Post

Why Would Telling Me You Have Seen Jesus With Your Own Eyes Convice Me?

The most commen argument I hear as an athiest is that If a person has seen jesus with their own eyes that makes it all fact. Do they think i can not come up with a more likely and more logical explaination for having seen jesus?
One possible explaination would be delusion. Alot of these stories involve very young children, people in severe poverty, drugs and all sorts of other things that would make the story less reliable.
Then there are the occaisions when there is clearly money to be made from convincing me, or any one else, that jesus can be seen.

Then of course there is science. I rely on facts and evidence to form my understanding of the universe we live in.

I just dont understand why some one would think telling me they have seen jesus or listing obscure predictions that it could be argued have come true would be counted as evidence of the existance of god.
tobyjclark tobyjclark 22-25, M 7 Responses May 31, 2011

Your Response

Cancel

I was raised Catholic, but like many of us, had my doubts. In my twenties, I largely doubted. If my thirties, it did not matter and I simply went on without any need to answer my doubts. In my forties, I found myself searching for the “truth.”

That led me to look at miracle stories. The question that emerged was not whether you could discount one miracle story based on the circumstances or people involved, but whether you could discount all of them. It is a rather convenient approach to discount one and then say that the rest deserve no more of our time. To me, one does that if he or she is reluctant to approach the question with neutrality.

I had read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins at one point, expecting to find only the most well-thought out and rational of arguments. Instead, I found an argument he previously raised in The Blind Watchmaker. He discussed a marble statue of the Virgin Mary waving its hand. He explained that, as the atoms in that marble hand were moving, it was possible they could all move in the same direction at the same time. The odds against that however, he admits, would be prohibitively large. If you started writing zeroes at the beginning of the universe, you would still not be done.

If only one miracle story is true, I believe something more than this argument by Dawkins is needed to look the other way. If more than one is true, the case for disbelief becomes even more extended. My interest in this subject area has led me to begin a log of various miracle stories on a website called thehumblecatholic.com. They are under the heading “His Presence-Little Stories.” I expect there will be a very large number posted there before I am all done.

Actually, anyone who's ever read the Bible knows that its prophecies are anything but obscure. Case in point -



About 732 B.C.E., the prophet Isaiah penned an ominous prophecy—Babylon would fall. Isaiah provided specifics: A leader named “Cyrus” would be the conqueror, the protective waters of the Euphrates would “dry up,” and the city’s gates would “not be shut.” (Isaiah 44:27–45:3) Some 200 years later, on October 5, 539 B.C.E., the prophecy was fulfilled in all its details. Greek historian Herodotus (fifth century B.C.E.) confirmed the manner of Babylon’s fall.



Isaiah made a further startling prediction regarding Babylon: “She will never be inhabited.” (Isaiah 13:19, 20) To predict permanent desolation for a sprawling city occupying a strategic location was bold indeed. You would normally expect that such a city would be rebuilt if ruined. Although Babylon lingered on for a while after its conquest, Isaiah’s words eventually came true. Today the site of ancient Babylon “is flat, hot, deserted and dusty,” reports Smithsonian magazine.



It is awesome to contemplate the magnitude of Isaiah’s prophecy. What he foretold would be the equivalent of predicting the exact manner in which a modern city, such as New York or London, would be destroyed 200 years from now and then emphatically stating that it would never again be inhabited.



Now, from a rational and objective perspective, how do you explain Isaiah's ability to specifically and accurately predict events hundreds of years in advance?



Out of the many fulfilled Bible prophecies, let's consider yet another one. Please read Ezekiel 26:7-14. When you're done proceed through the rest of this message :)















The facts show that each and every single one of these aspects was fulfilled to the last detail. Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to mainland Tyre and after a 13 year siege the city was destroyed in 573 BC, as predicted by Ezekiel. A LATER pronouncement by Jehovah through the prophet Zechariah indicated that, though Tyre would build a rampart and pile up silver and gold, Jehovah God himself would destroy Tyre completely.—Zechariah 9:3, 4.



