Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion

Awhile back I asked if we would want to engage in a discussion about the justification and support of our Christian belief. It kinda fizzled perhaps because it was too specific. Since this is an apologetic group, instead of engaging in theological discussion (in the strict sense), lets do this:

Assume I'm a non-believer (I'll play devils advocate), provide me reasons as to why you think Christianity is true.

This should be good practice for us in this forum to both think well and engage in apologetics, and show a humble presentation of our thoughts in light of the rules of this board (i.e. respect, focus, and humility). Ready ... Go!

Several reasons I am a Christian:

1. I was raised a Christian, so it is my heritage. If I was born a Muslim, surely that's where I'd be comfortable.
2. I love the Bible, both old and new testament.
3. I admire Jesus and his mission on earth. I think he found the secret to life, and want to be a part of it.

But as for why I think Christianity is "true", there are such diverse beliefs that I'm not sure which belief set you are referring to. Do I believe Jesus rose from the dead? Sure. But I definitely don't picture it like Rod does ... dead bodies don't resuscitate after three days.

Lets not derail this thread into what we mean by christian. Lets take it in the generic sense entailing the existence of a theistic god, jesus as divine who died and rose for the salvation of the world. An important point but I've seen where these discussions go and i want to stay on point.

ok, sorry. Avoiding all discussion of beliefs in particular, I believe it is "true" because it works. When I follow the example of Jesus, the world becomes a little better and I share in the joy of making it so.

For me, Jesus is the most compelling person who has ever lived; in the face of a hopeless world the one place I see hope is the kingdom announced and inaugurated by Jesus.

So two words - Jesus and hope.

That's a terribly reductionistic pragmatism you are following, Lee. I'm sure you would disagree with others' whose pragmatism butted with your own.

In the absence of any provable logic, what better way is there to discover truth than practice, Brent?

I'm watching football tonight. I believe in the Rams' new offensive formation not because I can prove it works on paper, but because I can actually see it working. Pragmatic? Sure.

I'd add grace. I find the message of Jesus unique because it gives us a God who accepts us solely based on love and not on our works. It is comforting to realize that my identity is solid, I am a child of God, regardless of how poor or well I do. Further, I see this love as liberating and not permissive - so it is not that I can do what I want and who cares (because of grace) but I want to live into the reality of who I am already in God's eyes.

I enjoy the pursuit of the world's most beautiful mystery, Christ.

To say why I think it is true.

1. the most peaceful societies on earth were founded on Christianity.
2. I have seen too much to think anything else.

I heard a story of a muslim who converted. The pastor asked if he understood that if he was baptised he was taking his life in his hands. It was likely he would be killed. The convert was asked why he was so confident, he replied.

"Have you seen him?"
"No"
"If you had seen him, you wouldn't ask."

There is a dimension to the Christian faith that works like this. Once you see a glimpse of Him, you are never the same.

I am a Christian because the evidence is overwhelming, with the amount of historical documents, archeology that backs up Scripture and because the tomb is empty.

Interesting answers everyone. Keep them coming!

I probably have about 20 reasons why i'm a Christian. And many of them are somewhat rebellious:

The world hates the Bible, confuses the Bible, distorts the Bible, borrows from the Bible, does horrible scholarly research on the Bible. But i've read it for myself - that can't be undone. (the Bible is so freakin' weird it's most likely Godly and True!)

I've would walk away from Christianity in a minute if it had an adjustable core. Or it confused Love and Justice. Or it pandered to morons or human fleshly desires.

The Jesus of Christianity has passed all the tests that Buddha, Muhammad, Vishnu, Joseph Smith, The Watchtower, Richard Dawkins, etc have failed.

If someone shows me something BETTER than Jesus and Christianity "I'll Take It!" ...

Watching Israel and Atheism and Islam are enough to drive any logical person to the Truth of Jesus.

IF Ravi Zacharias, and John Lennox, and John MacArthur, and Chuck Swindol, and Joni Eareckson Tada are Christians --- then so am I.

The short answer is simply:

God is Truth.
God is Love.
Jesus appears to me to be the perfect reflection of that truth and that love.

Fun peeps. Let me think on your various answers and then I'll begin playing "devil's advocate," look forward to it!

Evening apologetics forum members!

As a recap, I thought it might be a helpful and challenging exercise to flex our communicative abilities and try to express why it is we think that Christianity is true. A lot of dialogue on this forum is often theologically minded (in the strict sense) and I thought an apologetic thread might be different and refreshing. The question that was asked was, “Why do you think Christianity is true?” Please remember that I am a Christian and I have my own reasons for thinking that Christianity is true. But for the sake of a conversation I thought I would play “devil’s advocate.” We have had, so far, six responses that I’ll divide into three sections as follows: a) the person and message of Jesus (Jake and David), the nature of the bible (CJ and Rod), and, an “other” category (Lee and Joshua). These divisions could very well be superficial but I employ them for organization sake. I in no way wish to mischaracterize. I’ll take each in turn.

