Why Should I Come Back to the Church?

[LilyM]

But how do you decide who or what to trust?

Good question. You know the answer. How DID you decide who or what to trust? For example - why do you trust whoever has told you that the historical and biblical records do not match? I presume you came to this conclusion after reading some historians. What made you decide they were the real deal and not hucksters like those who claimed to have found Jesus’ tomb based solely on the fact that said tomb was inscribed with a couple of first names which were also those of Jesus’ family members - ignoring the fact that all of those names including his own were unbelievably common and thus it is highly likely that lots of people’s families would contain those same names?

 

[Veedar]

If you are just looking at the Gospels, there is a lot of evidence that they are accurate reports of people trying to honestly express what they witnessed (see Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony by Richard Bauckham for scientific treatment)

Contradictions between the Gospels ADDS to their credibility because eyewitness accounts usually hold contradictions UNLESS there was collusion between the witnesses to get their stories straight beforehand.

The Gospels differ from other ancient texts with ridiculous things in that it has real historical people (Pilate, Augustus, Herod) where (for example) the Illiad has no person found in history outside of the story (Achilles, Helen).

The gospels are not eyewitness accounts. To quote Bart Ehrman:

"The eyewitnesses would have been Aramaic speaking peasants almost entirely from rural Galilee. Mark was a highly educated, Greek speaking Christian living in an urban area outside of Palestine (Rome?), who never traveled, probably, to Galilee. So the existence of eyewitnesses would not have much if any effect on his Gospel.

The same is true, even more so, with the later Gospels. Luke begins his Gospel by saying that eyewitnesses started passing along the oral traditions he had heard (Luke 1:1-4), but he never indicates that he had ever talked to one. He has simply heard stories that had been around from the days of the eyewitnesses. And if the standard dating of his Gospel – and Matthew’s – is correct, they were writing about 50 years or more after Jesus’ death. John’s Gospel was even later.

My sense is that most of the eyewitnesses (and who knows how many there were?! Hundreds? Probably not. Dozens?) had died before the Gospels were written; those that survived were carrying on their lives in rural Galilee or Jerusalem. And the Gospel writers, who never say they consulted any of them, probably never did consult with any of them. The Gospels are based on oral traditions that had been in circulation – and changed as a result – for decades before the Gospel writers had even heard them.

And as anyone knows who has been subject to oral traditions – this would include all of us – the stories told about a person can change absolutely overnight! It happens all the time. What happens, then, to stories in circulation for 40 or 50 years, in different countries, told in different languages, among people who never laid an eye on an eyewitness or on anyone else who had? My sense is that the stories get changed, often a lot; and many of the stories simply get made up. It’s just the way it happens And it can be shown to have happened with the Gospels, since the same story is often told in very different ways. Every historian will tell you: evidence matters!"

ehrmanblog.org/question-about-eyewitnesses-and-the-gospels/

I invite you to read his two books “Jesus interrupted” and “Forged”. But if you do, you will be depressed when you read refutations/reviews by conservative Christians, because then it will become obvious that these reviews and refutations are not intended for those who have actually read the books, but to give people who have not (and will not) the impression that “it has all been refuted”, when in fact they only touch upon peripheral points.

EDIT: This youtube video is also pretty good

youtube.com/watch?v=Xm6LqkeUag8

 

[GaryTaylor]

I’ve actually remained quite active in the church, for family/personal reasons. I participated in youth group all throughout high school, I do service work through my local parish, I attend mass and the sacraments with my family, etc. I have done my best to remain open minded throughout this process but so far I have not found anything to make me believe that the Church really speaks the truth.

Why would you believe your thinking is right and all those above are wrong? I’m I to take this as they are also praying for you? How do you know their intercession isn’t how you arrived here?

 

[Evan]

The gospels are not eyewitness accounts. To quote Bart Ehrman:

"The eyewitnesses would have been Aramaic speaking peasants almost entirely from rural Galilee. Mark was a highly educated, Greek speaking Christian living in an urban area outside of Palestine (Rome?), who never traveled, probably, to Galilee. So the existence of eyewitnesses would not have much if any effect on his Gospel.

The same is true, even more so, with the later Gospels. Luke begins his Gospel by saying that eyewitnesses started passing along the oral traditions he had heard (Luke 1:1-4), but he never indicates that he had ever talked to one. He has simply heard stories that had been around from the days of the eyewitnesses. And if the standard dating of his Gospel – and Matthew’s – is correct, they were writing about 50 years or more after Jesus’ death. John’s Gospel was even later.

