Millennials Leaving the Church
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 12:18:04 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Religion & Philosophy (Moderator: World politics is up Schmitt creek)
  Millennials Leaving the Church
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Millennials Leaving the Church  (Read 2094 times)
jmsstnyng
Rookie
**
Posts: 71


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: August 04, 2017, 05:24:29 PM »

What reason(s) do you see for millennials leaving the church? Also, do you think it will be a long-term departure from the church?

The reason I ask is that I have read many articles on this issue. When the church attempts to diagnose the problem, they seem to miss the mark. They usually say it is related to the church not reaching out to the youth/young adults of the church. Another reason given is that the church, in an attempt to stay modern, has lost focus on the Gospel.

From my experience with most millennials has been for issues within the Christian doctrine.
Logged
RFayette
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,952
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: August 04, 2017, 05:49:21 PM »

Here are some possible explanations:

1. Lack of apologetics training - churches generally do a very poor job (if at all) of giving reasons to believe what is presented.  This is sad, as a wealth of great authors, such as Lee Strobel, William Lane Craig, and J Warner Wallace provide an excellent historical case for the New Testament and philosophical defenses of orthodox Christian theology. 

2. Lack of clarity - similarly, many millennial don't understand what Christianity is and the basics of Christian doctrine.  This wishy-washiness is naturally going to lead to less interest in faith and make one more likely to make statements like "All religions are basically the same," which would obviously make church attendance seem less obligatory.  On the other hand, fundamentalist churches which over-emphasize positions such as young-Earth creationism or encourage denial or obfuscation of scientific facts will seem ridiculous and cause disillusionment with the church.

3. Disagreement - in other cases, millennials have a full knowledge of their religion and simply reject it, whether it be for differences over social issues or other considerations (for example, the doctrine of salvation through Christ alone seeming inherently unfair or narrow-minded).  In this case, the individual simply no longer agrees with the required behavioral norms and beliefs they associate with Christianity, and simply decide to leave the faith as a result.

4. Logistics - many churches have a youth group where kids go instead of services.  Having never attended a full normal service (or only for Easter or other special occasions) and not being used to it, they don't want to sit through a full service and get bored by it.

5. Issues with parents - sharp disagreements with parents may spill over into matters of faith, as the parents' decisions the individual disagrees with is seen as because of religion -i.e. an individual annoyed with parental restrictions on seeing friends / what they can or cannot watch and thus associate Christianity with overbearing authoritarianism.
Logged
Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers
olawakandi
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 87,776
Jamaica
Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: August 06, 2017, 02:47:25 AM »

Obviously, the meaning of death has changed of recent. Instead, of death, astral plane and transfiguration has been more accepted than going to rot in hell, forever
Logged
Young Conservative
youngconservative
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,029
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: August 08, 2017, 05:56:39 PM »

Here are some possible explanations:

1. Lack of apologetics training - churches generally do a very poor job (if at all) of giving reasons to believe what is presented.  This is sad, as a wealth of great authors, such as Lee Strobel, William Lane Craig, and J Warner Wallace provide an excellent historical case for the New Testament and philosophical defenses of orthodox Christian theology. 

2. Lack of clarity - similarly, many millennial don't understand what Christianity is and the basics of Christian doctrine.  This wishy-washiness is naturally going to lead to less interest in faith and make one more likely to make statements like "All religions are basically the same," which would obviously make church attendance seem less obligatory.  On the other hand, fundamentalist churches which over-emphasize positions such as young-Earth creationism or encourage denial or obfuscation of scientific facts will seem ridiculous and cause disillusionment with the church.

3. Disagreement - in other cases, millennials have a full knowledge of their religion and simply reject it, whether it be for differences over social issues or other considerations (for example, the doctrine of salvation through Christ alone seeming inherently unfair or narrow-minded).  In this case, the individual simply no longer agrees with the required behavioral norms and beliefs they associate with Christianity, and simply decide to leave the faith as a result.

4. Logistics - many churches have a youth group where kids go instead of services.  Having never attended a full normal service (or only for Easter or other special occasions) and not being used to it, they don't want to sit through a full service and get bored by it.

5. Issues with parents - sharp disagreements with parents may spill over into matters of faith, as the parents' decisions the individual disagrees with is seen as because of religion -i.e. an individual annoyed with parental restrictions on seeing friends / what they can or cannot watch and thus associate Christianity with overbearing authoritarianism.

This is key. Lack of apologetics training has hurt credibility.
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,717
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: August 09, 2017, 03:50:58 PM »

More and more children now grow up participating in educational programs that emphasize the importance of critical thinking.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,700
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: August 09, 2017, 04:11:26 PM »

More and more children now grow up participating in educational programs that emphasize the importance of critical thinking.

Logged
RFayette
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,952
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: August 09, 2017, 07:27:12 PM »
« Edited: August 10, 2017, 03:40:51 PM by RFayette »

This is key. Lack of apologetics training has hurt credibility.

Yes, it's unfortunate because even fringe positions like Jesus mythicism are causing unfortunate doubts because churches have not equipped people with the information to defend the historicity and reliability of the New Testament.  The fact that 1 Corinthians 15 can be dated to around 20 years after Jesus's crucifixion, and that the oral tradition it comes from is widely agreed to be much earlier than that (even among non believing scholars), it is incredible how common the argument that the Gospel is nothing but legend and hearsay from people who never knew Jesus is.
Logged
DC Al Fine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,085
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: August 10, 2017, 05:36:23 AM »

This is key. Lack of apologetics training has hurt credibility.

Yes, it's unfortunate because even fringe positions like Jesus mythicism are causing unfortunate doubts because churches have not equipped people with the information to defend the historicity and reliability of the New Testament.  The fact that 1 Corinthians 15 can be dated to around 20 years after Jesus's crucifixion, and that the oral tradition it comes from is widely agreed to be much earlier than that (even among non believing scholars), and it is incredible how common the argument that the Gospel is nothing but legend and heresy from people who never knew Jesus is.

Is that a major problem in your neck of the woods? I can't say I've heard of anyone leaving over historical or textual criticism. Evangelicals seem to be doing ok at that. I would posit that our education of young people is more lacking because we're doing a poor job of teaching apologetics around morality, faith etc.
Logged
peter88
Rookie
**
Posts: 25
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: August 10, 2017, 09:43:22 AM »

hard to say for how long the situation remains like this, though I suppose it's just a matter of fashion. And it's like a tide: tomorrow they leave the church, the day after tomorrow they think better of it and come back.
as for the reasons, I tend to agree that the lack of apologetics training is one of the primary reasons.
Logged
RFayette
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,952
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: August 10, 2017, 10:47:34 AM »

This is key. Lack of apologetics training has hurt credibility.

Yes, it's unfortunate because even fringe positions like Jesus mythicism are causing unfortunate doubts because churches have not equipped people with the information to defend the historicity and reliability of the New Testament.  The fact that 1 Corinthians 15 can be dated to around 20 years after Jesus's crucifixion, and that the oral tradition it comes from is widely agreed to be much earlier than that (even among non believing scholars), and it is incredible how common the argument that the Gospel is nothing but legend and heresy from people who never knew Jesus is.

Is that a major problem in your neck of the woods? I can't say I've heard of anyone leaving over historical or textual criticism. Evangelicals seem to be doing ok at that. I would posit that our education of young people is more lacking because we're doing a poor job of teaching apologetics around morality, faith etc.

Well, I know people who were convinced by Jesus mythicist arguments based on parallels to pagan mythologies, or who believe that the Gospels were written several centuries after the fact (at the Council of Nicaea I have even heard); a lot of prominent American atheists on the Internet seem to like these claims and this might be their source, which would explain why they are less popular in Canada.  However, it was only people I know personally  who were PCUSA who brought up those arguments, so it might be less of a problem for those in more evangelical churches.  These criticisms are often in conjunction with gripes about Christian ethical norms and the exclusivity of salvation, as you allude to.
Logged
Sprouts Farmers Market ✘
Sprouts
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,750
Italy


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: 1.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: August 10, 2017, 12:52:39 PM »

More and more children now grow up participating in educational programs that emphasize the importance of critical thinking.

This subject aside, I've said again and again that it is pretty clear that this is the opposite of reality with critical thinking clearly getting worse every year.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,834


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: August 10, 2017, 01:24:23 PM »

This is key. Lack of apologetics training has hurt credibility.

Yes, it's unfortunate because even fringe positions like Jesus mythicism are causing unfortunate doubts because churches have not equipped people with the information to defend the historicity and reliability of the New Testament.  The fact that 1 Corinthians 15 can be dated to around 20 years after Jesus's crucifixion, and that the oral tradition it comes from is widely agreed to be much earlier than that (even among non believing scholars), and it is incredible how common the argument that the Gospel is nothing but legend and heresy from people who never knew Jesus is.

Writing about an event does not mean that the event happened, particularly any events of a supernatural nature. Not that it needs to have happened/recorded for the purposes of faith. For example the earliest Quranic texts, in terms of actual existing parchments, can be dated to the period of Mohammad's contemporaries. If historicity and reliability matter, then this would matter too.
Logged
RFayette
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,952
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: August 10, 2017, 03:45:44 PM »

This is key. Lack of apologetics training has hurt credibility.

