How to witness to others if you don't have a testimony to witness about?

[Hazelelponi]

Yes, I think you would be for the most part right. I always try to approach any claim with a rational mindset. When someone approaches me with a claim, I always try to understand their why, why that person came to that conclusion. Is that person using a deductive argument, an inductive argument, an abductive argument? Are they assuming implicit premises in their reasoning? Is there any compelling reason to accept them? Are there logical fallacies? How can I reconcile what this person is saying with my previous beliefs? Should I revise my previous beliefs? Etc. I like a lot the branch of philosophy called Epistemology, which is precisely concerned with how we humans develop and justify beliefs about reality.



In a nutshell, I went through a period of depressive nihilism which motivated me to consider the possibility that maybe there is a spiritual realm out there and that life was more than the mere biological cycle we all know about.

In order to investigate whether the spiritual realm was real, I basically saw two options: 1) either I manage to have spiritual experiences myself somehow or 2) I leverage the fact that many people have already had these experiences and have shared their results via published testimonies. I went ahead with the easier alternative, which is option 2. I've read quite a few books about spiritual experiences, miracles, spiritual warfare, etc. I've easily watched over a thousand testimonies and analyzed most of them in great detail. I've noticed that there are patterns of experiences that repeat across multiple testimonies, for which there appear to be no known explanations from the viewpoint of Psychology and Neuroscience. Just to enumerate a few notable examples: paranormal activity, demon possessions, exorcisms, kundalini awakening, baptism of the Holy Spirit, speaking in unknown foreign languages, words of knowledge, supernatural encounters with Jesus (aka Christophanies), Muslims having dreams of Jesus, testimonies of miracles by missionaries on the mission field, revivals where people convert in mass and there are lots of reports of miraculous healings, testimonies of gold tooth restorations, testimonies of ex-satanists, ex-witches, ex-warlocks, etc.

This has given me the hope that there might be in fact a spiritual/supernatural dimension to reality, that God might be real and that life might be more than a biological cycle. I think there is compelling testimonial evidence to believe in this possibility. But again, it's all theoretical from my viewpoint. Of course, it's experiential for the people with the testimonies, but I don't have a testimony, so from my viewpoint it remains theoretical.

To be honest, you can't go off personal experiences.

There was a man who was born and raised in the Midwestern United States, part of a large family, but his mother had mental problems and his dad was murdered when he was young. He ended up having to go to Boston to live with his oldest sister and while there he got in with a crowd that was quite unsavory and eventually became very unsavory himself. He ended up in a Massachusetts prison and there ran into some men who talked to him about his need for his life to be changed and this messiah that he needed to meet and encounter and to whom he needed to bow the knee. But he couldn't, he simply could not until one night in his cell he had a personal, vivid encounter with this messiah and he bowed the knee... his entire life changed. He became a model prisoner and ended up getting out of prison early. He became one of the most famous preachers in the United States and there are streets named after him to this very day. He was personally responsible for opening up over a hundred houses of worship.

His name? Malcolm X. His messiah? Elijah Mohammed whom Malcolm X later came to realize was a fraud, so he left the Nation of Islam and became an orthodox Muslim and then the Nation of Islam assassinated him.

So he had an experience, it changed his life.. And. He. Was. Wrong! And by the end of his life he knew he was wrong. That encounter in prison in his cell was fraudulent! Yet he based everything on it.


We are Christians because we believe the Bible. The Bible is a reliable collection of historical documents, written down by eye witness during the lifetime of other eye witnesses. They report to us supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies and claim that their writings were divine rather than human in origin. 2 Peter 1:16-21; Luke 1:1-4; 1 Corinthians 15:3-8

What makes the Bible different than many other "holy" books from other religions is because it's actually a collection. It's not just one individual who said that he heard from God and everyone else has to listen to him. The Bible is actually a collection.

The Bible was written on 3 different continents; Asia, Africa and Europe. The Bible was written in 3 different languages, mainly Hebrew and Greek with a little Aramaic too. The Bible had over 40 authors from multiple walks of life: we have people who were Kings and Generals, we have tax collectors, fishermen, doctors, historians - people from all walks of life, over 40 people. They gave us 66 volumes: these 66 volumes cover hundreds of various subjects and were written over a period of 1500 years.

This is a reliable collection of historical documents. It is not just one individual making a claim. The fact it's a reliable collection of historical documents actually adds to its credibility.

Luke is a physician and an historian. He writes in Luke 1:1-4:

"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."