My sense is that most of the eyewitnesses (and who knows how many there were?! Hundreds? Probably not. Dozens?) had died before the Gospels were written; those that survived were carrying on their lives in rural Galilee or Jerusalem. And the Gospel writers, who never say they consulted any of them, probably never did consult with any of them. The Gospels are based on oral traditions that had been in circulation – and changed as a result – for decades before the Gospel writers had even heard them.

And as anyone knows who has been subject to oral traditions – this would include all of us – the stories told about a person can change absolutely overnight! It happens all the time. What happens, then, to stories in circulation for 40 or 50 years, in different countries, told in different languages, among people who never laid an eye on an eyewitness or on anyone else who had? My sense is that the stories get changed, often a lot; and many of the stories simply get made up. It’s just the way it happens And it can be shown to have happened with the Gospels, since the same story is often told in very different ways. Every historian will tell you: evidence matters!"

ehrmanblog.org/question-about-eyewitnesses-and-the-gospels/

I invite you to read his two books “Jesus interrupted” and “Forged”. But if you do, you will be depressed when you read refutations/reviews by conservative Christians, because then it will become obvious that these reviews and refutations are not intended for those who have actually read the books, but to give people who have not (and will not) the impression that “it has all been refuted”, when in fact they only touch upon peripheral points.

I guess you would have to read The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony by Richard Bauckham for a scientific treatment that comes to an opposite conclusion.

Matthew was an apostle, eyewitness
Mark was the scribe for Peter the apostle, eyewitness
Luke was gathering eyewitness accounts and traveled much in the middle east
John was an apostle, eyewitness

Oral tradition in that culture is highly accurate: see newmediaministries.org/Bible/OralTradition_S.html

 

[georget]

 

[Aloysium]

. . . . . . . . :coffeeread: . . . . . . . .

 

[MarkInOregon]

Hello all,

hopefully I’m posting this in the right place.

I left the church almost four years ago, when I was a freshman in high school, as a result of research and questioning that I was going through at that time. I no longer identify with any religious group or belief system. However, I’ve maintained a real interest in religion, religious debates/discussions, etc. and am very open to different beliefs.

This forum seems to be a great place for discussion of these religious issues, so I would like to pose a question:

As an ex-Catholic, now a non-believer, why should I return to the Church? What reasons are there to convince me that the claims made by the Catholic Church are true?

Perhaps if you explain what claims convinced you the Catholic Church is false and turned you into a nonbeliever would be helpful? What was the “proof” that there is no God that you found convincing enough to become a nonbeliever? With this knowledge we may better be able to address your question.

Peace be with you,
Mark

 

[steve_b]

.

I would like to pose a question:

As an ex-Catholic, now a non-believer, why should I return to the Church? What reasons are there to convince me that the claims made by the Catholic Church are true?

From your conception you are immortal. The body is mortal, and dies but the soul doesn’t die, it is immortal. therefore you are immortal. Whether you’re good or bad, You’ll live forever. So the question you need to ask yourself, where will that be for me?

The soul has memory intellect and will… forever… iow, you will know and experience everything in eternity. It’s not lights out for all eternity at death of the body. It’s not like you cease to exist. You exist forever. And you will be aware of EVERYTHING forever!.

I’ve read ahead on the thread, so I see you don’t believe in God and you don’t believe Jesus is God, etc etc etc. Let me just say, eye witnesses saw the birth, life, death, burial, resurrection and ascension of Jesus. He’s real, He’s historical, as are the miracles he performed as is the Church He established, the Catholic Church. Only those on the fringe try and discredit this, and they can’t. So I would just implore you to do what you can to learn everything you can about Him. You’ve had some basics already. I pray you finish the job

As an aside, I don’t believe people just wake up one day and start questioning everything. Nor do I believe people go from faith to atheism in the blink of an eye. Something caused it. Either a traumatic experience happened, or sequence of bad stuff happened, or one is mired in sin and having God to answer to is just too inconvenient for the life style, or some other reason but there had to be a cause that had this effect you describe.

Whatever happened, to put you in this spot, I’ll pray you get the motivation to want to start seeking truth. If you do it seriously, using solid materials, you’ll succeed.