Yes, it's unfortunate because even fringe positions like Jesus mythicism are causing unfortunate doubts because churches have not equipped people with the information to defend the historicity and reliability of the New Testament.  The fact that 1 Corinthians 15 can be dated to around 20 years after Jesus's crucifixion, and that the oral tradition it comes from is widely agreed to be much earlier than that (even among non believing scholars), and it is incredible how common the argument that the Gospel is nothing but legend and heresy from people who never knew Jesus is.

Writing about an event does not mean that the event happened, particularly any events of a supernatural nature. Not that it needs to have happened/recorded for the purposes of faith. For example the earliest Quranic texts, in terms of actual existing parchments, can be dated to the period of Mohammad's contemporaries. If historicity and reliability matter, then this would matter too.

Agreed, but it does refute the claim that Jesus never existed or that belief in his resurrection was a later embellishment long after the events surrounding the man took place.  Whether or not to believe the claims is indeed a separate question, but it is important to lay a foundation concerning the historical reliability of the Gospels. 
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: August 10, 2017, 05:29:59 PM »

More and more children now grow up participating in educational programs that emphasize the importance of critical thinking.

This subject aside, I've said again and again that it is pretty clear that this is the opposite of reality with critical thinking clearly getting worse every year.

Smilo is, once again, absolutely correct.
Logged
Del Tachi
Republican95
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,709
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: 1.46

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: August 14, 2017, 10:01:12 PM »

Here are some possible explanations:

4. Logistics - many churches have a youth group where kids go instead of services.  Having never attended a full normal service (or only for Easter or other special occasions) and not being used to it, they don't want to sit through a full service and get bored by it.


That's a good point but I think it could be expanded.  Specific religious programming for youth, college students, young professionals, etc really came en vogue during the previous religious awakening that coincided with the rise of "Me" culture (1965-1985).  It might have atomized the Church to such an extent that inter-generational, Church-wide fellowship and study has been neglected - making it difficult for individuals to be challenged to grow within their faith and transition to new stages of life within the church. 
Logged
catographer
Megameow
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,498
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: August 30, 2017, 02:25:41 AM »

Here are some possible explanations:

1. Lack of apologetics training - churches generally do a very poor job (if at all) of giving reasons to believe what is presented.  This is sad, as a wealth of great authors, such as Lee Strobel, William Lane Craig, and J Warner Wallace provide an excellent historical case for the New Testament and philosophical defenses of orthodox Christian theology. 

2. Lack of clarity - similarly, many millennial don't understand what Christianity is and the basics of Christian doctrine.  This wishy-washiness is naturally going to lead to less interest in faith and make one more likely to make statements like "All religions are basically the same," which would obviously make church attendance seem less obligatory.  On the other hand, fundamentalist churches which over-emphasize positions such as young-Earth creationism or encourage denial or obfuscation of scientific facts will seem ridiculous and cause disillusionment with the church.

3. Disagreement - in other cases, millennials have a full knowledge of their religion and simply reject it, whether it be for differences over social issues or other considerations (for example, the doctrine of salvation through Christ alone seeming inherently unfair or narrow-minded).  In this case, the individual simply no longer agrees with the required behavioral norms and beliefs they associate with Christianity, and simply decide to leave the faith as a result.

4. Logistics - many churches have a youth group where kids go instead of services.  Having never attended a full normal service (or only for Easter or other special occasions) and not being used to it, they don't want to sit through a full service and get bored by it.

5. Issues with parents - sharp disagreements with parents may spill over into matters of faith, as the parents' decisions the individual disagrees with is seen as because of religion -i.e. an individual annoyed with parental restrictions on seeing friends / what they can or cannot watch and thus associate Christianity with overbearing authoritarianism.

This is key. Lack of apologetics training has hurt credibility.

Idk, if millenials wanna find apologetics they can easily research it for themselves online. Perhaps instead the issue is that believing in Christianity's explanations for the natural world are now unconvincing, with all the advances in scientific understanding that we've made since the 1st century CE.
Logged
RFayette
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,952
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: August 30, 2017, 02:55:39 AM »

Idk, if millenials wanna find apologetics they can easily research it for themselves online. Perhaps instead the issue is that believing in Christianity's explanations for the natural world are now unconvincing, with all the advances in scientific understanding that we've made since the 1st century CE.
There is a grain of truth that current scientific findings may cast conventional Biblical interpretations of Genesis and creation in doubt to some extent.  Nonetheless, I would contend that many of the strongest arguments in favor of Christianity - mainly concerning the reliability of the New Testament, which have been elucidated by writers such as CS Lewis in the past to J Warner Wallace and Lee Strobel today - are largely unknown among those who have left the church.  I have heard claims that books in the Christian canon were not written until the Council of Nicaea, that there is no evidence for a historical Jesus at all, etc.  - these claims are refuted by the overwhelming consensus of Biblical scholars, and I think equipping young people with this knowledge would do wonders in helping keep them in the church.
Logged
Ban my account ffs!
snowguy716
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,632
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: August 30, 2017, 04:08:45 PM »

To paraphrase some good lyrics I heard:

On the corner sat the building where the people used to meet and the blind led the blind to salvation. 

