Sorry, Christians. Belief that a First Century Peasant is the Creator of the Universe is Irrational.

BEAUTIFUL JESUS CHRIST PORTRAIT POSTER PICTURE PHOTO PRINT mormon christian 3861

Christian apologists love to talk on and on and on about the rationality of belief in Intelligent Design.

So what!

I don’t question the rationality of belief in Intelligent Design (the existence of a Creator). Since cosmologists and other scientific experts have not reached a consensus on this issue, I do not see generic theism (deism) as irrational. But I what I do find irrational is belief that a first century peasant, a human being, is that Creator.

Come on, folks! Use your brains.

Christians will retort: “Millions of highly educated, very intelligent, scientists, lawyers, doctors, and engineers believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the Creator of the universe, so how can you say that such belief is irrational?”

That is a logical fallacy, my Christian friends!

Just because a lot of intelligent people believe the supernatural claims of the dominant religion in their culture does not make such belief rational.

I’m sure Christians would agree that just because millions of highly educated, very intelligent Muslim scientists, lawyers, doctors, and engineers believe that the prophet Mohammad flew on a winged horse into heaven (outer space) does not make that claim more believable or rational.

News alert: Human beings are not gods!

Human beings do not have supernatural powers. Stories about human beings performing supernatural acts like flying on winged horses, walking on water, or coming back from the dead are tall tales! They are stories. They are not real.

Think rationally, my Christian friends. Abandon your superstitions.

.

.

.

.

.

End of post.

72 thoughts on “Sorry, Christians. Belief that a First Century Peasant is the Creator of the Universe is Irrational.

  1. Gary, how did you conceptualize and explain things like the incarnation or the identity of God as trinity when you were still a Christian believer? Do you feel like you just accepted these things through blind indoctrination or is it something that you had grappled with before?

    Like

    1. –Not evaluating my religious beliefs using critical thinking skills.
      –Believing that the Gospels are eyewitness accounts.
      –Believing that eyewitness accounts of people claiming to have seen a walking, talking dead person is good evidence.

      Like

      1. I first began to grapple with all this when I was a child in Sunday School. I remember quite the discussion. But, as I grew older my thinking went in a different direction. I reasoned if there is a God who created our whole universe with such complexity from nothing, probably there are going to be things about His nature that are also at least in some measure beyond finite human understanding and that we can only begin to understand in part through metaphor and analogy. God entering into human life and suffering to share His life with us to you seems like irrational foolishness. But, to me and for other Christian believers it reflects the love and power of God. Yet, at the same time I fully acknowledge this is not something that anyone of us can fully understand or articulate in purely human terms. CS Lewis shared to use an analogy that it is akin to a person who has only lived in a two dimensional world able to fully explain and apprehend the reality of a third dimension. “For now we know in part…” This sounds like pure mumbo jumbo to most skeptics. For me, it all reflects deeper truth.

        Like

        1. This says it all, Becky … I first began to grapple with all this when I was a child in Sunday School.

          Had you never been exposed to the tenets and beliefs of Christianity, there would have been nothing for you to “grapple with.” THIS is the point that believers seem unable to understand (or don’t want to accept). There is nothing to “conceptualize and explain.”

          Liked by 1 person

          1. I’m not sure I understand, Nan. It seems natural to me for humans to engage with deeper spiritual/philosophical life questions. I think it’s all part of how we’re made. Are you feeling it’s a bad thing? I think it could be if connected with mindless fear based indoctrination, something like a cult. I’m glad that I had Sunday school teachers that were open to the discussion and debate. They didn’t try to shame us or pressure is to think a certain way or else…

            Like

            1. Becky, referencing what you wrote to Ark: when I was young and just the whole complexity of the universe and nature impacted me, that I became more open to the limits of the human mind as well and even more so to God.

              It all makes perfect sense and seems totally normal … UNTIL you close with “and even more so to God.” This is the point I keep returning to. -IF- there is no exposure to “God” (along with all that “He” stands for), then there is no belief in same.

              But as we all know, this is not the way of the Christian world. No … introducing “God” in whatever means possible and as early as possible is the ultimate goal because once the belief (and the fear of non-belief) becomes part of the individual’s worldview, it’s next to impossible to remove it.

              Yes, there is a natural tendency for humans to engage with deeper spiritual/philosophical life questions — but this does NOT need to include a supernatural being.

              Like

            2. They didn’t try to shame us or pressure is to think a certain way or else…

              So when you were found out / read / were informed that your Creator would be sending you to Hell for eternity if you chose not to believe – even though, based on how silly the entire nonsense sounded to any rational mind of course – you recognised that it was plain as the nose on your face that Yahweh / Jesus was a truly loving creator and thus, you opted to believe in him … oops sorry, Him from that point on, yes?

              Shame about the rest of us poor suckers, right?

              Maybe you are familiar with this, from Yahweh Himself?

              ”I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I am the LORD, that doeth all these things”

              Ark.

              Like

            3. I really don’t know how to make it any clearer, Becky. But I’ll try again … yes. It’s “natural” for humans to engage with deeper spiritual/philosophical life questions, BUT … if the human has NOT been exposed to the supernatural being known as “GOD,” her/his answers will not include “Him.”

              Consider people from other parts of the world who have NOT been exposed to the Christian God. Their engagement with “deeper spiritual/philosophical life questions” take an entirely different slant. Of course Christian consider them misguided and wrong, but in truth, that’s a judgment they should not be making — according to their very own bible.

              Like

              1. Nan, I have to think about this more deeply. It seems to me that all over the world as people engage in spiritual introspection and focus on the beauty and complexity of creation, often they are drawn toward faith in a creator. Not always, but often. And, I agree that folks just based in a kind of general revelation will not all agree concerning the specifics of the divine. That’s absolutely true. But, Nan I really think it’s more a rarity for folks to do this and be pulled instead toward a firm atheism. I’m not saying that it doesn’t happen, but I feel like it’s more the exception.

                Like

          1. Ark, my affirmation is that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. I think God fully entered into human life and suffering so that we could share in His life, know Him, be made like Him in love..all good things. But, Ark I can’t begin to fully understand the mechanics of all this. I think every analogy falls short of the reality of the thing itself. I feel like the Biblical writers are using imagery and metaphor from their time and cultural context to express and help people know and connect with God’s love and forgiveness. God meets people where they’re at. But, in my mind, I don’t think that blood can literally and physically wash away sin. Does this help, Ark? Are you able to understand?

            Like

            1. No. It does not help and it doesn’t seem as if you actually understand either.
              Which is more of a concern as it suggests you believe in something for belief’s sake rather than fully understandng the mechanics of why you are doing it in the first place.
              Let’s back it up and start again. Forget analogy and imagery.
              After all, in the OT Temple sacrifice of animals was considered a crucial part of god worship.

              So, Jesus was required to sacrifice himself for our sake as a way to reconcile us with Yahweh/God. I won’t get into the weirdness of Jesus also being God as I don’t want either of us to get a migraine at this stage.

              For this reconciliation to take place Jesus was obliged to have his blood shed. Ostensibly this was nothing more than a ritual sacrifice.
              I presume you are fully conversant with the theology behind this so please explain why a divine being was obliged to be a blood sacrifice?

              I will add that I’m prepared to accept you might not be able to explain it, but if this is the case then I feel obliged to ask why you believe it, and why you are not horrified and revolted at the thought of a human sacrifice?

              But I will defer any judgment on this score until you have had the opportunity to afford this some critical thinking and then offer a (hopefully) well-thought out reply.
              All yours …

              Like

              1. Ark, can’t do any better than I have. I definitely don’t look at the atonement of Christ as something like God needing to vent His wrath out on Jesus so He could let us off the hook in order to have His Shylockian pound of flesh. To me, that’s a horrendous analogy. God was in Christ… He made Himself more fully known to us.

                Ark, it’s something that at least in part transcends finite human understanding..well, like trying to fully understand and conceptualize the nature of God as trinity.

                But, in my thinking because I can’t totally understand or conceptualize something, I wouldn’t automatically conclude that no truth is being expressed. That’s where we’re very different, I think.

                I didn’t always feel this way, though, so I have some understanding of where you’re at. It was when I was young and just the whole complexity of the universe and nature impacted me, that I became more open to the limits of the human mind as well and even more so to God. Looking back, I realize pride was connected to this as well, even at a young age.