Luke was not himself an eye witness, nor did he claim to be; his goal was to trace information from those who were eye witnesses while they were still living, some of whom were women interestingly enough, in order to have an historical and chronological account of the events that occurred.

The Gospels themselves were each written with different goals in mind and from different perspectives. Luke's purpose was historical and chronological in order to have certainty from eye witnesses of what occurred and documentation of it. John's was clearly evangelism: "I write these things so that you may believe". So John organizes his Gospel around 7 major signs. Marks Gospel was the shortest of all the Gospels and his was about brevity - just the facts. Matthew's Gospel was written to a Jewish audience, so his was focused on demonstrating that Jesus was the promised Jewish Messiah which is why he outlines everything the way he did, for instance, he starts with genealogy.

The point of saying all this is to emphasize this is a reliable collection of historical documents. Luke here is saying this is an historical document based on eye witness testimony.

Peter says the same thing, that we aren't following cleverly devised myths but indeed himself was an eye witness.

So we have accounts that were actually written by the eye witnesses themselves.

We don't base our faith on experiences, as indeed anyone can have an experience and indeed some can be fraudulent. Rather, we base our faith on the solid ground of eye witness testimony to very real supernatural events that occurred in the presence of many that fulfilled specific prophecies written hundreds upon hundreds of years before.

Stand on solid ground here, not experience. If after your saved you have an experience great, but it's not a necessity to having faith, nor is it a necessity to having a testimony. We have far more than experience, we have a reliable collection of historical documents, written down by eye witness during the lifetime of other eye witnesses. They report to us supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies and claim that their writings were divine rather than human in origin.

Start here. It's foundational.

The above is taken from a Voddie Baucham sermon. Look him up, the title of the sermon is: Why you can believe the Bible, which is available on youtube if you'd like to hear more.

 

[TruthSeek3r]

To be honest, you can't go off personal experiences.

There was a man who was born and raised in the Midwestern United States, part of a large family, but his mother had mental problems and his dad was murdered when he was young. He ended up having to go to Boston to live with his oldest sister and while there he got in with a crowd that was quite unsavory and eventually became very unsavory himself. He ended up in a Massachusetts prison and there ran into some men who talked to him about his need for his life to be changed and this messiah that he needed to meet and encounter and to whom he needed to bow the knee. But he couldn't, he simply could not until one night in his cell he had a personal, vivid encounter with this messiah and he bowed the knee... his entire life changed. He became a model prisoner and ended up getting out of prison early. He became one of the most famous preachers in the United States and there are streets named after him to this very day. He was personally responsible for opening up over a hundred houses of worship.

His name? Malcolm X. His messiah? Elijah Mohammed whom Malcolm X later came to realize was a fraud, so he left the Nation of Islam and became an orthodox Muslim and then the Nation of Islam assassinated him.

So he had an experience, it changed his life.. And. He. Was. Wrong! And by the end of his life he knew he was wrong. That encounter in prison in his cell was fraudulent! Yet he based everything on it.


We are Christians because we believe the Bible. The Bible is a reliable collection of historical documents, written down by eye witness during the lifetime of other eye witnesses. They report to us supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies and claim that their writings were divine rather than human in origin. 2 Peter 1:16-21; Luke 1:1-4; 1 Corinthians 15:3-8

What makes the Bible different than many other "holy" books from other religions is because it's actually a collection. It's not just one individual who said that he heard from God and everyone else has to listen to him. The Bible is actually a collection.

The Bible was written on 3 different continents; Asia, Africa and Europe. The Bible was written in 3 different languages, mainly Hebrew and Greek with a little Aramaic too. The Bible had over 40 authors from multiple walks of life: we have people who were Kings and Generals, we have tax collectors, fishermen, doctors, historians - people from all walks of life, over 40 people. They gave us 66 volumes: these 66 volumes cover hundreds of various subjects and were written over a period of 1500 years.

This is a reliable collection of historical documents. It is not just one individual making a claim. The fact it's a reliable collection of historical documents actually adds to its credibility.

Luke is a physician and an historian. He writes in Luke 1:1-4:

"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."

Luke was not himself an eye witness, nor did he claim to be; his goal was to trace information from those who were eye witnesses while they were still living, some of whom were women interestingly enough, in order to have an historical and chronological account of the events that occurred.

The Gospels themselves were each written with different goals in mind and from different perspectives. Luke's purpose was historical and chronological in order to have certainty from eye witnesses of what occurred and documentation of it. John's was clearly evangelism: "I write these things so that you may believe". So John organizes his Gospel around 7 major signs. Marks Gospel was the shortest of all the Gospels and his was about brevity - just the facts. Matthew's Gospel was written to a Jewish audience, so his was focused on demonstrating that Jesus was the promised Jewish Messiah which is why he outlines everything the way he did, for instance, he starts with genealogy.

