What if you consider arguments on Christianity and you are left with major doubt?

[Jamie Gigliotti]

He wants you to walk on water. To take a step of trust. You said it, you have connected emotionally, trust your heart. Let go. Get on your knees and worship the King of Kings. Letting go was so hard for me. At 33 I finally did it in worship and He came over me like a rushing wind. Love, peace, joy, hope, shame removed.... He is more real than anything... I too let my intellect get in the way... When He fills you, your doubts will be ancient history... I'm praying that His light and love and truth and Spirit fill you! God's peace be with you!

 

[jamie]

So when Jesus says that people in the generation He spoke about would see Him...

Jesus was referring to our Father's spiritual generation. The flesh profits nothing.

 

[rako]

Jesus was referring to our Father's spiritual generation. The flesh profits nothing.

I find this a reasonable argument based on how "generation" is used elsewhere. The skeptics typically miss this alternate meaning, as did the famous apologist CS Lewis, who openly concluded that Jesus was simply wrong about this.(He spun it by saying that it reflects Jesus' humanity).

 

[rako]

I think we are all part of that generation

it is the only thing that makes sense

OK, I should add that generally "genos" in Greek in the Bible means a single cycle of a human lifespan. It is always used that way in the New Testament. So C.S. Lewis could be right I think.

But I find John Chrysostom's argument valid too. Many of Jesus' teachings were given in a mythical/spiritual/symbolic form. So He could be using it in another sense, and Psalm 24 is another example where that sense is used.

So I find Lewis' argument about the use of "generation" reasonable, but Chrysostom's counterargument makes that argument weak.

 

[rako]

I do consider counter arguments to Christianity, tackled them and now I believe in God without doubt

Hi Nonon.
I believe in God. There are many forces in the universe like goodness, right, order, love, knowledge, creation. I think that they go together. And how can there be knowledge and creation without a Thinker and Creator? We have souls, and I think there is a collective soul or anyway a supreme being.

Jesus Himself is distinct from this general concept of God though. So my mind conceives of the question of the resurrection distinctly too. In other words, in my calculation, it is not clear that Jesus' own resurrection and for that matter Jesus' status as God's Only Son is the only possible result of God's existence - even though I find that argument to be logical.

I believe in God, but am doubtful about Jesus' unique claim to divinity. Peter wrote that Jesus' divinity was proven by His resurrection. So this leads back to the question of whether the resurrection was a real, physical fact.

Anyway, the point of my thread here is what to do when I reach this point of major doubt in the resurrection being physical after years of study, prayer, belief in God, feeling connected to Jesus, life in the mainstream Christian community, and thinking through these arguments.

 

[jamie]

I believe in God...

Okay, you believe in God but what is man that God should be mindful of him?

Scripture says, "You have put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that He put all in subjection under him, He left nothing that is not put under him. But now we do not yet see all things put under him." (Hebrews 2:8 NKJV)

 

[Lazy afternoon]

Hello! The apostles, gospels, and New Testament asks us to believe that Jesus bodily resurrected. It is a foundation of Christianity, and anyway I want it to be true because I sense the awful hardships in the world. The world needs salvation.

I believe in God, love Jesus, connect with Him as a figure emotionally, and don't consider the alleged transfigured resurrection impossible. My problem is that I know that just because I want something to be true or a person "feels inside" that it is, doesn't make it real. So it leaves me with "intellectual" or mental uncertainty.

For me normally to mentally think that something is real, I think of the reasons in favor and against it. So I made two lists, pro and con, giving the substantial reasons and the counterarguments made to each side's reasons.

For example, a good reason to believe that the resurrection was real is that all the gospels record the tomb being empty on Sunday, and Matthew records the tomb being guarded. However, theoretically the apostles or a sympathizer could have removed the body on Friday before the guards were posted, or they could have overwhelmed the guards on Saturday night as Peter had already stabbed one on Thursday, or they could have taken the body after the guards left on Sunday night and then retroactively invented a claim that the body was missing on Sunday. Or Matthew could have just made up the story about the guards, who are not mentioned in the other gospels, and the apostles could have taken the body at night when no one was around.

