Question:
This question has been unanswerable by Christians, do you have the guts to give this one a straight answer? Their are like (lets say) 1,000 different religions in the world (actually a lot more). Each religion is no more valid than Harry Potter. In other words, each religion is as invalid as any other religion.
Here's the odd thing, Christians believe that if you choose to believe Jesus, you're saved. But if you choose another religion to believe in, you're doomed, disregarding all your virtuous acts!
It is the exact same thing as putting 1,000 tennis balls in front of you. The only difference is that each ball is marked with a different number. Only one tennis ball is the correct one (suppose ball 24), if you choose the wrong ball, you're doomed! So basically, Christians believe that by blindly choosing the right ball, you are saved! How hilarious!
And don't tell me that there's any proof to your bible. If you really believe there's proof, then Jesus would've just appeared for everyone to see, but he hasn't! The truth is that you believe that the Bible is true and every other religion is false with no basis at all. You just choose one ball and make up your mind that it's the correct ball with nothing to back it up.
Here's the odd thing, Christians believe that if you choose to believe Jesus, you're saved. But if you choose another religion to believe in, you're doomed, disregarding all your virtuous acts!
It is the exact same thing as putting 1,000 tennis balls in front of you. The only difference is that each ball is marked with a different number. Only one tennis ball is the correct one (suppose ball 24), if you choose the wrong ball, you're doomed! So basically, Christians believe that by blindly choosing the right ball, you are saved! How hilarious!
And don't tell me that there's any proof to your bible. If you really believe there's proof, then Jesus would've just appeared for everyone to see, but he hasn't! The truth is that you believe that the Bible is true and every other religion is false with no basis at all. You just choose one ball and make up your mind that it's the correct ball with nothing to back it up.
My Reply:
Interesting analogy with the tennis balls. You're right to say that one would have to be the right one, and all the others would be wrong...at least you acknowledge the existence of A truth. That's further than most critics.
But now, in the case of the balls, let's say #24 is the right ball. Christians aren't the ones blindly choosing the balls, everybody else who believes that all the balls are also true are the ones choosing blindly. We Christians believe the right ball has been revealed to us, and so go to pick that ball.
Now, as for Jesus appearing before tons of people for them all to see: Jesus actually did, only you weren't there to see it. After His resurrection, He appeared to over 500 people at a time (I don't know if they were all clustered in one place or because He's omni present, He appeared in different places). But the point is, we can say, "Oh, well that's what the Bible says." Yeah, but when the apostles preached and wrote their letters about Jesus' resurrection, those 500+ people were still living, and could've disproved their story at any time. But they didn't. In fact, nobody was able to disprove their message, or even prove them wrong. They could only argue with them to confuse their listeners, which they did.
And it's not only Gospel writers who talk about this, but even secular writers of and just after their time have written about the resurrection, the faith, the followers, the beliefs, and the events that go with them.
Basically, if you don't want to believe in anything about Jesus, then base it on the evidence, not personal disbelief. But the evidence all points to Jesus' resurrection.
But now, in the case of the balls, let's say #24 is the right ball. Christians aren't the ones blindly choosing the balls, everybody else who believes that all the balls are also true are the ones choosing blindly. We Christians believe the right ball has been revealed to us, and so go to pick that ball.
Now, as for Jesus appearing before tons of people for them all to see: Jesus actually did, only you weren't there to see it. After His resurrection, He appeared to over 500 people at a time (I don't know if they were all clustered in one place or because He's omni present, He appeared in different places). But the point is, we can say, "Oh, well that's what the Bible says." Yeah, but when the apostles preached and wrote their letters about Jesus' resurrection, those 500+ people were still living, and could've disproved their story at any time. But they didn't. In fact, nobody was able to disprove their message, or even prove them wrong. They could only argue with them to confuse their listeners, which they did.
And it's not only Gospel writers who talk about this, but even secular writers of and just after their time have written about the resurrection, the faith, the followers, the beliefs, and the events that go with them.
