how an atheist found God.

[EzyRyder]

True. But again, even with those doubts over a couple of the sentences, the majority of mainstream scholars consider that Josephus did nevertheless write about Jesus Christ.



Sorry TeePee but this is just not true.

Non-Christian References to Christ include:

Tacitus, Celsus, The Jewish (Babylonian) Talmud, Suetonius and in a more limited way, Lucian and Pliny.

Then of course there are Christian references.

Here are a couple of short clips from a Christian but nevertheless a professional and fair (I hope you'll agree) summary of ancient texts and the historical Jesus. They are taken from the series The Christ Files.

On Ancient Sources

On Josephus

Verification of these facts can be found in other non-Christian sources if you want them.

You bring John Dickson! I have read his book.

About Tacitus...

Even though the passage is authentic to Tacitus, it might be argued that Tacitus received his information about the origin of the Christian name from Christians themselves. This could be argued on six grounds: (1) Tacitus does not identify his source explicitly. (2) Tacitus anachronistically identifies Pilate as a procurator, when the proper title would have been prefect. (3) Tacitus refers to the founder of the name as 'Christus', while written records would presumably have used the name Jesus. (4) As meticulous as the Romans were, crucifixion records hardly went back nearly a century in time (the Annals being written c. 115 CE). (5) There is insufficient motive for Tacitus to research about this Christus in any detail, as the reference appears in Tacitus merely as an explanation of the origin of the name Christian, which in turn is being described only as an example of Nero's cruelty. (6) Finally, there would be no reason for Tacitus not to take the basic Christian story at face value, especially since the idea that they were of recent origin would correctly classify Christianity as a superstitio.

Suetonius - around 120AC - is the quote reliable?

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...html#suetonius

Pliny the Elder writing around 111-112 A.C

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/pliny.html

I will continue later...

[Erasmus]

The book delivered some evidence for God that was logical. I'm not normally drawn toward science. However, the parts particularly convincing to me were the chemical properties of water, and the earth's position to the sun. It was all too perfectly designed, too perfectly put together.

"Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'"
- Douglas Adams

[kalniel]

Faith is not, biblically, the belief in the absence of evidence - it's a trust based on previous experience.

I thought Hebrews 11 quite clearly spelled out what faith was:
"Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see." (NIV)

[Alex]

the tree doesn't cause us to sin. we choose to sin. You sound like Adam
Ok, if literal, Adam & Eve had the choice not to sin. They chose otherwise
If figurative, then is simply an explanation of sin being when people choose to follow themselves rather than follow God.
We can take it simply to our own lives. We didn't have a literal tree, but as we grow up, we choose to sin. Simples.

It's not 'simples' at all - I think you're rather missing the point I'm making. In a perfect world, even if we had the ability to sin we would not have the temptation. We would never come across that choice.

Even, as I said, given that, what is the point in giving us the free will in the first place? God would have known all along it would never work. The Bible says that no-one has ever (save Jesus) managed to always make the right choices, so why make us make the choice, knowing how wrong it would go?

As I said before, how will the world be different in Heaven? Will we still sin in Heaven? Will we have the ability? Will we have the temptation?

They are and were. But also pretty understandable that testimony written on materials subject to decay (leather or papyrus at best), by people-on-the-street (ie not kings or politicians) hasn't lasted thousands of years without being vaults.

The bible itself was written on paper - yet survived. It wasn't written by kings or politicians - at least the NT wasn't. The bible itself didn't survive - but the thousands of copies of the originals did. Convincing testimony of this I would expect to have survived in the form of historians such as Josephus corroborating and collating them, or at the very least referencing them.

That's not really the point though. The Christian faith stands on the authority of the Bible (together with - as you say - the 'Holy Spirit' which I'll address below. The Bible is simply not corroborated enough within the historical record to reliably establish that the man Jesus was in any way a Son of God, or that he rose from the dead. That he lived is fairly well established. The stuff that makes the foundational tenets of the Christian faith is just not.

hehehehe. The Holy Spirit. Makes ALL the difference. I don't follow Christ simply based on some historical documents - I follow based on a direct personal experience/revelation, which is completely supported by a coherent and consistent historical document.

I'll come to this more thoroughly below, but to turn your point on it's head - what does the direct experience of God from other religions tell you about their God? Does that provide evidence of their religion?

[Alex]

Quick Q: what led you to lose your faith, and when did it happen?

