A number of Messiah debate questions

I was doing a bit of research today regarding the Second World War due to a different post I had started about war. I came across this YouTube channel that had a couple of videos regarding the events of said war:

When looking for other videos, I noticed that he also had several other videos regarding Jesus, Christianity, and the concept of a Messiah in general.

To avoid unnecessary stress testing, I had asked ChatGPT if it knew what some of his claims on Jesus were (so I could see if the videos would help my faith or introduce unnecessary stress). Unfortunately, I think my chat bot hallucinated, and instead used sources from a number of Reddit posts as opposed to the channel:

So, now I have a couple of questions from this, if anyone could help me with them.

  • Jesus never explicitly claimed to be God or the Messiah in the way mainstream Christianity teaches.

  • Many Old Testament prophecies supposedly do not fit Jesus.

  • The New Testament authors may have “reinterpreted” or selectively used Hebrew scriptures to make Jesus appear messianic.

  • Traditional Christian ideas about Jesus’ divinity are later theological developments rather than Jesus’ own teachings.

  • Some videos apparently challenge whether Jesus fulfilled Jewish expectations of the Messiah at all.

One video goes over the many other people than Christ who claimed to be Messiahs themselves. What are we also to make of their so-called “divinity?” Is Jesus unique or just another dime in a dozen?

(Also, I now think that my fear prior to watching the videos was unbiased. I watched this video and lo and behold it was mostly humor rather than claims against Jesus. So, now I solved one problem but am left with many other arguments that ChatGPT claimed came from this guy, who actually said none of those things. Man, AI is the future).

  • Hold on. I have a question. Do you or Jack Rackam, the dead pirate who has reincarnated as a Youtuber seeking moneyproducing video clicks, know what a “Messiah” is? I asked ChatGPT: “Strictly speaking, how many “Messiahs” can you list?”

  • Know how many ChatGPT could come up with? “Strictly speaking, from Rackam’s own list I would count three clear “Messiah” claimants:

    1. Jesus of Nazareth

    2. Simon Bar Kokhba

    3. Sabbatai Zevi

    A broader but still defensible count would be five, adding:
    4. Hong Xiuquan — claimed to be Jesus’ younger brother, not exactly “the Messiah.”

    1. Arnold Potter — claimed to be “Potter Christ,” an incarnation/embodiment of Christ.

    I would not strictly count Apollonius of Tyana, Haile Selassie, the Báb, Bahá’u’lláh, Cyrus Teed, Father Divine, or Kondraty Selivanov as “Messiahs” in the Jewish/Christian messianic sense, though some are savior figures, prophets, divine incarnations, or founders of messianic-type movements.

    Rackam’s transcript itself uses “Messiah” loosely, ranging from Bar Kokhba and Sabbatai Zevi to “God,” “son of God,” “second coming,” and “new Messiah” figures.”

4 Likes

“Who were Hong Xiuquan and Arnold Potter and when and where did they live and what religion were they?”

ChatGPT: “Hong Xiuquan

Hong Xiuquan (1814–1864) was a Chinese religious and political revolutionary from Guangdong province in Qing China. He lived during the 19th century and led the enormous Taiping Rebellion (1850–1864), one of the deadliest civil wars in human history.

What religion was he?

Hong began within the world of traditional Chinese religion and Confucian education, but after repeated failures in the imperial civil-service examinations, he encountered Christian missionary tracts. He experienced visions and concluded that:

  • he was the younger brother of Jesus Christ,

  • God the Father had chosen him,

  • and he was tasked with purifying China of demons and false religions.

The religion he founded is usually called the Taiping faith or God Worshipping Society. It was:

  • heavily influenced by Protestant Christianity,

  • mixed with Chinese religious concepts,

  • but doctrinally very heterodox by mainstream Christian standards.

He rejected:

  • Confucianism,

  • Buddhism,

  • Daoism,

  • idol worship,

  • and Qing imperial authority.

Where did he live?

Primarily:

  • Guangdong Province (southern China),

  • later Nanjing, which became the Taiping capital (“Heavenly Capital”).

Was he “the Messiah”?

Not exactly in the Jewish sense. Hong did not primarily claim to be the Messiah replacing Jesus. Rather, he claimed:

  • Jesus was real and divine,

  • and Hong himself was Jesus’ divinely appointed younger brother.

Still, his movement had a strongly messianic structure and apocalyptic worldview.


Arnold Potter

Arnold Potter (1804–1872) was an American religious eccentric associated with the early Latter Day Saint (Mormon) movement.

What religion was he?

Originally:

  • a convert to the early Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints movement.

Later:

  • he broke away and developed his own sectarian claims.

Potter eventually declared that:

  • “the spirit of Jesus Christ entered into me,”

  • and he became “Potter Christ.”

