How did Jesus deal with Skeptics?

Erik Manning looks at two New Testament stories that illustrate how Jesus dealt with skeptics. There are those who are genuinely curious and there are those who clearly are not. Jesus teaches us how to deal with both types of skeptics.

How did Jesus deal with Skeptics?

Support Help Me Believe

Published by Haden Clark

Husband / Dog Dad / B.A. Business Administration / M.A. Theological Studies / M.B.A. Finance

11 thoughts on “How did Jesus deal with Skeptics?

  1. how did jesus supposedly deal with skeptics? He showed them evidence, when Thomas asked him. Now modern Christians insist that no one should ever demand evidence that we should not “test” this god. Why do they contradict Jesus? Because they know that asking for evidence won’t get an answer since their god doesn’t exist.

    Of course, some Christians insist that they have evidence, but when they present it, it isn’t what they think it is. What they claim is evidence are no more than the claims themselves, and historians reporting what Christians believed, not the events themselves.

    Like

    1. Many Christians blindly follow, know little, and care less to learn. Why they are like that? There is too many variables to say a common trend.

      However, here’s something interesting for you to think about. Most of the ancient religions are so very similar. Principles, gods/angels, origins, and even common historical events all are shared with so many similarities.

      Now look at Pangea with an open mind. Assume it’s possible. It certainly looks like the could continents fit. Assume the “Tower of Babel” story from the Bible is real. It’s the only of the ancient religions to have such a story. Let’s assume that actually happened and the continents and therefore the people were scattered and have different languages all the sudden.

      Now, just like today, people care about religions at different levels. After something like “The Tower of Babel” happens, all these various levels think to themselves that there might actually be a God. Imagine having to try to recreate the original religion from each level of belief without being able to communicate with outsiders. Now all over the world we have different points of view of the same religion. This happened because people’s knowledge was at different levels.

      That concept alone may be enough to have faith. Evidence is not necessary. You only need to give the skeptic something that they could use to have some faith. This is because, per the Bible, through faith alone can you be saved.

      – Kelsk 🍻

      Like

      1. Pangea is certainly possible and is the current accepted theory. I’m a geologist. It has nothing to do with the Tower of Babel, which is nothing more than a just-so story to explain why people have different languages. It is not the only one of the religions to have such a story (we have the Hindu Knowledge Tree, the Aboriginal tale of Wurruri, the Aztec tale of CoxCox, etc) and even if it were, that still doesn’t make it true.
        Pangea split long before humans were around, so you are trying to ignore the theory to make it fit your religion.
        Every Christians claims that their version is the “true” version, and insists that every other Christians isn’t “really” a Christian at all. You’ve made up one more. Nothing at all to back it up, just one more story.
        So, no, that concept isn’t enough to believe in your claims or other Christian claims. The only person who says evidence isn’t necessary is the one who has none to back up his claims.

        As for having faith alone to be saved, your bible has Paul saying differently and has Jesus showing that isn’t the case at all with Thomas. Paul says that one can only believe by the choice of God to allow someone to believe, and no matter what someone does, they have no choice in the mater to be able to have “faith” or not (Romans 9)

        Like

      2. My friend, the debate is dealing with skeptics. It is not this religion or that religion is or isn’t correct.

        I’m simply stating you may not need “evidence” if you can give someone reason to have faith. It is the same as someone getting cancer and telling them you are at the best hospital with the best doctors and medicine. You are giving them faith in a belief that something is true. For the cancer patient that something is survival, the chance to live on. Much like a religion gives you a chance to live on after death.

        It is a concept that I presented (to the best of my abilities) within the context of the debate.

        – Kelsk 🍻

        Like

      3. since you want to write about dealing with skeptics about your religion, then yes, the debate is about truth and how it applies to your religion.

        If you don’t need evidence for belief, then you have no reasons to belief other than what you desire. That hospitals and doctors can cure cancer isn’t something based on faith but on evidence. Your religion doesn’t have the evidence that it is true that chemotherapy, etc have that they work.

        One might want to believe that there is magic and one won’t permanently die. There is nothing to that concept isn’t a lie.

        It’s intersting that you appear to be trying to ignore that you made a false comment “It’s the only of the ancient religions to have such a story. ” Why did you choose to do that?

        Like

      4. Have I ignored the comment, no. Merely ignorance on my part. I am curious to look into those stories when I have time. Wondering what is the same and what is different.

        Let me rephrase what I’m trying to say here. A skeptic is someone who is going to question things. This is usually due to doubt. I am a skeptic concerning a great many things. Without definitive proof (of any subject, not just religion), the only thing that I see to sway the mind is opening up possibilities for the skeptic to believe something is accurate. If the skeptic sees enough things to be accurate, the skeptic may begin to build faith in the theory, religion, or other subject.

        I was ignoring all the perceived “hate” you were directing at me and keeping it focused on what I was debating. Which, isn’t religion at all. Just a concept for dealing with skeptics. Still, I did enjoy seeing how you we’re trying to tear down religion. Great insight.

        – Kelsk 🍻

        Like

      5. Look my friend, you keep focusing on religious truths. That’s well and good. Your blog is filled with such and more. The fact remains though, truth is not necessary to believe in anything. No matter what it is. Some folk simply desire to believe in things, whatever they may be.

        Simple as I can say it for you, no truth is necessary for someone to believe something. What I have written is a “theory” in dealing with a skeptic. The religious aspects are irrelevant to the theory. You can’t seem to let go of the religion aspect.

        It seems like you are more interested in tearing down religious believers than in debating how to deal with skeptics. I am not educated enough in the Bible to debate religion with you.

        If you have more input on the skeptic theory alone, then cool. 😎

        – Kelsk 🍻

        Like

      6. you are correct, facts have little to do with belief. People believein many false things, but always claim that they are true, with no evidence. They rely on claims of “faith” in imaginary things.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: