewitness experience of every man, woman and child, standing at Mount Sinai 3,300 years ago.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Dave, thanks again for your thoughts.
“So I take it you do not consider divine revelation something to be considered as evidence for Christianity. Again, this was drilled into me for so many years it’s hard to imagine, but I’m trying to see your perspective.”
I can understand how you are finding this. In philosophy (epistemology), there are two basic ways we can know things. Foundationalism builds all our belief on a basic foundation (e.g. “I think, therefore I am”, or “I will assume my senses give me true information”), while coherentism denies there are any basic beliefs, and truth is known by beliefs which all cohere into a workable and realistic whole. I think most people intuitively think of foundationalism, but consistency of belief is important too.
If we are foundationalists, we cannot build our beliefs on divine revelation unless either (1) we can believe that revelation is properly basic, or (2) we build that belief in revelation on some other foundation that is basic. I can’t see how we can assume (1) without begging the question, so I think (2) is the way to go. So the basic foundation of my belief is evidence (I guess assuming our senses give us true information) and on the basis of that evidence I believe in Jesus and in God, and on that basis I believe the scriptures are inspired, but I define what I mean by that from the evidence.
If we are coherentists, we choose what beliefs hold together the best. We still wouldn’t start with divine revelation, because coherentism doesn’t start with anything, but we might consider that divine revelation fits into the whole better than any other belief.
I dunno if that makes things clearer or muddier! 🙂
“Yeah, I do this too. Nothing’s ever for certain, but if both sides can agree on something it’s probably worth accepting. I accept that Jesus existed, was known for his teachings, was known for “healings”, was crucified by the Romans and was later believed to be “alive” in some sense by his followers. I don’t see this as needing any supernatural explanations.”
It clearly doesn’t need any supernatural explanation, in the sense that one can believe in those things without supernatural explanation, as many scholars do. But the question (I think) is whether the supernatural explanation fits better. Many people assume it does or it doesn’t, but not many attempt to demonstrate that. NT Wright is one historian who has attempted to demonstrate that NT history makes more sense if interpreted christianly.
My thinking goes like this. Here is a man who we can believe certain things about him and his teachings are historically true. Was he telling the truth? Were his biographers telling the truth? The main barrier to belief is our natural scepticism against the supernatural. But if God exists, and if we think Jesus seems truthful, then it isn’t difficult to believe he did miracles, really was resurrected and was indeed God;s son (whatever that actually means). So is there corroborating evidence that God exists?
We have philosophy and science asking questions about the origin and fine-tuned design of the universe, which (in my view) theism answers better than atheism (which doesn’t really have answers yet to those questions). We have humanity, which we almost all can’t help believing has free will, a true moral sense, reliable cognitive faculties and we are truly conscious of ourselves as individuals, all things that theism can explain but atheism struggles to explain, and in many cases is now denying the reality of. Then we have individual human experience – divine healings, visions, and other experiences of God, a few of which are well documented and are increasingly being examined scientifically.
All those things point (to me) to the God Jesus taught about actually existing. The only significant argument I find against that conclusion is the great evil and suffering in the world, much of which is explained by human choices, but ultimately God (if he exists and created the universe) must take some responsibility for. But we can only judge the world as evil if we have an objective moral standard, and only God can (IMO) guarantee that, so that blunts the argument a little.
We each decide for ourselves how the evidence balances out, but I find it quite convincing. And so my belief in Jesus is confirmed.
“It sounds like you’re saying we don’t need as high of a standard because we can just try it out. A worldview is not so easy to try out. If this were true, people would be trying out all kinds of religions just to see how they pan out. But I think we base our worldviews on what we actually believe is true and this is difficult to change.”
Yes, I agree we can’t just try out belief without believing in it. My comment was based on the question of how much evidence we need. If we think the evidence we have points to Jesus being probably true (i.e. at least better than 50% probability) but we think the evidence isn’t yet sufficient to make a decision, then I think giving it a try is honest and sensible. I wouldn’t suggest suddenly throwing oneself into becoming a priest or anything, that wouldn’t be honest, but I think one could reasonably start to try living a little more according to Jesus’ teachings (probably wouldn’t do anyone any harm!) and praying and asking God to confirm one’s tentative choice.
“The real difficulty, I think, is trying to justify those beliefs. In the case of Jesus, all we have is non-eyewitness accounts. Are there other instances where you would believe something supernatural occurred based solely on non-eyewitness accounts? I’m trying to figure out whether you’ve given Jesus a special pass and have perhaps lowered your standards for accepting something as true.”
I am open to other supernatural claims, but am generally slightly sceptical unless there is good documentation. But saying “non-eyewitness accounts” isn’t really correct about Jesus. The stories the historians accept are indeed eyewitness accounts (where else would they have come from?), just transmitted orally for about 40 years. In those days, that was a reliable method of passing on the main points of the stories, though they were allowed to be creative in some of the minor details. (All this has been fairly well documented now.) So they weren’t all finally written down by eyewitnesses (though some of the stories probably were), but they were still eyewitness stories.