I. The person of Jesus and his message: Jake mentions that the person of Jesus and his expression of love and truth are indicators of Christianities truth. David concurs in his own way stating that the person of Jesus and his message of hope and grace are also indicators of the truth of Christianity.

In response I could hear a non-believer say that Jesus was not the only one who expressed deep love, or who instilled hope and grace to others. The deeper point, I would think the non-belier would stress, is why think Jesus is who the church thinks he is? We have the four gospels, but there is such a disparity of views on the historical Jesus ranging from Borg and the Jesus Seminar to more conservative scholars like Bock. Who should we believe and why? In sum, what is your case for your understanding for the historical Jesus?

II. Nature of the biblical documents: CJ notes that the historical evidence is overwhelming, mentioning the documents and archeology with an empty tomb. Rod notes that the bible is just strange enough to be true.

In response, I could hear the non-believer suggest that the biblical documents are not compelling as some suggest. The documents are no doubt transcribed correctly with high precision, but why think they contain historical datum? Many, if not most, scholars note that we do not have the exact words of Jesus in the gospels but merely his “voice,” that is redaction was clearly at work. How do we discern the words of the early church from the historical Jesus? What about apparent contradictions (e.g. Acts 9:7 and 22:9) or historical errors (e.g. Quirinius census)? What about the flexibility of the oral tradition prior to the written accounts? In sum, what is your case for the reliability of the bible?

III. Other: Here I will include a cluster of responses. I treat some of these in isolation from other comments so be aware of that and forgive me (I understand some where given in a context of other thoughts). Lee indicates that Christianity is true because it works. Joshua notes that Christian societies are the most peaceful, and he has not been persuaded otherwise. Rod includes in a similar vein that there are no better alternative; and, what’s more, there are a lot of smart Christians.

I’ll go down the list in response. To the idea that Christianity is true because it works, so does lying to get what you want. But lying to get your way is not true; it is the distortion of truth. Moreover, one could just as easily suggest that atheism or Islam is true on this criteria. How do you differentiate? If you don’t, the case is not compelling. Joshua notes that the most peaceful societies are Christian. If a non-believer skeptic let you by with this statement without a case for it, which they probably wouldn’t, what bearing does this have on the truth of Christianity? It could be that a society is peaceful based on a false belief. What of the idea that the believer has not been persuaded otherwise or that the alternatives are worse? Well, again, we would need a case for that otherwise it is assertion. But that is the point, if one holds to the truth of some proposition, then they shoulder a burden of proof. So what is your case? Lastly, there are a lot of smart Christians sure. But there are a lot of smart atheists, Muslims, etc; and smart people can be wrong about a great number of things.

More could probably be said, but that’s what I got right now. How would you respond?

Well, from my perspective (that Christianity is true because it works), your counter-example isn't true in my experience. It doesn't work to lie to get what you want. A person who lies soon learns that he didn't want what he thought he wanted, or that the lies catch up with him, or that his relationships deteriorate.

Regarding how we know the opponents of Christianity (atheists and Muslims) are false, we DON'T know that. I know people for whom those belief systems work, too.

Hi Jeffrey, I do not rest my hope in my ability to be certain about this or that historical event. As far as I am concerned, most answers about the historicity of Jesus or the historicity of this or that particular gospel detail are written in a sealed book. When I am speaking of Jesus as being a reflection of truth, I am not speaking of a Jesus I can't know, but of the Jesus I KNOW.

That is the Jesus of the gospels as they have come to us. Whether or not they perfectly match up with a 'real' person or not is not possible to ascertain with certainty. I think there are good arguments that can be made about the relative value of the gospel accounts, but that is a secondary question.

I am not trying to claim that a man that I never met, who lived two millennia ago in a land I've never visited, shows me who God is. I am talking about Jesus.

And when I see him forgive his killers as he suffers upon the cross, I see God.

Sorry, I misread the question. Or I should say, you asked two different questions. You titled the thread "Why are you a Christian?" but in your first post (which I admit, I did not read closely) you asked "Why do you think Christianity is true?" Not the same. My answer was more along the lines of why I am a Christian; I wasn't going for any sort of objective, universalizing truth or proof.

In response I could hear a non-believer say that Jesus was not the only one who expressed deep love, or who instilled hope and grace to others.