With their ill-translated book that they insisted was the word of God but somehow everyone had a different interpretation and by the time the end came everybody had condemned everyone else to hell.

I mean... what's not to love?  Roll Eyes
Logged
catographer
Megameow
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,498
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: August 30, 2017, 04:13:40 PM »

Idk, if millenials wanna find apologetics they can easily research it for themselves online. Perhaps instead the issue is that believing in Christianity's explanations for the natural world are now unconvincing, with all the advances in scientific understanding that we've made since the 1st century CE.
There is a grain of truth that current scientific findings may cast conventional Biblical interpretations of Genesis and creation in doubt to some extent.  Nonetheless, I would contend that many of the strongest arguments in favor of Christianity - mainly concerning the reliability of the New Testament, which have been elucidated by writers such as CS Lewis in the past to J Warner Wallace and Lee Strobel today - are largely unknown among those who have left the church.  I have heard claims that books in the Christian canon were not written until the Council of Nicaea, that there is no evidence for a historical Jesus at all, etc.  - these claims are refuted by the overwhelming consensus of Biblical scholars, and I think equipping young people with this knowledge would do wonders in helping keep them in the church.

Reliability of Christian is meek at best. The Gospels were all written at least half a century or more after Jesus' death, meaning their content was based on oral history. There are no existing original books of the New Testament, we only have translations today which have gone through multiple languages and have lost some nuance and potentially include fabricated portions added by scribes. There are no contemporary Roman accounts of Jesus, the only accounts we have were written decades after his life. There are many non-Canonical books that have varying degrees of legitimacy; some are just as legit as canonical ones, putting into question what we can rely on as true gospel. If I were Christian, I'd be very concerned that my entire religious belief system was based on such flimsy record and evidence.
Logged
Deblano
EdgarAllenYOLO
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,680
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: August 30, 2017, 05:14:07 PM »

More and more children now grow up participating in educational programs that emphasize the importance of critical thinking.



“Just to be clear, I’m not a professional ‘quote maker’. I’m just an atheist teenager who greatly values his intelligence and scientific fact over any silly fiction book written 3,500 years ago. This being said, I am open to any and all criticism.

‘In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my intelligence.’"
Logged
catographer
Megameow
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,498
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: August 31, 2017, 02:21:01 AM »
« Edited: August 31, 2017, 02:43:12 AM by m&m »

Idk, if millenials wanna find apologetics they can easily research it for themselves online. Perhaps instead the issue is that believing in Christianity's explanations for the natural world are now unconvincing, with all the advances in scientific understanding that we've made since the 1st century CE.
There is a grain of truth that current scientific findings may cast conventional Biblical interpretations of Genesis and creation in doubt to some extent.  Nonetheless, I would contend that many of the strongest arguments in favor of Christianity - mainly concerning the reliability of the New Testament, which have been elucidated by writers such as CS Lewis in the past to J Warner Wallace and Lee Strobel today - are largely unknown among those who have left the church.  I have heard claims that books in the Christian canon were not written until the Council of Nicaea, that there is no evidence for a historical Jesus at all, etc.  - these claims are refuted by the overwhelming consensus of Biblical scholars, and I think equipping young people with this knowledge would do wonders in helping keep them in the church.

Reliability of Christian is meek at best. The Gospels were all written at least half a century or more after Jesus' death, meaning their content was based on oral history. There are no existing original books of the New Testament, we only have translations today which have gone through multiple languages and have lost some nuance and potentially include fabricated portions added by scribes. There are no contemporary Roman accounts of Jesus, the only accounts we have were written decades after his life. There are many non-Canonical books that have varying degrees of legitimacy; some are just as legit as canonical ones, putting into question what we can rely on as true gospel. If I were Christian, I'd be very concerned that my entire religious belief system was based on such flimsy record and evidence.

