I'm an evangelical Christian - ask me anything

[Insieme]

I'm happy to answer questions, though I'm not interested if people just come on to be insulting.

I can only give my views and talk about what I believe - evangelicalism covers a broad spectrum of beliefs and I can only speak for myself.

Ask away!

love that Christianity is not based on a revelation to one person but on the experience of a whole bunch of people located around one person who died and was resurrected on the third

Except that many New Testament scholars reject such a claim. The bible is the claim, not the evidence.

Something that grows out of events in a historical time and setting within a few years cannot be equated with legend.

The gospels were not written within a 'few years' unless you believe 50/60 years to be a few.

and we see no divergence from these

The gospels that were rejected? The ones that were too whacky to make it into the final cut? I assume they were written at the same time as the ones that made it.

We know that what we believe and worship about Jesus today is what the earliest Christians believed and worshipped about Jesus.

Which means nothing in terms of truth and reality. People reading Don Quixote today will find it just as funny as the people that read it centuries ago.

Christianity is absolutely and firmly located in historical events

As I said previously, many New Testament historians and scholars would vehemently disagree with your claim. Not on a whim but based on evidence or lack thereof.

started with verifiable happenings which could have been contested at any time and yet the faith grew like wildfire in an incredibly short time.

You've never known people to believe things without evidence? What about all the other believers of other religions?

There were people around at the time of Jesus who also didn't believe he was the son of God, these were people waiting for such an occurrence and still weren't convinced. And plenty of them still around today, the Jewish faith, who have basically rejected the next part of the story (NT).

I'll ask the same question I asked before but wasn't answered, and I'm aware that it sounds arsey but I'd like to know... Of the Christians in the thread, do you ever read back what you have posted regarding a supernatural creating the world, said supernatural impregnating a teenager 2000 years ago, her son dying for us and then coming back to life 3 days later, angels, demons, judgement by supernatural on whether you believe in him, and think yeah that actually does sound pretty far out? Or do you think that yep that all seems reasonable to me?

But all Christians work by the clear tenets laid down in the gospels because they are the very centre of the Christian faith;

My, there are massive differences amongst Christians. From liberal LGBT loving CofE to the Westboro Baptists. Both would use the same bible to support their take on it.

The gospels were not written within a 'few years' unless you believe 50/60 years to be a few.

The great majority of NT scholars of all persuasions assert that the claims of Christianity are based around an historical event: the crucifixion of Jesus. Very few scholars question this. And most are of the opinion that the belief and practice of early Christianity was formed extremely early on as evidenced in the 1 Corinthians 15 creed which was most likely handed to Paul by Peter and James at the latest AD36. This creed is formed theology which was then backed up by the gospels, the earliest of which was probably written less than 35 years after the events. No way legend could be formed in that short time - just a few years in the case of the very earliest of tradition which is accepted by scholars of all ideologies.

the gospels which were rejected

The inclusion of the gospels and other NT writings in canon was based on a very robust policy of wide usage and agreement in doctrine from the very earliest traditions. Thus the extra biblical gospels (which actually were written later, most would argue) were not in wide usage and not in agreement with the earliest traditions and therefore not included. Nothing unreasonable or odd about that - just a rejection of false doctrine (some were outrageously bizarre, in fact.)

As I said previously, many New Testament historians and scholars would vehemently disagree with your claim. Not on a whim but based on evidence or lack thereof.

Most NT scholars would in fact vehemently agree with the claim that it is rooted in historical events - it's widely accepted that Jesus was crucified. Obviously, less would go with belief that it was also rooted in bodily resurrection but would still support the claim that early Christians believed this had happened and claim to meet the risen Christ.

You've never known people to believe things without evidence? What about all the other believers of other religions?

Of course I've known it. But it's the mostly undisputed fact that this religion grew up very quickly around events which happened (if you just take the crucifixion as fact for now) rather than being slowly formed over years on the word of one person. The early Jews would never have been converted to a belief which involved a resurrected Messiah - it simply wouldn't have been a notion to them. The greco-roman 1st C sceptics would not have been converted to the idea of a crucified God and bodily resurrection - too weak and un-stoical and all sorts of other things anathema to them. Why would this huge body of people believe something so outrageous within only years of this man being executed, and then go on to be martyred and spread the faith further? It just makes no sense to say that it is comparative to other religions believing stuff without evidence because no other religions are based around a historical event. We can test this religion like no other because of the claims it makes and my assertion is that the historicity is robust and solid.