That is a quick question without a quick answer. I would however say that it was the result of about a years deliberations, excessive reading from both Christian and non-Christian sources, a lot of praying, discussing with Christian friends, and a lot of staying awake late at night thinking about things.

I became a Christian in my A-level year - now about 11 years ago. My conversion, as well as I can remember it now, came from attending a lot of Christian meetings I was taken to by friends, and a desperate desire to believe. My belief was based on two things: the authority and reliability of the Bible as I saw it then and the experience of what I saw as God in my everyday life. I believed in God wholeheartedly, prayed most nights, went to Church and to a small group Christian Bible group every week. I even believed in it strongly enough to convert one of my friends!

My deconversion, if you want to call it that, basically came from the realisation that the basic blocks on which I had established my faith were simply (and please excuse me if this sounds rude but is how I felt) self delusional. I believed that many of my everyday experiences were experiences of God because I wanted to - in fact I needed to - almost all of my social and support structures had become related to the church. Not that I needed the church - but by that point most if not all of my close friends were Christian (as was my wife) and I knew that if I felt myself leaving Christianity I would have a strong chance of seriously disappointing my friends, and had no idea how a Christian wife would take it. The point of stating that is just to make the point that this isn't a decision I made lightly, or indeed a decision I wanted to make. Stopping being a Christian came from the fact that I felt that I was deluding myself and that not being internally consistent with my beliefs was not, in the long term, good for one's mental health.

I came to realise that the Bible, which I had revered as the source of all truth (I even went through a creationist phase!) was no more or less authoritative than any other book of the same era. We have more contemporaneous books about the polytheistic Egyptians faiths than we do about the initial origins of the Christian faith. I think that, when I think back now, the main thing that shook my faith in the Bible as an authoritative book was when I was trying to read up on how the Canon was established - how the books that went into the Bible were chosen and how those that were rejected were rejected. It seemed to me then, and still does now, that the books were chosen that the choosers felt said what they wanted the Bible to say. Any books that disagreed with the message they wanted to put out were discarded. The people who established the Christian Canon - which stories about Jesus should be and which should not be included in the Bible - had no direct experience of either Jesus or the founding fathers of the church.

So the Bible, and in this case specifically the Gospels, are a useful historical source but far from convincing enough evidence on which to devote one's entire life. As I've said twice now, extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence.

Which brings us to experience of God and the Holy Spirit. For at least 3 years I believed that God was directly involved in my life. I believed that I passed my first year exams at Uni because God helped me through them. I believed that every good thing that I prayed for that happened was direct experience of God keeping a steady hand on my life - and that every thing that I prayed for that didn't happen was because there was a bigger plan for my life. I believed that though prayer I was communicating with the divine, and when involved in more emotional prayer groups etc thought I was experiencing God directly.

What I came to realise was that what I was experiencing as God would be just as well explained as my emotional response to heightened sense of religious surroundings. That feeling of the 'closeness of God' I would often get at church whilst singing could so easily be my emotional reaction to very emotive circumstances - as church services are so often designed to be (especially the now more successful evangelical ones).

When I looked at things more objectively I realised that I was projecting my expectations of what god would do in my life onto the every day situations we all experience. I got through my exams because I worked for them, not because I prayed about it. More than that, if we can take the positive experiences as evidence of God, we have to take the negative experiences where God seems absent as evidence against. If you take only one set of evidence and ignore the other as it's simply part of a bigger plan, then of course you come to the inevitable conclusion - but what dawned on me was the question of how the world would look different if there wasn't a God guiding my life. The only answer I could come to was that it would look remarkably similar to how my life did already.

So there you have it - albeit badly phrased and written hurriedly. Obviously, as the whole process took more than a year, it's far more complicated than that, but there it is.

[Rob_B]

So there you have it - albeit badly phrased and written hurriedly..

Not at all mate, well written and obvisouly something very important to you. If I may ask?.. How did friends/your wife take it?

[Alex]

Generally quite well actually. I have always made an effort to support my wife in all this - and still will go to church with her whenever she wants. I have made sure not to try to persuade her out of her faith - but inevitably we discuss what we think and why and I think she is now coming to agree with more my point of view. That said, she grew up in a Christian family and I'm not sure she'll ever leave it completely - I'm happy with whatever she decides.

[aidanjt]

What I came to realise was that what I was experiencing as God would be just as well explained as my emotional response to heightened sense of religious surroundings. That feeling of the 'closeness of God' I would often get at church whilst singing could so easily be my emotional reaction to very emotive circumstances - as church services are so often designed to be (especially the now more successful evangelical ones).

