Hi Athena, you pose interesting questions when it comes to the Christian place in judging others and what the role of a Christian should look like in that respect. I think there needs to be a clarification on the term “judgement”. There is nothing wrong with the term in and of itself. It is simply a neutral term that is the act of coming to the conclusion of something. In this post I will attempt to shed light on what I think the meaning and role of judgement should look like for a Christian according to the Bible.

In John 12:47 Jesus says “If anyone hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge that person. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world.” If Jesus truly walked this earth, then he was the most morally excellent person to have ever walked the face of the earth and, according to Christian doctrine, he was God in the flesh. Now, if he was clear to say that he doesn’t come to earth to judge people, but to save them, then I think it’s safe to assume that’s a mentality that Christians are also meant to have. Granted the judgment that Jesus speaks of here is about the judgement of people’s souls, which only God the Father will decide, but I think it still rings true to the purpose of a follower of Christ. If Jesus said he didn’t come to judge, then who am I, as a Christian to be one to judge.
Furthermore, in Matthew 7:1-6 is a segment from Jesus’ sermon on the Mount in which he magnifies the ten commandments and helps people realize that it’s all about the posture of one’s heart that matters and not being without sin. Jesus starts this off by talking about how you must not judge, lest you too be judged. Again, just like in John 12:47 this states that as Christ followers our duty is not to judge other people. However, if we read a bit further in Matthew 7:3-5 alludes to the fact that there is a time and place in your life when you can bring judgement, but only when two criteria are met. The first is that you look at yourself and are sure that you too aren’t struggling with whatever you are going to judge a person on. The second is that when you judge someone it is important that is be constructive ang loving. It should be an act that betters someone’s character and doesn’t bring them down. It is wrong to say that there is never a time to be critical and judge someone based on their character because otherwise hardly anyone would one grow and mature. The final scripture I will use to back up my claim that there is a time and place for judgement is Proverbs 27:5-6 “Better is open rebuke than hidden love. Wounds from a friend can be trusted, but an enemy multiplies kisses.”

To summarize, I think that as Christians we are not meant to go around thinking of ourselves as better than others and constantly judging them for “sinning”, but instead we are to humble ourselves and realize that had it not been for Christ we would have already been judged by God as guilty sinners. There is a time and place to judge and it should always be for the betterment of the other person.

Hi! Thanks for taking the time to think through my argument and bringing up questions of your own, it is very much appreciated and encouraged.

Allow me to address your first point that puts into question when the gospel writer Matthew chooses to add into his account. In the Christian theology, Jesus is thought to be fully man and fully God, with that in mind there are things that Jesus needed to restrict himself from exercising. For example, in Matthew 26:53 when Jesus is arrested by soldiers and reassures his disciple that this was necessary to happen he also says that if he wanted to he could call on God the Father and twelve legions (that is three thousand) angels would come to his side at the snap of his finger. As the story goes, he did not do that. Instead he voluntarily submitted himself to arrest and crucifixion. My point here is that perhaps he restricted himself from having a divine foreknowledge or omniscience. Another hypothesis could be that while he maintained his omniscience just knowing he would resurrect would not be comfortable in the moment he was suffering. It’s often overlooked how much pain Jesus went through. Jesus was betrayed by his best friends (the disciples), which put him through emotional suffering, he was flogged and crucified, which put him through physical suffering, but he also bore the sins of the world on the cross which separated him from God, ultimately causing him spiritual suffering. I think it was rational that Jesus expressed his sense of abandonment to God on the cross because regardless of what he knew the pain he suffered in the moment far outweighed the knowledge of his resurrection.

Much of the Bible seems to be written in a kind of parable fable art form. — Hippyhead

I would not agree with this statement because that is discounting the numerous books of history in the Old Testament, along with the gospels and the Acts of the apostles which are regarded by scholars as documenting history. Of course, they had a certain lens, and they weren’t exactly history text books, but the gospel writers simply gave a written account of the life of Christ as they heard it from the apostles or as they experienced it.