                Mind you, I’m certainly not throwing reason and science out the window by any means. No way. But, I understand there are some real limits to both. Or perhaps, it would be even more correct to say than my mind reasons differently.

                Anyway, Ark, I accept where you’re at. And, like I said some one who rescues spiders and loves the natural world can’t be all bad. 🙂 I’ll never forget you, and that’s a fact.

                Sincerely,
                Becky.

                Like

                1. Are you saying you do not understand the theology behind the ritual human sacrifice of Jesus?
                  If you do, however, can you state the official position of why the character’s blood needed to be shed.
                  I would appreciate a straightforward answer, Becky.

                  Like

                  1. Ark, I’m thinking about this in a deeper way. Of course, the reality of God fully entering into human life and pain involved His death on a cross. It resulted in the shedding of Christ’s blood. There is no doubt of that. He gave up His life for us.

                    But, Ark, think about people offering sacrifice in the OT. It’s where they were at, and how they connected with a sense of God’s promises, care, and forgiveness in that culture. And, God worked through that.

                    So, these images were also applied to the death of Christ in the first century. They spoke to the people of the love and forgiveness of God. They impact us today.

                    But, does God, literally, within Himself need sacrifice, like an animal burnt on an altar?? Even throughout the OT, there was progression in the people’s understanding of the nature and purpose of God. Read Micah 6, for example.

                    With what shall I come before the Lord
                    and bow down before the exalted God?
                    Shall I come before him with burnt offerings,
                    with calves a year old?
                    7 Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams,
                    with ten thousand rivers of olive oil?
                    Shall I offer my firstborn for my transgression,
                    the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?
                    8 He has shown you, O mortal, what is good.
                    And what does the Lord require of you?
                    To act justly and to love mercy
                    and to walk humbly[a] with your God

                    Ark, I think that I’ve run out of words here to express myself. You see, not all Christians would see this in the same way. We all have to seek God for ourselves. And, I honestly think the Lord connects and works through many expressions of the faith. He accepts us where we are, Ark. And, then we grow from there.

                    And, trust me, no one has totally arrived at all truth, as I’ve often shared. Humility is always in order, IMO.

                    Like

                    1. I have asked repeatedly now for toy to explain this. Once again you have resorted to to lengthy exposition that in essence explains nothing. So, once again:
                      Why was the shedding of blood necessary in the form of a human sacrifice?

                      Like

              2. Hi Ark. Above you write: “So, Jesus was required to sacrifice himself for our sake as a way to reconcile us with Yahweh/God. I won’t get into the weirdness of Jesus also being God as I don’t want either of us to get a migraine at this stage. For this reconciliation to take place Jesus was obliged to have his blood shed. Ostensibly this was nothing more than a ritual sacrifice. I presume you are fully conversant with the theology behind this so please explain why a divine being was obliged to be a blood sacrifice?”

                I will give a brief answer to your question. Simply put, God has revealed to us that He is love – but because He is love He must also be JUST. God must punish evil, or He could not be love. Our modern world has the wrong view of love. As though love means “feelings” or affirmation of everything. But that’s not love! The opposite of wrath is not love. The opposite of wrath is APATHY and INDIFFERENCE. God must punish evil and put an end to it precisely because He is love and want to rescue His creation. The whole point of OT blood sacrifice was that God is showing that a price must be paid for sin. But if WE paid that price, we would not survive. “The wages of sin is death.” So, precisely because God is love, He chose to deal with our sin by putting it on His innocent Son who suffered damnation in our place that we might be forgiven and live forever with God – as He intended “in the beginning.” However, if people reject this gift of salvation – then they place themselves under God’s wrath and choose hell for themselves. (See 1st John 1:7 – 2:2)

                The fact is that God is not obligated so save ANYONE. If God gave me what I deserve, I’d be in hell right now. But the same God who owes us NOTHING chose to sacrifice His One and ONLY Son for us. This is how you need to understand the death of Jesus.

