-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I hope I'm not totally misunderstanding the question or am writing too "fluffy" of answers... I do apologize if I'm not quite "getting it"...
If a person is great at apologetics and debate, wonderful!! What an awesome, God-given gift!
But some of us are not gifted in those areas, and yet, God can use us just as effectively in people's lives if we're open.
I guess, when I read the original question... I interpreted it as how to help someone (who says they don't believe in God... they might secretly have an inkling of faith) feel Jesus is there without pounding them to death with Scriptures... (Some of the people I've met who are the most vehemently against Christianity or claim to be staunchly atheistic are people who were once part of the church but had bad experiences, whether real or misinterpreted.)
I admire the people who can have intellectual debates about faith--sometimes I wish I were one of them, but as far as "asking God to allow His presence to be felt in their lives" (that's how I took the original question... sorry... maybe I'm not understanding correctly and I apologize again if I'm somehow derailing the thread), you never know how God will open a door.
For example... perhaps something will happen in that person's life (a loved one might be diagnosed with cancer, etc.)... and maybe what is really needed is a sympathetic ear and an offer to pray for the person's loved one. I've experienced this a few times at work... and the person may be very reluctant or may refuse--that's fine. But they might just accept... and God may have opened the door to their heart for future conversations.
I guess what I'm trying to say is... we are all gifted in different ways and God enables us to use our gifts accordingly. I once spent some time with a girl who was having a REALLY rough time, and all I did was offer to do her dishes and crack a few jokes (she wasn't an atheist, but we did have a long talk about faith in between it all.) When I left her house, I hung my head and said, "God, I'm sorry. Maybe I didn't do enough to 'convert' her?"
I could be wrong, but I felt like God was trying to tell me, "Kim, you made her laugh... and that's something she hasn't done in a long time."
I hope everyone out there feels encouraged to use ask God how to use their own unique gifts in order to win, yes, even atheists, to His purpose.
If a person is great at apologetics and debate, wonderful!! What an awesome, God-given gift!
But some of us are not gifted in those areas, and yet, God can use us just as effectively in people's lives if we're open.
I guess, when I read the original question... I interpreted it as how to help someone (who says they don't believe in God... they might secretly have an inkling of faith) feel Jesus is there without pounding them to death with Scriptures... (Some of the people I've met who are the most vehemently against Christianity or claim to be staunchly atheistic are people who were once part of the church but had bad experiences, whether real or misinterpreted.)
I admire the people who can have intellectual debates about faith--sometimes I wish I were one of them, but as far as "asking God to allow His presence to be felt in their lives" (that's how I took the original question... sorry... maybe I'm not understanding correctly and I apologize again if I'm somehow derailing the thread), you never know how God will open a door.
For example... perhaps something will happen in that person's life (a loved one might be diagnosed with cancer, etc.)... and maybe what is really needed is a sympathetic ear and an offer to pray for the person's loved one. I've experienced this a few times at work... and the person may be very reluctant or may refuse--that's fine. But they might just accept... and God may have opened the door to their heart for future conversations.
I guess what I'm trying to say is... we are all gifted in different ways and God enables us to use our gifts accordingly. I once spent some time with a girl who was having a REALLY rough time, and all I did was offer to do her dishes and crack a few jokes (she wasn't an atheist, but we did have a long talk about faith in between it all.) When I left her house, I hung my head and said, "God, I'm sorry. Maybe I didn't do enough to 'convert' her?"
I could be wrong, but I felt like God was trying to tell me, "Kim, you made her laugh... and that's something she hasn't done in a long time."
I hope everyone out there feels encouraged to use ask God how to use their own unique gifts in order to win, yes, even atheists, to His purpose.
If someone really wants to knowhow to convince/convert atheists they have to listen to the stories of christians who were former atheists. Any type of argument/apologetics will just be shrugged off by them because we ourselves cannot PROVE anything we believe.
Faith - the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
(Hebrews 11:1)
Faith - the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
(Hebrews 11:1)
J
I suppose I understood the question the same way, seoulsearch. How do we help them "feel the nearness of Jesus"? To me, that's sharing truth in love as the Lord does with us, not putting them on the defensive (or ourselves). Debate seems like a whole other thing. But then, as you say, God has gifted His children differently so that all can share Him with those He puts in our paths the way He would have us to do.