As example, the Adam and Eve story tells deep truths about the human condition that are remarkably relevant to our own times. But I don't believe there really was a guy, a gal, and a talking snake. — Hippyhead

I will agree with you here that I’m not sure that the creation story is meant to be taken literally, but rather as a beautiful prose that illustrates the beauty of God and his magnificence in creating the heavens and the earth. Along with the unfortunate telling of the fall of man.

The point here is that a key statement by Jesus seems to be his advice to "Die and be reborn" which I see as extremely wise psychological/spiritual advice, but perhaps not a literal description of his own physical fate, ie. resurrection. — Hippyhead

I’m not sure it’s right to conclude that because one book of the bible is not meant to be read literally that it translates to the rest of the Bible as well. We must keep in mind that the bible is to be thought of as a library in the sense that it consists of sixty-six different books written by about forty different authors.
I would argue that by disregarding the possibility of a true physical resurrection of Christ you would be missing the greatest treasure that the world holds. There could be a giant “X marks the spot” right on Jesus, and you’re running the risk of entirely missing it by brushing it off as a coincidence rather than digging to see where it leads.

Thanks for taking the time to read my response, I’m looking forward to hearing from you soon :)

Hey! Forgive me for the late reply to your post.
You bring up an interesting perspective that I do not think had heard before, or at least read in as much depth as you put it in. I will push back on your claim that it is more impressive that to see the survival and resurrection of Jesus’ teachings than the bodily resurrection of Jesus. I would argue that had Jesus not resurrected I do not think his teachings would have had as much bearing as they did. Let’s imagine two scenarios, one where Jesus dies and does not resurrect and the other where he dies and resurrects. In the event of the former scenario I do not think the disciples would have gone to the nations of the world preaching and testifying of the works and teachings of Christ. In fact, you might think that they would simply stay in Israel, go about their lives and gather every once in a while, to reminisce on their rabbi and his teachings. You see the teachings of Jesus were very puzzling before his death and resurrection because no one really believed he was the messiah. When the disciples went to the nations to preach, they did not do so thinking the teachings of Christ were the most important part, in fact they were secondary to the good news of Jesus’ resurrection. In the latter scenarios where Christ does have a bodily resurrection it would be such a radical event that merited the disciples leaving their past lives to preach it to the masses, no matter how crazy it sounded. In addition to leaving their past lives behind the disciples were so convinced of Jesus’ resurrection that they were willing to die for it. Furthermore, if Jesus resurrected from the dead that would confirm his divinity and the authority by which he taught. That would not make it a miracle that his words or teachings survived, rather it would be expected. If God came to earth and taught humanity how to know him and how to find eternal life, I would hardly expect those words to die off, in fact I would be surprised if they didn’t spread like wildfire across the world.

However, he never has nor never will strive because striving is a sign of an imperfect nature for a Christian. — Gregory

Perhaps I’m not understanding the way in which you use “strive, but your argument seems to be:

1. If God were to strive – which means to exert himself vigorously or try hard – for anything, then it
would make him imperfect in nature
2. God is not imperfect in nature
3. Therefore, God does not strive (1,2 MT)
4. If God does not strive, then that entails he is lazy
5. Laziness is not a Godly virtue but a Satanic one
6. Therefore, Satan is inherent in God (1,2 MP)

You make the claim that if God were to strive, then he would be imperfect. I don’t follow how you came to the conclusion that striving is a sign of imperfect nature. Perhaps your line of thinking is that if God is omnipotent then he should not need to strive because he is exerting himself extra. However, the very fact that Jesus came to this earth was an act of striving. You know how the story goes. God sent Jesus Christ to earth and Jesus by no means lived an “easy” life. Furthermore, Jesus’ death is historically regarded as one of the most painful deaths anyone could die, so much so that the word excruciating derives from the immense pain experienced by those who were crucified. Therefore, Jesus’ life and death are the very antithesis of lazy. God wills for us to know him and to love him, so much so that he
exerted an incredible amount of effort for us when he gave up his one and only son, Jesus, to this world.

Catholics believe in ritual required cannibalism. — Gregory

I would hardly say this is cannibalism. Just because Catholics take the eating of bread and drinking of wine as the literal body and blood of Jesus, doesn’t mean that the bread turns into flesh nor the wine to blood. The intensity of their belief in the transubstantiation of the bread and wine does not alter the metaphysical laws in place that hold the bread and wine in their original form. It’s the very act of consuming flesh and blood that makes someone a cannibal, not a belief (no matter the intensity) of consuming flesh and blood. Additionally, in the Bible it never says that the bread and wine turned into flesh or blood. When Jesus said, “This is my body… this is my blood” it’s similar to when my uncle gave me a soccer ball before he passed away and told me to remember him whenever I played with it. The ball reminds me of my uncle and the different memories I have of him. In the same vain, the eucharist / communion is a beautiful commemoration of Christ. Some branches of Christianity just choose to think of it more literally as his body. Regardless of how intensely they believe the bread and wine to be flesh and blood that does not constitute for cannibalism because they do not change from their original form.

Therefore within Christianity you must kill ANYONE God tells you too. — Gregory

My first question to you would be, do you believe war and killing to be immoral? There is a clear distinction between the words kill and murder, however, you seem to be using them loosely. Killing is the act of ending someone’s life, while murder is when you end someone’s life out of malice. If the God of the Israelites is the one and true God then it would be foolish for them to disobey his commands simply because they see it as “wrong”. Additionally, you are assuming that God is ordering the Israelites to kill without reasoning. Is there a particular instance where you God commands the Israelites to kill a certain people, but completely void of reason? Are you saying God has no reason or purpose or are you saying those reasons don’t align with what you believe to be right?

This attempt to avoid guilt and shame is the ultimate example of the Satanic nature of Christianity for me. — Gregory

Your basic premise of Christianity is incomplete. It should be: we have sinned against God and owe a debt that we cannot pay which means we will be punished, however, Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross was enough to bear the entire debt of our sin and when we trust in him we too have life like he does. In other words, there is most certainly a second chance, but it can only be found through Christ’s sacrifice. Simply because Christians believe the spirit of Christ dwells within them doesn’t mean it’s synonymous or the same as the “soul swapping” spell. I will use another analogy, just because soccer and football use a ball doesn't mean that they are the same sport, or that they are played in the same way. Buddhists, Muslims, Satanists, Christians, and Jews all pray and practice going to church / mosque / temple. Does that mean they’re all the same? Of course, not because the acts themselves are very different and directed to different gods or deities.

Hey Gus,

My apologies for the very delayed response, but I would love to continue our discussion if you
choose to do so as well!

If this is right... and this is right too, something is wrong about their faith. — Gus Lamarch

I’m not quite sure how you could make that claim when they were the ones who propagated and kept the faith alive and well through the church. Didn’t the apostle Paul write his letters? Were the gospel writers not more closely associated to Jesus and his disciples than us? If it’s evident in the scriptures that this is what Paul and other apostles believed, doesn’t that mean something is wrong with the faith of one who disagrees with them?

But that is open to interpretation, as everything in the Bible is. — Gus Lamarch

I disagree. How is everything in the Bible up to interpretation? Did you not us a quote from a book titled The Historical Reliability of the Gospels? I will concede that to claim that the Bible is the word of God or that it harnesses the power to change someone’s life is up for discussion. However, what is not up for discussion is the interpretation of the whole Bible. As it is written in that book title, there are many parts of the Bible that are written as historical documentation of events. History is a matter of fact and facts are not up for interpretation because that would go against the very nature of them being facts. Now there are certain books that I do believe could be up for interpretation such as the Psalms, Proverbs, Songs of Solomon, and Ecclesiastes but that is because these books were written as wisdom literature or poetry. The gospels of Jesus Christ and the letters in the New Testament are not genres that can be interpreted as one pleases.

