I commented on an article I read from a local newspaper on an online commenting forum. The author and I have been debating back and forth a bit. He has brought up various “unfulfilled prophesies” such as the Nile drying up, Egypt being a wasteland and the cities of Damascus and Tyre being utterly destroyed. Frankly, I had never heard of these prophesies being in the Bible and I have not found a way to address this.
Firstly, you can point out to him that he isn’t the first person to ever question the existence of Jesus nor review the availiable evidence.
For more than a century, continental (Albert Schweitzer onwards) universities have been debating the Quest for the Historical Jesus. There have now been three such Quests, each by professionals who are aquainted with the necessary Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin &c. to get back to all the originals.
I can tell you that the primary result of the quest was to demonstrate to even the most hardened athiest that there was undoubtedly a human individual named Jesus of Nazareth. That he was a preacher, he performed acts that were labelled miraculous by his followers and "magic or sorcery"by his critics. He performed excorcisms (ie casting out demons) and was eventually excecuted by crucifixion.
There is no less reason to bellieve he existed than Julius Caesar or Gandhi &c.
Secondly, Biblical prophecy (as I constantly hear versus Protestants) needs interpretation. After all, say Jonah. He prophisies at the LORD’s command that Ninevah will be destroyed. THe ninevites under the rule of their king repent in sackcloth and ashes and so God does not carry through with the destruction. Does that mean Jonah was mistaken? He throws a tantrum at God who explains that he loves and cares for those people in the city.
Try to stay central to prophecies about Jesus and ask why Jesus’ birth narratives had to include the census? After all this incidental infomation wasn’t prophisied, they could simply have wandered down to Bethlehem if they had felt like it, is giving Jesus a nativity in a stable conistent with “magnigying him?” quite the opposite, it is lowly.
One of the critirion suggested for knowing whether something is authentic is to see if it embarrases anyone. There is plenty in that lowly birth to suggest that it is a credible account. After all, Luke, a doctor, was likely to know that the virgin birth was extraordinary yet not really much more than all the previous “womb opening” accounts such as Sarah or Samuel’s mother, Elizabeth &c.
Anyway, good luck getting an athiest to even listen. They tend to have a superiority complex. at least agnostics have an opening in their uncertainty. Fortunatley, not many people are actual athiests once you scratch them (10% if that).