Of course, there are more arguments for the resurrection, like the apostles must have been too scared to take the body because the pharisees were hunting them. And then there are counterarguments to those arguments, like: They still could have paid an anonymous sympathizer to take the body. Or: if they were all so scared, how could John openly attended Jesus' trial and crucifixion, and how could Peter and John openly go to the tomb on Sunday?

An argument against the resurrection would propose that the early Christians were like modern Charismatics, whose supernatural claims mainstream Christians are often skeptical about. Both the early Christians and modern Charismatics have a tendency to claim that the Second Coming would happen in their natural lifespans (eg. within 120 years), to have visions, to experience frequent miraculous "gifts" (eg. weekly or monthly), and to "speak in unknown tongues". This represents a different mindset and mentality than mainstream Christians have today, one much more open to experiencing mental visions and to perceiving them to be physical.

The counterargument in favor of the resurrection is that these depictions of the early Christians as Charismatic are exaggerated, that the apostles were not categorical that the world would end in their natural lifespans, and that the apostles' miracles, "tongues", and visions were all real.

In truth though, whether the apostles' miracles, visions, and tongues were real is the kind of thing that is in question here. We don't have a time machine to check firsthand what they were like. All we know is that the same kinds of miracles and experiences are being claimed, and that modern mainstream Christians are very skeptical about the Charismatics' tongues, visions, mentality etc.

I listed these two categories of reasons here:

Strongest, most direct evidence for the Resurrection?
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4590472#post4590472

Strongest, most direct evidence to doubt the Resurrection?
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4590456#post4590456

If Christ is not alive today then you will never find Him or be found by Him.

Find a people who Christ lives among, and then do not follow those individuals either. Follow Christ if He should speak to you.

LA

 

[Eric h]

So this leads back to the question of whether the resurrection was a real, physical fact.

Even if your beliefs are fifty- fifty that it happened, that is almost meaningless. You can't change history, Jesus could not be partly resurrected, its either the biggest truth, or the biggest lie.

Anyway, the point of my thread here is what to do when I reach this point of major doubt in the resurrection being physical after years of study, prayer, belief in God, feeling connected to Jesus, life in the mainstream Christian community, and thinking through these arguments.

There is no final proof, you can be researching arguments until the day you die.

To believe in God, you have to do something.

 

[truthjourney]

Trust in the LORD with all your heart and do not lean upon your own understanding. Prov. 3:5

 

[elohiym]

So the next question becomes what do you do when you reach this impasse?

It is something that I pray about often and I go to Church. I feel a need for Jesus, but that doesn't make the accounts physically real. It's something that I have thought about intensely for a long time, whereas I wish I could have resolution and move on.

The witnesses are the best evidence you have. It's not plausible that they made it up, as I see it. Consider how elaborate the con would have to be, and for what motivation? Same with the miracles the Jews witnessed at Mt. Sinai; why would a large population pretend they witnessed something they didn't, pretend to be scared out of their wits by the experience and willingly subjugate themselves to such a burdensome legal system? It's so obvious those people really experienced what they claimed.

 

[Totton Linnet]

Hello! The apostles, gospels, and New Testament asks us to believe that Jesus bodily resurrected. It is a foundation of Christianity, and anyway I want it to be true because I sense the awful hardships in the world. The world needs salvation.

I believe in God, love Jesus, connect with Him as a figure emotionally, and don't consider the alleged transfigured resurrection impossible. My problem is that I know that just because I want something to be true or a person "feels inside" that it is, doesn't make it real. So it leaves me with "intellectual" or mental uncertainty.

For me normally to mentally think that something is real, I think of the reasons in favor and against it. So I made two lists, pro and con, giving the substantial reasons and the counterarguments made to each side's reasons.

