Trying to "prove" Christianity during a lesson

[KitKatMatt]

I attended the local Methodist church for Sunday School again yesterday, and instead of reading from the book they provided we watched a video that went over the same lesson.

The lesson was focused on Jesus' betrayal right before his crucifixion.

This was something that we never focused on at my other church, so I was hanging on to every word of it, up until the speaker felt he had to drop some statistics to "prove" that Jesus was the real deal.

He went from talking about the many prophesies Jesus fulfilled, to "There was one university study that showed the probability of a man fulfilling just X prophecies was X to the 27th power", etc and onward.

I don't know if I'm the only one that sort of thing would rub the wrong way, but it did. I don't see why they needed to drop in "evidence" that Jesus was the Son of God. Are they trying to convince people or what? I was already convinced.

I also don't know how you exactly quantify the chances of someone fulfilling a prophecy, so that just opened up a whole list of questions when I heard it. I don't think it was a wise move to do, and I immediately lost a little bit of respect for the speaker, but maybe I shouldn't have? I don't know.

From there it went a bit worse- all of a sudden atheists and pagans were brought into the speech because "they will fight and deny the Son of God to your face" or something, but... am I the only one who doesn't really care about what these hypothetical atheists or pagans think about Jesus Christ? Add to the fact that I know quite a few atheist and pagans, and only two of them will even speak about religion past saying "I am an atheist/pagan".

It went from being a really good lesson to a really disappointing lesson. I think he should have never brought up those two subjects. All it did was turn me away from what he was speaking.

Would anyone else feel the same in this situation, or is it just a "me" thing?

 

[Creech]

I would definitely feel kind of disappointed in that situation. I don't think any amount of numbers or statistics will convince someone to become a Christian. Not that I am saying numbers and stats don't have a place, but I think there should be a focus on the heart and not on the brain.

 

[Joykins]

I think I would have had the same reaction.

"There was one university study that showed the probability of a man fulfilling just X prophecies was X to the 27th power", etc and onward.

Considering that Matthew liberally re-interpreted a lot of OT prophecies to match Jesus's story, the odds are probably irrelevant. I have a whole rant on this that I won't subject you to.

 

[circuitrider]

IMHO by definition you can't "prove" faith. Faith us the substance of things hoped for and the assurance of things not seen according to Hebrews 11.

Trying to Prove Jesus with stats really misses the point.

 

[KitKatMatt]

IMHO by definition you can't "prove" faith. Faith us the substance of things hoped for and the assurance of things not seen according to Hebrews 11.

Trying to Prove Jesus with stats really misses the point.

(Emph added.)

I feel the same exact way.

 

[KitKatMatt]

I would definitely feel kind of disappointed in that situation. I don't think any amount of numbers or statistics will convince someone to become a Christian. Not that I am saying numbers and stats don't have a place, but I think there should be a focus on the heart and not on the brain.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who would feel this way!

And yeah, even though I'm a big numbers and "proof" person, I don't believe that has any bearings towards my faith in God and Jesus Christ. That's faith, after all.

 

[KitKatMatt]

I think I would have had the same reaction.



Considering that Matthew liberally re-interpreted a lot of OT prophecies to match Jesus's story, the odds are probably irrelevant. I have a whole rant on this that I won't subject you to.

I didn't even want to approach the idea of matching up prophecies (wasn't sure how the reaction would go, haha), but I definitely agree with you. I don't think it could be quantified correctly, and I don't think it has any bearings on anything.

You're welcome to subject me to the rant if you wish I find all these replies really interesting!

 

[Joykins]

I'm going to loose my inner skeptic for a few minutes.

Matthew's prophecies are supposed to appeal to a Jewish audience, or so I am told, but most of the prophecies are out of context verses applied to Jesus's life in ways that (modern) Jews wouldn't necessarily recognize. For example, there's this verse "out of Egypt have I called my son" that is specifically about the Exodus but Matthew interprets it as a prophecy about the Flight to Egypt. An awkward example is Is. 7:14 predicting the virgin birth of a messianic child. Only, the Hebrew just says young woman--the virgin word comes from the Septuagint only. The silliest example is when Matthew interprets a prophecy to have Jesus ride into Jerusalem on a donkey AND a colt at the same time which I imagine is only barely possible for a circus performer.

So, OK, let's just say Matthew inaugurates this tradition of looking at a lot of the OT and finding hidden hints of Jesus there. I'm fine with that, as far as it goes. But it doesn't make the odds of Jesus fulfilling these prophecies small at all. It makes them VERY LARGE. And I don't imagine it's at all persuasive to people who aren't believers already. It's kind of like Stephen Colbert's statement that "we know the Bible is true because the Bible says the Bible is true."

And that doesn't even touch on the Messianic prophecies that Jesus didn't fulfill. Christians believe that their fulfillment is postponed until the 2nd coming. But I think it's a problem for people making the prophecy argument, against anyone who is in the least skeptical.

 

[KitKatMatt]

I'm going to loose my inner skeptic for a few minutes.

Matthew's prophecies are supposed to appeal to a Jewish audience, or so I am told, but most of the prophecies are out of context verses applied to Jesus's life in ways that (modern) Jews wouldn't necessarily recognize. For example, there's this verse "out of Egypt have I called my son" that is specifically about the Exodus but Matthew interprets it as a prophecy about the Flight to Egypt. An awkward example is Is. 7:14 predicting the virgin birth of a messianic child. Only, the Hebrew just says young woman--the virgin word comes from the Septuagint only. The silliest example is when Matthew interprets a prophecy to have Jesus ride into Jerusalem on a donkey AND a colt at the same time which I imagine is only barely possible for a circus performer.

