xdisciplex
New Member
Do you know what's kind of strange?
Today there is an argument which goes like this: If you present the case of the resurrection to a sincere seeker then he will acknowledge that it's true because of all the evidence unless he doesn't want to believe in God.
But look at this:
Luk 24:12 Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass.
Peter saw the clothes and he knew Jesus and he also had heard what Jesus had said about what would happen to him and in spite of this he wondered. Does this mean Peter did not want to believe because inspite of all the evidence he did not believe but all he could do is wonder? Of course not. Peter wanted to believe like all the other disciples but then why didn't he believe when he saw all of this?
If not even the disciples believed when they were presented these facts then it's it a bit strange to expect people to believe because of the gospels 2000 years later? The disciples were there and had seen it and all we have today is the scriptures which is also a huge difference.
I mean is it really as easy as some christians make it look like? Are the facts really so convincing that every sincere seeker has to be convinced?
There is an attorney who wanted to disprove the resurrection and then looked at the case and became a believer because of the evidence, he analyzed the case and it convinced him. I dont know if this also would have convinced me as an atheist. I mean isn't it also a bit easy to say that the behavior of the disciples cannot be explained any other way and because of this it has to be true? Because this is what christians say. They say that the disciples totally changed their behavior and the only explanation is that Jesus is risen and this basically settles the case. Is it really that easy? If it was so clear then shouldn't everybody be convinced by it and shouldn't everybody admit it and submit to God?
Imagine you're an atheist and a christian comes to you with this argument. He tells you that after Jesus' death the disciples were totally down and then suddenly they changed and became courageous and died for their faith and this proves that something must have happened, would this argument have been enough to make you a believer? Or would you have needed more reasons to believe?
I think most atheists would laugh about this and not be impressed at all, but why? Because they don't want to believe? Or is it because they were not there and did not see it? Is it because they are sceptical of ancient literature and think that this is just fiction and even if the arguments are convincing they are only convincing if it really happened this way? Maybe this is the problem, that they simply do not think that the gospels are reliable because they are so old and not many people were there which could have raised their voice when they had found things in the gospels which are not correct. For example who was there and also witnessed what happened at the tomb except the disciples and the women? Nobody else. Then also nobody else was able to say something if the gospels had not been written down correctly. But one argument of christians is that there were so many hostile witnesses and they would directly have said something if the gospels had not been correct.
[ May 07, 2006, 12:34 AM: Message edited by: xdisciplex ]
Today there is an argument which goes like this: If you present the case of the resurrection to a sincere seeker then he will acknowledge that it's true because of all the evidence unless he doesn't want to believe in God.
But look at this:
Luk 24:12 Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass.
Peter saw the clothes and he knew Jesus and he also had heard what Jesus had said about what would happen to him and in spite of this he wondered. Does this mean Peter did not want to believe because inspite of all the evidence he did not believe but all he could do is wonder? Of course not. Peter wanted to believe like all the other disciples but then why didn't he believe when he saw all of this?
If not even the disciples believed when they were presented these facts then it's it a bit strange to expect people to believe because of the gospels 2000 years later? The disciples were there and had seen it and all we have today is the scriptures which is also a huge difference.
I mean is it really as easy as some christians make it look like? Are the facts really so convincing that every sincere seeker has to be convinced?
There is an attorney who wanted to disprove the resurrection and then looked at the case and became a believer because of the evidence, he analyzed the case and it convinced him. I dont know if this also would have convinced me as an atheist. I mean isn't it also a bit easy to say that the behavior of the disciples cannot be explained any other way and because of this it has to be true? Because this is what christians say. They say that the disciples totally changed their behavior and the only explanation is that Jesus is risen and this basically settles the case. Is it really that easy? If it was so clear then shouldn't everybody be convinced by it and shouldn't everybody admit it and submit to God?
Imagine you're an atheist and a christian comes to you with this argument. He tells you that after Jesus' death the disciples were totally down and then suddenly they changed and became courageous and died for their faith and this proves that something must have happened, would this argument have been enough to make you a believer? Or would you have needed more reasons to believe?
I think most atheists would laugh about this and not be impressed at all, but why? Because they don't want to believe? Or is it because they were not there and did not see it? Is it because they are sceptical of ancient literature and think that this is just fiction and even if the arguments are convincing they are only convincing if it really happened this way? Maybe this is the problem, that they simply do not think that the gospels are reliable because they are so old and not many people were there which could have raised their voice when they had found things in the gospels which are not correct. For example who was there and also witnessed what happened at the tomb except the disciples and the women? Nobody else. Then also nobody else was able to say something if the gospels had not been written down correctly. But one argument of christians is that there were so many hostile witnesses and they would directly have said something if the gospels had not been correct.
[ May 07, 2006, 12:34 AM: Message edited by: xdisciplex ]