The case for the synoptic Gospels being written before 70 AD (which is less than 40 years after Jesus's death, not 'more than 50') is very strong.
http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/gospdefhub.php
http://coldcasechristianity.com/2016/why-we-know-the-story-of-jesus-isnt-a-legend-video/
http://coldcasechristianity.com/2013/do-the-non-canonical-gospels-challenge-the-historicity-of-the-new-testament/
https://beliefmap.org/bible/1-corinthians/15-creed/date/
These timescales are generally considered too early for legendary development.  The claims that the earliest manuscripts are .  All the claims of Jesus's divinity - the virgin birth, the resurrection, the divinity of Christ, etc. - are all preserved through the chain of custody - from John's students like Polycarp and Papius, to their students like Iranaeus, and so on as the chain of custody goes.  This shows that even though we don't have the original copies of the Gospels, we can reasonably conclude that the original copies of the Gospels very much presented Jesus as a divine being in a similar light to Christian theology today - even if there were slight changes in wording and some variants, the writings of the Early Church Fathers make it clear the original copies of the NT books contained the same messages as the New Testament today.  Also, none of the non-canonical "Gospels" can be dated to the 1st century and have numerous other marks of fraudulence, whereas the entire New Testament can be shown to have been written in the 1st century.  You are correct that much of the content in the Gospels (and the creed of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ) comes from oral tradition, but oral tradition was considered quite reliable then over relatively short timescales.  What is noteworthy is that Paul's letter to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 15) documents the resurreciton of Christ, and even secular scholars like  Gerd Lüdemann agree that the tradition it dates from was at most three years after Christ's death.  

None of this proves that Christianity is true, of course, but it does demonstrate that Christianity is very much a defensible faith based in real history with concrete claims substantiated by the testimony of eyewitnesses.  

Idk, there's very little to support the claim of Jesus being resurrected except for "his followers strongly believed it." Just because people believe in miracles doesn't make it true; heck, belief in the supernatural and miraculous events was widespread all over the Near East in that time. You can find true believers of modern day miracle-doers, some who'd probably give their lives if they believed strongly enough.

Imo, we can dismiss that literal resurrection actually occurred because we know scientifically it's impossible. Working from there, we can come up with other theories. I'm convinced that something occurred that many people witnessed, but it was either misinterpreted or exaggerated/embellished.

Also most biblical scholars agree that the earliest Gospel, Mark, was written between 66-70 CE, that the authorship is unknown/anonymous, and that Jesus died somewhere around 30-40 years previously. If Jesus' followers were around the same age as him, then if Jesus died at age 35ish then his followers would've been between 65-75 when Mark was written. I don't think people lived that long back then, nor do I think someone could reliably remember a 30-40 yo event (think of how unreliable eye witnesses are today). Lastly, modern biblical scholars mostly agree that the author of Mark was writing for theological reasons, not to give an objective account of history.
Logged
RFayette
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,952
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: August 31, 2017, 02:42:32 AM »

Idk, there's very little to support the claim of Jesus being resurrected except for "his followers strongly believed it." Just because people believe in miracles doesn't make it true; heck, belief in the supernatural and miraculous events was widespread all over the Near East in that time. You can find true believers of modern day miracle-doers, some who'd probably give their lives if they believed strongly enough.

Imo, we can dismiss that literal resurrection actually occurred because we know scientifically it's impossible. Working from there, we can come up with other theories. I'm convinced that something occurred that many people witnessed, but it was either misinterpreted or exaggerated/embellished.

I agree that the resurrection claim on its own .  Of course, none of this means that Christianity is certainly true, simply that I believe a strong case can be made for it based on historical evidence.  Back to the context of the thread, I would argue that better teaching in apologetics would convince more young people to stick with Christianity, even if it's still imperfect. 


I would refer you to this fantastic site, specifically to the negations argument:
https://beliefmap.org/jesus-resurrected/
1. Jesus is the most influential human being who has ever existed.  I would argue that this fact alone means that the accounts of his resurrection should be taken far more seriously than other miracle claims, because the inherent probability of him being a divine figure is much higher on this account, especially when one considers that this is consistent with the Christian teaching that God would spend the Holy Spirit to the Earth to draw people to the repentance and belief in Jesus and make disciples of all the nations.
2. Jesus fulfills many Jewish prophesies of a Messiah.  So this is a miracle claim that has a foundation in past predictions, which again heightens the probability that this is a miracle
3. As Christian bishop NT Wright puts it, both the empty tomb and the post-crucifixion appearances of Jesus to his disciples are like two half-arches that are historical facts, and the resurrection is the cornerstone that ties them together and offers the best explanation of the facts.  Even opponents to Christianity concede the empty tomb  as recorded by Early Church Fathers, which is a critical piece of evidence in favor of the resurrection.