So, OK, let's just say Matthew inaugurates this tradition of looking at a lot of the OT and finding hidden hints of Jesus there. I'm fine with that, as far as it goes. But it doesn't make the odds of Jesus fulfilling these prophecies small at all. It makes them VERY LARGE. And I don't imagine it's at all persuasive to people who aren't believers already. It's kind of like Stephen Colbert's statement that "we know the Bible is true because the Bible says the Bible is true."

And that doesn't even touch on the Messianic prophecies that Jesus didn't fulfill. Christians believe that their fulfillment is postponed until the 2nd coming. But I think it's a problem for people making the prophecy argument, against anyone who is in the least skeptical.

Thank you for posting that, I really enjoyed reading it!

I haven't ever heard another Christian voice an opinion that I held myself about the "fulfilled prophecies". That really took a load off my shoulders that, again, I was the only one that felt that way (the only difference is I don't really have the knowledge base of the history of the Bible to talk about it like you do).

 

[GraceSeeker]

Backgrounds so influence not just where we come from, but what lens we see things through and our own person felt needs. On this occassion you were definitely in a different place than you class leader was. That's likely going to happen with everyone at some time or another. So, right now it sounds like you're batting .500, which would be pretty good in baseball and not so good if landing airplanes. Fortunately, you were able to walk away relatively unscathed. The question now is will you now walk away even farther or give it another chance?

And if you go back and hear something similar again (because some people are indeed so concerned that people will doubt them or so impressed by the messages of others, that they feel they just have to back it up -- I've heard the message you heard before, it is quite popular in some circles where apologetics is seen as effective sharing of the Gospel), will you be comfortable saying there what you've said here, that he doesn't need to convince you with stats. But that you do have needs beyond stats as you wrestle with other issues where you're seeking guidance.


BTW, I'll bet that you'll find much of those figures in a book by Josh McDowell, "Evidence That Demands A Verdict" and it's been repeated quite a bit by a number of people since. Whether he says where he got those numbers from I don't know.

 

[KitKatMatt]

Backgrounds so influence not just where we come from, but what lens we see things through and our own person felt needs. On this occassion you were definitely in a different place than you class leader was. That's likely going to happen with everyone at some time or another. So, right now it sounds like you're batting .500, which would be pretty good in baseball and not so good if landing airplanes. Fortunately, you were able to walk away relatively unscathed. The question now is will you now walk away even farther or give it another chance?

And if you go back and hear something similar again (because some people are indeed so concerned that people will doubt them or so impressed by the messages of others, that they feel they just have to back it up -- I've heard the message you heard before, it is quite popular in some circles where apologetics is seen as effective sharing of the Gospel), will you be comfortable saying there what you've said here, that he doesn't need to convince you with stats. But that you do have needs beyond stats as you wrestle with other issues where you're seeking guidance.


BTW, I'll bet that you'll find much of those figures in a book by Josh McDowell, "Evidence That Demands A Verdict" and it's been repeated quite a bit by a number of people since. Whether he says where he got those numbers from I don't know.

I will be going back next weekend, definitely. I don't really have to worry much- the speaker was on a video online, and not part of the church. If that kind of view is ever expressed by someone in the lesson, though, I am tempted to make my feelings about it known (but in a very kind and non argumentative manner).

Thank you very much for your reply

 

[Joykins]

Thank you for posting that, I really enjoyed reading it!

I haven't ever heard another Christian voice an opinion that I held myself about the "fulfilled prophecies". That really took a load off my shoulders that, again, I was the only one that felt that way (the only difference is I don't really have the knowledge base of the history of the Bible to talk about it like you do).

It's common knowledge among Biblical scholars--I think I first encountered this information about Matthew in a Bible as literature or New Testament course, and also later at a church study of the Bible and its origins.

I'm of two minds about it. On one hand, it shows a admirable level of flexbility and creativity when it come to Biblical interpretation. On the other hand, it shows a frightening level of flexibility and creativity when it comes to Biblical interpretation

However, as an apologetics tactic I think it works only for those who accept the Bible as a reliable factual source and do not primarily read the Bible critically. And there's nothing wrong with that approach to spirituality--devotional reading is necessary for spiritual growth and as someone who accepts the Bible as reliable for faith and practice, I read those passages to see what God is trying to tell me.

But in terms of a pseudo-scientific data-based approach intended to appeal to skeptics I think the "odds of prophecy fulfillment" argument falls very flat. I think it is the kind of things believers preach to each other, more.

 

[GraceSeeker]

But in terms of a pseudo-scientific data-based approach intended to appeal to skeptics I think the "odds of prophecy fulfillment" argument falls very flat. I think it is the kind of things believers preach to each other, more.

Pretty much. It assures the insecure, and provides comfort in the same way that the TSA searches are "protecting" us at airports.

 

[circuitrider]

But in terms of a pseudo-scientific data-based approach intended to appeal to skeptics I think the "odds of prophecy fulfillment" argument falls very flat. I think it is the kind of things believers preach to each other, more.

I aways called that "preaching to the choir."