Nearly 200 years after Zechariah’s prophecy was given, it was fulfilled. In 332 B.C.E. Alexander the Great marched his army across Asia Minor and, in his sweep southward, paused long enough to give his attention to the island city of Tyre. When the city refused to open its gates, Alexander in his rage had his army scrape up the ruins of the mainland city and throw it into the sea, thus building a causeway out to the island city, all of this in fulfillment of prophecy. (Ezekiel 26:4)



With his naval forces holding the Tyrian ships bottled up in their harbor, Alexander set about constructing the highest siege towers ever used in ancient wars. Finally, after seven months the 150 foot walls were breached. In addition to the 8,000 military men killed in battle, 2,000 prominent leaders were killed as a reprisal, and 30,000 inhabitants were sold into slavery.



Today the ancient mainland and island cities of Tyre remain uninhabited – as prophesied. The modern city known today as Tyre is not located where the ancient city of Tyre was - it's miles down the coast of where the city referenced by Ezekiel and Zachariah once was.



From a rational and objective perspective, how do you explain Ezekiel's and Zechariah's ability to specifically and accurately predict events hundreds of years in advance? How do you explain the fact that not one of the Bible's many highly specific prophecies has ever been wrong?

Believing in Jesus is a wonderful privilege. The invitation is there. But a person is required to open the door to his heart and receive Him. Who else would die for you? What other choices are there? Go ahead and choose everything else. Nothing else will be the Truth of your life. I pray for you, that you will open the door and let Him in. I did. He is God. And He is Love. And He is Life. I have lived a life through which only He could have led me. The only reason to share is mainly because I remember who and what I was before Him. I will not ever have to go back. I will never be alone again. I have Jesus with me. He is indeed real. Seek and you will find. Ask and it will be given to you. Love yourself enough to want the Truth in this world. Take the narrow road. and live forever. He loves you. David.

For the apostles and the 500, there are possible alternative explanations, each of which is more likely than a dead person's resurrection and ascendancy:- someone was so keen to ensure the crucified rabbi would be acclaimed the messiah, that they found someone who looked like him, and staged some theatrical effects with smoke and light; in deep grief, it's a common experience to catch sight of the dead beloved; Jesus did not die, but went into a coma, those who took him down from the cross secreted hid roller bearers such as logs under the rock that sealed the tomb, and after saying his goodbyes, he staged a suitable disappearance, so he could live a more peaceful life without risk of further torture; the said resurrection never occurred, but the writers of the gospel, 60 to 300 years after the event, decided it was necessary to write for the sake of the new religion.

I remember seeing the toast! My dad (an atheist) and sister once also saw a patch of damp on a wall that they both said looked exactly like the face of Jesus as commonly portrayed. I wasn't there so can't comment. However, 'seeing' could mean a lot of things. It could mean seeing a likeness of Jesus in something. Well, the brain is really, really, REALLY good at making likenesses of faces or familliar concepts out of...well...anything. Small children get scared at night because the curtains or their dressing gown hanging on the door look like a creepy face. And also, they could be speaking metaphorically, even to the extent that they are in denial of that fact. And in that sense, you could say you'd 'seen Jesus with [your] own eyes' just because you looked at a painting of Jesus, if seeing just means observing a likeness. So I agree, somebody saying they had seen Jesus would not convince me either. As a Christian anyway for me it would be a moot point(!), but I can identify when people say it seems an odd way to try and convince somebody.



In fact, it seems odd for a number of reasons. Surely the person would recognise the likelihood that they would be perceived as a nut rather than be taken seriously? And surely, even if they did see Jesus, that would be more convincing to them than to anybody else, given they were the one that had the experience?!



It does also seem though that when people say they have seen Jesus with their own eyes, they could also be attempting to validate their own beliefs, as well as, or instead of, trying to convince others. If that is the case, it seems an even odder way to go about it, for reasons outlined above.



It seems to me that the mere act of trying to convince somebody to come round to your faith is a rather tactless thing to do, especially if you're heaping on evidence by way of doing it. I mean, it implies that you don't care about what they believe, and don't consider it important, in fact, downright consider it wrong and your view much more important, therefore. And for one thing, being made to feel like that, irrespective of right or wrong, is not going to make someone believe in a loving God, or want to do what the convincer is trying to get them to do.

Having somebody come to me saying they saw Jesus with their own eyes would definitely convince me... they need to be checked. It's like the lady who tried to sell her toast on eBay because it looked like Jesus...

Excuse me, are you questioning that the apostles saw Jesus? Seriously?