Board index ‹ Christianity

[Newbie]

I'm wondering what you have to say. I think it'd be nice to get a simple summary of arguments or evidences that are commonly convincing to believers! Thanks!

[jimwalton]

1. The persisting existence of the Jewish people as a people and as a nation. Almost all of the ancient, identifiable people groups have disappeared from history (Assyrians, Babylonians, Sumerians, Edomites, Hittites, Philistines, Ammonites, etc.). Despite being conquered and dispersed, having no homeland for thousands of years, and with concerted attempts to eradicate them from the globe, they continue on. It's evidence (certainly not proof) that God, as portrayed in the Bible, is acting exactly as he said he would: teaching, disciplining, preserving, etc.

2. The radical change of Jewish stalwarts of the 1st c. to a dedicated group of Christians who no longer follow the law, do sacrifices, or recognize the temple. For so many, who were so dedicated to their stringent faith, to so radically depart en masse betrays that they were unreservedly convinced that a man actually came back from the dead and changed all religion and history forever.

3. The way the lives of people who become Christians are changed is radically different from converts to other religions. Other religious recruits don new duds and take on some new habits to conform to their new faith, but people who turn to Christ speak of "loads of life being lifted," of entirely new demeanors and personalities overcoming them, of miraculous changes in life (give up alcohol, are done with drugs, etc.), of radical life-change in attitude and behavior. Other religious converts speak of changes, but the testimonies of Christians seem in a whole different league to me.

4. What I see happen in my own life. My faith causes thoughts and behaviors that I would clearly say are not mine. I know that many will claim it's the same for any other religion, or even non-religion. I've read of many atheists who speak of freedom, clarity of thought, and behavior changes when they walked away from the church. Muslims, Hindus, and all speak of how their faith changes their lives. With this "evidence" I am not claiming uniqueness, only an effective evidence for me.

5. The historical, bodily resurrection of Jesus. Several years ago I went through a severe life crisis and was very close to walking away from Christianity. But I just couldn't get around the resurrection. The evidence is convincing: empty tomb (couldn't have been graverobbed or mistaken), lives changed on claims of having seen Jesus (couldn't have been hallucinations), church born in a very unlikely place (Jewish Palestine), and others.

6. The sensibleness of the Bible. It's a literary treasure of God revealing himself, amply filled with wisdom, life guidance, harmony of theme and thought, speaking to real life, and addressing the human condition with honesty and hope. I believe it's inspired by God. My deep study of it turns up gem after gem.

OK, so I wrote six.

I'll close with a quote from C.S. Lewis: "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." Christianity makes sense in itself, and it has the ability to makes sense of everything else as well.

[Diamond Girl]

Your proof #1: This a proof for the truth in the OT regarding the Jewish people, not Jesus.

Your proof #2: How many were there? How dedicated were they? How different was early Christianity from Judasim? From what I know, the answers are few, not very, and little.

Your proof #3: I have never seen Christian conversion stories as any different from other ones. Care to quote?

Your proof #4: Ok, so not proof of Jesus, but of faith in general.

Your proof #5: I don't understand—what is so great about the resurrection? God might have brought someone back from the dead. It's happened before. What's special about this? Plus, unlike any of the other recorded miracles, these visitations are all private or in very small groups, which leads one to question the authenticity. If you want to discuss this further, you can also refer to the thread that I made here a couple days ago.

Your proof #6: How do you reconcile the changes between the OT and NT? Plus, I can say this about just the OT and make the same claim.

So I count 3.5 proofs now, two of them unsupported and two ambiguous. Not that numbers really matters to me, but care to respond?

[jimwalton]

Sure. I'd love to. Thanks for a considerate reply.

1. Christianity is written of as the fulfillment of the old covenant (Mt. 5.17), and in that sense the church is the new "Israel". The point in indicating the survival of the Jews is to call attention to the (evidential) reality of God in calling a people for himself and preserving them where other peoples were not preserved. To me it's an evidence of the nature of God as revealed in the Bible, one who calls out a nation, fulfills his promises and prophecies, preserves a remnant, and continues to uphold his people. Since Christians worship the same God (YHWH), it is evidence (certainly not proof) that God, as portrayed in the Bible, is who he said he is, and Christianity is what it claims to be.

2. According to Acts 2.41, there were 3000 that particular day. According to Acts 2.47, there were more added every day. According to Acts 4.4, they were shortly up to 5000. According to history, Christianity spread fairly rapidly in Europe, Africa, and Asia in the 1st and 2nd centuries.