And, zero...so true. Former atheists have tremendously powerful testimonies.
And, zero...so true. Former atheists have tremendously powerful testimonies.
C
I agree with that too, and I've argued for something similar in other places (here, here, and here).
I don't think everyone has to be a high falootin' apologist. Just as some people over-react against apologetics, some apologists get carried away for apologetics. But I do think that our love for God and truth should cultivate some apologetic desire in the same way that a husband's love for his wife would cultivate a desire for him to be capable of defending her in case she were attacked.
I don't think everyone has to be a high falootin' apologist. Just as some people over-react against apologetics, some apologists get carried away for apologetics. But I do think that our love for God and truth should cultivate some apologetic desire in the same way that a husband's love for his wife would cultivate a desire for him to be capable of defending her in case she were attacked.
(By the way, Zero, LOVE the pics you included!!!)
Some of the best ways we can witness to someone, of course, is through our own testimonies. While I am not trying to belittle Biblical debate or defense in anyway (I think all Christians, myself included, should strive for an ever-growing knowledge and understanding of God's Word), I do think that sometimes people forget the power of their own testimony vs. pure intellectual argument.
I know it might not mean anything to an atheist that I:
1. was found in a box on the street when I was only a few days old, but God gave me a family.
2. had a suicide attempt in my 20's, and it was an atheist friend's phone call that God used to save me.
3. am blessed with the ability to see because God led my Mom to notice a medical condition when I was very young that others brushed off as nothing.
These, of course, are just a tip of the iceberg of what God has done for me... and while an atheist might attribute these things to luck or fate or whatever, I know that sometimes, being honest with people about your life and who you are as person, both the good and the bad, is the strongest, most powerful way to allow them to feel Jesus' love.
Some of the best ways we can witness to someone, of course, is through our own testimonies. While I am not trying to belittle Biblical debate or defense in anyway (I think all Christians, myself included, should strive for an ever-growing knowledge and understanding of God's Word), I do think that sometimes people forget the power of their own testimony vs. pure intellectual argument.
I know it might not mean anything to an atheist that I:
1. was found in a box on the street when I was only a few days old, but God gave me a family.
2. had a suicide attempt in my 20's, and it was an atheist friend's phone call that God used to save me.
3. am blessed with the ability to see because God led my Mom to notice a medical condition when I was very young that others brushed off as nothing.
These, of course, are just a tip of the iceberg of what God has done for me... and while an atheist might attribute these things to luck or fate or whatever, I know that sometimes, being honest with people about your life and who you are as person, both the good and the bad, is the strongest, most powerful way to allow them to feel Jesus' love.
1
My original point is that with the use of history outside of the Bible you can pretty much establish that Jesus, apostles and followers of them existed long before any roman catholic church came along and started penning supposed fables. And when you establish that fact, they DO feel the footsteps of Jesus and it freaks them out.
J
As I read through the forums, sometimes I think that when it comes to "sharing Jesus" with others, we women tend to do it in the tenderest methods Jesus used (example: His dealings with the woman at the well, Mary of Bethany, etc.). Guys seem to come at it from the "this is the way it is" aspect of Jesus' teaching (example: His confrontation of the Pharisees, telling Pilate that he had no power over Him, etc.).
But then, we women are normally talking with other women and children about such things, and the guys are probably dealing with other guys for the most part, so it would make sense...
That's probably why we lost you at some point, Stilly
But then, we women are normally talking with other women and children about such things, and the guys are probably dealing with other guys for the most part, so it would make sense...
That's probably why we lost you at some point, Stilly
Athiesm: The Belief... *strawman bells ringing*
I found the pamphlet one funny.
Jokes can get away with a bit of unPC material I suppose
Kirk Cameron acclaims himself a former athiest, and in the strictest sense, he'd be right, but you'd get nowhere with his story. I think some like to wear ex-athiest as some sort of badge. Props though, find the people who've seriously questioned themselves and you'll find better reasons.
I'll go through Stilly's original post later (nearing Lecture time for me), armies of groupthink will find argument flaws in others or even themselves easier. If there were a magic bullet for this issue, i'm sure it would be in use.
I found the pamphlet one funny.