I still feel that tingly sense of grandeur and awe, but only when comprehending nature, natural laws, the scale and the vastness of time and space, epic historical events which shaped your present. There seems to be something innately humbling in realising something which by far exceeds you, and your ability to control it.

[peterb]

Alex, a very well written and honest apprisal. Thank you.

I have never had such strong religious faith, but what I did have was lost when I underwent a long operation. The period under anaesthetic was lost time - it just didn't exist, and I then wondered what would have happened had I died during the operation - would I have 'known'? That raised lots of questions about life itself and whats makes us 'us' - memories, experiences etc.

So I am back as a qustioning agnostic.

But I remain open minded enough that the possibility of some God (although perhaps not as generally perceived) does exist, and also to realise that many people DO find comfort in their beliefs (whether or not it stems from the comfort of tribal allegiance) and that some (not all) of the tenets espoused by some religious groups have relevance even in an increasingly secular society.

And I wonder if the vociferous minority who attack religious beliefs with such fervour are either envious of the apparent inner piece that some strongly religious people seem to have, or fear it, and that those (some equally vociferous) on the religious side are actually self doubting and feel the need to evangelise to affirm their own shakey beliefs?

But I found your account very moving, and I guess it caused you some pain at the time to come to the conclusions you did.

Edit: (posted while I was writing mine)

I still feel that tingly sense of grandeur and awe, but only when comprehending nature, natural laws, the scale and the vastness of time and space, epic historical events which shaped your present. There seems to be something innately humbling in realising something which by far exceeds you, and your ability to control it.

Yes - just looking up at the cosmos on a cloudless night gives me that feeling - the distances and vastness is so unimagineable.

[aidanjt]

And I wonder if the vociferous minority who attack religious beliefs with such fervour are either envious of the apparent inner piece that some strongly religious people seem to have, or fear it, and that those (some equally arrogant) on the religious side are actually self doubting and feel the need to evangelise to affirm their own shakey beliefs?

I think a lot of them are keenly aware of the danger religious fervour poses, either through historical, or current events, or even personal experience.

[yamangman]

And I wonder if the vociferous minority who attack religious beliefs with such fervour are either envious of the apparent inner piece that some strongly religious people seem to have, or fear it, and that those (some equally arrogant) on the religious side are actually self doubting and feel the need to evangelise to affirm their own shakey beliefs?

I think you mean 'those on the religious side who are equally arrogant', that fits better with your peace and tolerance posts .

[ik9000]

I came to realise that the Bible, which I had revered as the source of all truth (I even went through a creationist phase!) was no more or less authoritative than any other book of the same era. We have more contemporaneous books about the polytheistic Egyptians faiths than we do about the initial origins of the Christian faith.

Interesting - can you give examples/references. Be interested to know more.

I think that, when I think back now, the main thing that shook my faith in the Bible as an authoritative book was when I was trying to read up on how the Canon was established - how the books that went into the Bible were chosen and how those that were rejected were rejected. It seemed to me then, and still does now, that the books were chosen that the choosers felt said what they wanted the Bible to say. Any books that disagreed with the message they wanted to put out were discarded. The people who established the Christian Canon - which stories about Jesus should be and which should not be included in the Bible - had no direct experience of either Jesus or the founding fathers of the church.

They selected the canon based on 3 criteria:

1) does the book agree with the traditions+teaching of the Christian churches (plural - people from many regions were involved) ie the writing isn't trying to introduce something new/spurious contrary to the belief of the church at large
2) does the writing have apostolic authority - ie written by, or based on direct testimony of people taught 1st hand by Jesus
3) Is the book already accepted and in use within the church at large. Ie they weren't vetting new entries created in 365AD

They were stating which of the texts they were already using, and which the church had been already using for some time had sufficient authority to be trusted. It wasn't a council deciding what the word of God was to be - if I had that choice I'm fairly sure I'd have selected a very different message. It was a collection of people from across the mediterranean/middle east convening to affirm what they already believed, and to confirm that the church at large was in agreement. It was more "We're getting people visit us saying we're believing the wrong thing, that Christ wasn't God/didn't die/etc - what do you believe? Interesting, the same as us. We follow the message in the gospels and Paul's letters. What about you? Oh you've read them in your churches for the past 200 years and agree with too. Phew. Right, we're agreed on those then. Paul was an apostle right? Oh good.... right we all agree they're authoritative then. Anyone agree with the gnostics? No? Right, we'll leave out the gospel of Thomas then, that doesn't seem to be widely accepted as accurate..."
and less "right lads, what shall we say God's telling us today."