How dedicated were they? The NT books written by Paul (as well as Rev. 2-3) reveal that they had a lot of problems, misunderstandings, and struggles. We know about the persecutions under Nero and subsequent Roman emperors. The church grew in both organization, theology, and numbers. How dedicated they were is subjective.

How different was early Christianity from Judaism? A reading of Acts, Romans, and Galatians would let us know that it was different enough to create serious problems in the Jewish community. They could not accept Christianity as being close to Judaism, and the early Christians had to break away from many elements of Judaism to understand the theologies of salvation by grace, not being under the Law, and no need any more for sacrifices or the Jewish priesthood, the Trinity of God, and that the messiah had already come in the person of Jesus, and salvation was in him. It was a radical departure from Judaism.

3. I heard a story from a friend. Violent man. Drug runner. Drug addict. In trouble with the law. Greedy for money. One night trapped, broken, empty. Gave life to Jesus. It all ended, in a snap. Walked away from it all. Different man. Renewed. Truly changed. (Actually, I heard another guy give a very similar story). Another guy in despair, suicidal. Empty. Gave life to Jesus. Life turned around. I've seen it many times.

I also know some Christians who have converted to Islam. They change clothes, start to learn Arabic and the ways of Islam. Just a different religion. Not the same kind of life-change at all. By what I've seen. And I have many more stories.

4. But my faith is in Jesus. Christianity is not based in teaching, but in a person. It's not a religious practice, but a relationship with God. It's Jesus, not faith in general.

5. Sure, God brought people back from the dead before, but it's not something anyone else can do, so there's an evidence right there. What's so great about Jesus' resurrection? He predicted it, many times, as a particular resurrection, with specific meaning following a specific kind of death, to theologically and practically accomplish what no other life, death, or resurrection could accomplish. Jesus is unique in all of those elements.

The visitations were private, mostly. 1 Cor. 15.6 says at least one appearance was to a large group all at once. The question of authenticity is one that can be addressed, right, because any individual can say, "Oh, Jesus appeared to me." They could be attention-seekers, wackos, hallucinators, etc.

Any of the miracles in the NT during the time of Jesus fall into various categories for what purpose they addressed. When you read the resurrection accounts in the gospels, they fall into the category of encounters. Despite the material evidences (stone removed, empty tomb, linen cloths, etc.), the gospels throw the weight of evidence on encounters with individuals. What we see as the greatest evidences are the personal changes that resulted from personal encounters: skeptics became impassioned devotees, doubters became believers, frightened men became bold, working class guys gave incredible speeches of power, persuasion and pull. The resurrection was not just a historic event with some material evidences, but a life-changing, culture-changing encounter. To me, the birth of the church (especially in an unwavering Jewish religious culture) is one of the strongest evidences for its historicity as an event.

6. The changes between the OT and NT are a matter of preparation and fulfillment, of prophecy and filling up, of groundwork and building, of design and construction, and also of consistent flow. Some of the "rivers" that flow through all of Scripture (OT & NT) are the Eden problem (sin), the Babel problem (deity falsely construed), God's covenant, God's presence, redemption, and purpose out of chaos. There is a consistency, while at the same time a progression.

[BCRE8TVE]

1. Could this not be said of any surviving nation/ethnic group/entity that survived from the distant past?

2. > "For so many, who were so dedicated to their stringent faith, to so radically depart en masse"

Except that early Christianity consisted mainly of small groups of people, not some kind of mass exodus of Jewish believers throwing themselves at Christians to get converted. Christianity got much more popular once the rulers converted to it and started forcing it on their subjects.

3. You do realize that the same happens to just about anyone who is convinced enough of their new religion? This is far from being something unique to Christianity.

4. Fair enough. Personal experience is not something I can argue against, not having had one myself.

5. That is about as hotly contested a debate in history as it gets, you know. It's far from settled. The theological resurrection of Jesus? Sure, theologically, it's 100% sure that happened. Historically? That's a LOT less certain, and much harder to demonstrate.

> The evidence is convincing: empty tomb (couldn't have been graverobbed or mistaken)

We have 4 different accounts who don't agree with each other on this account. It's also at odds with Roman practices of either leaving corpses to hang on crosses until they need to be taken down for some other poor unfortunate sod to be tied up there, or they're taken down en masse before a cultural/religious event and thrown into a mass grave. Frankly, I don't think the case is all that solid that Jesus was actually buried in a personal grave rather than just dumped in a communal one.