Jokes can get away with a bit of unPC material I suppose
Kirk Cameron acclaims himself a former athiest, and in the strictest sense, he'd be right, but you'd get nowhere with his story. I think some like to wear ex-athiest as some sort of badge. Props though, find the people who've seriously questioned themselves and you'll find better reasons.
I'll go through Stilly's original post later (nearing Lecture time for me), armies of groupthink will find argument flaws in others or even themselves easier. If there were a magic bullet for this issue, i'm sure it would be in use.
Last edited:
Well, I came back to the topic
Must admit I don't have much knowledge of Emperor Nero, but as the point was to establish christianity (already) existing around 60+ad I'd have no problem with that. To the best of my knowledge the parables Matthew, Mark, Luke and John's earliest records are 65-100+ad (carbon dated)
Summarising the argument
Evidence suggests a populous has practicioners of Christianity, 60+years after 'death'.
A quick technicality: "Ok so the claim is that Jesus existed from 0sh ad to 33ish ad and that he rose from the dead." ~Stillwaters. He would be dead 33 years in 33 ad.
Its likely a guy named Jesus existed
I am fine with this.
I can point out at this point the conclusion is reached through hear-say of that 'christian' population. I haven't found accounts from Jewish or other natural persons or authorities reports to correlate with the christians assertion (hard to expect for 2000 years ago). Just Sayin'. I don't think its that we deny an influencial figure called Jesus could have been the source, its possible, likely in my opinion, but evidencially weak.
The jump most objected too is this; because the populous of christians were convinced for Jesus's divinity, even if evidence was accepted of christianity (thus christians) existance during jesus's lifetime (which could be a fair assumption), therefore it is likely that the divinity is true and supernatural events occured.
Must admit I don't have much knowledge of Emperor Nero, but as the point was to establish christianity (already) existing around 60+ad I'd have no problem with that. To the best of my knowledge the parables Matthew, Mark, Luke and John's earliest records are 65-100+ad (carbon dated
)Summarising the argument
Evidence suggests a populous has practicioners of Christianity, 60+years after 'death'.
A quick technicality: "Ok so the claim is that Jesus existed from 0sh ad to 33ish ad and that he rose from the dead." ~Stillwaters. He would be dead 33 years in 33 ad.
Its likely a guy named Jesus existed
I am fine with this.
I can point out at this point the conclusion is reached through hear-say of that 'christian' population. I haven't found accounts from Jewish or other natural persons or authorities reports to correlate with the christians assertion (hard to expect for 2000 years ago). Just Sayin'. I don't think its that we deny an influencial figure called Jesus could have been the source, its possible, likely in my opinion, but evidencially weak.
The jump most objected too is this; because the populous of christians were convinced for Jesus's divinity, even if evidence was accepted of christianity (thus christians) existance during jesus's lifetime (which could be a fair assumption), therefore it is likely that the divinity is true and supernatural events occured.
Last edited:
1
Ok even better. So instead of 60 years after his reported death, we have them 30 years closer, assuming you're right.
So within 30 years of his death, we have people verified to have been persecuted for some message about Jesus.
Those being persecuted either...
1. Made it up themselves....
2. Heard it from somewhere.......
If 1 is true, then we have a whole mass of people willing to die for what they KNEW was a lie.....Not very plausible. The better reasoning is they were dying for something they had experienced....assuming you're going off of assertion 1.
If assertion 2 is true, then we have people being persecuted because they heard a message from somewhere. Which implies there was a messenger!
Who was the messenger?
The apostles.
So then we have these apostles willing to die for either something they knew was a lie, or something they experienced. first hand.
Would they ALL be willing to die for something they KNEW was a lie???????
Not likely..
Which begs another question. Where did they get their message they were proclaiming??
From their own personal hands on experience........
It's more implausible to believe this whole thing was just conjured up outta thin air, than it is to believe it really happened.
So another question.
Which message were they proclaiming and which message would the Romans feel most threatened by?
Well the NT tells us they proclaimed Jesus was GOD and KING!
Roman emperors thought they were basically God and King....
So it seems more plausible that the Romans persecuted the Christians for the record we have on account in the NT as far as the message they proclaimed, than to believe they were persecuted for simply going around saying hey everyone love each other..........as Jesus said to. Rome wouldn't be threatned by a simple message like that!