The point of saying all this is to emphasize this is a reliable collection of historical documents. Luke here is saying this is an historical document based on eye witness testimony.

Peter says the same thing, that we aren't following cleverly devised myths but indeed himself was an eye witness.

So we have accounts that were actually written by the eye witnesses themselves.

We don't base our faith on experiences, as indeed anyone can have an experience and indeed some can be fraudulent. Rather, we base our faith on the solid ground of eye witness testimony to very real supernatural events that occurred in the presence of many that fulfilled specific prophecies written hundreds upon hundreds of years before.

Stand on solid ground here, not experience. If after your saved you have an experience great, but it's not a necessity to having faith, nor is it a necessity to having a testimony. We have far more than experience, we have a reliable collection of historical documents, written down by eye witness during the lifetime of other eye witnesses. They report to us supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies and claim that their writings were divine rather than human in origin.

Start here. It's foundational.

The above is taken from a Voddie Baucham sermon. Look him up, the title of the sermon is: Why you can believe the Bible, which is available on youtube if you'd like to hear more.

Is this historical/prophetic argument for the resurrection of Jesus accepted by most historians? How many historians accept the resurrection of Jesus as a historical fact? Can you convince an atheist with this argument? These are honest questions. I would greatly appreciate it if you would share links to reputable sources where this argument is presented in a more elaborate form.

 

[Jesusfann777888]

I understand the concept of witnessing to others as sharing what God has done in your life. However, that assumes that you already have a testimony to begin with, i.e. a set of undeniable personal experiences with God that you can witness about to others. But what about people who don't have such testimonies to share? An extreme example: an atheist. An atheist has never had a personal experience with God, therefore you never see atheists witnessing about experiences they've never had. (Otherwise, had they had those experiences, they would've probably stopped being atheists and converted long ago.)

The point I'm trying to get across: How can you witness to people about God if you, personally, have never had an encounter or experience or anything to witness about? In other words, how to witness if you don't have a testimony? How should one proceed if one finds oneself in this situation?

Give em facts, Jesus Christ'S Ressurection's a Historical fact, Loc.Gov, the Act's of pilate. they alway's listen, my question is are you prepared for satan to come after you when you start spreading the gospel!?

 

[Hazelelponi]

Is this historical/prophetic argument for the resurrection of Jesus accepted by most historians? How many historians accept the resurrection of Jesus as a historical fact? Can you convince an atheist with this argument? These are honest questions. I would greatly appreciate it if you would share links to reputable sources where this argument is presented in a more elaborate form.

We have over 5,800 either whole copies or fragments of the New Testament alone and if you add in the Old Testament Books you have over 20,000.. but let's focus on the New Testament alone:

For Julius Caesar's Gallic wars we have less than a dozen copies. How do we know what we know about Julius Caesar? Through Julius Caesars Gallic Wars.

New testament? Over 5,800 copies and fragments. Julius Caesar? Less than a dozen.

We know about the writings of Aristotle through his Poetics yet we have less than 10 copies of that.

We have no manuscripts from Socrates at all. The only thing we know about him is what was written by Plato. Yet we have no doubt he existed and he's taught in every college on earth.

The earliest manuscripts we can touch on Julius Caesars Gallic Wars was written over 800 years after the original.

The oldest New Testament manuscripts we have come within a couple decades of the original writings.

So why are the Gallic Wars accepted by scholarship? Because all the earliest manuscripts agree, except for some few small errors in copying. And what the original intent was, despite a small error here or there, can be deduced by those who know the original language itself.

The Bible has even more than this. We have over 5,800 copies and fragments, and the more we find older ones the more it simply confirms the newer being copies of the originals.

Not only that, but Syriac Copies largely agree with Ethiopian copies which largely agree with.. and so forth, so there is relative unity even across language barriers, and across continents where they had no reason or in some cases even ability to collaborate in some massive conspiracy. And if they had changed things along the way it would've been found in earlier copies as they became found, which has never occurred to any degree close enough to bring the writings themselves into question.

So there is no doubt the Bible is an ancient historical document that remains in tact to this day. There is also no doubt a man named Jesus existed, we have accounts about him and his followers in a few extra Biblical texts, and the dating all agrees that this all began at around a certain time in history, which Christianity confirms in its own teachings.

If you want to learn about it there are many scholarly books and articles on the topic... you can't miss them, Google away.

