Why not Jesus?

[winningedge101]

Hey guys I'm an agnostic Christian and basically what I mean by that is I am undecided on Christianity but I admit my bias for wanting it to be true. Are Christians justified in their belief? Why do you guys reject Jesus as God? You guys are like the smart ones so if you guys are the ones studying these manuscripts and you still are not even convinced at all by Christ then why should I or any other Christian be? I want to be a Christian, but I want it to be an intellectual decision and not one derived on nothing but blind faith.

[iskander]

Hey guys I'm an agnostic Christian and basically what I mean by that is I am undecided on Christianity but I admit my bias for wanting it to be true. Are Christians justified in their belief? Why do you guys reject Jesus as God? You guys are like the smart ones so if you guys are the ones studying these manuscripts and you still are not even convinced at all by Christ then why should I or any other Christian be? I want to be a Christian, but I want it to be an intellectual decision and not one derived on nothing but blind faith.

There is no need to make Jesus a 'God' for Christianity to be a functional religion. Even now, the death and resurrection of the man Jesus is as attractive as the death and resurrection of the God Jesus.

[winningedge101]

Hey guys I'm an agnostic Christian and basically what I mean by that is I am undecided on Christianity but I admit my bias for wanting it to be true. Are Christians justified in their belief? Why do you guys reject Jesus as God? You guys are like the smart ones so if you guys are the ones studying these manuscripts and you still are not even convinced at all by Christ then why should I or any other Christian be? I want to be a Christian, but I want it to be an intellectual decision and not one derived on nothing but blind faith.

There is no need to make Jesus a 'God' for Christianity to be a functional religion. Even now, the death and resurrection of the man Jesus is as attractive as the death and resurrection of the God Jesus.

I just wonder why the people here don't buy Jesus and his resurrection.

[iskander]

Hey guys I'm an agnostic Christian and basically what I mean by that is I am undecided on Christianity but I admit my bias for wanting it to be true. Are Christians justified in their belief? Why do you guys reject Jesus as God? You guys are like the smart ones so if you guys are the ones studying these manuscripts and you still are not even convinced at all by Christ then why should I or any other Christian be? I want to be a Christian, but I want it to be an intellectual decision and not one derived on nothing but blind faith.

There is no need to make Jesus a 'God' for Christianity to be a functional religion. Even now, the death and resurrection of the man Jesus is as attractive as the death and resurrection of the God Jesus.

I just wonder why the people here don't buy Jesus and his resurrection.

I don't believe in the resurrection of the dead, but I cannot give you a reason for that . I know lots of people who believe in an afterlife and many of them are nice , free people.
If you are one of those free and nice believers , that is fine.

[winningedge101]

I don't believe in the resurrection of the dead, but I cannot give you a reason for that . I know lots of people who believe in an afterlife and many of them are nice , free people.
If you are one of those free and nice believers , that is fine.[/quote]
I appreciate that man I really do, but I just want to know if believing in Jesus resurrecting from the grave is a likely option for one who believes in the supernatural. I think if a naturalistic explanation can provide for Jesus that is good too but if the supernatural one hits all the bars then would it be ok to ditch the naturalistic worldview and believe in it? I just want to know if Christianity really is respectable and not just blind faith bullcrap like me believing in the spaghetti monster or whatever that atheist religion is.

[iskander]

I don't believe in the resurrection of the dead, but I cannot give you a reason for that . I know lots of people who believe in an afterlife and many of them are nice , free people.
If you are one of those free and nice believers , that is fine.

I appreciate that man I really do, but I just want to know if believing in Jesus resurrecting from the grave is a likely option for one who believes in the supernatural. I think if a naturalistic explanation can provide for Jesus that is good too but if the supernatural one hits all the bars then would it be ok to ditch the naturalistic worldview and believe in it? I just want to know if Christianity really is respectable and not just blind faith bullcrap like me believing in the spaghetti monster or whatever that atheist religion is.[/quote]


Good people believe in bodily resurrection. There is nothing wrong with that since that belief is compatible with high intelligence and excellent performance as a an individual. It is also compatible with nice ordinary people.


Perhaps some people think that those who believe in a god and fear a cruel afterlife , that fear makes those people less capable of resisting malignant organised religious input.
I live in Britain and it is very late here. I'll say goodnight now.
Goodnight

[Peter Kirby]

Well, if anyone ever said anything along the lines of 'the evidence for Christianity is overwhelming,' they are wrong.