Of the Christians in the thread, do you ever read back what you have posted regarding a supernatural creating the world, said supernatural impregnating a teenager 2000 years ago, her son dying for us and then coming back to life 3 days later, angels, demons, judgement by supernatural on whether you believe in him, and think yeah that actually does sound pretty far out? Or do you think that yep that all seems reasonable to me?

I'm a reasonably intelligent woman, so I cannot fail to examine my faith from all sides with the occasional 'really?' echoing through my head. I would want to be living in a state of blind faith whereby I block up my ears and go lalalala at any hint of doubt of questioning. Instead I love to robustly embrace the questions and go deep into study - it fires and energises me - and I mean that I read different viewpoints, for only reading from my own viewpoint keeps me in a naive kind of echo chamber.

So yes. They are outrageous, wild claims, but they are claims that I believe are wroth digging into because they are claims which have sustained and transformed so many millions and continue to bring millions into living hope today.

They might be claims which outlie our naturalistic knowledge and paradigms of how things work, but for me they are claims which actually make sense of so much of what it is to be human. They make sense of purpose, value, morality, beauty and origins. I know well the evolutionary argument for these things but believe it falls short and the Christian narrative provides an overarching meaning to humanity and a staggering hope.

Just because naturalism doesn't seem to support things like miracles and resurrection doesn't mean it is impossible. I think that we can so easily close our minds to these things because we are too reliant on what is seen (a mindset we've inherited from the ancient stoics, in fact.) Perhaps we are a bit arrogant to assert that this is the be all and end all and should listen to other cultures who are open to claims of supernaturalism.

For me too, my own experience cannot be discounted, so alongside my cerebral understanding and quest to understand more I am always experiencing God at work in my life in many ways - occasionally even in miraculous ways, but much more likely in the mundane day to day stuff. But stuff which leads me into incomprehensible peace and beautiful hope.

Ugh at typos. At a massive Christian festival this week with late nights, much wine, little sleep and very tired brain.

which was most likely

Most likely ^to you as a believer. You feel that Jesus coming back from the dead is the most likely out of all the explanations.

based around an historical event:

Yes. That one of the many visionaries of the time was crucified like many other people were. It says nothing of the supernatural claims.

I have no problem that someone called Jesus was stirring up feelings of unrest, much like a 1st century Tommy Robinson.

That he was anything other than a bloke? No evidence.

The bible isn't evidence and there's no evidence of a personal god at work in the lives of believers now.

I find believing there are prophecies about Jesus in the OT an interesting part of the Christian position.

In some ways it seems easier for Jewish people to transition to the bible-as-poetry-and-allegory stance than Christians, who are tied to at least seeing the prophecies, if not the rest, as real, or so I would imagine.

It’s clear that the writers of the NT took the OT very seriously indeed and thought that their own writings were given legitimacy and gravitas by referencing it. Fulfilled prophecies were highly significant to them and you can see the way in which they tried to underpin their own writings with judiciously chosen snippets of the more ancient texts (not all of those snippets being recognised as prophecies from the Jewish perspective).

But I’m not sure what the contemporary Christian position on the prophecies would be for a non-literalist. Do the prophecies come from God and are the other parts of the OT ‘just stories’ that somehow got collected in with the real significant stuff? How does it work? Is reading the OT like listening to a crackly radio that intermittently picks up a transmission from God? How do you know which bits to take seriously if the scribes don’t add where appropriate, as they would do if they were MN aficionados?

Why would this huge body of people believe something so outrageous within only years of this man being executed, and then go on to be martyred and spread the faith further?

Firstly many people of other beliefs have died for their faith. Secondly humans have believed all sorts of things over the course of our history.

That so many people believe something that seems unlikely is not evidence at all.

some were outrageously bizarre, in fact.

I thought you just argued that something being outrageous was a point for it being true?

no other religions are based around a historical event

Someone got crucified yes. That dead people were revived and climbed out of their tombs en mass as supposedly happened after he died. You'd think someone else would write about that event!

Hi again HiH! I've been super busy at this (amazing) festival :)

You feel that Jesus coming back from the dead is the most likely out of all the explanations.

I think it is the only explanation.

Yes. That one of the many visionaries of the time was crucified like many other people were. It says nothing of the supernatural claims.