So it's more plausible from all that to believe that the message of Jesus being God and king did indeed exist. It's more plausible to believe these folks were dying for what they knew and experienced as the truth. It's more plausible to believe a guy named Jesus proclaimed himself both God, King and that THIS was the first primary mover igniting the apostles and then the followers.
So within 30 years of his death, we have people verified to have been persecuted for some message about Jesus.
Those being persecuted either...
1. Made it up themselves....
2. Heard it from somewhere.......
If 1 is true, then we have a whole mass of people willing to die for what they KNEW was a lie.....Not very plausible. The better reasoning is they were dying for something they had experienced....assuming you're going off of assertion 1.
If assertion 2 is true, then we have people being persecuted because they heard a message from somewhere. Which implies there was a messenger!
Who was the messenger?
The apostles.
So then we have these apostles willing to die for either something they knew was a lie, or something they experienced. first hand.
Would they ALL be willing to die for something they KNEW was a lie???????
Not likely..
Which begs another question. Where did they get their message they were proclaiming??
From their own personal hands on experience........
It's more implausible to believe this whole thing was just conjured up outta thin air, than it is to believe it really happened.
So another question.
Which message were they proclaiming and which message would the Romans feel most threatened by?
Well the NT tells us they proclaimed Jesus was GOD and KING!
Roman emperors thought they were basically God and King....
So it seems more plausible that the Romans persecuted the Christians for the record we have on account in the NT as far as the message they proclaimed, than to believe they were persecuted for simply going around saying hey everyone love each other..........as Jesus said to. Rome wouldn't be threatned by a simple message like that!
So it's more plausible from all that to believe that the message of Jesus being God and king did indeed exist. It's more plausible to believe these folks were dying for what they knew and experienced as the truth. It's more plausible to believe a guy named Jesus proclaimed himself both God, King and that THIS was the first primary mover igniting the apostles and then the followers.
K
There are far too many assumptions and unverified facts and not enough sources. Obviously this is meant to be verbal, and therefore you cannot site sources on the fly so I understand why none are listed. However, I think if you were to use this argument on a history major, or even a big history buff, you will run into issues holding this together.
For myself, I'm not the greatest at regurgitating facts... but I do have a good nose at detecting fallacies and possible manipulation of the facts.
Being an atheist, if you were to confront me with this argument on the street, I would tell you that you are assuming the motivations of the people 2000 years ago. Also, they may not have actually been following Jesus (assuming that Christians were actually being persecuted at this time, I cannot verify because I'm on the street corner with you) as being Christians, Christ = Messiah. There were quite a few people that claimed to be a messiah, the character Jesus is not alone. Also, the name Jesus was a common name at the time. There is also the heavy and suspicious involvement of Constantine when putting the manuscripts together and basically turning the cult into a religion. Much of the history is shown to be distorted, much of it in the favor of the church.
Bottom line is that this is a subjective argument that pretends to know the motivation of 2000 year old people and attempts to polarize the issue.
For myself, I'm not the greatest at regurgitating facts... but I do have a good nose at detecting fallacies and possible manipulation of the facts.
Being an atheist, if you were to confront me with this argument on the street, I would tell you that you are assuming the motivations of the people 2000 years ago. Also, they may not have actually been following Jesus (assuming that Christians were actually being persecuted at this time, I cannot verify because I'm on the street corner with you) as being Christians, Christ = Messiah. There were quite a few people that claimed to be a messiah, the character Jesus is not alone. Also, the name Jesus was a common name at the time. There is also the heavy and suspicious involvement of Constantine when putting the manuscripts together and basically turning the cult into a religion. Much of the history is shown to be distorted, much of it in the favor of the church.
Bottom line is that this is a subjective argument that pretends to know the motivation of 2000 year old people and attempts to polarize the issue.
1
Let's deal with 1 and 2.
Yes there were more than one people using the name of Jesus at the time.
Yes Constantine had sway over the formation of the Bible.
The reference to Nero persecuting Christians is a validated fact, verified outside the Bible which happened 64-68adish.
Constantine existed 300adish.
So to say these historically, verified outside the Bible Christians, were being persecuted for some twisted message influenced by Constantine, well that's just not historically possible! This happened 200ish years before Constantine existed.
Also this verified history outside of the Bible tells us Nero was persecuting CHRISTIANS. Not people who said they followed a multitude of people taking the name Jesus.