They do not call it 'faith' for nothing.

[toejam]

Are Christians justified in their belief?

It really depends on what you're classifying as "Christian" here. I know many people who self-identify with that label, but when you push them on what they actually believe about 'Christ', things get blurry. Many don't really believe Jesus rose from the dead. Many don't really believe he walked on water, or was born of a virgin etc. Often they just believe that Jesus was a good guy who taught profound wisdom and morals - love your enemies, do unto others, etc. - a peace-loving Ghandi-like figure who deserves our respect and veneration. If that's the kind of Christian you want to be, then I have no beef with that.

On the other side, I also know a lot of fundamentalists for whom accepting biblical inerrancy (or something very close to it) is what defines one as a Christian. And then of course there's everything in between!

To be a true follower of 'Christ', one must be prepared to try and decipher what following Christ entails. It requires one to seek historically what Jesus said and did. And here's where I'll discuss my findings:

Over the past 5 or 6 years, I've read close to 200 (mostly) scholarly, P.H.D authored, books (and lecture series, etc.) on Judeo-Christian Origins - primarily focusing on the question of the Historical Jesus, and my current opinion is that we really can't know much at all about Jesus with confidence. I think there are good enough grounds to suspect that a figure existed - a Jewish cult-leader who was executed from whom the legends emerged. Further, I think there are good grounds to suspect that he was an apocalypticist with delusions of grandeur. Put bluntly, I see Jesus as a hell-fire preacher and exorcist who expected repentance and submission. He preached that Judgement Day was imminent - any moment now God's angels were going to destroy the place and set up a Utopian kingdom for the elect. "You better repent or expect to be cast into the Lake of Fire when the Lord's angels arrive - like weeds thrown to the furnace! Repent! The axe is at the root of the tree!". That, I believe, though with not much confidence, was the core message of Jesus.

So it could be that Jesus was preaching some lovey dovey stuff too, but I'm hesitant in thinking that's all he was preaching. It is for these reasons that I'm not a Christian - i.e. I do not think Jesus was the kind of guy worthy of my following, and in any case, I don't think we can know one way or the other.

There are of course scholars who don't think Jesus was preaching an imminent apocalypse. The views of scholars like John Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg are worth investigating. I actually like their brand of Christianity, even if I don't believe it.

I just wonder why the people here don't buy Jesus and his resurrection.

Given my understanding of the way the world works, it seems more plausible to me that the resurrection was either a lie, a misunderstanding, or an allegory - or (my suspicion) some combination of these factors. I lean toward the hallucination hypothesis as the instigator. Seeing recently deceased loved ones and religious figures are the most common hallucinations people have. Jesus would have been both to his closest followers. I suspect a few of them had some hallucinations, and the next thing you know the story got out of hand. That said, I'm very open to the idea that it was a lie - e.g. that one or a small group of his next-in-command decided to declare that he'd "seen" Jesus, in order to keep the movement alive. "Don't worry everyone - I saw Jesus!"

I want to be a Christian, but I want it to be an intellectual decision and not one derived on nothing but blind faith.

I think you should just be honest with yourself (and I think your post implies that you are). Read. Study. Don't force yourself to make conclusions, just call it like you see it at any given point in time. Never be afraid to say "I don't know". Be willing to review your beliefs, etc. If in your quest you come to believe that Jesus is God, then great. If you doubt that he was and you're being honest about it, then any God who is going to condemn you for simply being honest isn't worth your respect. In my experience, a leap of blind faith is never an appropriate response - particularly with something as difficult as trying to reconstruct ancient history! It's one thing to have faith, it's another to be doing faith. It's the latter that I have a problem with.

All the best in your quest.

[winningedge101]

Thanks man I really appreciate it.

[Metacrock]

Well, if anyone ever said anything along the lines of 'the evidence for Christianity is overwhelming,' they are wrong.

They do not call it 'faith' for nothing.

Depends upon what evidence you mean. I think the process of faith is a transformative process, it could be understood in Khunian terms, Paradigm shift. It is a sea change and trying to epitomizing as a mere examination of a set of facts is rather immature. No one does a rational calculation of facts and decides to believe. There's a lot more to it than that. Historical evidence does play it's part. The evidence for Christianity is a lot stronger than you are willing to give it credit for being.


http://metacrock.blogspot.com/