                Like

                  1. Thanks! This is what God in Scripture says about why His Son died on the cross. Ark wanted an answer as to why Christians believe Christ’s sacrifice was necessary. I gave that answer. But God’s plan to save us is foolishness to those who refuse to believe it. (1st Corinthians 1:18) The solution is for us to repent of our rebellious foolishness and to receive the love and salvation that God longs to give us! (1st Corinthians 2:6-16 & 3:18-20)

                    Like

                    1. Yes, you gave the standard answer. But I tend to think, knowing Ark, that he was looking for more than scripture quotations.

                      Like

                    2. There is no where in the Hebrew Scriptures which clearly and unmistakably prophesies that Yahweh will send himself to earth, disguised as a human being, to undergo a bloody death to redeem humankind. That is why the overwhelming majority of Jews during the time of Jesus and ever since have considered Jesus an imposter and a loon. To the overwhelming majority of Jews who have read the Hebrew Bible, the claims about Jesus are just preposterous and nonsensical.

                      If Christianity had remained a strictly Jewish sect, it would have died out long ago. But Gentiles had no problem believing that a human being could be a god, and that explains why by the second century, Christianity was almost entirely a Gentile religion.

                      The “divine revelation” of Jesus has no more evidence to support it than does the alleged divine revelations to Mohammad or Joseph Smith. All three men were delusional.

                      (and FYI: Alleged eyewitness testimony by religious fanatics claiming to have seen dead people or space beings [angels] is NOT good evidence.)

                      Liked by 2 people

                    3. Tom, is it possible to believe in Jesus as one’s Lord and Savior by using reason/critical thinking skills and by conducting a thorough examination of the historical evidence alone or must one also have “faith” to believe?

                      Like

                1. There are so many presumptions here I would not know where to start. And you reply was hardly ”brief”.
                  I will back it right up and ask you to provide a straightforward answer. If you cannot explain it in one or tow lines then you are likely espousing apologetics, of which I have no interest in whatsoever. Thanks.

                  Why the necessity of a human/blood sacrifice/ crucifixion (Jesus death) as described in the gospels?

                  Like

                2. I meant to add. I really dislike drive by comments from people – in this case Christians – who have no blog and leave no details other than a name and a generic gravitar.
                  It smacks of proselytizing and just makes you come across like an indoctrinated fundamentalist.
                  On any blog hosted by a non-believer where it should be obvious the host and many of the visitors were once fundamentalist Christians – spewing forth such apologetic tripe shows a complete lack of respect or understanding of the host’s position and simply makes you come across like a fatuous arse, I’m afraid.
                  I’m quite willing to revaluate this view – and I might even be inclined to apologise – if you are prepared to offer a few more background details?

                  Best.
                  Ark.

                  Like

  2. Belief in a self-creating universe (whatever that means) is irrational. Belief in moral obligations when there is no ground for moral objectivity is irrational. Belief in a universe without a beginning is irrational (since an actual infinity of time means that this moment would never have occurred). Belief that 8 independent sources (collected in the New Testament) all came up on their own about a resurrection is irrational. Belief that there is meaning in a meaningless universe is irrational. Looking for alternative explanations when all the evidence points to the universe’s beginning is irrational.

    https://www.premierchristianradio.com/Shows/Saturday/Unbelievable/Unbelievable-blog/Roger-Penrose-can-t-escape-an-ultimate-explanation-for-the-universe

    On atheism, every thought you have had is basically a meaningless chemical reaction. Believing you can move from that to rational logic is irrational.

    https://theconversation.com/why-atheists-are-not-as-rational-as-some-like-to-think-103563

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/za/blog/fixing-psychology/201402/atheism-is-irrational

    https://www.faithbeyondbelief.ca/blog/2019/4/25/why-atheism-is-inherently-irrational

    Happy New year by the way. Be blessed.

    Like

      1. Gary, Liam has a point. If there is no Creator God and matter is all that has ever existed (atheists have to assume, by faith, that matter always existed because you can’t get something from nothing!), then your “rational” thoughts are just random chemical reactions that have no objective meaning. Simply put, in order to argue for the rationality of atheism you have to acknowledge the irrationality of atheism.

        I see that you’ve read various books on both sides of this issue – but I suggest you also read this book:

        Like

        1. Did you read the post?

          I do not claim to know that gods do not exist. I am open to the possibility that a Creator God exists. So let’s move beyond the discussion of a generic god. Please provide good evidence that your god, Lord Jesus the Christ, exists at this very moment.