 

[georget]

:banghead:

. . . . . . . . :coffeeread: . . . . . . . .

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Hello all,

hopefully I’m posting this in the right place.

I left the church almost four years ago, when I was a freshman in high school, as a result of research and questioning that I was going through at that time. I no longer identify with any religious group or belief system. However, I’ve maintained a real interest in religion, religious debates/discussions, etc. and am very open to different beliefs.

This forum seems to be a great place for discussion of these religious issues, so I would like to pose a question:

As an ex-Catholic, now a non-believer, why should I return to the Church? What reasons are there to convince me that the claims made by the Catholic Church are true?

Bearcat9276 there is nothing I or anyone else can say that will open up the faith to you. Faith is a gift from God and only through faith will you be able to accept the Truths of Scripture and the Church. There are somethings that can be said to support the Faith, but it all boils down to you and God.

I will share with you some of the things that have helped me in my times of doubt.

On God, There is no way that creation just happened? Someone or something was behind it. the very basic formula to show this is zero + zero = zero. You have to have something to start with.
On Christ, he knew that the Jewish leaders wer looking to have him put to death and could have left Jerusalem and disapeared into history, Yet he choose to continue with his ministry.
On the Apostles, and this is the one I love the most. No one willing dies for what they know to be a lie. example If i tell you something that I know to be a pie and you put a gun to my head and tell if I do not quite say that and tell everyone that it is a lie you are going to shoot me. I will do as you said and tell everyone that I have lied. You may still shoot me but it was not because I choose to die for what I said. If we look at the death of the 12 Apostles they all but for John, were put to death because they would not stop preaching Christ raised from the dead. Now you may say that the first 1 or two did not beleive that they would be killed but by the time you get to 4 and so on you think that the other had a pretty good idea that those that threatened to kill them would do so. googel death of the apostles to see how they were martyred.

On the Church it is a continuing on broken chain from the Apostles to today.

Open yourself to beleive and ask God to help you have faith you may never understand for God is beyond human understanding, But you will come to have faith and acceptance.

May God Bless and Keep you, May his face shine upon and bring you joy.

 

[The_Blunt_Brig]

Miracles prove the existence of God. For example, at Fatima, Portugal in 1913 the Virgin Mary appeared and interceded with God for a miracle so all would believe she really was appearing. The sun “danced” and changed colors in the sky for 10 minutes, and dried the onlooking crowd of thousands that was previously soaking. The secular reporters of the area even reported it in Portugal’s big and anti-Catholic newspapers

 

[LilyM]

I guess you would have to read The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony by Richard Bauckham for a scientific treatment that comes to an opposite conclusion.

Matthew was an apostle, eyewitness
Mark was the scribe for Peter the apostle, eyewitness
Luke was gathering eyewitness accounts and traveled much in the middle east
John was an apostle, eyewitness

Oral tradition in that culture is highly accurate: see newmediaministries.org/Bible/OralTradition_S.html

Luke for one has so many private details about Mary, particularly her thoughts and reactions to events, that it is highly unlikely that he did not get these details from herself.

There are similar private details in the other Gospels - about Peter’s denial, Joseph’s initial reluctance to marry Mary, the young man running away from Gethsemane naked, John the Baptist’s reluctance to baptise Jesus. Altogether these details addict authenticity and eyewitness colour to the accounts.

 

[Miriam1947]

Are we dealing with a troll here?

The OP does not seem to be interested in any answers at all.

Perhaps he/she should read this :bible1:

 

[ericc]

I’ve read Kreeft’s work before and ultimately find it unpersuasive. Which of his arguments do you find persuasive?

I simply mean that I was never really given adequate reasons. For instance, many apologists told me to believe that Jesus really performed miracles because these miracles are recorded in ancient texts, (the Gospels). But it seems to me that there are a variety of ancient texts that purport to describe all kinds of fantastical, ridiculous things, and we don’t take those books seriously, so why should I take the Bible seriously?

Adequate reasons would be arguments/evidence such that the truth of Catholicism was more likely then it being false.

Here’s what I wrote about this above:

To put it simply, the church claims that the Bible is the word of God, but I haven’t seen any reason to believe that that is true. What reason do I have to believe that?

I simply have no reason to believe that the Church is infallible. The church makes that claim but I haven’t seen any evidence to that effect.