Why don't atheists accept the eye witness accounts and testimony? Because of the supernatural claims found therein and the atheists skepticism of all things supernatural...

But the Bible is a very reliable historical document written down by eye witnesses during the lifetime of other eye witnesses, and in it we find there were over 500 eye witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus Christ alone, along with other supernatural events that were likewise witnessed.

There's a wealth of information to be found on this topic all you have to do is look.

As far as answering an atheists skepticism of all claims supernatural, that's a different topic altogether, and one I think requires Gods direct intervention upon their heart... that's not something we, as Christians and fellow human beings, can do for them, we can only pray to God for them, as we come across individuals who need such prayer.

It was to the skeptics of his time that Paul was speaking to in 1 Corinthians when he said there were hundreds of eye witnesses still alive at the time of his writing, and if they didn't believe his account all they had to do was find some of those who were actual witnesses to these events.

So while we don't have any living eye witnesses today, the sheer number of eye witnesses to the supernatural events spoken of in Scripture would be absolutely compelling in a court of law, and, we have reliable historical documentation from those who were witness yet today, preserved and passed down to us, and in greater number than anything else from that period which we accept as fact.

The rest is just a heart matter.

Again, most of the above is taken from a Voddie Baucham sermon titled: Why you can believe the Bible, which is available on youtube if you'd like to hear more.

 

[tryphena rose]

I understand the concept of witnessing to others as sharing what God has done in your life. However, that assumes that you already have a testimony to begin with, i.e. a set of undeniable personal experiences with God that you can witness about to others. But what about people who don't have such testimonies to share? An extreme example: an atheist. An atheist has never had a personal experience with God, therefore you never see atheists witnessing about experiences they've never had. (Otherwise, had they had those experiences, they would've probably stopped being atheists and converted long ago.)

The point I'm trying to get across: How can you witness to people about God if you, personally, have never had an encounter or experience or anything to witness about? In other words, how to witness if you don't have a testimony? How should one proceed if one finds oneself in this situation?

As a former atheist, I can assure you many atheists do in fact come to believe in Jesus. Whether by coming to the conclusion through taking on the challenge of trying to disprove the scriptures (which is the evidence is overwhelming when looked at seriously), or by the slightest amount of humility (God can really work with this), or an all around supernatural experience. My experience personally was both a journey of humbling myself but God also revealing Himself to me in an undeniable supernatural way. Even though I've had this type of experience, I agree with many others who have posted here. I only share this testimony if I see the moment is appropriate, just like apostle Paul. I don't just share my life story to all those I come across because you have to feel out the person your witnessing to first and see if that would even appeal to them. Some people are really turned off when you start going into personal things and just don't want to hear it. While others, it can be the perfect opportunity and really touch their heart. My husband actually urged me to share my testimony with another believer a few years ago, and the man actually sighed and seemed annoyed at the proposition! Like he was just not wanting to listen to it, so I kept it short and went on my way. Just using this as an example.

I personally have had a rough past, but not all atheists do and God used this in my case to lead me to Him. While I would say all atheists hearts are hardened, not all of them have a sob story so to them my experience would mean little to nothing even if I did share it. In conclusion, you don't have to have a big story. God has used plenty of ordinary people who have led ordinary lives to witness for Him and effectively bring others to Jesus. After all, the salvation of others is not within our hands, we are simply messengers. But it's GOD who finishes the work in the unbelievers heart.

 

[TruthSeek3r]

As a former atheist, I can assure you many atheists do in fact come to believe in Jesus. Whether by coming to the conclusion through taking on the challenge of trying to disprove the scriptures (which is the evidence is overwhelming when looked at seriously), or by the slightest amount of humility (God can really work with this), or an all around supernatural experience.

The first option (taking on the challenge of trying to disprove the scriptures) at best can give you an "intellectual conversion", but you would still need something beyond that to have a real spiritual conversion, right?

The third option (or an all around supernatural experience) is the undeniable, in-your-face, road-to-Damascus kind of experience that you just have no other choice but to accept it.

The second option (by the slightest amount of humility), I'm not sure if I understand it, would you mind expanding on it a little bit?

My experience personally was both a journey of humbling myself but God also revealing Himself to me in an undeniable supernatural way.

Astounding. Have you posted your testimony somewhere by any chance? I would love to read it!

 

[tryphena rose]

The first option (taking on the challenge of trying to disprove the scriptures) at best can give you an "intellectual conversion", but you would still need something beyond that to have a real spiritual conversion, right?

The third option (or an all around supernatural experience) is the undeniable, in-your-face, road-to-Damascus kind of experience that you just have no other choice but to accept it.