          Like

        2. Geisler ran point on the witch hunt against Mike Licona a while back for daring to suggest that the Raising of the Saints at the time of the crucifixion was not to be taken literally. Apocalyptic Imagery I think was the term Licona used?
          That little faux pas in his book eventually cost Licona his job, if memory serves. It may even have been two jobs?
          Norm Geisler: Now there’s a true Christian, right?
          Well, Geisler’s dead and Licona is still alive.
          I wonder if this tells us anything?

          Like

    1. Your second link. Interesting. But what’s the point of the article, LIam?
      Of course atheists can be irrational. Some can be so bloody stupid it would make your head spin. So what on earth was the article trying to establish?
      Atheism is simply the absence of belief in gods. Period. Nothing more, nothing less. It has no content and no worldview.

      Like

  3. Why was the shedding of blood necessary in the form of a human sacrifice??

    It might be Ark that this was a borrowing from pagan religion. Others say no. What I’m trying to share here is that this is not how I or many Christians throughout church history conceptualize the atonement of Christ as a mere blood sacrifice which God requires to “let us all off the hook,” somehow. To me, this is a caricature.

    But, like I said Ark, people are where they’re at. God can connect with them all the same.

    What is your opinion about this matter? How were you reared to think about the atonement of Christ?

    Like

    1. Ark, I should add that all in the Christian church agree that God was in Christ revealing Himself, setting us and the world right. We are also agents with Him participating in this reconciliation, in a sense.

      And, to me, this is the most central and important thing.

      But, trust me, not all are going to agree and this is true throughout church history concerning the mechanics and process of it all. How I’m viewing all this is not the same as how a fundamentalist Christian might take ahold of the whole thing.

      But, like I said, God connects with folks where they’re at, and each of us has to be persuaded in our own mind.

      Like

    2. Again, it isn’t a matter of how you conceptualize atonement, I want to know why you think a human sacrifice was necessary at all?

      Can you please try to answer the question without any form of prevarication?
      Thanks.

      Like

    3. How were you reared to think about the atonement of Christ?

      In truth, I wasn’t. Doctrine, and apologetics were never part of my cultural Christianity and by the time I’d returned home from playing the First King at my local Sunday School nativity my minor foray into the nonsense of religion was pretty much over.
      Until much later in life, that is, when I picked up the bible and actually read it.
      Revolting stuff.

      Like

  4. Ark, my church growing up as a young child did not threaten the kids with Hell. Really I don’t think I ever heard a message relating to Hell when I was young. Although, I was exposed to this teaching later on in the more conservative churches. But, I can honestly tell you that for me coming to faith in Christ was not rooted in this fear of Hell at all.

    Like

    1. So, like so many Christians you did not read the bible (as a youngster) . This sounds about par for the course, and from what I have gathered from former Christians they were not encouraged to do so. Certainly in days of Yore they likely never did – most probably could not read!

      I have to ask, why then, once you found out how heinous your god was, and what he was going to do to all non-believers why did you not recoil in horror and walk away, realizing what a moral monster he was/is and how you had been somewhat duped by those in charge of your religious education?

      Like

      1. Ark, my faith is centered in the church’s witness to the reality of God’s love in the incarnation. I look at the command of Jesus to love our neighbor, to care for our enemies even. This is all like the lens through which I interpret and apply the Scripture. So when I look at something in the Scripture that seems to directly contradict the love of God expressed in Christ, I don’t necessarily think that is truly reflecting the word of God. I think Scripture contains and reflects the word of God, but it also expresses the words of men and reflects the culture of the time as well. Might I get this wrong sometimes. Of course, Ark. But, I’ve apprehended God in the face of Christ. Ultimately, I’ve come to trust His love, wisdom and grace. The way Christian people take ahold of the witness of Scripture and how that informs our faith can be different.

        Like

        1. There is a level of hypocrisy and, to be frank, disengenuity that permeates every single comment you make.
          It really is quite disturbing.

          If you do not have the decency to treat me with even a modicum of respect and offer straightforward answers to the questions I ask, how do expect me to harbour anything but suspicion regarding your motives and, little more than contempt for you as an individual?