1. If you find Kreeft’s 7 reasons to be a catholic unpersuasive, then either what he said is untrue or not to the point. Which of the 7 reasons did you find untrue or not to the point? I played his clip and all 7 appears true and helpful.

2)Your argument that just because" a variety of ancient texts that purport to describe all kinds of fantastical, ridiculous things, and we don’t take those books seriously" , therefore the Bible can not be taken seriously is a fallacious argument.

3)Reason to believe Bible is the word of God. Then you have to define what is reason to you. We can’t read your mind and we do not know your thought process, so it would be helpful if you can lay out clearly what constitutes adequate reasoning to you. Billions of people in the past and present, in their own way, own reasoning, believe the Bible is the word of God. Perhaps it is in the contents, perhaps the historical records, perhaps the prophecies, perhaps the archaeology evidence of towns and settlements mentioned in the Bible which previously were thought to be myths, perhaps the moral standards and holiness required etc. What is your standard of proof? If you require a Mission Impossible type of proof and we don’t have it, we will just tell you we don’t.

1. Papal (not Church) statements on faith and morals, when pronounced to be infallible, are deemed true and certain. As a catholic , you should know we don’t usually use church infallibility terminology. I have no knowledge of infallible statements to be proven false. Then if you have no reason to believe in Papal infallibility, then corollary, you must have reason to believe that infallible Papal statements had proven to be false. Please provide such evidence.
2. You said “Simple probability says that even if we knew that God had inspired a particular book, the odds of any one book being that book would be remarkably low.” How did you do that stats? What sort of argument is that? The Bible is a collection of books. Some of the authors having direct contact with God. The books have been preserved, through the ages by descendants of the authors, priests, monks, royalty, apostles, disciples etc. It is not some sort of random picking of a collection of books from the whole universe of books and declaring them inspired.
3. You said “I find what I read in the Bible to be inconsistent, both with itself and from what I would expect from a perfect God.”. You have not provide any evidence of the inconsistencies. Obviously you already have formed some kind of an opinion what the perfect God would be like. Even if that perfect God is not what you expect, that doesn’t disproof God’s existence. It only prove that your expectation wasn’t met against some kind of a standard that you have established unilaterally.

7)You said “Adequate reasons would be arguments/evidence such that the truth of Catholicism was more likely then it being false.” The teachings of the Church reflects its belief. We don’t even need to talk about probabilities. Either what the Church taught is not in accordance with its belief or it is. If the Church taught faithfully according to its belief, then it taught truth as per its belief. Whether other denominations or religions agree is a separate thing. The Church claims it taught according to his belief per Holy Scriptures/Holy Tradition. If you disagree, then you ought to show where it taught wrongly.

Lastly, you don’t have to wait till you have been given adequate reasons. You can actively seek the truth. If you genuinely sought to seek out knowledge, only you can prevent yourself from getting there.

 

[Veedar]

2)Your argument that just because" a variety of ancient texts that purport to describe all kinds of fantastical, ridiculous things, and we don’t take those books seriously" , therefore the Bible can not be taken seriously is a fallacious argument.

I am not sure that is the argument, rather I think the point was that we should treat all ancient texts equally, and not put one on a pedestal without evidence. Why believe the miraculous birth of Jesus and not that of the Buddha?

3)(…) Perhaps it is in the contents, perhaps the historical records, perhaps the prophecies, perhaps the archaeology evidence of towns and settlements mentioned in the Bible which previously were thought to be myths, perhaps the moral standards and holiness required etc.(…).

Personally, I would expect a book that came from a God of love to be filled with sublime wisdom and perfect moral standards. Now, there are portions of the bible may fit this description. But many other parts are deeply disturbing. In the Old Testament in particular, God is sometimes portrayed as angry, vindictive, bloodthirsty and extremely violent. He commands the wholesale slaughter of entire peoples, he asks his servant to prove his loyalty by being willing to sacrifice his own son. He kills the firstborn children of egyptians who’s only crime was being citizens of egypt, after first having made them endure nine other plagues without wrongdoing (and he even hardened the pharao’s heart so that he could demonstrate his power). The torah supports slavery, the death penalty for picking up sticks on the sabbath or being angry with one’s parents, the rape of war captives etc. This list is very long and very disturbing.

1. (…) Then if you have no reason to believe in Papal infallibility, then corollary, you must have reason to believe that infallible Papal statements had proven to be false. Please provide such evidence.