The second option (by the slightest amount of humility), I'm not sure if I understand it, would you mind expanding on it a little bit?



Astounding. Have you posted your testimony somewhere by any chance? I would love to read it!

The first option: For some unbelievers, the intellectual is what they're seeking. And if given a good amount of archeological proof (for example) may just be enough to convert them in and of itself. Lee Strobel's a good example of this. But regardless of that, the atheist who rejects all things spiritual would eventually have to come to the belief in the supernatural anyway because many of the miracles Jesus performed was supernatural. I mean most atheists have a hard time really and truly believing that Jesus raised from the dead as they see that being an impossible feat in this world that's "purely physical". Even with this stumbling block, an atheist can still come to believe by seeking out the claims of the Bible alone and finding that they are indeed true.

The third option (answering in the order you listed): Surely, you would think that would leave no room for doubt, as it had left me, however God doesn't always reveal Himself in that way and many people have testimonies to prove that. I do think, even without a big story, God still reveals Himself to whoever seek Him out. For example, when the Holy Spirit enters into a person, many times the new believer is filled with hope and joy that they've never had before and most times are very compelled to share their newfound faith with the lost. I love the fruit of a new believer because there are usually these tell-tale signs, which I definitely experienced myself. I couldn't shut up about Jesus when I first was saved lol!

The second option: "But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble." James 4:6 There are a many verses like this revealing that a hardened and proud heart who takes pleasure only in their own understanding, God will allow that person to choose that path if they wish. But even the smallest amount of humbling of oneself, God takes great pleasure in. When I made the conscious decision to follow Jesus, I'll tell you truthfully that my heart wasn't all the way there but God used the little humility I had to preform a great work in me. I hope that helps to illustrate what I meant a little better.

Here's a link to my testimony I posted here a few years ago. Just so you know it is a little lengthy. From broken athiest to a New Creation in Christ Jesus!

Also, here's a good testimony demonstrating a man who was an atheist all his life, but investigated the claims of the Bible seriously, coming to the conclusion that it's true. He doesn't have any big supernatural experience that converted him, but it's clear God has worked mightily in his heart.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

The point I'm trying to get across: How can you witness to people about God if you, personally, have never had an encounter or experience or anything to witness about? In other words, how to witness if you don't have a testimony? How should one proceed if one finds oneself in this situation?

You are witnessing the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Personal experience is useful, but unless it points the listener to Jesus it is actually a distraction. I'm not even sure that atheists are that considerate of personal testimony. Certainly I have had some picking holes in my personal experiences, mocking it or accusing me of lying, so having a personal testimony of God's work does not always matter in such circumstances.

Also you should not neglect your actual actions - the way you live your life. Historically Christianity grew because Christians ministered to the marginalised in society - find people who everyone else is missing and help them in Jesus' name.

 

[Astroqualia]

I understand the concept of witnessing to others as sharing what God has done in your life. However, that assumes that you already have a testimony to begin with, i.e. a set of undeniable personal experiences with God that you can witness about to others. But what about people who don't have such testimonies to share? An extreme example: an atheist. An atheist has never had a personal experience with God, therefore you never see atheists witnessing about experiences they've never had. (Otherwise, had they had those experiences, they would've probably stopped being atheists and converted long ago.)

The point I'm trying to get across: How can you witness to people about God if you, personally, have never had an encounter or experience or anything to witness about? In other words, how to witness if you don't have a testimony? How should one proceed if one finds oneself in this situation?

Why are you looking for an atheists testimony about God? That is like looking for water in the middle of the desert in a sand dune. It doesn't really make sense to do that. Now, a converted atheist could give their testimony about how they came to know Christ, of course, but that would be a believers' testimony. There are only believers' testimonies.

 

[TruthSeek3r]

Why are you looking for an atheists testimony about God? That is like looking for water in the middle of the desert in a sand dune. It doesn't really make sense to do that. Now, a converted atheist could give their testimony about how they came to know Christ, of course, but that would be a believers' testimony. There are only believers' testimonies.

That's the point. I'm using atheists as an extreme example to illustrate what it is to lack a testimony. You basically are agreeing with me.

 

[Hazelelponi]

That's the point. I'm using atheists as an extreme example to illustrate what it is to lack a testimony. You basically are agreeing with me.

No unbeliever has a testimony, nor is one required of them. As Christians our testimony is in what Christ our Lord has done through His life, death, and resurrection, for His people. (Noting that "His people" are all those who believe unto salvation, under the New Covanent, today)