For example, a good reason to believe that the resurrection was real is that all the gospels record the tomb being empty on Sunday, and Matthew records the tomb being guarded. However, theoretically the apostles or a sympathizer could have removed the body on Friday before the guards were posted, or they could have overwhelmed the guards on Saturday night as Peter had already stabbed one on Thursday, or they could have taken the body after the guards left on Sunday night and then retroactively invented a claim that the body was missing on Sunday. Or Matthew could have just made up the story about the guards, who are not mentioned in the other gospels, and the apostles could have taken the body at night when no one was around.

Of course, there are more arguments for the resurrection, like the apostles must have been too scared to take the body because the pharisees were hunting them. And then there are counterarguments to those arguments, like: They still could have paid an anonymous sympathizer to take the body. Or: if they were all so scared, how could John openly attended Jesus' trial and crucifixion, and how could Peter and John openly go to the tomb on Sunday?

An argument against the resurrection would propose that the early Christians were like modern Charismatics, whose supernatural claims mainstream Christians are often skeptical about. Both the early Christians and modern Charismatics have a tendency to claim that the Second Coming would happen in their natural lifespans (eg. within 120 years), to have visions, to experience frequent miraculous "gifts" (eg. weekly or monthly), and to "speak in unknown tongues". This represents a different mindset and mentality than mainstream Christians have today, one much more open to experiencing mental visions and to perceiving them to be physical.

The counterargument in favor of the resurrection is that these depictions of the early Christians as Charismatic are exaggerated, that the apostles were not categorical that the world would end in their natural lifespans, and that the apostles' miracles, "tongues", and visions were all real.

In truth though, whether the apostles' miracles, visions, and tongues were real is the kind of thing that is in question here. We don't have a time machine to check firsthand what they were like. All we know is that the same kinds of miracles and experiences are being claimed, and that modern mainstream Christians are very skeptical about the Charismatics' tongues, visions, mentality etc.

I listed these two categories of reasons here:

Strongest, most direct evidence for the Resurrection?
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4590472#post4590472

Strongest, most direct evidence to doubt the Resurrection?
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4590456#post4590456

Modern Pentecostals and Charismatics soon fall into major difficulties if they do not maintain the Apostolic traditions [which few do] and if there is not the strictest adherence to scripture [which there rarely is]

When you hear them say "we don't care about theology" you can know that their ministry will fail. So your comparison doesn't work....the early church were very strict about adhering to scripture.

YOU can receive Christ today....then all your doubts will evaporate as the morning dew

 

[annabenedetti]

The witnesses are the best evidence you have. It's not plausible that they made it up, as I see it. Consider how elaborate the con would have to be, and for what motivation?

Seriously? The best evidence? Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable. It's completely plausible that they made it up (assuming one has a belief that the scriptural narrative is a literal history), without realizing that their mind was fabricating a 'memory' of an event that never occurred.

The Problem with Eyewitness Testimony

Same with the miracles the Jews witnessed at Mt. Sinai; why would a large population pretend they witnessed something they didn't, pretend to be scared out of their wits by the experience and willingly subjugate themselves to such a burdensome legal system? It's so obvious those people really experienced what they claimed.

"It's so obvious?" Not hardly. Look into collective behavior, mass hysteria, convergence theory and contagion theory and see how easy it would be for a large crowd to be swept into a collective state of euphoria or panic or fear. They wouldn't have to "pretend," they would be completely convinced by the mysterious workings of their own minds that they're experiencing something that they're not actually experiencing. The mind is a powerful thing, and collectively, minds can be swept into beliefs that things have happened that haven't actually happened, influenced by others in a domino effect, and the more they tell and retell the story, the more that certitude grows in their minds. And once they've put their credibility on the line, once they've committed to a particular narrative and then repeated it over and over, the more sure they are that things happened the way they truly believe they happened. Even though they never happened at all.

 

[Caino]

Hello! The apostles, gospels, and New Testament asks us to believe that Jesus bodily resurrected. It is a foundation of Christianity, and anyway I want it to be true because I sense the awful hardships in the world. The world needs salvation.