> lives changed on claims of having seen Jesus (couldn't have been hallucinations),

The same claims have been made by people of other religions. Specifically, alcoholism and Islam come to mind. Does this validate their religions too?

> church born in a very unlikely place (Jewish Palestine), and others.

Jewish Palestine, home of many end-time prophets and religious fanatics? In a dangerous time when the Roman Empire was crumbling? In a corner of the world where most are uneducated and superstitious? Not all that unlikely at all, really.

6. "It's a literary treasure of God revealing himself, amply filled with wisdom, life guidance, harmony of theme and thought, speaking to real life, and addressing the human condition with honesty and hope. I believe it's inspired by God. My deep study of it turns up gem after gem."

You have found gem after gem, no doubt that you have been seeking them out. Have you ever tried finding things that are wrong with the bible? As some have said, finding gems in the bible can be like sifting through a pile of crap, especially the OT. Do you know what confirmation bias is, and why looking specifically for gems makes one especially vulnerable to it?

[jimwalton]

> Could this not be said of any surviving nation/ethnic group/entity?

That's my point: There are precious few of these. Certainly the people have survived, but not as a group. Where are the Moabites, the Assyrians, the Edomites, the Canaanites, and all the others? Of course there are probably descendants of the Babylonians in Iraq, but that's not what they call themselves, nor is there any particular cultural tie, language, or anything like that. They're ethnic Kurds. But Jews? That's a completely different, qualitative reality. Obviously, Egypt is another example. But there are very few.

> Except that early Christianity consisted mainly of small groups of people, not some kind of mass exodus of Jewish believers

According to Acts 2.41, there were 3000 that particular day. According to Acts 2.47, there were more added every day. According to Acts 4.4, they were shortly up to 5000. According to history, Christianity spread fairly rapidly in Europe, Africa, and Asia in the 1st and 2nd centuries. Christianity had spread far and wide long before Constantine in the late 300s.

> You do realize that the same happens to just about anyone who is convinced enough of their new religion? This is far from being something unique to Christianity.

You'll recall, if you care to reread it, that I said it's not unique, but it's still a piece of evidence.

> It's also at odds with Roman practices of either leaving corpses to hang on crosses until...

That's right, it is, and that's one of the things that makes for evidence. If he hung there for a few days, as was typical, there's no resurrection story less than 48 hours later.

If he wasn't buried in a personal grave, the "problem" of the Christians can be dealt with by producing a body. It's only been a matter of days; it would have been a simple solution to a growing cancer—but it didn't happen.

> The same claims have been made by people of other religions.

Now you have me confused. I was talking about people seeing Jesus after his resurrection. These claims are made by alcoholics and Muslims? We have a crossed wire in our conversation here, I think.

> Jewish Palestine, home of many end-time prophets and religious fanatics?

Exactly. Why does one stand out so? Why does one change the world, and the others fade into history, or practical anonymity? Something was different about Jesus, his life, death, and the claims of his resurrection. Qualitatively different.

Any of the miracles in the NT during the time of Jesus fall into various categories for what purpose they addressed. When you read the resurrection accounts in the gospels, they fall into the category of encounters. Despite the material evidences (stone removed, empty tomb, linen cloths, etc.), the gospels throw the weight of evidence on encounters with individuals. What we see as the greatest evidences are the personal changes that resulted from personal encounters: skeptics became impassioned devotees, doubters became believers, frightened men became bold, working class guys gave incredible speeches of power, persuasion and pull. The resurrection was not just a historic event with some material evidences, but a life-changing, culture-changing encounter. To me, the birth of the church (especially in an unwavering Jewish religious culture) is one of the strongest evidences for its historicity as an event.

> Have you ever tried finding things that are wrong with the bible?

Of course. And of course I know what confirmation bias is. Duh. But it's mistaken to think that every religious conviction is a result of confirmation bias.

[Corinthian]

> lives changed on claims of having seen Jesus (couldn't have been hallucinations)

Sorry, why couldn't it have been hallucinations? Or an imaginative memory?

As I understand it, Paul himself never mentioned the empty tomb or the bodily resurrection. If you just read the Gospel of Paul, you'd never know that Jesus allegedly rose from the dead. And it just so happens that Paul's Gospel is the earliest of all the Gospels.

Is it not possible that the idea of a bodily resurrection was invented some time between the writing of Paul's Gospel and the other writing of the other 3 Gospels?