So retrospectively, we have a man who impacted human history more than any other and is worshipped as God by 2 billion people around the world, whose life circumstances were extraordinary in relation to the much-earlier descriptions of the Jewish messiah; we further see evidence of numerous post-resurrection experiences and an empty tomb.  With respect to the resurrection being unscientific, the basic Christian premise is that the laws of nature are upheld by God and can be changed in the event of a miracle; arguing that miracles are unscientific is simply dismissing the possibility of a God with supernatural power, which to me is an unreasonable starting point when investigating the Gospels if we rule out supernatural explanations without further examining the evidence.
Logged
catographer
Megameow
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,498
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: August 31, 2017, 03:03:07 AM »

Idk, there's very little to support the claim of Jesus being resurrected except for "his followers strongly believed it." Just because people believe in miracles doesn't make it true; heck, belief in the supernatural and miraculous events was widespread all over the Near East in that time. You can find true believers of modern day miracle-doers, some who'd probably give their lives if they believed strongly enough.

Imo, we can dismiss that literal resurrection actually occurred because we know scientifically it's impossible. Working from there, we can come up with other theories. I'm convinced that something occurred that many people witnessed, but it was either misinterpreted or exaggerated/embellished.

I agree that the resurrection claim on its own .  Of course, none of this means that Christianity is certainly true, simply that I believe a strong case can be made for it based on historical evidence.  Back to the context of the thread, I would argue that better teaching in apologetics would convince more young people to stick with Christianity, even if it's still imperfect. 


I would refer you to this fantastic site, specifically to the negations argument:
https://beliefmap.org/jesus-resurrected/
1. Jesus is the most influential human being who has ever existed.  I would argue that this fact alone means that the accounts of his resurrection should be taken far more seriously than other miracle claims, because the inherent probability of him being a divine figure is much higher on this account, especially when one considers that this is consistent with the Christian teaching that God would spend the Holy Spirit to the Earth to draw people to the repentance and belief in Jesus and make disciples of all the nations.
2. Jesus fulfills many Jewish prophesies of a Messiah.  So this is a miracle claim that has a foundation in past predictions, which again heightens the probability that this is a miracle
3. As Christian bishop NT Wright puts it, both the empty tomb and the post-crucifixion appearances of Jesus to his disciples are like two half-arches that are historical facts, and the resurrection is the cornerstone that ties them together and offers the best explanation of the facts.  Even opponents to Christianity concede the empty tomb  as recorded by Early Church Fathers, which is a critical piece of evidence in favor of the resurrection.

So retrospectively, we have a man who impacted human history more than any other and is worshiped as God by 2 billion people around the world, whose life circumstances were extraordinary in relation to the much-earlier descriptions of the Jewish messiah; we further see evidence of numerous post-resurrection experiences and an empty tomb.  With respect to the resurrection being unscientific, the basic Christian premise is that the laws of nature are upheld by God and can be changed in the event of a miracle; arguing that miracles are unscientific is simply dismissing the possibility of a God with supernatural power, which to me is an unreasonable starting point when investigating the Gospels if we rule out supernatural explanations without further examining the evidence.

"Jesus is the most influential human being who has ever existed"
That's just a subjective Christian opinion. No offense but many, many people would disagree with that. For example, I'd say Caesar was more important. Without him, we wouldn't have the Roman Empire, therefore no Romans in Judea, therefore no crucifixion. Also, your logic doesn't work: being important doesn't equal a higher likelihood that of truth.

"Even opponents to Christianity concede the empty tomb"
The empty tomb ain't evidence in favor of resurrection. It's evidence that the body was removed somehow. I'd use Occam's Razor: the simplest theory is better than the more complex one. It's simpler to say that the body was stolen, which was a common problem in Jesus' time, than it is to say that something occurred that defied the laws of nature and physics.

"arguing that miracles are unscientific is simply dismissing the possibility of a God with supernatural power"
There is always a scientific, natural explanation for supernatural and magical phenomena. I can dismiss the explanation of a supernaturally powerful God over a totally plausible, natural occurrence because one is falsifiable and matches with our most advanced knowledge of nature, and the other is a totally unscientific, extraordinary explanation.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,834


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: August 31, 2017, 03:48:22 AM »

Idk, there's very little to support the claim of Jesus being resurrected except for "his followers strongly believed it." Just because people believe in miracles doesn't make it true; heck, belief in the supernatural and miraculous events was widespread all over the Near East in that time. You can find true believers of modern day miracle-doers, some who'd probably give their lives if they believed strongly enough.

Imo, we can dismiss that literal resurrection actually occurred because we know scientifically it's impossible. Working from there, we can come up with other theories. I'm convinced that something occurred that many people witnessed, but it was either misinterpreted or exaggerated/embellished.

I agree that the resurrection claim on its own .  Of course, none of this means that Christianity is certainly true, simply that I believe a strong case can be made for it based on historical evidence.  Back to the context of the thread, I would argue that better teaching in apologetics would convince more young people to stick with Christianity, even if it's still imperfect. 