First, that does not follow. If I claim to infallibly define that there are intelligent aliens in a galaxy far, far away, you do not have to disprove me to disbelieve me. But it is easy to accomodate you anyway:The Church has infallibly declared that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, and so at the very least it ought to be inerrant in faith and morals. But it is not inerrant in morals (see the above point). Therefore the Church made a mistake in calling it inerrant. Since it made that mistake, it is not infallible.

 

[ericc]

Veedar,

This is fast degenerating to an atheism thread which I believed is banned. You can find plenty of arguments on the net and books refuting your arguments. So I will have to stop here.

Final words:

On ancient texts, Bearcat already dismissed “ancient texts that purport to describe all kinds of fantastical, ridiculous things, and we don’t take those books seriously”. Judgement already rendered without substantiation. Question is why is his viewpoint the only correct one and by lumping all such books together does not prove his case either. We are not arguing whether other ancient texts with miraculous claims are accurate or not. Whether Buddha has a miraculous birth or not is not my concern and I do not have to accept or reject it. I have not researched it.

Your mental hurdle is whether can you accept miracles or not, not whether the texts are ancient or not.

Your perception of an angry God being unjust well, is your perception. God can justify killing because he is just and some people needed that punishment badly. Being God and creator and knowing all things, he can terminate life as he sees fit. He doesn’t have to justify and explain to us all the actions he has done. We are his created subjects. Perhaps he is not your type of God that you wished or hope for. In actual fact, you are imposing your moral standards on God.

Yes, the Church has declared the Bible the word of God. Bible inerrancy means accurate and free from error. It is accurate and free from error. So infallibility remains intact. The Church has not accepted your moral standard as truth.

 

[Aloysium]

… and not put one on a pedestal without evidence. Why believe the miraculous birth of Jesus and not that of the Buddha? . . . many other parts are deeply disturbing. In the Old Testament in particular, God is sometimes portrayed as angry, vindictive, bloodthirsty and extremely violent . . . This list is very long and very disturbing . . . The Church has infallibly declared that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, and so at the very least it ought to be inerrant in faith and morals. But it is not inerrant in morals (see the above point). Therefore the Church made a mistake in calling it inerrant. Since it made that mistake, it is not infallible . . .

You seem to have it all figured out, but here’s my :twocents::

As someone who has read let’s say a few books on Buddhism and is a big fan of the Dalai Lama, and at the same time can call himself a Roman Catholic, I would put it to you that the major religions, and even the shamanistic traditions are not mutually exclusive when you approach them with and open heart and mind. I am Roman Catholic because it makes the most sense. (It is no accident that science has arisen from our tradition rather than others.)

The Bible has to be taken in its entirety. This can be difficult for someone starting out, but then we have the benefit of the Catechism and two thousand years of teaching on this. Like the proverbial blind men trying to make sense of the elephant; it comes together as you get closer to understanding the whole.

You seem to have issues with the morality part of the Bible. It may or may not help you to know that it does make sense to me, reading it with Christ in mind; the OT also makes sense to my Jewish friends. The concern would be, if one is put off by the harshness; if the violence makes one turn away, one should be very careful. The very long disturbing list describes what are the consequences of sin. This is very real. One should not be seduced by the don’t-worry-be-happy illusions that the secular world will feed you.

It is hard to know what to wish for people; prosperity can be a curse deflecting one’s attention to the world from what has real worth and is eternal. So I’ll just say “peace”.

 

[Veedar]

Veedar,

This is fast degenerating to an atheism thread which I believed is banned. You can find plenty of arguments on the net and books refuting your arguments. So I will have to stop here.

I am not an atheist. I simply do not share a fundamentalist view of scripture or church authority.

(…) We are not arguing whether other ancient texts with miraculous claims are accurate or not. Whether Buddha has a miraculous birth or not is not my concern and I do not have to accept or reject it. I have not researched it.

Why should your favorite text be of special concern?

Your mental hurdle is whether can you accept miracles or not, not whether the texts are ancient or not.

Not true. I do not say that miracles cannot happen, nor did I argue any such thing.

Your perception of an angry God being unjust well, is your perception. God can justify killing because he is just and some people needed that punishment badly. Being God and creator and knowing all things, he can terminate life as he sees fit. He doesn’t have to justify and explain to us all the actions he has done. We are his created subjects. Perhaps he is not your type of God that you wished or hope for. In actual fact, you are imposing your moral standards on God.