Throughout the New Testament time after time we see claims of Jesus’ bodily (physical) resurrection. From the empty tombs found by Mary, Martha, and the apostles to Peter proclaiming “the resurrection of the Messiah, that he was not abandoned to the realm of the dead, nor did his body see decay” (Acts 2:31). Paul also said that “when David had served God’s purpose in his own generation… he was buried with his ancestors and his body decayed. But the one who God raised from the dead did not see decay” (Acts 13:36-37).

From Gary R. Habermas’ and Michael R. Licona’s The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus:

“In [1 Corinthians] 2:14-15… Paul contrasts the natural and spiritual man, i.e., the unsaved man who is lead by his soulish or fleshly nature and the Christian who is led by the Holy Spirit. Now these are the same two words Paul employs in [1 Corinthians] 15:44 when, using the seed analogy, he contrasts the natural (psychikos) and spiritual (pneumatikos) body.”

Thus, when Paul speaks of the spiritual body, he is speaking of someone who’s spirit is being led by the Holy Spirit as opposed to its own selfish desire. According to scripture it seems as if when someone resurrects it is both a spiritual and physical resurrection.

I appreciate the kind and respectful words you prefaced your argument with. Forgive me for taking a long time to respond, but I hope we can continue to have this civil discourse :)

I clearly understand the points you make and I would agree. My argument implies many things. For instance, absolute truth. It's simply a fact that Christianity is an exclusive religion by nature because there are many things that Jesus says that exclude every other religion as being the truth / answer. Thus, in my argument I'm assuming that IF it is the case that the apostles believed in the physical resurrection of Christ, then it must be that Christ actually rose from the dead or he didn't and there's some alternative explanation for their (intense) belief. In the case that Christ did NOT rise from the dead and the apostles experienced a hallucination, lied, or what have you, then it is possible that one (or many) religion(s) are true. However, in the case that Christ did physically resurrect, Christianity is the only religion that can be true. The reason I say this is because of the claims Christ made before his crucifixion that predicted his resurrection, which is a completely preposterous thing for someone to claim. I will revise my argument to be more specific to the case of the apostles:

Argument for the Apostles belief as rational:
1. The apostles of Jesus Christ believed that Jesus Christ physically resurrected from the dead.
2. If the Apostles had no evidence to base their belief off of, then their belief is irrational.
3. There is evidence on which the Apostles based their belief.
4. Therefore, the Apostles’ belief is rational.

The next logical question is to ask about the sufficiency of the evidence. Simply because the Apostles had evidence backing up their belief, doesn’t constitute the evidence as sufficient and therefore doesn’t advance the reasoning for their belief. This is where we can analyze the rest of the hypothesis or theories for why the Apostles believed Jesus Christ to have resurrected form the dead.

Argument for the physical resurrection as the most rational explanation for the Apostle’s belief:
1. Jesus Christ either physically resurrected from the dead or he did not.
2. If Jesus Christ didn’t physically resurrect, then there must be alternate hypotheses / theories that
explain the Apostles belief
3. All other alternate hypotheses / theories fail in comparison to the physical resurrection hypothesis
4. Therefore, the explanation for the Apostle’s rational belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ is that
Jesus Christ physically resurrected

The reason this excludes ALL other religions, such as Islam, are completely due to the claims that Jesus made in the gospels. In John 14:6, Christ never said “I am a way, a truth, and a life” he said “I am the way, the truth, and the life”. A Christian author, Randy Alcorn, put’s it very well in his article Christ’s Exclusive Truth-Claims Make Believing “All Religions Are Basically the Same” Impossible:

“Christianity rises or falls on the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. If this event is historically true, it makes all other religions false, because Jesus Christ claimed to be the one and only way to God the Father. To prove this, He predicted He would come out of the grave alive three days after He was executed. And He did.”