I would refer you to this fantastic site, specifically to the negations argument:
https://beliefmap.org/jesus-resurrected/
1. Jesus is the most influential human being who has ever existed.  I would argue that this fact alone means that the accounts of his resurrection should be taken far more seriously than other miracle claims, because the inherent probability of him being a divine figure is much higher on this account, especially when one considers that this is consistent with the Christian teaching that God would spend the Holy Spirit to the Earth to draw people to the repentance and belief in Jesus and make disciples of all the nations.
2. Jesus fulfills many Jewish prophesies of a Messiah.  So this is a miracle claim that has a foundation in past predictions, which again heightens the probability that this is a miracle
3. As Christian bishop NT Wright puts it, both the empty tomb and the post-crucifixion appearances of Jesus to his disciples are like two half-arches that are historical facts, and the resurrection is the cornerstone that ties them together and offers the best explanation of the facts.  Even opponents to Christianity concede the empty tomb  as recorded by Early Church Fathers, which is a critical piece of evidence in favor of the resurrection.

So retrospectively, we have a man who impacted human history more than any other and is worshipped as God by 2 billion people around the world, whose life circumstances were extraordinary in relation to the much-earlier descriptions of the Jewish messiah; we further see evidence of numerous post-resurrection experiences and an empty tomb.  With respect to the resurrection being unscientific, the basic Christian premise is that the laws of nature are upheld by God and can be changed in the event of a miracle; arguing that miracles are unscientific is simply dismissing the possibility of a God with supernatural power, which to me is an unreasonable starting point when investigating the Gospels if we rule out supernatural explanations without further examining the evidence.

Jesus is not particularly influential in the Middle East, India or China.  His influence overlaps areas where Christianity is prevalent.

Jesus does not fulfill Jewish prophesies of a messiah as there are still Jews who objectively have suffered more than most other religious groups (and often at the hands of Christians) to maintain that belief. Muslims also feel the same way. Whether or not someone fulfilled Jewish prophesies really should only concern those who believe Jaweh is the one and only god and the Jews were its chosen people (who happened to be the same tribe that worshipped it). Would be converts told that Jesus fulfilled the prophecy of another religion except that religion doesn't believe he did and Islam doesn't think that either isn't exactly a 'wow' moment.

The historicity of the empty tomb is easily refutable.

There were no guards at the tomb in the Gospel of Mark. If the empty tomb teaching pre-dated Mark, Mark would have addressed the naturally occurring issue of grave robbery in his gospel. Instead, it is only after Mark makes his announcement of an empty tomb that we see a Matthew addressing the issue originally raised by Mark.

Why did the empty tomb suddenly became a very important detail that needed to be emphasized in all 4 canonical gospels when previously no one found it important enough to mention in writing?

Paul (in the earliest Christian account of the resurrection) claims the risen Christ appeared before him just as the risen Christ appeared before the disciples. But Paul did not witness a flesh and blood risen Christ. Paul gives us no reason to believe anybody witnesses a flesh and blood risen Christ. So Paul gives us no reason to believe the tomb was empty.

In the gospels, the disappearance of Christ's physical body needed to be explained with an ascension. Paul says nothing about an ascension. Paul has no reason to explain the disappearance of Christ's physical body because Paul's risen Christ has no physical body.

The gospel of John reveals the fact that a non-corporeal risen-Christ was among the earliest traditions of Christianity. The stone blocking the entrance to the tomb was rolled aside but, in John 20, the risen Christ could walk through walls. If the risen Christ could walk through walls then surely he could have walked through the stone blocking the entrance to the tomb.

The absence of an empty tomb tradition until approx. 70 AD also explains why no one really knows where Christ was buried. No one gave a thought to where the resurrection miracle had occurred until approx. 70 AD. That's because, prior to approx. 70 AD, the resurrection miracle was a purely spiritual event and did not involve a disappearing  flesh and blood corpse

A non-corporeal resurrection was a part of Jewish tradition: "The view expressed in the [Dead Sea] Scrolls accord in general with those attributed by Josephus (Antiq. XVIII.i.5; War II.viii.11) to the Essenes, with whom, indeed, the Qumran sectaries may be identical...They held that although bodies were perishable, souls endured and mounted upward, the good to the realm of bliss, the evil to be consigned to a place of torment. This view is expressed also in Wisd. Sol. 3:1ff.; 5:16; Jub. 25; while something of the same kind--though without the reference to ultimate judgment--appears in Eccl. 12:7 ('the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God')

Logged
RFayette
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,952
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: August 31, 2017, 10:58:35 AM »

Idk, there's very little to support the claim of Jesus being resurrected except for "his followers strongly believed it." Just because people believe in miracles doesn't make it true; heck, belief in the supernatural and miraculous events was widespread all over the Near East in that time. You can find true believers of modern day miracle-doers, some who'd probably give their lives if they believed strongly enough.