So the Bible, and in this case specifically the Gospels, are a useful historical source but far from convincing enough evidence on which to devote one's entire life. As I've said twice now, extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence.

Like a dead guy coming back to life you mean?

. I believed that I passed my first year exams at Uni because God helped me through them.

If God exists, then perhaps, but you still needed to work either way. Just being a Christian doesn't give you special perks and mean you get better grades by default. According to the bible, God equips Christians for every situation they face, but it doesn't say they will be successful in all they do.

I believed that every good thing that I prayed for that happened was direct experience of God keeping a steady hand on my life - and that every thing that I prayed for that didn't happen was because there was a bigger plan for my life. I believed that though prayer I was communicating with the divine, and when involved in more emotional prayer groups etc thought I was experiencing God directly.

The bible also argues the heart is deceitful. People should never measure God purely on emotion - people by their nature are emotional, some more so, some less so. A Christian's standing with God is never measured by their emotion, intellect, understanding, efforts, success, personality, nor any other individual trait. It is inspite of any of these things. The bible states it is entirely depends on God's effort, emotion and success for them.

What I came to realise was that what I was experiencing as God would be just as well explained as my emotional response to heightened sense of religious surroundings. That feeling of the 'closeness of God' I would often get at church whilst singing could so easily be my emotional reaction to very emotive circumstances - as church services are so often designed to be (especially the now more successful evangelical ones).

It is simply wrong to manipulate people based on their emotion. I know of too many "churches" which are all about emotional presentation and nothing about teaching the bible or trying to help people to understand what God has done for them. Equally I know dry stuffed up churches where it's all about going through the motions of ceremony and there seems no understanding or appreciation of God on a personal level. Steer clear of both.

[chuckskull]

And I wonder if the vociferous minority who attack religious beliefs with such fervour are either envious of the apparent inner piece that some strongly religious people seem to have, or fear it, and that those (some equally arrogant) on the religious side are actually self doubting and feel the need to evangelise to affirm their own shakey beliefs?

That vociferous minority is of the opinion that religion is the greatest insult to humanity there has ever been and that we will never move forward as a people to meet our true potential until we have shaken off it's ancient chains.

[peterb]

I think you mean 'those on the religious side who are equally arrogant', that fits better with your peace and tolerance posts .

Indeed, and the correction has been made! (I toned down arrogant as some perceive that term as perjorative) Thank you!

[Alex]

I feel it would be useful to summarise the evidence for the Jesus of the bible.

Firstly, there is obviously the Bible, and specifically the Gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. These closely describe the events of the life of Jesus as these four authors had agreed had happened over the 30+years after his death. The originals have been lost but through literary analysis we can be fairly confident that the later copies of these gospels we have are probably fairly close to the originals - making these fairly reliable. What we must note is that these were four dependent witnesses, and the books were the recollection of events from decades before.

We can be fairly sure then that these 4 men had discussed at length the events surrounding Jesus life and death and were fairly convinced of it. Now imagine one of the cults around today whose followers are willing to give their entire lives to these 'messiahs' - and it becomes clear that believing that someone is the Son of God and that they can do miracles is far from proof of the truth of the matter. You need independent corroboration of the facts. That's where searching for other hisotrical data becomes important.

I'll take these from Wikipedia for ease of use, but if anyone wishes to dispute the quotes then please do say so.

Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ — none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do — these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshiped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.

Shows that there were Christians, who believed in a Christ, but makes no moves to suggest that the author did.

Nero fastened the guilt of starting the blaze and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians [Chrestians] by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

This one does actually mention Christus, but only to say that he was executed. It does not mention the name Jesus, and for those who were not aware 'Christ' is not a name - it's a title. It means the anointed one - as does Messiah - it's basically the same word. So Tacitus acknowledges that there was someone claiming to be the Messiah, who was executed in the reign of Tiberius. No mention at all about the deeds of Jesus.

As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [ Claudius ] expelled them [the Jews] from Rome

Again, nothing specific about the acts of Jesus, and it is debated even whether this refers to Jesus at all. As opposed to Christ or Christus,Chrestus was a relatively common name at the time.

About this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned him to be crucified, those who had formerly loved him did not cease to follow him, for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, along with a myriad of other marvellous things concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.