This is the reason for which I am trying to make my argument. If Jesus Christ did not resurrect from the dead, then “[Christians] are of all people most to be pitied” (1 Cor. 15:19).

Looking forward to your response!

Hi Gus,

I would agree with you, Paul was very intentional and direct when he uses the words “Sōma pneumatikos” in 1 Corinthians 15:44, but It is essential for Christianity to not only believe in the spiritual resurrection of Christ, but the physical resurrection is definitely just as important, if not more. I also believe Paul to have been intentional when he uses the word “anastasis” in his letters when referring to Christ’s resurrection. This is first seen in Romans 1:3-4 (NRSV) – “3regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David, 4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.” The word “anastasis” refers to a physical “standing up” and this is one of many scriptures where Paul refers to Christ physically resurrecting, not only spiritually resurrecting. Like Paul said: “If Christ has not been raised… we [Christians] are of all people most to be pitied.” (1 Corinthians 15:18-19). The Christian faith is based on the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ. It was because of this that the apostles had the courage to spread the gospel and ultimately suffer martyrdom for the sake of Christ. As I said in my argument above, it must be the case that the apostles believed in the physical resurrection of Christ because otherwise their belief and actions were irrational. However, it is entirely possible that the apostles were irrational and had intense belief without sufficient evidence, but my difficulty with this is that they all had a willingness to suffer for their faith. In addition to there being five martyrs that we know of, none of the apostles recanted their faith. Their intense faith points only to the physical resurrection of Christ, and if predicted his resurrection and rose from the dead then Christ was far more than a “good moral teacher”.

Hi Gregory,

I believe your argument is:
1. If every culture, civilization, and religion in history has reports of miracles – specifically resurrection
claims.
2. When placing the resurrection of Jesus next to them it looks a lot less impressive.
3. Therefore, Christianity is no better or more correct than any other religion / belief.

I am a bit uncertain of how you jumped to the conclusion (3), but I think this is in line with what you are trying to argue. I agree with your first premise, there is no refuting it. However, I would disagree with your second premise because there is a lot that you are not accounting for. Jesus did not simply resurrect from the dead, but he was the only person to do so who not only predicted his resurrection, but who made the assertion that he was (and is) God in the flesh. CS Lewis does a great job of highlighting Jesus’ claim to be God and not just a great moral teacher because he did intend to leave us thinking of him as a great moral teacher. If Jesus claimed to be God, predicted his resurrection, and physically resurrected, then your claim that his resurrection looks a lot less impressive compared to others is false. In fact, if these three things that I have listed are true then I would suppose there has never and will never be a more important resurrection than the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Not only because of who he claimed to be prior to his resurrection, but because of the ramifications it has on the eternity of all. His teachings are no longer only lessons on how to live a morally exceptional life, but on how to achieve life itself. I make this claim because if we are destined to live in eternity with God or apart from God our eternal life would take far more precedence over our earthly “life”.

Additionally, you make the point that Christians have no way of knowing whether the authors of the gospels and Paul were real apostles who were even educated / qualified to write scripture. I believe you have a misconception of who the writers of the gospels were, with the exception of John, because none of them were actually apostles of Christ. The gospels are simply historical accounts or records of the life of Jesus as understood by Matthew, Mark, and Luke. In fact, Luke was a physician who addressed both the gospel of Luke and the book of Acts to a man of great esteem, Theophilus. As for Paul, there is no denying that he is an apostle because of how much he did to expand the gospel of Christ. Additionally, he was a Pharisee before he came to Christ, and thus received great education. If I understood your last claim correctly, you believe scripture was written with the intent of it becoming scripture. I find it hard to believe that the authors of the New Testament books knew that their writing was going to be canonized by the church three hundred years later and regarded as scripture. Additionally, Paul was simply writing letters to different churches with the hope and intention of keeping them focused on Christ.