>What was the most surprising thing you came to learn about Jesus?
Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. But God proves His love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:6b-8
>Did you ever deny Jesus as a historical figure? If so, what changed that?
No, I never heard anyone take this position. It was only later that I found out the this was accepted by some; I read The Historical Jesus: Five Views and Bart Erhman - Agnostic/atheist NT scholar - provides a great argument for the historical Jesus in Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth
>Did Christian people sharing the gospel with you make any genuine difference, or did you rely more on your own research?
My first problem was that even though I had friends/co-workers who invited me to their church they differed - one was Charismatic and the other Baptist. And they were sharply divided on certain passages. So how did they arrive at their particular interpretation objectively? It wasn't until I found books like How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth that I felt I begin to understand the Bible for myself rather than being told what it meant.
The best advise I ever got was from this Christian gal who suggested that I look for the best Christian resources on a subject instead of relying on atheist/skeptical critiques of Christian issues/doctrines.
So, I'd say that I did my own research in concluding that God exists and Christianity is true. But don't discount people sharing their faith and their prayers For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.
>If you are interested in science (I know a lot of atheists are) what was your "aha" moment when you realized The Bible/Church are not incompatible with science?
Yes, Science! However when I found out about Punctuated Equilibrium I had a rude awakening; I was always taught that gradualism - there is a slow steady climb from the simple to the complex in the fossil record. But Punk Eck was developed to explain why almost all species were in a state of stasis [i.e. no change] 95% of the time. So, the Christians I used to chide in HS were actually correct. That was a kick in the pants. This made me want to look at science a bit more deeply, so,,,
...when I investigated Ontological Naturalism, the idea that only the physical matter, laws and forces exist. If this is true then humans cannot be said to engage in critical thinking - it's a bit involved so I won't get into it here. Interestingly enough most atheists do not hold to Ontological Naturalism. In my experience they hold to some sort of I-don't-know-ism
Note: yes, there is a difference between ontological naturalism [ON] and methodological naturalism [MN] - Science assumes MN to investigate how the physical world operates; ON is a philosophical concept. The problem is science cannot be used to disprove theism unless they can show that ON is true. Fun fact: I've only encountered one atheist who even tried to defend ON even though this would, for all intents and purposes, prove that God doesn't exist.
>Did you ever truly not believe in God, or did you always have a sense there was something more, even if you denied it to others?
I was taught that science could explain everything; I read parts of the Bible and other religious texts for a Religious Lit course but there was no bolt of lighting.
>What was the biggest misconception you held about Jesus/Jesus' teachings/Christians etc?
That Christians took everything by "faith" - i.e. without reason.
>Did you consider others faiths before Christianity, and if so, what eventually bought you around?
Stoicism and Buddhism, from that Religious Lit course after my realization about science and naturalism.
>What was the hardest thing to believe in Christianity, and what changed your mind?
Actually accepting/trusting Jesus. I loved my sinful life way, way too much. I try to let reason be the guide and even though I knew intellectually the Christianity was true so, after it had been on my mind for longer than I care to admit, was I going to be a hypocrite and not "follow the evidence, wherever it leads"? Anthony Flew
>How can I teach my atheist friend about Jesus in a non-confrontational way? (aside from prayer)
It depends on where they are at on their journey; that's why you should always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,
>What is one thing you would say to any atheist who could be reading your response?
Be a critical thinker, not a sceptic.
> Start researching. The scholarship, even among Christians, is not on your side. I'd recommend looking at the works of Robert Price, Richard Carrier, and Bart Ehrman.
None of these are Christians.
Wallace also reviewed Misquoting Jesus
Ben Witherington's 5 part review of A Critique of Jesus Interrupted
Darrell Bock destroys Price's position in Historical Jesus - Five Views
We can play dueling scholars all day long.
But there are a number of reasons to prefer an early date to a late one:
There is no mention in Acts of the crucial event of the fall of Jerusalem in 70.
