How the world's leading atheist changed his mind about God

“ Critic Bart Ehrman writes, “Sometimes Christian apologists say there are only three options to who Jesus was: a liar, a lunatic or the Lord. But there could be a fourth option—legend.”[10] Was the notion of Jesus’ deity simply an exaggeration of the early church? It seems not for a number of reasons:

First, Jesus has more biographies written of him than any other person from the ancient world. Roman emperor Tiberius died in AD 37, and his earliest known biographies were written between AD 110-120 by Tacitus and Suetonius (~70 to 80 year gap). Likewise, Alexander the Great died in 323 B.C., and his earliest known biography is from AD 130 from Arrian (~450 year gap). Jesus has four biographies of his life all written within a generation of his death. Roman historian A.N. Sherwin-White argues that this was too quick for legend to accrue that would corrupt the main message of Jesus’ life.[11] By comparing Jesus’ biographies to other ancient secular history, we can measure the rate at which legend is added.[12] And Sherwin-White argues that one generation is too quickly for this to occur.

Second, Luke-Acts were written before AD 62. Historians date Luke-Acts before AD 62, because these books make no mention of the persecution by Roman Emperor Nero (AD 64), make no mention of the destruction of Jerusalem (AD 70), make no mention of the death of Paul, Peter, or James the Lord’s brother. The book of Acts is very concerned with persecution and the death of the early Christian leaders (Acts 8:1; 12:2). However, it fails to mention these major events. The best explanation for this is that these events hadn’t occurred yet.

Third, the gospels are deeply concerned with history. In just one verse, Luke mentions 15 specific historical details that have been confirmed. He writes,

“Now in the [1] fifteenth year of the reign of [2] Tiberius Caesar, when [3] Pontius Pilate was [4] governor of [5] Judea, and [6] Herod was [7] tetrarch of [8] Galilee, and his [9] brother [10] Philip was [11] tetrarch of the region of [12] Ituraea and Trachonitis, and [13] Lysanias was [14] tetrarch of [15] Abilene.”

The Bible actually has an astonishing track record when it comes to historical reliability. Throughout the last 150 years, the modern science of archaeology has only confirmed—not denied—what we read in Scripture. World renowned scholar Gleason Archer authoritatively states,

As I have dealt with one apparent discrepancy after another and have studied the alleged contradictions between the biblical record and the evidence of linguistics, archaeology, or science, my confidence in the trustworthiness of Scripture has been repeatedly verified and strengthened by the discovery that almost every problem in Scripture that has ever been discovered by man, from ancient times until now, has been dealt with in a completely satisfactory manner by the biblical text itself—or else by objective archaeological information.[13]

At the end of his Sarum Lectures, Roman historian A.N. Sherwin-White stated, “For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming… Any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.”[14]

Fourth, ancient non-Christian historians believed that Jesus claimed to be God and the Jewish messiah. Pliny the Younger (an early second century Roman governor) writes that Jesus’ earliest followers sang hymns to Christ “as to a god.”[15] Josephus (a first century Roman historian) claimed that Jesus of Nazareth “was called the Christ.”[16] Lucian (a second century Greek satirist) writes that the early Christians “deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage.”[17]

Fifth, the writers of the NT weren’t prone to lying. The disciples didn’t change the story, even when it would’ve benefited them. The disciples wrote that they themselves were unintelligent (Mk. 9:32; Lk. 18:34), uneducated (Acts 4:13), uncaring (Mk. 14:32), cowardly (Mt. 26:33-25), and doubtful (Mt. 28:17). In fact, Peter was even called “Satan” by Jesus in the biography that he helped author, the gospel of Mark (Mk. 8:33).[18] The disciples placed women at the empty tomb of Jesus, as the first eyewitnesses of the resurrection in a day when women were second class citizens—unable to testify in a court of law.[19] If they were fabricating the story (and they were willing to change the details), they would never have placed women at the empty tomb; they would’ve placed themselves at the empty tomb.