[jimwalton]

There are no such things as group hallucinations. Hallucinations are an individual phenomenon. There are, however, group memories, but if there's a "group memory" of a resurrection of Jesus, all somebody has to do to debunk it is produce the body. Also, remember that his followers were not expecting a resurrection, and so the thought of many individual hallucinations, especially while they were gathered in the same place, isn't tenable.

> Paul himself never mentioned the empty tomb or the bodily resurrection.

Paul mentioned the bodily resurrection in 1 Cor. 15.4. The same body that was buried was raised again. The death was real and confirmed; the body was buried and witnessed, and the resurrection was bodily as well.

> Is it not possible that the idea of a bodily resurrection was invented some time between the writing of Paul's Gospel and the other writing of the other 3 Gospels?

Actually, that's not possible. The creed of 1 Cor. 15.3-7 has been proved to be extremely early, most likely in circulation by AD 35. Even Bart Erhman, who isn't exactly what anyone would call a naive believer, has placed this creed that early. Thus what you are speculating isn't possible.

[Laser Beam]

Your proof #1: Jewish people are not the only ones that have persisted over a long period of time

Your proof #2: That is not exclusive to christianity. Look at any extremists for example.

Your proof #3: Although i understand this is simply a reason you believe, and you state as much, nobody is going to accept this as evidence.

Your proof #4: Why could it have not been grave robbers or mistaken? What if it was the disciples or someone else obsessed with him? How can you base belief on an event that may not have even happened involving someone who may not have ever existed?

Your proof #5: The bible is, in my opinion, not sensible at all. For a few examples:

-kids call old man "baldy", god sends bears to maul 42 of them

- genesis: noahs arc

-jesus' miracles never left lasting evidence, and they were not that impressive (curing blindness? Science does that by the millions. Walking on water? Even if it happened, so what?)

And how about these "gems"?

1 Samuel 15:3: "This is what the Lord Almighty says ... 'Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.' "

Exodus 22:18: "Do not allow a sorceress to live." (The basis of many ordinary women being killed for no good reason, and also where witch hunting started. Sensible, you say?)

Psalm 123 "Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us / He who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." Great.

Ephesians 5:22, "Wives, submit to you husbands as to the Lord"; and similar advice for slaves in 1 Peter 2:18: "Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel." Dont give me the "different kind of slavery" crap

“So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight. When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. He said to her, ‘Get up; let’s go.’ But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home.” (Judges 19:25-28) another one of those gems you turned up?

In the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.” (Romans 1:27) homosexuality is an error now? Why did god make homosexuals in the first place then?

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” (1 Timothy 2:12) it wouldn't be bible quotes without more sexism.

Please, tell me those are sensible and divinely inspired phrases that explain god for you.

Sorry if i offended you with the quotes, but they are in your holy book.

[jimwalton]

Thanks for your reply. I'll do my best to respond without writing a wall of text.

1. I never asserted that Jews were the only people group to persist over a long period of time. The Egyptians would be another clear and obvious example. The Jews, however, are among a few. Besides, they lost their land roughly 2600 years ago, but they still exist as a people group. They were murdered, dispersed, exiled, but they still exist as a people group. Their city were leveled, their temple destroyed, and their religious icons stolen, but they still exist as a people group. As such, they stand in a very unique place.

2. It has happened with extremist groups, but that doesn't describe the early church. They were not taken to violence, and they didn't muster an army. They quietly lived their lives and preached a message, and people were converted by the thousands, eventually tens of thousands, on the basis of the message alone. No dreams of world domination, no calls to jihad, no persuasion by force. The early church is not sociologically like the way extremist groups function and grow.

3. It's evidence, but it's not unique. I went to the store yesterday. So did thousands of other people, but that doesn't mean there isn't evidence that I wasn't legitimately there.

4. Grave robbers? Accomplished by whom? If we're looking for reasonable perpetrators, the Romans wouldn't have done it. They wanted him dead. The Jews wouldn't have done it, they wanted him dead. The crowds wouldn't have done it, they called for his death, and they were cowards, as many are. There was an armed guard of unknown size (but professional) posted at the grave. The disciples would have done it. They were scared cowards hiding in back rooms. Who, in less than 48 hours, had the motive and the means to pull off a body heist from a rock tomb with only one entrance guarded by an armed force? It doesn't make any sense.

Mistaken tomb? That's easy. Go, "Hey, stupids, you went to the wrong tomb. Here's the body! Morons."