          I realise that you are indoctrinated to believe that any sort of perceived persecution in the name of the character Jesus of Nazareth is somehow a virtue, but let me assure you, it isn’t.
          As an adult I would have thought you would cherish honesty and truthfulness and cease with all this obfuscation and blatant waffling.
          if you walk away from our discussions feeling some sense of righteousness,
          then it is sorely misplaced.
          I would recommend you re-read my comments, Isolate the questions I have asked and answer them, without any theo-speak or pseudo apologetics.´

          If you really want to demonstrate you have at least a degree of sincerity start with this question. I asked it up thread.

          I want to know why you think a human sacrifice was necessary at all?

          Like

          1. Ark … once indoctrinated, it’s really, really tough to see things from a different perspective. Not providing excuses for Becky … just explaining her responses.

            Like

          2. Ark, I know that you’re feeling frustrated.

            But, it’s not as you think. I don’t think I”m being persecuted by you at all. I’m not feeling righteous.

            What I think it that our minds think and reason very differently relating to Christian faith, and how we’re processing all this. I’m trying to explain to you that I don’t think a human sacrifice was necessary in the way that I feel you are conceptualizing it. I’m doing my best to respond to your questions and concerns, and trying to share a window into my own thinking and my faith. Obviously, we are just not connecting at all here.

            I’m sad for that, Ark, but I feel like I personally don’t have the ability right now to do any better engaging in this discussion.

            It doesn’t seem to me due to lack of effort on either of our parts. We can only let it go.

            Maybe try later, Ark, in a different way. I certainly don’t feel any contempt for you.

            Sincerely,
            Becky.

            Like

            1. I don’t think a human sacrifice was necessary in the way that I feel you are conceptualizing it.

              For the gods’ sake, Becky I am NOT conceptualizing it.
              I want you to tell me why YOU think a human sacrifice was necessary.
              Will you please just answer the question.

              Like

  5. Ark, I’m coming in to give one last stab at this. We are not looking at the death of Christ in the same way. You see I don’t view this like pagan human sacrifice. But, if you are asking why I think the death and resurrection of Christ was necessary at all, I’m able to answer that. I feel like at some time in our prehistory, we as a species, individually and collectively, became alienated from God and from each other. Genesis describes this truth albeit in a mythic, allegorical way. The objective evidence of this is all around. This alienation can be seen even in how people react to differences on the blogs. Christians think that God entered into human life and suffering to bring healing and reconciliation. God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself…He shows His love and also begins to impact our lives from the inside out to become more like Him in love. In a sense. we are like co laborers with Him. This doesn’t obliterate our own choices Ark or what it means to be human. In a sense, we become more fully human, who we are meant to be. And, for myself, metaphorically speaking, of course, I’ve chosen to step into that life-giving stream. Hey, I seriously cannot do better than this in attempting to respond to your question.

    Like

    1. I am not debating any form of separation or what this might imply from a theological perspective.
      As a divine being, Jesus was/is/ should be able to do anything at all with regard ensuring we are ”made right by god”, or however you, as a Christian choose to phrase it, even if we are supposed to have free will and acknowledge our sin.
      And I am not debating his divinity or power in this regard either.

      My question is simple and much more straightforward.
      Why the necessity of a human/blood sacrifice/ crucifixion (Jesus death) as described in the gospels?

      I would appreciate a similar straightforward answer.
      Thanks.

      Like

      1. Ark, I’m not the one to engage here then. You will have to seek out a Christian who does interpret the death of Christ as a “blood sacrifice.”. .I can understand how someone might apply and interpret Scripture in this way, I just don’t. It feels more pagan to me.

        Like

          1. Gary, I agree that “feelings” are not evidence for anything.

            As for “evidence” that Jesus exists … if by “evidence” you mean that I open the heavens and point you to Jesus or that Jesus Himself must appear to you before you believe He exists, then I can’t help you. But then you’d have to doubt most things that people accept as true and real because those things are beyond your immediate sense perception.

            As for evidence that a Creator (not speaking of the Son of God in human flesh as this point) exists, that’s a slam dunk both philosophically and evidentially.