I believe in God, love Jesus, connect with Him as a figure emotionally, and don't consider the alleged transfigured resurrection impossible. My problem is that I know that just because I want something to be true or a person "feels inside" that it is, doesn't make it real. So it leaves me with "intellectual" or mental uncertainty.

For me normally to mentally think that something is real, I think of the reasons in favor and against it. So I made two lists, pro and con, giving the substantial reasons and the counterarguments made to each side's reasons.

For example, a good reason to believe that the resurrection was real is that all the gospels record the tomb being empty on Sunday, and Matthew records the tomb being guarded. However, theoretically the apostles or a sympathizer could have removed the body on Friday before the guards were posted, or they could have overwhelmed the guards on Saturday night as Peter had already stabbed one on Thursday, or they could have taken the body after the guards left on Sunday night and then retroactively invented a claim that the body was missing on Sunday. Or Matthew could have just made up the story about the guards, who are not mentioned in the other gospels, and the apostles could have taken the body at night when no one was around.

Of course, there are more arguments for the resurrection, like the apostles must have been too scared to take the body because the pharisees were hunting them. And then there are counterarguments to those arguments, like: They still could have paid an anonymous sympathizer to take the body. Or: if they were all so scared, how could John openly attended Jesus' trial and crucifixion, and how could Peter and John openly go to the tomb on Sunday?

An argument against the resurrection would propose that the early Christians were like modern Charismatics, whose supernatural claims mainstream Christians are often skeptical about. Both the early Christians and modern Charismatics have a tendency to claim that the Second Coming would happen in their natural lifespans (eg. within 120 years), to have visions, to experience frequent miraculous "gifts" (eg. weekly or monthly), and to "speak in unknown tongues". This represents a different mindset and mentality than mainstream Christians have today, one much more open to experiencing mental visions and to perceiving them to be physical.

The counterargument in favor of the resurrection is that these depictions of the early Christians as Charismatic are exaggerated, that the apostles were not categorical that the world would end in their natural lifespans, and that the apostles' miracles, "tongues", and visions were all real.

In truth though, whether the apostles' miracles, visions, and tongues were real is the kind of thing that is in question here. We don't have a time machine to check firsthand what they were like. All we know is that the same kinds of miracles and experiences are being claimed, and that modern mainstream Christians are very skeptical about the Charismatics' tongues, visions, mentality etc.

I listed these two categories of reasons here:

Strongest, most direct evidence for the Resurrection?
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4590472#post4590472

Strongest, most direct evidence to doubt the Resurrection?
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4590456#post4590456

Instead of focusing on the death of Jesus to find truth why don't you focus on his triumphant life?

Somehow the death and resurrection became the focus of a religion about Jesus. The religion of Jesus is found in his life.

Do what Jesus did and you will find what he found in life.

Jesus explained that raising himself from the dead was proof of his authority to teach, but he spent his life on the cross of human experience.

 

[rako]

Has any of you heard of James Fowler's theory of the "stages of faith"?

Right now I am somewhere around stage 4.
Individuative-Reflective, Skeptic-Individual
http://www.psychologycharts.com/james-fowler-stages-of-faith.html

I need to find a way to move on.

Religion is fascinating for me, and I want the resurrection to be real. But I have to admit the reality and uncertainty and stop ruminating about it.

 

[rako]

Modern Pentecostals and Charismatics soon fall into major difficulties if they do not maintain the Apostolic traditions [which few do] and if there is not the strictest adherence to scripture [which there rarely is]

When you hear them say "we don't care about theology" you can know that their ministry will fail. So your comparison doesn't work....the early church were very strict about adhering to scripture.

Totton,
You are right that some Charismatics who don't follow the traditions.
But others, like Charismatic Catholics do. They sing in "tongues" based on 1 Cor 14, but I think it's babbling that they've convinced themselves is real.