Give me someone more compelling, interesting, fascinating and loving then Jesus and we'll talk.

The deeper point, I would think the non-belier would stress, is why think Jesus is who the church thinks he is? We have the four gospels, but there is such a disparity of views on the historical Jesus ranging from Borg and the Jesus Seminar to more conservative scholars like Bock. Who should we believe and why? In sum, what is your case for your understanding for the historical Jesus?

Other than a few minutes when the Da Vinci Code is popular, I never had anyone ask me that. But if someone said it, I'd point out I was not saying anything about who the church said Jesus is, I was sharing why I am a Christian (or think it is true). So...read the gospels. Heck, read the so-called other gospels if you want. We can read them together, it'd be fun.

I honestly don't think most people care much about the historical Jesus stuff. I mean, most are not well-versed in it. It is enough to simply cast doubt on the skeptical side, whether you point out there is diversity and lots of scholars support more traditional views or whatever. When the average person is faced with disagreement among experts, I think we tend to go back to what works (Lee's take) and our experience. That said, I suppose if I was talking with someone who was interested in history and knew a lot, we could talk more.

If someone wants me to present, to them, my "case" it would put me on the defensive and they would come across as rather arrogant, I think. Who is this mysterious person who deems himself judge of my reasons to believe?

Sorry if I sound snarky. I'd much rather invite this person to church, to Bible study, to coffee or to serve people with me. Along with this, I'd invite them to read on their own time - read NT Wright and Marcus Borg and whomever and come to your own decision.. I'd give some answers to questions they have, if they are interested in friendly discussion.

This is fun. But seriously flawed.

You cannot really convince a non-christian that Christianity is true. Especially if God does not want them to accept it. (yes, the Bible mentions this a few times.)
That is often why an atheist or Muslim has to be absolutely broken down in order to even begin admitting his failure and looking for a Savior.

I've said it before:
If someone wants Christianity to be true - you can spend 50 years feeding that desire.
If some doesn't want Christianity to be true - you can spend 50 years feeding that desire.

Jesus left us evangelists and apologists an amazing challenge. If people flock to the churches too easily - our message is most likely flawed.

I kind of agree with Rod, Jesus said no-one came come to him unless the Father draws him.

In John's gospel He said that eternal life is knowing God. Many people think it is possible to know God like a student knows the American President by reading a biography.

Jesus said you search the scriptures because you think in them you have eternal life, but it is these that testify of me.

To cap it off Paul says the natural mind is incapable of comprehending the things of God.

Sometimes theology can be like a group of men arguing over a road map who never get in the car.

I'm curious how many people on this forum know what I'm talking about here.

I've read through your guys statements and I'll respond in the next few days need to do some thinking before I comment.

Good luck Jeffrey. This is important stuff. I look forward to your insights.

Well said Joshua.

It is going to take me a bit to organize my information but it will be forth coming as well.

My comment regarding apparent contradictions is as follows....
"Anywhere the Bible shows legitimate development of thought across time - an explanantion or interpretation in later Scriptures that couldn't possibly have been contemplated before certain events had happened - they consider it an irreconcilable difference with what was said earlier.

Anywhere a particular book supplements or builds on another, as opposed to just repeating the same thing the other has already said, they call it an example of disagreement between the two. By their rules that's all there is to it. Case closed. But is it?

Only if you twist the meaning of literary diversity and historical development until it spells out their defenition of undeniable disagreement and contradiction.

Is every perceived contradiction a real contradiction?
Does difference really equal contradiction as some claim?

The Bible, instead of the various accounts of Scripture revealing a lack of unity in the overall message, their individual works actually weave a tapastry that's much more compelling and less monochromatic than some one-note robotic printout or press release.

The Bible is not like a government document, processed in triplicate - the pink copy, the blue copy, the goldenrod copy- each punched with the same identical information. No, it's living and breathing. It's layered and textured. It's God's work in real life, in the real world, with real people, living in a real time, not a carefully managed sheet of talking points designed to keep any of it's writers from going off message.

Actually, the variety of perspectives found in the Bible - far from being a threat to the divine inspiration of Scripture- are part of what proves it's validity. If some critics weren't trying so hard to impose a rigid, artificial, OCD structure onto the way God should have written His book they might find some highly plausible reasons for why any of these so -called inconsistencies are really among its greatest assets.

Various biblical writers - diverse across time and personalities but not in disagreement across the board. And that means they're not contradictions."

Their are entire documents dedicated to such topics but this is what I feel is short and to the point.

A useful book relating to OT prophecies about Jesus is: Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus. Vol. 3, Messianic Prophecy Objections by Michael L Brown, Ph.D Near Eastern Languages and Literature.