So he evolved from Mormonism into his own highly individualized prophetic/messianic movement.

Where did he live?

Primarily:

  • New York (birth),

  • Utah Territory,

  • Australia (as a missionary),

  • later Council Bluffs, Iowa.

When did he live?

  • Born: 1804

  • Died: 1872

How did he die?

The famous story — repeated in Rackam’s video — is that Potter believed he would ascend bodily into heaven. In 1872 he reportedly leapt from a cliff near Council Bluffs, Iowa, attempting ascension, and died from the fall.

Was he “the Messiah”?

Closer than Hong, in the sense that Potter explicitly identified himself with Christ:

“Arnold Potter Christ, the Living God.”

But this was a tiny splinter movement, not a large organized religion.


The two men also differ sharply in historical scale:

Figure Scale
Hong Xiuquan Led a mass revolutionary state and civil war involving millions
Arnold Potter Tiny local sectarian figure

Hong altered Chinese history; Potter became more of an American religious curiosity.”

2 Likes

Thank you for the help! Though, that still leaves all the other prompts that question even Jesus as the Messiah. I know there is a lot of evidence for his resurrection, but what does the potential for “old prophecies not lining up” mean for this?

Christ’s disciples would have been well aware of the Hebrew Bible prophecies. If they didn’t have any problem with them “not lining up” why should you? Would you be willing to die for someone who was a failed Messiah?

3 Likes

I suppose that is a good point. Thanks for the perspective!

In the sixth chapter of John, a series of events occurs and Jesus says some things that disturb some disciples who followed him (but who were not the disciples that he himself had chosen), and:

66 As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore. 67 So Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to go away also, do you?” 68 Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. 69 We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.”

3 Likes

It’s been about 1,997 years since Jesus spoke in Capernaum, and Jack Rackam is the first guy to ever come up with “the other prompts that question Jesus’ as the Messiah.” Odd that he thinks so. But ChatGPT’s response is:

The objection’s have force only if one assumes that messiahship requires ordinary biological descent through Joseph. But that is exactly the point Christians deny or qualify. The key distinction is: “Son of David” can mean dynastic/legal heir, not merely biological male-line descent. In ancient royal contexts, legal sonship and dynastic succession mattered. If Joseph is legally Jesus’ father, then Jesus is legally incorporated into the Davidic line. Matthew especially seems to be making that kind of royal/legal claim. Second, the argument overstates 2 Samuel 7. The promise says David’s “offspring” will succeed him and his throne will be established. It does not explicitly say the Messiah must be conceived by ordinary biological generation through a human father. That later inference may be Jewishly understandable, but it is not a knockdown reading of the text. Third, the New Testament does not present Jesus’ messiahship as resting on genealogy alone. It rests on a cluster: Jesus is Davidic, proclaims the kingdom, acts with divine authority, suffers, is raised, and is enthroned. Paul’s formula in Romans 1:3–4 is important: descended from David “according to the flesh,” declared Son of God in power by resurrection. Fourth, “Jesus never explicitly claimed to be God or Messiah” is too crude. Jesus often avoids direct slogan-claims, but he performs identity-claims: forgiving sins, redefining Torah, speaking as Wisdom, accepting messianic titles, riding into Jerusalem symbolically, and answering the high priest in a way that gets him condemned. The Gospels present him as deliberately indirect, not non-messianic. Fifth, the “reinterpretation” charge is partly true but not necessarily damaging. The New Testament writers do reread Israel’s Scriptures christologically. The question is whether this is arbitrary proof-texting or a Second Temple Jewish mode of seeing Israel’s story fulfilled in a surprising way. The strongest point is this: Christian claims about Jesus as Messiah do not follow from a flat, pre-Christian checklist reading of Hebrew prophecy. But the weakest point is assuming that such a checklist settles the matter. Christianity’s claim is not merely “Jesus matched the expected Messiah.” It is more radical: Jesus redefined messiahship around suffering, resurrection, and enthronement.

But what does ChatGPT know, let’s ask someone like N.T. Wright, who has the “street credentials” that AI doesn’t.