But we weren't actually talking about the supernatural claims in that context. You were disputing that NT scholars in the majority thought that Christianity was grounded in real historical events. I was just pointing to the fact that most do assert Jesus' life and crucifixion and then the believers experience (or what they believed to be their experience) of Christ's rising and appearing. I was highlighting the Christian faith as different from any other because of that very well documented historicity.

The bible isn't evidence and there's no evidence of a personal god at work in the lives of believers now.

Hmm. For the first part, actually a great amount of historians - not just NT scholars - would disagree. The gospels and the epistles are good historical documents which tell us something concrete about the times - and we have so many thousands of early fragments of them that they are really valuable in terms of historicity. Should they be discounted because of a bias? Then all history should be. Josephus wrote from the POV of a 1stC Jew, should he be discounted because of his Jewish bias? How far do you go with it? Those who documented Alexander the Great, Caesar, Buddha, etc etc? In the light of all these other ancient documents the NT books stand alone in their sheer detail and account of people, dates and events. How is this not historically valuable?

Regarding the second point, I could tell you a million stories about the work of God in people's lives today. I could tell you the story I heard last night of a woman in a prison camp in N Korea. I could tell you about the village community in Uganda who have been transformed by the gospel and are supporting other communities around them with incredible generosity, or the girl I know whose self harm scars were healed instantaneously or the man I know who was suicidal and heard the voice of God, leading him to an utterly transformed life. I could tell you my story of a life in pain and yet in certainty of God's glorious hope and carrying the peace which soothes my wildest places. I could tell you so much more, but I know they are not enough for you. What would you like to see? What evidence would convince you? If I gave you the evidence of a doctor's letter to my friend saying that only God could have healed his child and the doctor was stunned by the child's recovery would that be enough? I think not. But I'm afraid you cannot say God is not working in people. I see it time, time and time again, in every nation and every language and every culture, in beautiful symphony and gorgeous hope.

Firstly many people of other beliefs have died for their faith. Secondly humans have believed all sorts of things over the course of our history. That so many people believe something that seems unlikely is not evidence at all.

Yes and yes to people dying for their causes. What I was trying to bring out was that this sudden explosion of believers prepared to die for faith was so close in time to real events which could be verified by eyewitnesses. People in the 1stC Greco-Roman world weren't stupid, they wouldn't have banded together and went ah, yes, let's make up a completely random mad story about that nice bloke who got crucified and then suffer and die for it. Good idea? Ok chaps! - quite apart from the fact that none of these people groups would have had the vaguest notion of a resurrected Messiah, or the wherewithal to start such a rumour which would convince so many sceptics so quickly. It's the timescales we must examine here. We are talking at most 6 years between Jesus' death and the wide use of the first creed - a formed belief which carried through.

You're right of course that humans have believed all sorts of daft things through history. But never such a large group springing from a close event with eyewitnesses still alive and at large. Do you not think they would have been shouted down and ridiculed, this band of folk who decided to make up something which would have been an utter embrassment to believe?

I thought you just argued that something being outrageous was a point for it being true?

Yeah. I just clearly like the word outrageous too much.
But it can be used as an description of a God who goes above and beyond and is utterly countercultural because that seems outrageous. Talking about the extra gospels as outrageous was using a bit of hyperbole to demonstrate their difference (and frankly their weirdness)

You'd think someone else would write about that event!

You would if you lived in 21st century Britain with a Daily Fail reported lurking on every corner and Mumsnet thread - yes. But in 1st century Palestine? Unlikely. The historians reported the history of the important people, not the gossipy reports of the people. That's why it's actually so stunning that Jesus an Christians are named in any extra-biblical contemporary and near contemporary sources at all...

Must go to bed!

I think it's fair to say that Jesus existed at that time, had a following and was crucified, in my opinion he was brought up being told he was the son of God, and that would make him pretty convincing as he likely thoroughly believed that himself. From that point of view I agree it's historically correct but that's where it ends imo.

In terms of the bible stories, even if I was to write about something that happened 5 years ago, it wouldn't be fresh in my mind, and I may well misremember or exaggerate.

It's certainly amazing how many people got behind the story, I agree with that. But lots of people have got behind other stories and faiths, so humans are pretty bloody impressionable. Especially when hope of something better is offered. You can't all be right, but you can all be wrong.