I am not imposing “my moral standards” (such as the immorality of killing little children and grieving their parents for no good reason) on the creator of the universe. Rather, I am questioning whether this text that you claim is inspired by the creator of the universe and inerrant, actually lives up to such a lofty claim. To me parts of it seem to be the product of deluded humans who have always used arguments like yours to justify violent acts that defy any decent moral code. You also, as is typical, ignore the human component of this. It was not God that would have to run through villages with a sword, murdering screaming women, children and infants. That task fell upon “the chosen people of God”. It would take an immoral psycopath lacking in human empathy, to actually carry out such a task, even if he or she heard a voice in the head stating that it is God, commanding it. Defending such horrendous acts simply because you think God commanded it shows that you lack any moral standard, and will simply do whatever you think your god says, whatever that may be. Might makes right. Injustice is justice when God does it or commands it.

Yes, the Church has declared the Bible the word of God. Bible inerrancy means accurate and free from error. It is accurate and free from error. So infallibility remains intact. The Church has not accepted your moral standard as truth.

You (the person, not the church) do not have a moral standard. It is utterly relativistic. If the mental idol you falsely call God says slavery is ok, then it is ok. If he condemns it, you condemn it. If he commands the killing of innocent infants and animals as revenge for what their ancestors did hundreds of years earlier (see 1 Samuel 15), you defend such immorality without blinking. Then you will do a 180 and (rightfully) criticize abortion. But you cannot believe acts like abortion to be inherently immoral like I do. If you believed your mental idol told women to abort every firstconceived child, you’d defend that as well.

As for the Church, the majority of bishops and priests in the world do not share your fundamentalist view of scripture. They know better from their seminary training. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary dismisses the idea that the actual God would command a genocide in a couple of sentences And nowhere does the Cathecism defend such acts. Even early church fathers had the good sense to allegorize these texts.

(…)You seem to have issues with the morality part of the Bible. It may or may not help you to know that it does make sense to me, reading it with Christ in mind; the OT also makes sense to my Jewish friends. The concern would be, if one is put off by the harshness; if the violence makes one turn away, one should be very careful. The very long disturbing list describes what are the consequences of sin. This is very real. One should not be seduced by the don’t-worry-be-happy illusions that the secular world will feed you.

I happen to agree with those words, but only in the sense that some of the Old Testament words themselves are a result of sin. It is sinful man who says God told him to murder innocent babies and animals. It is sinful man who thinks God favors him above other humans who happened to be born in a different culture, and so it is ok take women as war captives after having killed their parents and force them to be their wives (rape, sexual slavery). It is precisely because I see the very human and sinful side of the Bible in addition to the sublime moral teachings of Jesus, that I see it is not inerrant

 

[Ignatius]

Here is the answer to your question. youtube.com/watch?v=q-jBacBbNT4
God bless you on your journey

 

[rafarose]

How about this argument presented by Pascal

We have a choice to believe in God or not to believe in God. If God does not exist, you
lose nothing by believing in Him. But if He exists, and you believe in Him, you have the
possibility of eternal life, joyous in the presence of God. If you do not believe in Him, you
are definitely precluded from having everlasting life. Therefore, a prudent gambler will
bet on God existing. That is, it is better to believe that God exists since you have nothing
to lose by doing so, but could gain everlasting life. - Blaise Pascal

  This argument might lack, for instance, there is an assumption being made, how do we know which God to believe in? I, however, find it to be reasonable. Let me introduce and suggest one thing. You might not have read the Old Testament,  but the Old testament provides an account of the so-called "Messiah", written about ~1400 BC

On your own time, have a quick look at this

accordingtothescriptures.org/prophecy/353prophecies.html

Please do not take it as me attempting to shove something down your throat, but read it and do the mathematics involved to find the probability of any human being to fulfil the Old testament prophesies. The probability that Jesus fulfilled eight of the prophesies is 1 in 10^17.

 Further, let us evaluate the actions of Jesus' twelve apostles. Most of them were witnesses to his testimony and were aware of his teachings including the resurrection. How it is, that eleven of the apostles sacrificed their life? They could have easily lied and saved themselves, and let us be real, who is willing to die for something they know is a lie? 

 And lastly, the famous argument about creation, how can something exist out of nothing?