            As for evidence that the Jesus written about in the NT is the eternal Son of God in human flesh was was, as the Apostles Creed says: “Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into Hell; the third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into Heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God, the Father almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.” – I trust the eyewitnesses that God Himself provided whose testimony we have in Holy Scripture (John 20:24-31; 1st Corinthians 15:1-11; 2nd Peter 1:16-17) Just so you know, I’ve read the Scriptures in Hebrew and Greek and I’m familiar with textual criticism and that Bart Erhman’s work actually shows the historical reliability of the NT manuscript evidence versus other historical documents (Erhman’s reasons for denying Christianity have nothing to do with lack of evidence but the fact that he finds the claims of Christianity to be beneath his intelligence – as though he would believe in God only when God behaves the way he thinks He should behave).

            Since I don’t have time to write out the volumes of evidence for the historicity of Jesus and Christianity, again, see this book which I linked for you above: https://www.amazon.com/Dont-Have-Enough-Faith-Atheist/dp/1581345615/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2MABTZIOU6MGC&dchild=1&keywords=i+don%27t+have+enough+faith+to+be+an+atheist+book&qid=1610493148&sprefix=I+don%27t+have+enough+faith+to+be+an+a%2Caps%2C249&sr=8-1

            Like

            1. Thank you for your answer, Tom.

              You said: I trust the eyewitnesses that God Himself provided whose testimony we have in Holy Scripture (John 20:24-31; 1st Corinthians 15:1-11; 2nd Peter 1:16-17)

              Would you give me an undisputed, first hand quote written by any of the alleged eyewitnesses, describing what they saw when they claimed to have received an appearance of Jesus?

              Like

              1. Hi Gary!

                First, responding to another post you made in response to me: The OT is full of pictures and types that God offers an innocent sacrifice in place of sinners – and Isaiah 53 is probably the clearest of them all on this. This is why John the Baptizer referred to Jesus as the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. The OT Passover, Day of Atonement, Temple Sacrifices, God walking the blood path Himself alone (Genesis 15), the Suffering Servant and more – these all are fulfilled in Christ and His death on the cross for us.

                Second, as for “undisputed” (that’s a loaded word) and “first hand” quotes by eyewitnesses of Jesus – that’s basically the New Testament. Both Matthew and John were eyewitnesses of Jesus. Mark was mentored by Peter who was an eyewitness of Jesus. Luke interviewed many eyewitnesses of Jesus and was also mentored by Paul who was an eyewitness of Jesus and who wrote about hundreds of others who were eyewitnesses of Jesus (see 1st Cor. 15). Also, there’s an early church connection. For example, Irenaeus was taught by Polycarp who was taught directly by the Apostle Joh who was a direct eyewitness of what Jesus said and did. If you are going to deny the historicity of these facts then you will have to deny ALL of ancient history because there is more historical evidence for the Christian Faith than most other historical people and events that no scholars question today.

                Like

                1. Paul who was an eyewitness of Jesus

                  You left this part out of your statement: “Paul who was an eyewitness of a vision that he believed was Jesus.

                  Like

                2. The interpretation of Isaiah chapter 53 and all other alleged prophesies about Jesus are contested by almost all Jewish Bible scholars. How good is evidence that is so highly contested?

                  Not very.

                  Bottom line: You believe that a human being, a first century peasant named Jesus of Nazareth, is Yahweh, the Creator of the universe, based on highly disputed evidence. Not rational, my friend. Not rational.

                  The claim that eyewitnesses wrote the Gospels is once again highly disputed. In fact, the overwhelming majority of Bible scholars do NOT believe that eyewitnesses or their associates wrote the Gospels.

                  https://lutherwasnotbornagaincom.wordpress.com/2016/11/08/majority-of-scholars-agree-the-gospels-were-not-written-by-eyewitnesses/

                  Your entire faith hangs by the thin thread of fringe scholarship.

                  Not rational.

                  Like

            2. @ Tom

              As for “evidence” that Jesus exists

              You mean existed , past tense, obviously.

              Sorry to be a ”Grammar Nazi” as the colloquialism goes.
              🙂

              Like

        1. Becky, I’m glad you’re a Christian, but you are ignoring the clear teaching of Scripture if you fail to see that it teaches Jesus’ death precisely as a sacrifice for our sin. But this is NOT the same as pagan sacrifice at all! Pagan sacrifice gets it theologically backwards!