No our historical records show he was persecuting, people who claimed to have followed the guy named Jesus of Nazareth, who it was claimed rose from the dead and declared himself king.
So these early CHristians got there somehow. It's VERY safe to say they didn't get there because of some twisted message or belief created by constantine or the roman church, seeing the roman church or constantine didn't form til 200ish years later..........
So.........
Let me use the analogy of dominos.
If you see dominos falling in a row. It's safe to assume there was SOMETHING that pushed the first one and started the chain.......
These early persecuted Christians from 64-68 ad are like those dominos. Something started the chain. What was that something? It wasn't some twisted message from Constantine. It wasn't some twisted message from the roman catholic church......
We know the Christians were claiming to be following a guy who just 30ish years earlier claimed to have risen from the dead........
What's the most plausible explanation for this chain of dominos bein pushed over???
We know from history outside the Bible, the romans were rather tolerant of religion. So a religion of some guy saying to go around and love each other isn't likely to have caused the tolerant romans to wanna persecute the Christians....
Yes there were more than one people using the name of Jesus at the time.
Yes Constantine had sway over the formation of the Bible.
The reference to Nero persecuting Christians is a validated fact, verified outside the Bible which happened 64-68adish.
Constantine existed 300adish.
So to say these historically, verified outside the Bible Christians, were being persecuted for some twisted message influenced by Constantine, well that's just not historically possible! This happened 200ish years before Constantine existed.
Also this verified history outside of the Bible tells us Nero was persecuting CHRISTIANS. Not people who said they followed a multitude of people taking the name Jesus.
No our historical records show he was persecuting, people who claimed to have followed the guy named Jesus of Nazareth, who it was claimed rose from the dead and declared himself king.
So these early CHristians got there somehow. It's VERY safe to say they didn't get there because of some twisted message or belief created by constantine or the roman church, seeing the roman church or constantine didn't form til 200ish years later..........
So.........
Let me use the analogy of dominos.
If you see dominos falling in a row. It's safe to assume there was SOMETHING that pushed the first one and started the chain.......
These early persecuted Christians from 64-68 ad are like those dominos. Something started the chain. What was that something? It wasn't some twisted message from Constantine. It wasn't some twisted message from the roman catholic church......
We know the Christians were claiming to be following a guy who just 30ish years earlier claimed to have risen from the dead........
What's the most plausible explanation for this chain of dominos bein pushed over???
We know from history outside the Bible, the romans were rather tolerant of religion. So a religion of some guy saying to go around and love each other isn't likely to have caused the tolerant romans to wanna persecute the Christians....
J
Non-christian historical references to the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth:
Syrian - Mara bar Serapion: His ancient record of this is in storage in British archives; matches the scriptures
Roman - Tacitus: AD 116 - describes the crucifixion during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of the Roman procurators
Roman - Julius Africanus - describes the solar eclipse described in the scriptures that took place at the time of the crucifixion
Greek - Phlegon - same as above
Humphreys and Waddington of Oxford University said:
"This eclipse was visible from Jerusalem at moonrise.... first visible from Jerusalem at about 6:20pm (the start of the Jewish Sabbath and also the start of Passover day in A.D. 33) with about 20% of its disc in the umbra of the earth's shadow .... The eclipse finished some thirty minutes later at 6:50pm."
Re: the date of the crucifixion, Isaac Newton, determined this to be 4/23/AD 34 from the historical information he'd collected along with his scientific studies.
Perhaps these will help determine the time lines you seek.
Syrian - Mara bar Serapion: His ancient record of this is in storage in British archives; matches the scriptures
Roman - Tacitus: AD 116 - describes the crucifixion during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of the Roman procurators
Roman - Julius Africanus - describes the solar eclipse described in the scriptures that took place at the time of the crucifixion
Greek - Phlegon - same as above
Humphreys and Waddington of Oxford University said:
"This eclipse was visible from Jerusalem at moonrise.... first visible from Jerusalem at about 6:20pm (the start of the Jewish Sabbath and also the start of Passover day in A.D. 33) with about 20% of its disc in the umbra of the earth's shadow .... The eclipse finished some thirty minutes later at 6:50pm."
Re: the date of the crucifixion, Isaac Newton, determined this to be 4/23/AD 34 from the historical information he'd collected along with his scientific studies.
Perhaps these will help determine the time lines you seek.