4 Likes

Regarding the claim that Jesus cannot be the messiah because 2 Samuel 7:12 says: “When your days are complete and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your descendant after you, who will come forth from you, and I will establish his kingdom.” Somebody jumped from “Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus” to “therefore Jesus was not the offspring of David, “of his flesh and blood”. But … They forgot to check Jesus’ lineage according to Matthew and Luke. In Matthew 1:6, David is there. In Luke 3:31, David is there. How does N.T. Wright explain the difference? Cf. [16:46] of The Alpha and Omega: NT Wright on Jesus’ lineage and life after death, Wright begins to explain it in three ways. First, he reframes the entire issue away from modern biological precision. He argues that Matthew and Luke are not trying to provide “birth-certificate” genealogy in the modern sense. Instead, genealogies in the ancient Jewish world summarize Israel’s story and establish covenantal and dynastic identity. That matters because the argument against Jesus’ descendancy assumes that Messiahship requires strict biological descent and the Gospels are attempting to prove that biologically. Wright implicitly says: that is already the wrong framework. Second, Wright emphasizes that Matthew’s genealogy is theological and royal before it is genetic. Matthew is presenting Jesus as: the fulfillment of Abrahamic promise, the heir of David, the culmination of exile-and-restoration history, and the beginning of the “seventh seven.” So Wright’s approach is: Matthew’s point is covenantal-Davidic fulfillment, not DNA verification. Third — and this is the closest Wright comes to the actual objection — he says: “Jesus is not born of Joseph anyway, so he’s kind of grafted into the Davidic line or into a Davidic family.” That sentence is extremely important. Wright is effectively acknowledging: yes, the virgin birth complicates strict biological descent through Joseph, but the Gospel writers still regard Jesus as legitimately Davidic through incorporation into Joseph’s Davidic house. So Wright’s answer is not:

“No, Jesus really is Joseph’s physical descendant.”

Rather, it is closer to:

“The evangelists did not think messianic legitimacy depended on modern biological literalism.”

In other words, Wright weakens the force of the objection by changing the category of what the genealogies are doing. However — and this is important — Wright does not fully solve the problem for someone demanding (a) literal patrilineal descent from David, (b) through Joseph, (c) as an absolute messianic requirement. Some critic could still reply: “Fine — but the Messiah still must actually descend from David biologically.” Wright’s response is essentially: “the New Testament writers did not think about lineage in that narrow modern and rigid way, because Jesus fulfills Israel’s story at a deeper theological level.

You added your questions:

The objections only seem to work if Christianity is reduced to “Jesus matched a list of predictions.” But the New Testament claim is deeper: Jesus is Israel’s Messiah because in him Israel’s story reaches its climax — Davidic kingship, exile and return, temple, suffering, forgiveness, resurrection, and new creation. He did not simply claim a title; he enacted a vocation. Other messianic claimants said, “I am the one.” The Christian claim is that Jesus was vindicated by resurrection and came to be worshiped within Jewish monotheism, which is historically extraordinary.

  1. Did Jesus claim to be Messiah?
    Yes, but characteristically indirectly: kingdom proclamation, Son of Man language, royal entry into Jerusalem, trial before the high priest, and acceptance of messianic identification. He avoided the crude political meaning many expected.

  2. Did Jesus claim divinity?
    Not usually by saying “I am God” in modern doctrinal language. But the Gospels portray him doing and saying things reserved for Israel’s God: forgiving sins, judging the world, redefining Sabbath/Torah, accepting worship, identifying himself with divine Wisdom/Son of Man authority.

  3. Do OT prophecies “fit”?
    Some do not fit if treated as isolated prediction-checklists. The NT argument is broader: Jesus fulfills Israel’s story — exile, temple, kingship, suffering servant, new exodus, resurrection.

  4. Did the NT writers reinterpret Scripture?
    Yes. But “reinterpret” does not automatically mean “invent.” Second Temple Jews regularly reread Scripture typologically and eschatologically, i.e. “reinterpret” The issue is whether the rereading is coherent in light of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.

  5. Was Jesus just one messiah among many?
    No, because most claimants either failed politically, founded small sects, or depended only on self-assertion. Jesus’ uniqueness, for Christians, lies in the combination of crucifixion, resurrection claim, transformed messianic expectation, worship within Jewish monotheism, and a movement centered not merely on his teaching but on his person.

5 Likes

@BuffaloMax17 , if you like such videos, I think you would enjoy the movie The Book of Clarence. It is both funny and edgy, but respectful of Christ, when he makes an appearance. The trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntNS-ANoMyM

2 Likes

Max:

· N.T. Wright’s point is that Matthew and Luke are not functioning like modern DNA registries or ancestry databases. In the ancient Jewish world, genealogies often summarized covenant identity, dynastic legitimacy, and Israel’s story itself. Matthew’s genealogy is clearly royal-Davidic, running through Solomon and the kings. Luke’s runs through Nathan and back to Adam. They are doing different theological things. Matthew is presenting Jesus as the climax of Israel’s exile-and-restoration story; Luke is presenting Jesus as the true Adam and Son of God. That also explains why the NT writers were not troubled by the virgin birth complicating strict biological descent through Joseph. Wright even says Jesus is “grafted into” the Davidic family. In other words, they did not think messiahship depended on the kind of modern biological literalism we often assume.

· I also think the Caiaphas episode matters here. Many people claimed to be messiahs or prophets. Caiaphas did not tear his robes merely because Jesus said “I’m the Messiah.” What provoked the reaction was Jesus combining Psalm 110 and Daniel 7: “You will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.”