You are right, I’d probably want better reports today, because (1) we live in an information age, and (2) there are so many uncorroborated stories. But the gospels stories are multiply attested, and caused such a great change in history and the lives of those individuals, that that gives them a different sort of credence. But again, it comes down to probabilities. If the christian explanation is the most probable, and I think it is for the reasons I’ve given, then why would I go with a less probable explanation?
“I would be okay with lowering my standards just for the sake of trying something out. But there would need to be some kind of additional evidence to confirm that I had made the right choice otherwise I’d have to abandon it. I think we do this in science and perhaps our careers and even trying to find our way out of the woods (to use your examples).”
Most christians feel their experience of God in daily life is very real and convincing. I’m a bit of a spiritual insensitive, so I can’t say that honestly. But what I can say is that my life since believing confirms my belief in a lower key way and is consistent with it. Others, such as Nate, presumably wouldn’t say even that, so everyone is different. I can only say how it is for me.
Thanks again. Sorry this was so long, but there was a lot of meat in your last comment.
LikeLike
And if Jesus’ alleged miracles don’t persuade people to believe, Christians next appeal to the alleged fulfillment of OT prophecies by Jesus. How many times, dear skeptic friends, have you been told the following by a Christian:
“You, Mr. or Ms. Skeptic, are creating your own interpretation of the Bible from the English translation. To understand the Bible correctly, you must go to the original texts in the original languages of Greek and Hebrew to know what the authors were really saying. You are not a Hebrew or Greek scholar. We Christians have many, many highly educated Greek and Hebrew Bible scholars. How dare you challenge the overwhelming majority of Bible scholars who say that Jesus DID fulfill OT prophecies.”
Ok. True enough. I am not a Greek or Hebrew Bible scholar. I don’t speak a word of either language. But in regards to the Hebrew OT, I know a group of people who should know the meaning of Hebrew, and of Jewish history, much better than any evangelical Hebrew scholar, sitting in some Southern Baptist university in Chattanooga: the Jews!
Let’s see what the REAL experts in Hebrew say about the alleged Jesus messiah prophecies in the OT. Again, from the Jewish website Aish.com:
Mistranslated Verses “Referring” to Jesus
Biblical verses can only be understood by studying the original Hebrew text ― which reveals many discrepancies in the Christian translation.
A. Virgin Birth
The Christian idea of a virgin birth is derived from the verse in Isaiah 7:14 describing an “alma” as giving birth. The word “alma” has always meant a young woman, but Christian theologians came centuries later and translated it as “virgin.” This accords Jesus’ birth with the first century pagan idea of mortals being impregnated by gods.
B. Suffering Servant
Christianity claims that Isaiah chapter 53 refers to Jesus, as the “suffering servant.”
In actuality, Isaiah 53 directly follows the theme of chapter 52, describing the exile and redemption of the Jewish people. The prophecies are written in the singular form because the Jews (“Israel”) are regarded as one unit. Throughout Jewish scripture, Israel is repeatedly called, in the singular, the “Servant of God” (see Isaiah 43:8). In fact, Isaiah states no less than 11 times in the chapters prior to 53 that the Servant of God is Israel.
When read correctly, Isaiah 53 clearly [and ironically] refers to the Jewish people being “bruised, crushed and as sheep brought to slaughter” at the hands of the nations of the world. These descriptions are used throughout Jewish scripture to graphically describe the suffering of the Jewish people (see Psalm 44).
Isaiah 53 concludes that when the Jewish people are redeemed, the nations will recognize and accept responsibility for the inordinate suffering and death of the Jews.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ok, so according to the Old Testament, the Holy Word of God, miracles do not prove that Jesus was the messiah or God. And, the messianic prophecies of the “Suffering Servant” and the “Virgin Birth” are inventions by early Christians. That isn’t just the opinion of liberals and atheists, that is the opinion of Jews. Any fair minded person can see that neither passage is saying what Christians say they do, so what is left as evidence that Christianity is the one, true Faith?
Answer: “Most christians feel their experience of God in daily life is very real and convincing. I’m a bit of a spiritual insensitive, so I can’t say that honestly. But what I can say is that my life since believing confirms my belief in a lower key way and is consistent with it.”
Yes, those warm, fuzzy feelings! (Cue the elevator music…or, “Just as I Am”, will do too)
“I feel so at peace, secure, and all goose-bumpy when I pray to Jesus, so it just can’t be imaginary! And I remember that time when I prayed and asked Jesus to heal me of my sinus infection…and he did…so that is overwhelming proof, to me (and it should to any other reasonable person who isn’t a God-hating, hell-bound, conscience-seared atheist), that Jesus is the Almighty Ruler of the Universe!”
LikeLiked by 1 person