Someone that may have never existed? The consensus is strongly in the majority that Jesus was historical. "Most modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus). "...and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. ... There is a significant debate about his nature, his actions and his sayings, but most scholars agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was born between 7-4BC and died 30–36 AD,[13][14][15] that he lived in Galilee and Judea..."

> kids call old man "baldy", god sends bears to maul 42 of them

What we can accurately say is that a rather large "gang" (group) of smart-aleck adolescents decided to mock the new prophet as a way of berating God. Recognizing the blasphemy, he calls on God to teach them a lesson about the sacredness of his name. Two bears come out of the woods and tear into the group, scattering them in every direction. No doubt some are injured, and probably badly, but it doesn't say any died. Hopefully, though, the lesson was not lost on a blasphemous generation.

> genesis.

What about Genesis? What's the question?

> Noah's ark

What about Noah's ark? What's not sensible? I most decidedly do NOT believe in a global flood, but in a large, humonstrous local (continental?) flood, not unreasonable at all. We can talk about that more if you want.

> Jesus' miracles.

Not that impressive, huh? I guess, then, the burden of proof is on you to tell me about all the other people who walk on water, heal blind eyes without medicine or surgery, heal lame people by speaking to them, etc. It sounds impressive to me, and since I don't know anybody who can do things like that, it's meaningful. Walking on water may not mean so much by itself, except that in the OT God is said to be one who can walk on the water (Job 9.8; Ps. 77.20). In that sense it was a prophetic sign of his deity. (I'm just trying to deal with these things briefly.)

1 Sam. 15.3. What seems to be complete obliteration is a misunderstanding. Archaeologist have uncovered many such warfare tirades, and they are just typical warfare bravado of the day. They don't mean to wipe out the population, and that's not what was done. In this case (to prove it), the Amalekites remain (1 Sam. 27.8; 30.17-18). There is no intention of killing them all, no understanding that that was the command, and certainly no follow through on that account. The moral of the story is not to stop at a surface reading of these terms and assume God’s immorality.

Ex. 22.18. There is no reason to misunderstand this text as a way to kill ordinary women. Astrologers of the day in Israel were considered false prophets, deceivers, and dabblers with the demons. It's a distortion to wrench this text into witch-hunting poor innocent women. There's no foundation for an interpretation like that.

Ps. 123. You mean Ps. 137.9. The imagery is graphic to describe that Babylon will get the justice they deserve. It's not what God will literally do to them, but that by the horrors they have committed they will be punished eye for eye. The writer is borrowing imagery from prophetic descriptions of judgment to let them know that as they have sown they will also reap. Again, the moral of the story is not to stop at a surface reading of these terms and assume God’s immorality.

Eph. 5.22. You need to read more than just surface words. V. 21 says that all people (men and women) are to submit to one another. Then it says women are to submit to men, and that men are to sacrifice to the point of emptiness and death in their "submission" (v. 21) to the women. The Bible is literature, and you have to be fair to it or you twist and distort it into something that was never there.

1 Pet. 2.18: Copan comments, "Paul (and Peter) didn’t call for an uprising to overthrow slavery in Rome. They didn’t want the Christian faith to be perceived as opposed to social order and harmony. Hence, Christian slaves were told to do what was right, even if they were mistreated (1 Pet. 2.18-20; Eph. 6.5-9). Abraham Lincoln took the same approach. Though he despised slavery and talked freely about this degrading institution, his first priority was to hold the Union together rather than try to abolish slavery immediately."

Judges 19.25-28 was an atrocity, pure and simple. This was a horrific, disobedient, immoral act of barbarity. God doesn't command it, and God doesn't endorse it. As a matter of fact, the whole book of Judges could be summed up with the title, "When happens when people screw everything up."

Rom. 1.27. In the Bible, homosexuality has always been an error. According to the teachings of the Bible, God didn't make homosexuals, but their lifestyle choice is an act of rebellion against him.

1 Tim. 2.12. This teaching is clearly in the context of one church. In 1 Cor. 11, Paul permits women to pray and prophesy in public gatherings.

Please tell me that you are not judging God and the Bible on superficial readings and distorted misunderstandings of these texts. If you want to understand something, you have to seek to understand it and not just read it on the face of it. We are separated from these writings by 2000-3000 years, foreign cultures, and language differences. Have you ever read the original Beowulf? That's in English, but good luck just reading it on the surface. The Bible, as any work of literature, deserves the same treatment.