Basically, if you don't want to believe in anything about Jesus, then base it on the evidence, not personal disbelief. But the evidence all points to Jesus' resurrection.
Check out Josh McDowell's book: "Evidence of Christianity". It's a long read, but no doubt has some of the answers to your questions explained. Or if you want a shorter book, then check out Lee Strobel’s book, “The Evidence for Christ”.
---Pastor Andy
6 comments:
It seems like month or so I hear some story about a man being released from prison because DNA evidence that wasn't available at the time he was convicted now proves that he did not commit the crime. Often, the man had been convicted based on eyewitness testimony. Nevertheless, we know that the eyewitnesses are more likely to make a mistake than the science.
If science can be trusted over direct eyewitness testimony in cases like this, why shouldn't I trust science over ancient stories that were recorded after decades of transmission through oral tradition?
Hey Vinny, forgive me for asking, but I'm not sure I understand your question in response to my post. You SHOULD trust eyewitnesses' accounts (as I said in my answer). And even if we're to take out the Biblical eyewitnesses, the testimonies of secular writers, such as Josephus, Tacticus, Suetonius, Thallus, Pliny the Younger, and Julius Africanus can confirm Scripture's accounts.
As for science, I find it interesting how science continues to prove not only Jesus' existence, but even events, places, and people that were written about in the Bible, such as the census at Jesus' birth, the fact that Jesus was from Nazareth, He was crucified in Palestine under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius Caesar at Passover for being considered the Jewish King, He was believed by His disciples to have been raised from the dead 3 days later, His small band of disciples multiplied rapidly, spreading even as far as Rome, his disciples denied polytheism, lived moral lives, and worshiped Jesus as divine, and we even know that the darkness at Jesus' crucifixion couldn't have been a simple eclipse of the sun, for such can't take place at the time of a full moon.
So the points I'm trying to make are that not only should both eyewitness accounts AND science be used if such are necessary to believe, but mostly that Christianity is the only one that's real, and that can actually be proven.
Oh, and by the way, I'm disappointed to see that I'm not on your list of blogs you follow. ;)
Perhaps another hypothetical will help: Suppose you are sitting on a jury and two eyewitnesses testify that they saw the defendant shoot the victim, however, a scientific expert testifies that ballistic testing proves that the murder weapon was another man's gun and that man had gun powder residue on his hands. Do you convict the defendant based on the eyewitnesses or do you acquit the defendant because the laws of science say that it could not have happened the way the eyewitnesses described it? If it were me, I would vote to acquit because I think it much more likely that the witnesses are mistaken than that the natural laws upon which science is based can be violated.
My hypothetical would probably never occur for a simple reason: no prosecutor would bring a case when the scientific tests exonerate the suspect even if he had witnesses who claim they saw the suspect commit the crime. Eyewitnesses sometimes make mistakes. Sometimes eyewitnesses lie. Sometimes they misinterpret what they see. Sometimes memories change as eyewitnesses reinterpret events. However, the natural laws upon which scientific tests are based don’t change.
Apologists love to use analogies to evidence in a court of law; however, I don't think that any competent lawyer would try to use eyewitnesses testimony to prove that an event took place if science says that it could not have occurred.
Once again, I don't understand what you're trying to say in regards to the post.
I guess the question is, what are you trying to say? That eyewitnesses are unreliable and that science should be used instead?Because in both my original post and reply, I'm suggesting that both eyewitnesses AND science can & must be used to prove Christianity, where as both can't prove any of the others.
Keep in mind though that in terms of lying witnesses, science can also be tampered with to display the incorrect results. Also, the honesty of the scientist needs to be reputable, for when you get right down to it, even with science, we're trusting the words of the eyewitness, for it's the testimony of the scientist and anybody who witnessed the results, right?
