I think you'll find a 100% chance of meeting that sort of person over at http://www.atheists-for-jesus.com/

I just ran across that the other day. They want to remove Pauline influence from doctrine and end up with a more 'pure' account of what Jesus taught. They don't believe in the divinity of Jesus.
Greg Vaughn | 11.06.03 - 10:16 am | #

David, I don't think the number helps non-believers, because most of the prophecies are worded in religious terms they won't understand, as "by his stripes we are healed". There are some, as birth in Bethlehem that were clearly understood by the Jews as messianic, as shown in Herod's reaction to the wise men. There are also some Jewish writings that apply them to the prophecies.

However, again to a lost person, he is more interested in, can you prove Christ lived? And, if he is well read, he will object to the writing of Josephus about it, making the old claim that Christians doctored it. Although I don't think there is any evidence of doctoring, most non-believers don't accept the burden of proving it and expect you to disprove it.

I'm not sure but that God covered a lot of the tracks on purpose so we would hear the gospel and believe if we were predestined to do so, and not so that the multitudes could go dig up relics and believe because of them. As Paul said, believing come by hearing the word of God.

Blessings.
Larry | Homepage | 11.06.03 - 12:34 pm | #

David,
I'm a believer. I'm really enjoying your site. I think you have a gift in sharing the good news.
However, I'm really stuggling with the whole election concept. My comment/question is that if election is accurate, are apologetics even important? Is the pursuit of solid intellectual debate to convert non-believers even necessary. Does one need to engage in debate, or rather are we simply called to share the Truth and assume that the Holy Spirit will do the rest if indeed the person receiving the Gospel is "elect".
Please note: I am very new to the whole concept of election...not sure where I fall.
Peace,
Alex
Alex | Homepage | 11.06.03 - 1:01 pm | #

Hi Alex,

Even though you addressed David, I'll respond as well.

The short answer to your question is "Yes."

1 Peter 3:15 commands us, "But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect."

Jude 3 urges us to contend for the faith.

Why does it matter in the light of election? Because God uses the elect to bring other elected people into the kingdom. It also strengthens our faith as we study. I think that's why Paul wrote in Philemon 1:6, "I pray that you may be active in sharing your faith, so that you will have a full understanding of every good thing we have in Christ."

As we share and defend our faith, we gain a better understanding of it ourselves.

In one sense, yes, we simply share the truth and the Holy Spirit does the rest. However, sharing the truth includes apologetics. I don't know if you know this, but the term "apologetics" comes from the Greek word apologia, translated "reason" in 1 Peter 3:15; it refers to reasons one would give while making a case in a court of law.

As for election, read Ephesians 1.
Randy Brandt | Homepage | 11.06.03 - 2:04 pm | #

Thanks Randy,
I'll be sure to go through Ephesians 1. I appreciate your response.
-Alex
Alex | Homepage | 11.06.03 - 2:26 pm | #

I would add to the end of this article d) the Holy Spirit has begun to work in. I just don't see how anyone can accept such arguments as meaningful until the Spirit has begun His work in them.

I recently read "The Case For Christ" and very much enjoyed it, but I find it more useful for believers (especially new believers) than for unbelievers. If the Spirit isn't working in the person the book and all the great arguments will mean nothing...
Tim | 11.06.03 - 2:50 pm | #

I always thought this as well: that the probability argument was more to make Christians feel good than a real apologetic. That's why I never even tried sharing it with anyone. I figured that they would just say in response, "Well, the Biblical authors obviously knew their prophecy."

Anyway, a good amount of the NT fulfillments are typological rather than strict 1:1 prophetic fulfillments, so the probability case isn't that clear-cut to begin with.
Evan Donovan | 11.07.03 - 2:46 pm | #

The probability argument seems vacuous to me because it ignores the fact that Jesus was fulfilling the prophecies on purpose. If I read a series of predictions from a hundred years ago and set out to fulfill them, then it would prove nothing if I were successful in fulfilling them. Also, many of the prophecies that Christ fulfilled were not recognized as prophecies until he fulfilled them (such as Psalm 22). Also, a lot of prophecy was left unfulfilled (as exemplified by the modern end-times industry).

Of course, Jesus did fulfill some prophecies with His birth, which He had no control over. So you'd really have to blame Mary for convincing Him that He was the Messiah.

Also, the way those numbers are calculated is suspect. Larkin did the math in his *Dispensational Truth*. He assigned a 50% probability for each prophecy, which is ridiculous.

I’ll agree that fulfilled prophecy is the primary philosophical proof of the Bible’s divine origin, but the way the numbers thrown around are unconvincing.
Jeffrey L. Whitledge | Homepage | 11.08.03 - 4:10 pm | #

"Jesus was fulfilling the prophecies on purpose." Well, I don't think He was some kind of prophecy-fulfilling machine - what about the ones about none of His bones being broken, the soldiers casting lots for His clothing, etc.?
Evan Donovan | 11.13.03 - 10:02 am | #