Thanks for answering my question above, while I agree that religion does help many people and brings hope, it's also harmed a lot of people too. Re your comments about God in your life, I can say that as a non believer I've had some life affirming moments, moments of peace and clarity, lucky times etc, I can have these without the supernatural, it's just feeling happy, or appreciating nature and the world around us, chance, it doesn't need to be placed upon a higher power.

You mentioned it's arrogant to think this is it, I think it's kinda brave - it's not a nice thought to think that when we die, we fully die, we as humans think we are too special for that, but we are just advanced animals really.

as a non believer I've had some life affirming moments, moments of peace and clarity, lucky times etc, I can have these without the supernatural, it's just feeling happy, or appreciating nature and the world around us, chance, it doesn't need to be placed upon a higher power.

That's fine, and you've certainly plenty of company. But the purpose of this thread wasn't to try to convert you to Christianity and I don't recall anyone making an effort to do so.

So why all of the debate?

Hmm you've got more company than me. Why not debate it, it's a thread to ask questions of an evangelical Christian, it's highly likely to spark debate surely. But yeah, I don't know why I get so drawn in, nobody will truly see the other's point of view.

Ok, just one more question then, do you agree with religion being linked to the government, schools etc or do you think that we should be a secular country?

In terms of the bible stories, even if I was to write about something that happened 5 years ago, it wouldn't be fresh in my mind, and I may well misremember or exaggerate.

Yes, but whatever you'd be writing about from five years ago wouldn't have been kept live in a rigorous oral history passed down and told from one generation to the next, with stringent checks in place to ensure things are not twisted and exaggerated. Many things were passed down word for word. J Dunn's work on oral tradition in C1 Judaism is fascinating, the sheer amount of information people learned as story and then kept on retelling and retelling. It was as far from Chinese whispers as you can get because at each telling there would be a 'hold on, no, it's not that word, it's this one'... Also, the very earliest traditions and creeds were in wide circulation incredibly early and then recited as a community so it would be like Anglicans forgetting the Apostles Creed today - just couldn't happen once it was in regular use.

he was brought up being told he was the son of God,

Highly unlikely. In a good God-fearing Jewish family this would be tantamount to blasphemy, despite Mary's experience. It's clear that Jesus comes into his own understanding of his calling and identity, through his visit to the temple as a boy then his baptism as an adult when it is confirmed.

humans are pretty bloody impressionable. Especially when hope of something better is offered.

Very true!! But in this case they were being required to believe something completely outside of their experience and even their imagination. They couldn't have dreamed up the idea of a dying and rising Messiah, however much the Mithraism = Christianity proponents would like to lead you to believe. It simply wouldn't be in their narrative. And as for it offering something better - yes, hope, but in the meantime all it offered was sheer embarrassment and suffering, ostracizing from families etc. I know there's a case to be made for people who cling to a crazy wild belief out of a sense of belonging and ultimate purpose, but it's the massive numbers which are more convincing in this case. It's just utterly unprecedented - the other huge world religion was spread through military might, where Christianity was spread through generosity and love and most of all through events that actually happened in concrete reality within the experience of hundreds of eye witnesses.

as a non believer I've had some life affirming moments, moments of peace and clarity, lucky times etc, I can have these without the supernatural,

Yes, of course, and I never meant to play down those experiences at all. Everyone can have times of wonder, joy, awe, peace. Christians certainly don't have a monopoly on these. I was more trying to bring in the very transformative experiences, the impossible and miraculous as well as the day to day. And the void at the heart of us is something so many experience - we are looking to fill it with so many things and nothing quite fits. Augustine said that our hearts are restless until they find their rest in God and that it the experience of countless millions, though I do realise that many would contend with this - but it's my experience that the restless places in me are stilled in a profound way by the presence of God. And it's not just a happy moment or a fleeting sense of wonder at beauty - it's a lasting, incomprehensible sense of peace which goes far deeper than that. It soothes the void and seals the darkness in me.

we as humans think we are too special for that, but we are just advanced animals really.

I think we as humans think we are special because we are. I don't think there is anything arrogant in that. Our consciousness is quite incredible. Our sense of objective morality marks us out as creatures who have value and purpose. We know it is wrong to hurt a child because that child is imbued with value. We know it is wrong to oppress minorities because those people are imbued with value. We know it is right to defend the cause of the poor and oppressed because those people are imbued with value. Infinite, profound value which goes much beyond the evolutionary worldview of survival of the fittest and into the narrative of serving the other because of that value we see in them.

If God is non Gendered than could or would people refer to 'God' in church services as her?