The disciples wrote that Jesus was accused of being deranged (Mk. 3:21), deceitful (Jn. 7:12), drunk (Mt. 11:19), and demon-possessed (Mk. 3:22) by both his family and his enemies. They even recorded that many of Jesus’ followers deserted him (Jn. 6:66). It would’ve been far easier for the disciples to simply leave these details out of their accounts, but they were so committed to telling the truth that they didn’t tamper with the facts.

The early Christians had a number of disputes and disagreements with one another. They disagreed about the importance of circumcision (Acts 15:2), obeying the Law (Gal. 5:3-4), speaking in tongues (1 Cor. 14), and the relationship between Jews and Gentiles in the church (Eph. 2:11ff). And yet Jesus didn’t give any commands about these issues in the four gospels. Imagine how tempting it would’ve been to simply “add” a teaching or two from Jesus on one of these subjects. If the disciples were inventing the story about Jesus, it would’ve been easy to write that Jesus also taught on these issues. And yet the four gospels are strangely silent to these controversies.

Sixth, the NT writers knew the difference between mythology and history. They believed that they were writing history. Peter writes, “For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty” (2 Pet. 1:16). Here, Peter uses the Greek word muthos which literally means “myth.”

Seventh, the NT writers didn’t have a good motive for inventing a divine Jesus. Religiously, Pagans and Jews were hostile to the message of Jesus being God. Politically, the Roman Empire viewed the deity of Christ as subversive to the state, and therefore, they routinely killed Christians who wouldn’t bow to the Roman Emperor in worship. While this message brought the early Christians hope, it also brought them a giant target on their foreheads from the first century political and religious culture. Therefore, there wasn’t a strong motive for them to invent such a message or to spread it.”


www.evidenceunseen.com/theology/lord-liar-lunatic-or-legend/

I'm not trying to be 'technical' or whatever. I'm just trying to understand you. If the creator of the natural world isn't necessarily supernatural, why is the creator of the supernatural world supernatural by definition? Seems to me the creator of the supernatural world would be supersupernatural. Surely I'm missing something here. Maybe it's so clear, I'm looking through it.

I kinda like ultranatural. Oh well. So anyway, here's where I get lost: If anything beyond the natural world would be supernatural by definition, then why wouldn't the creator of the natural world necessarily be supernatural?

The creator of the natural world is necessarily supernatural by definition no matter what anyone calls it.

Winter_King

I asked you to leave me alone when I ask you to. I can't put you on ignore. I believe that you are not just another member of this board, but the administrator, and should respect my wishes. The support desk said there was nothing they can do about it, so that's it. Okay then. I have the right to talk to them if I please and you should not harass or shame me if I do. Now, you followed me to the support board. I did not slander you. 

I don't want to leave here because I was with this group long before you started this board. And other than you going after the meanings of the words I type rather than the content, I have enjoyed my experience here. I'm not physically in the best shape and IMDb has been a place I can get with folks I know and discuss politics and other things. But if you think I don't deserve even that, than so be it. 

And right now, I'm practically in tears. 

Let me know what you decide. 

Hi I do not believe the Admin wants to change anyone to Christianity. Most right-wingers think that he is just another leftist. I do not believe the admin is religious in any capacity. He is mostly politically neutral. Though I can understand you not liking to debate with an admin.  The power always lies with one who controls the group. Though it's also his right as an individual to reply to your posts if he wishes to. So my suggestion is that do not reply to him. You can reply to most other people and thus put your general belief and point of view on most topics even without continuing to debate with admin. 

I don't have time to watch the video right now but I decided to take a look at study mentioned in the video conducted by John A Rhoads and the basic gist is: Josephus is the one that misdated the Census, not Luke.

One problem that I can see right off the bat is that the Roman census being conducted at the time of Herod doesn't make sense either. When Herod was king, Judea was not a province of the Roman Empire but a client Kingdom. It only became a Roman province after Herod died and census were conducted on provinces not on client kingdoms as far as I know.  So again, I think problem remains. 

Nevermind that virtually every scholar, even Christians think it's Luke's mistake. Other problems include the fact that Luke mentions a census all over the (Roman) world which didn't happened and no Roman census required citizens to travel to a birth place of their ancestors. Specially ancestor that had lived thousand years before. 

Bottom line, it's still more likely that Luke is the one in error. 

Gave you one, but your response was an argument from incredulity.