When I use the same discernment about the Bible that I do about Charismatics, it looks like the extreme Biblical miracles weren't real either. I am comparably skeptical that the Christian Corinthians' "unknown tongues" were a real miracle too. It seems based on mainstream Christian methods of discernment, we would say that they were babbling too.

You write: "YOU can receive Christ today....then all your doubts will evaporate as the morning dew"

But that is circular reasoning, like: "If you accept the 'Spirit'," a Charismatic could say, "your doubts about the 'gifts' evaporate."

I have a major emotional connection to Jesus and the apostles because of their story, but it doesnt automatically follow that whatever extreme claims they made about Him must be true, just like the miracles of the great saints or Marian appearances might not be true.

So where to go from here once you've tried the advice like prayer, but if you face reality it looks unclear or rather unlikely?

 

[rako]

He wants you to walk on water. To take a step of trust. You said it, you have connected emotionally, trust your heart. Let go. Get on your knees and worship the King of Kings. Letting go was so hard for me. At 33 I finally did it in worship and He came over me like a rushing wind. Love, peace, joy, hope, shame removed.... He is more real than anything... I too let my intellect get in the way... When He fills you, your doubts will be ancient history... I'm praying that His light and love and truth and Spirit fill you! God's peace be with you!

Jamie!
Yes, I feel the rushes of inspiration and hope and mystery. But I also know in my brain that such feelings do not mean that something is physically real. So I have to deal with that.

 

[rako]

Why does it matter to you that the "resurrection story is real"? Is it because you are afraid to die?

What if the resurrection story were metaphorical? What if it was intended to exemplify the ideal that God's love and forgiveness acting in us and through us, to others, will heal us and save us from ourselves? What if through our acceptance of this ideal, we can be "born anew", become a new kind of human being that no longer fears death or misfortune because we live by a greater ideal? And in that way we can transcend death?

What if your doubts are just the result of your having interpreted the story of Jesus' life and death too literally?

PureX,
Yes, my fear of dying is one thing that makes the resurrection story matter to me. Another is that Church is important to me socially. Jesus' promises are also important, so I want them to be real, but just because I want it doesn't make it so.

Some propose, like you said, that the story of Jesus was meant metaphorically to make us better people. But I think that it was meant to be taken by the audience literally, that is, as the real story of a real person with real miracles. They never say "this is just a metaphor". And many people in those times did believe in such kinds of miracles, like healings, a Messiah, angels, etc.

Besides, 2 Peter says things like "We have not given carefully devised fables"(paraphrased) and Paul says "If Christ isn't risen, our hope is in vain".

 

[PureX]

Has any of you heard of James Fowler's theory of the "stages of faith"?

Right now I am somewhere around stage 4.
Individuative-Reflective, Skeptic-Individual
http://www.psychologycharts.com/james-fowler-stages-of-faith.html

I need to find a way to move on.

Religion is fascinating for me, and I want the resurrection to be real. But I have to admit the reality and uncertainty and stop ruminating about it.

There comes a point, I think, when we have to ask ourselves if what we want is a religion, or a personal relationship with God. Because religion is secondary to a personal concept of and relationship with God. Religions are just collections of traditions, ideals, goals, and practices that people have used to help them live according to their conceptual and experiential relationship with God as they understand God. Without that personal concept of and experience with God as you understand God, religion is just empty spiritual exercise.

Perhaps you need to examine what God is, and means to you, personally. How you see God manifesting in your everyday life. And how your conception of God might be altered to become more positively effecting, and more realistic to you. Trying to get to God through religion is putting the cart before the horse, I think.

 

[Ktoyou]

"What if you consider arguments on Christianity and you are left with major doubt?"

Then, you are not a Christian, you are a philosopher who examines Christian doctrine, which is what nonbelievers do.

 

[jamie]

Yes, my fear of dying is one thing that makes the resurrection story matter to me.

According to scripture we need not fear death, in fact dying is a perfectly natural thing to do and it's something we can all accomplish.

"Perfect love casts out fear." (John)