There is no hint of the outbreak of the Jewish War in 66 or of serious deterioration of relations between Romans and Jews before that time.
There is no hint of the deterioration of Christian relations with Rome during the Neronian persecution of the late 60s.
There is no hint of the death of James at the hands of the Sanhedrin in ca. 62, which is recorded by Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews (20.9.1.200).
The significance of Gallio's judgement in Acts 18:14-17 may be seen as setting precedent to legitimize Christian teaching under the umbrella of the tolerance extended to Judaism.
The prominence and authority of the Sadducees in Acts reflects a pre-70 date, before the collapse of their political cooperation with Rome.
The relatively sympathetic attitude in Acts to Pharisees (unlike that found even in Luke's Gospel) does not fit well with in the period of Pharisaic revival that led up to the council at Jamnia. At that time a new phase of conflict began with Christianity.
Acts seems to antedate the arrival of Peter in Rome and implies that Peter and John were alive at the time of the writing.
The prominence of 'God-fearers' in the synagogues may point to a pre-70 date, after which there were few Gentile inquiries and converts to Jerusalem.
*10. Luke gives insignificant details of the culture of an early, Julio-Claudian period.
*11. Areas of controversy described presume that the temple was still standing.
*12. Adolf Harnack contended that Paul's prophecy in Acts 20:25 (cf. 20:38) may have been contradicted by later events. If so, the book must have appeared before those events.
*13. Christian terminology used in Acts reflects an earlier period. Harnack points to use of Iusous and Ho Kurios, while Ho Christos always designates 'the Messiah', and is not a proper name for Jesus.
*14. The confident tone of Acts seems unlikely during the Neronian persecutions of Christians and the Jewish War with the Rome during the late 60s.
*15. The action ends very early in the 60s, yet the description in Acts 27 and 28 is written with a vivid immediacy. It is also an odd place to end the book if years have passed since the pre-62 events transpired.
>No, we don't. Scientists that actually study the evidence in this area aren't even sure there ever was a cause or "nothing".
Then please explain within the bounds of your worldview the origin of the universe under what is currently known.
>This is a ridiculous buzzphrase that doesn't actually mean anything. Christianity, in every single sense of the terms, is a belief and a religion. It's not a relationship at all.
This is atheist reasoning at it best - just assert.
I suggest you read chapter 4 in Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture Here's a PDF of the article
So your assertion that Christianity, in every single sense of the terms, is a belief and a religion. It's not a relationship at all. is demonstratively false.
>You're right, and that's done in other areas. Here, we're discussing Christian claims about God, not other philosophy.
And as I've countless times, if one's criticism stems from bad, self-defeating, illogical philosophy then that should be pointed out.
And how would we know the above unless the atheist/critic of Christianity states what his worldview is?
it is a double standard to say "your view can be examined but mine cannot. What are atheists and critics so afraid of?
>Do you believe everything you hear until you've demonstrated it to be false? How could you function that way?
Do you operate that way?
Do you not criticize Christianity from a certain philosophical viewpoint, i.e. a worldview?
Do you think this WV is true, or at least more probably true than its negation?
If not why believe it?
If so, isn't that a claim? If not an explicit claim then certainly an implicit one.
Then why should that claim be up for critical analysis?
So, yes everyone makes claims, either explicitly or implicitly therefore everyone has a burden of proof.
>As I've mentioned countless times now, you've created a false dichotomy of naturalism vs. Christianity.
Everybody has a worldview, so it's Christianity vs [fill-in-the-blank].
And then give reason why [fill-in-the-blank] is true.
>I'll pick two and let you choose.
So I ask to cull the discussion down to one topic and you give me the "options" of discussing 100's or 1,000's of "gods"+ other entities OR evidence for the christian God and the historical reliability of the Bible.
Since neither of your options is one topic [which was my parameter] they are not viable candidates for discussion.