This is the quote, from the Testimonium Flavinium, most bought up by Christians as extra-biblical evidence of Jesus miraculous nature. It is however widely believed that at least part of the above was added in later by Christians, and further historians (e.g. Origen) down the line stated that Josephus was not himself a Christian believer.

Even given for that, this is probably fairly good evidence that there was a man called Jesus who was believed by some to be the Christ. The fact that Josephus was not a Christian lends further toward the idea that the bit about 'he was the Christ' has later been added in. There is however no mention of his deity or resurrection in these.

Please do look up the history and accuracy of the testimonium flavinium as it almost certainly is not as clearly stated in the original as the quote above does.

There are a few mentions of someone who may or not be Jesus in the Talmud, but again even if these do refer to him none reference any miracluous deeds or his supposed resurrection.



When you say, therefore,

Like a dead guy coming back to life you mean?

My answer is no, that's not what I mean. That would be good evidence indeed, if he had been certified dead and then confirmed alive. What I meant however is evidence of that having happened. Other than the above which I have just posed, do you have any other reason to believe such a miraculous claim?

Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence. I've yet to see more than one source of very ordinary evidence that this happened (the Bible) and have certainly not seen any extra-ordinary evidence of this.

[ik9000]

I still feel that tingly sense of grandeur and awe, but only when comprehending nature, natural laws, the scale and the vastness of time and space, epic historical events which shaped your present. There seems to be something innately humbling in realising something which by far exceeds you, and your ability to control it.

Yes - just looking up at the cosmos on a cloudless night gives me that feeling - the distances and vastness is so unimagineable.

Yup. Anyone irrespective of belief can marvel at nature. And isn't it nice that we can? Personally I love its intricacy, its vastness, its complexity, but at the same time I can enjoy its beauty, its presence and the good things this life offers. And I'm glad I, and everyone else, can. I also find it incredibly humbling.

Interestingly in the bible David, king of Israel sings to God:

"When I consider your heavens,
the work of your fingers,
the moon and the stars,
which you have set in place,
what is man that you are mindful of him?"
(Psalm 8:3-4)

In the vastness of the universe who are we to think we're important. We are a trivial speck on a small planet in a tiny galaxy amongst so many others. If God exists and made ALL that, what is man?

But yet, David knows God is mindful of man.

Jesus puts it much more clearly:

"Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So don't be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows." (Matthew 10:29-31)

"Consider the ravens: They do not sow or reap, they have no storeroom or barn; yet God feeds them. And how much more valuable you are than birds! Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life? Since you cannot do this very little thing, why do you worry about the rest?" (Luke 12:24-26)

Jesus states repeatedly that God is committed to caring for everything He has made, and every person is intimately cared for on a personal level. God is indeed mindful of man.

The bible repeatedly states creation, ie the entire universe, is not as it should be. It is broken.

David continues to sing:

"You made him [man] ruler over the works of your hands;
you put everything under his feet:
all flocks and herds,
and the beasts of the field,
the birds of the air,
and the fish of the sea,
all that swims the paths of the seas."
(Psalm 8:6-8)

Man is intended to rule the world, but rule under God, administering God's will for the good of the world. Instead man rejects God and everything is out-of-kilter. The bible states creation itself groans longing for the day it is restored.

And God has set a time when it will be restored. Jesus tells people not to worry about this ["about the rest"], for those trusting in God will be safe with Him in the new creation, (ie everything put right) for eternity.

Imagine this world, but without the crap. If this is true then I want to be there to enjoy it. Nothing wrong anymore. Nothing wrong.

The bible argues the stakes are this high - eternity itself! Therefore it, and Christians who believe it, repeatedly encourage everyone to look at the bible, and seriously consider it. Check out the arguments for and against Christ's resurrection. Does it add up? Is it consistent? Is the evidence for it reliable enough to be trustworthy, ie to make trusting its claims reasonable, and therefore to make believing God's promises reported in it a sensible step?

The bible's stance is that God simply asks Christians to tell others what the bible says about Christ, that people who haven't heard might also come to Him. After that? Well it's between the person and God. The Christian has no room for coercion or forcing others, no right to reject, dismiss and persecute them should they not believe the same thing. It's just, "hey check this out, what do you think?"

I believe the resurrection happened, and therefore I believe Christ's promise that He will bring me to eternity with Him. It's a promise I trust is worthy of being trusted in. What about you?