Another point to think of though is that often times, if somebody's not willing to believe based on the facts, then they probably wouldn't believe even if Jesus were to stand in front of them and tell (or show) them Himself. For often times, they're just using their questions as excuses for not wanting to believe. Jesus, Paul, and the other Apostles are said to have argued the scriptures in the synagogues. But if one continues to refuse to listen and let the Word penetrate their hearts, then it really doesn't matter what means we use to show them, whether by eyewitnesses or science, for they've already chosen not to believe. The Pharisees are a good example of such people.
If I haven't touched on the answer to your question, then would you please explain your question without the analogy? Because otherwise, I'm not getting the point to what in fact it is that you're trying to ask me in your question. Also, if it's a sidebar question, please direct it to my email so we may discuss it off-site. Otherwise, please keep your comments in regard to the post. Thanks,
---Pastor Andy
What I am saying is that it is much more likely that an eyewitness has made a mistake than it is that the laws of nature did not act in the way that they have always been observed to act. It is possible that the ballistics expert is wrong because he failed to follow proper procedures in his testing, and it is perfectly legitimate to challenge the conclusion of the test on that basis. However, it would not be legitimate to challenge the expert on the grounds that the marks on the bullet spontaneously changed between the time they were removed from the victim’s body and the time they were tested. That would violate the laws of nature.
The laws of nature tell us that people don’t rise from the dead, walk through locked doors, or walk on water. In a court of law, we do not accept testimony to an event that violates the laws of nature even when that testimony is offered under oath and subject to cross examination. Why should I accept ancient stories of events that violate the laws of nature, particularly when they are recorded decades after the fact by writers whose sources are impossible to determine? Am I not perfectly justified in concluding that it is much more likely that these writers have not accurately reported events than it is that the laws of nature ceased to operate?
NOW I understand what you're saying, thank you. (And this is the last comment I'll publish on this discussion).
I understand that what you're saying is that when you look at, say, Islam, you've got people claiming and standing on false accusations about their religion...but they're people who claim to be taking the word of eyewitnesses from the time. But when you do the research yourself, you'll find that what they're saying is false. I believe this is what you're saying about the phony eyewitnesses in the murder trial. Correct?
Jesus said that when the blind lead the blind, they both fall into the pit. This is frightening because that means that if we're learning the wrong religion/faith, then we're going to hell, just like the one teaching us, even though we think we're correct. When I teach, I tell my students not to believe what I say, but to do their own research on it. That way, if I'm correct, they'll have the evidence from their own studies, and they're not just taking my word for it. But if I'm wrong, I encourage them to bring it to me so that I may be corrected, repent, and inform everyone else of our findings so that they too may be corrected in their future teachings. But we must do our research, and that's where I come in with what I've been saying in response to your question. Islam (for the sake of example again) can only be confirmed by Muslims. But Christianity has been talked about and proven for 2 millenniums, and events in the Old Testament for even longer. We have non-Jews, non-Christians, atheists...all talking and writing about the events, and many even as eyewitnesses to them. And even if they don't relate them to God, they're still acknowledging that they happened, even if they can't explain why or how. Remember, the Jews at Jesus' time couldn't (and didn't) deny the works that Jesus was doing, so they argued them away as evil instead, and ultimately used them to condemn Jesus to death on the cross.
But now, if you say you won't take the word of people in the past about amazing and unnatural things that happened, then why (or how can you) believe any history at all? When we look at Germany now, how can we possibly believe that they were once a superpower who tried to take over the world? Were you there? If not, then why take survivors' words for it? Or when we look at Japan with their advanced technology and lack of national patriotism, how can we ever believe the Samurai's life of honor and the country's past worship of the emperor? Even these things look impossible to us now because there's no sign of it anywhere in today's culture (except from those who hold fast to the belief that it happened).
You're correct in that some "eyewitnesses" are false or liars, and you shouldn't believe what they say. But how do you know they're liars unless you know the truth? Don't you first have to find the truth if you're to know that something is a lie?
Jesus said that if you seek Him with your whole heart, mind, and soul, then you'll find Him. The evidence is out there, and much is still waiting to be found. But hey, don't take my word for it...do your own research.
Post a Comment