Imo, we can dismiss that literal resurrection actually occurred because we know scientifically it's impossible. Working from there, we can come up with other theories. I'm convinced that something occurred that many people witnessed, but it was either misinterpreted or exaggerated/embellished.

I agree that the resurrection claim on its own .  Of course, none of this means that Christianity is certainly true, simply that I believe a strong case can be made for it based on historical evidence.  Back to the context of the thread, I would argue that better teaching in apologetics would convince more young people to stick with Christianity, even if it's still imperfect. 


I would refer you to this fantastic site, specifically to the negations argument:
https://beliefmap.org/jesus-resurrected/
1. Jesus is the most influential human being who has ever existed.  I would argue that this fact alone means that the accounts of his resurrection should be taken far more seriously than other miracle claims, because the inherent probability of him being a divine figure is much higher on this account, especially when one considers that this is consistent with the Christian teaching that God would spend the Holy Spirit to the Earth to draw people to the repentance and belief in Jesus and make disciples of all the nations.
2. Jesus fulfills many Jewish prophesies of a Messiah.  So this is a miracle claim that has a foundation in past predictions, which again heightens the probability that this is a miracle
3. As Christian bishop NT Wright puts it, both the empty tomb and the post-crucifixion appearances of Jesus to his disciples are like two half-arches that are historical facts, and the resurrection is the cornerstone that ties them together and offers the best explanation of the facts.  Even opponents to Christianity concede the empty tomb  as recorded by Early Church Fathers, which is a critical piece of evidence in favor of the resurrection.

So retrospectively, we have a man who impacted human history more than any other and is worshiped as God by 2 billion people around the world, whose life circumstances were extraordinary in relation to the much-earlier descriptions of the Jewish messiah; we further see evidence of numerous post-resurrection experiences and an empty tomb.  With respect to the resurrection being unscientific, the basic Christian premise is that the laws of nature are upheld by God and can be changed in the event of a miracle; arguing that miracles are unscientific is simply dismissing the possibility of a God with supernatural power, which to me is an unreasonable starting point when investigating the Gospels if we rule out supernatural explanations without further examining the evidence.

"Jesus is the most influential human being who has ever existed"
That's just a subjective Christian opinion. No offense but many, many people would disagree with that. For example, I'd say Caesar was more important. Without him, we wouldn't have the Roman Empire, therefore no Romans in Judea, therefore no crucifixion. Also, your logic doesn't work: being important doesn't equal a higher likelihood that of truth.

"Even opponents to Christianity concede the empty tomb"
The empty tomb ain't evidence in favor of resurrection. It's evidence that the body was removed somehow. I'd use Occam's Razor: the simplest theory is better than the more complex one. It's simpler to say that the body was stolen, which was a common problem in Jesus' time, than it is to say that something occurred that defied the laws of nature and physics.

"arguing that miracles are unscientific is simply dismissing the possibility of a God with supernatural power"
There is always a scientific, natural explanation for supernatural and magical phenomena. I can dismiss the explanation of a supernaturally powerful God over a totally plausible, natural occurrence because one is falsifiable and matches with our most advanced knowledge of nature, and the other is a totally unscientific, extraordinary explanation.

1.I agree you could make a case that others had more influence than Jesus, but I do believe it was undeniable he was very historically important in much of the world.  The reason I have this claim is that a resurrection is by definition, naturally impossible and would thus be a result of a divine being or God who would likely want to send a message to all of humanity (as is claimed in the New Testament - the resurrection marks the change of the notion of God's chosen people from being just in Israel to having converts across the whole world).  Thus, a man who actually fulfills that promise by becoming so well-known would increase the base probability of the resurrection claims being true, as opposed to a little-known figure or a mythical entity no longer recognized by anyone. 

2.
I agree that an empty tomb alone is nowhere near sufficient evidence for a resurrection, but my attempt is to make a cumulative case for it - while each piece of evidence alone is insufficient, I would argue that the case as a whole becomes rather persuasive when all the facts are taken into account.

3.
I think this is a crucial element - all of us have different prior probabilities of the idea of god (an all-powerful being who can intervene supernaturally in our world) existing.  It appears I have a different prior probability of that before examining the evidence the you do, so you would look at the evidence and require a higher burden of proof, which is reasonable.  However, I would note that there are good reasons to doubt the stolen body hypothesis, as elucidated here.
https://beliefmap.org/jesus-resurrected/tomb-empty/body-stolen/
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.096 seconds with 12 queries.