          In pagan sacrifice we have to give the god’s something in order to appease them and/or meet their needs. In other words, in pagan religion the gods are the problem and sacrifice is OUR work to manipulate them!

          But the One, True God commanded sacrifice in the OT not because He needed the blood of animals (what does God need from us?) but because these animal blood sacrifices were signs of what WE NEEDED from God – we needed God to deliver us from our own rebellion against Him which deserves His wrath. In other words, contrary to pagan false religion, God is not the problem, WE ARE! Those OT sacrifices pointed ahead to the sacrifices that God Himself would offer whereby He would pour out His just wrath on His Son instead of us. So, in paganism we are the ones who offer the sacrifice to bribe the gods. In Christianity God is the One who offers the sacrifice in order to save those who are by nature His enemies so that they might be saved from themselves and become His children.

          The reason many people don’t want to face the truth about the cross is that they must then also face the truth about THEMSELVES – that they are sinners who deserve nothing but God’s wrath. But God love us in spite of ourselves – even to the point of damning His own Son in our place so that we might be saved. So, if we end up in hell we make that choice for ourselves!

          Like

          1. As the term ”sin” is a theological construct, those who have no belief in gods do not subscribe to this doctrine.

            In Christianity God is the One who offers the sacrifice in order to save those who are by nature His enemies so that they might be saved from themselves and become His children.

            So, in your world, your god created evil and sin, then created humans and put them in an idyllic environment – Garden of Eden – along with all manner of naughty temptations that they were completely unaware of until pointed out to them by your god, who said they would die if they ate fruit from the ”naughty” tree.
            It turns out , however, that they didn’t die! ”Liar liar pants on fire”
            Yahweh’s pants as Adam and Eve were naked, of course.
            So your god was lying all along and as punishment for being a schmuck and a real putz ( he was a Canaanite/ Jewish god after all) he condemned the humans he created with this sin thing.
            When this didn’t work out he decided to pop down for a visit in person – after impregnating his own mum – which is quite gross when you really think of it – supernatural incestuous rape – and when he grew up threatened humans to an eternity of torture in Hell as well.
            They still didn’t behave so he allowed himself to be a human sacrifice in an attempt to scare the shit out of them by becoming a blood sacrifice /scapegoat and wotnot because Jews were familiar with this also.
            However, once again … no, sorry, I can’t finish this as it is all simply disgusting drivel.

            Like

            1. Ark, you asked how most Christians understand the death of Christ, and I told you.

              Also, you do not understand Genesis. God did NOT create evil and sin. But in order for us to be free to love Him we also had the freedom to reject Him – with all its horrible consequences. The point of the Tree of the Knowledge of God is evil was NOT that it was a temptation (God doesn’t tempt us to sin) but it was a warning sign not to make the same evil choice the devil made: which was to take God’s place so that we could decide for ourselves what is good and what is evil. Sadly, Adam and Eve believed the lie and the rest is our tragic history. We, too, believe the lie and perpetuate the curse by trying to be our own “gods” and decide good and evil for ourselves. But God did not give up on us and sent His Son to take our curse upon Himself so that we might be saved from the damnation we deserve. If you hate such a God, then I can’t help you.

              Like

              1. If “God” is the Creator … then exactly who created evil and sin? Also, you mention the “devil,” yet do not explain where “he” came from.

                Like

              2. Ark, you asked how most Christians understand the death of Christ, and I told you.

                No, I did not. Read my question again. The word ”Most” does not feature.

                There was no question in the rest of my comment.
                So, Tom. Let’s start again, shall we, and get this out of the way first. And please do not include any more diatribe I am only interested in the answer to the question, not an apologetic tract.?

                Why the necessity of a human/blood sacrifice/ crucifixion (Jesus death) as described in the gospels?

                Like

              3. If you hate such a God, then I can’t help you.

                I generally find hate is such a useless emotion so don’t subscribe to it.
                I ”hate” your god about as much as you hate Thor I imagine.
                And just as you have no belief in Thor, I have no belief in your god, Yahweh/Jesus.
                Although from the pictures I’ve seen of Jesus, Thor had better hair.

                Liked by 1 person

          2. Tom, thank you for sharing your faith and your perspective with me. Our Lord bless and enrich your life in everyway.

            Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s