· That sounds less like “I’m another Davidic claimant” and more like a claim to heavenly authority and future vindication at God’s side. In the Gospel narrative, that is why Caiaphas calls it blasphemy. So I think Christianity’s claim about Jesus was never merely:
“Here is a man who checked off a prediction list.” The claim was much larger: that in Jesus, Israel’s whole story — kingdom, exile, temple, suffering, forgiveness, resurrection, and restoration — reached its climax in a completely unexpected way.

2 Likes

LOL! Let’s take N.T. Wright to the movies …

“Clarence, in spite of your selfish ways there is a beautiful soul in there, somewhere.”

The phrase suggests: an inner “real self”, morally separable from outward behavior, latent and discoverable, almost trapped beneath the flawed external person. That is not necessarily full-blown Platonism, but it resonates with a very common modern spiritual trope that descends partly from Platonic and Romantic ideas: the true self inside you is already beautiful/pure/authentic. N.T. Wright would say: In the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament: the “soul” is not a detachable ghost-self, the person is a unified living being, and evil is not merely superficial misalignment covering an essentially pristine inner core. Jesus says things like: “Out of the heart come evil thoughts…” (Matthew 15). Paul can speak of: inner renewal, but also bondage, corruption, death, crucifixion of the old self, resurrection into new creation. That is stronger medicine than: “Deep down you’re already beautiful.” The line in the trailer sounds closer to: modern therapeutic spirituality, or a quasi-Platonic “true inner essence,” than to a robust biblical anthropology where: body, soul, action, covenant, and moral character are deeply intertwined. That said, films often use “soul” poetically rather than metaphysically. The line may simply mean: “You are capable of redemption despite your present corruption.” That interpretation would be much less Platonic and much more compatible with biblical themes.

2 Likes

In the movie, that is more the way it is portrayed. That said, if you are a biblical literalist, you won’t like it, but it is a fun movie.

1 Like

More illiterates!
II Samuel 7:12ff is not a Messianic prophecy, it is a promise about David’s actual son. Given that the first point is bogus . . . .

He most certainly did in the ways people talked back then. One of my favorites is when He told the Pharisees that He was greater than the Temple. In that worldview, the only entity greater than a temple was the deity whose temple it was, thus Jesus just claimed to be Yahweh.

“Supposedly”. Usually that supposing is done by people who have no idea what they’re talking about. Frequently their methods aren’t that different from the ones put forth to say that *Puff the Magic Dragon" is advocating for letting children use drugs.

This always boils down to a failure to understand what “fulfill” meant back then – it didn’t mean checking items off a list, it was more like “conforming to the shape of”.

Nonsense – the astounding thing is that Jesus asserted His identity as God so often and blatantly yet managed to go three years of ministry before the authorities moved against Him. Heck, “I am the Good Shepherd” is a claim to be Yahweh!

1 Like

Well put.

From a Western point of view, yes – but “matched” works in the historical context, because the concept was different back then. Matching wasn’t a matter of a checklist, it was a matter of fitting the “shape” of Messiah-ship. That could include checklist-type items but was hardly confined to them. The “shape” idea is exemplified nicely by Wright:

2 Likes

Do you do anything else on a daily basis aside from look up objections to Christianity online and post them on Biologos?

4 Likes

Never heard of the third, but ChatGPT was limited to Rackam’s list. Josephus lists 7 Jewish messianic claimants in the first century alone. No surprise, they all sought a political “kingdom of God.” From something I wrote long ago:

Following Herod’s death, protests demanding lower taxes and the removal of the high priest broke out with such vigor during Passover that Archelaus, Herod’s primary heir in his final will, unleashed his cavalry against the unarmed crowds. Three thousand were slain before order was restored. Archelaus canceled the rest of the festival and sent the pilgrims home.

Since Augustus had not approved Herod’s latest succession plan (which gave Judea, Samaria, and Idumea to the 19-year-old Archelaus and divided the remaining lands between his younger brother Antipas and half-brother Philip), the royal family sailed for Rome. A delegation of 50 unhappy aristocrats followed hot on their heels to request that Augustus abolish the monarchy and place Judea under the governor of Syria. As many as 8,000 Jews living in Rome demonstrated in support of their petition. (Remember Jesus’ parable of the king whose subjects hated him in Luke 19?)

With its rulers absent, Palestine again erupted in violence. Varus, the governor of Syria, had sent his treasurer, Sabinus, to Jerusalem to take charge of Herod’s estate pending the emperor’s decision. Huge crowds of pilgrims descended on the city for the Festival of Weeks (First Fruits, or Pentecost), and coming just seven weeks after the bloodbath at Passover, both sides were on edge. Sabinus blinked. Panicked at the first sign of trouble, he ordered Herod’s royal guard to drive back the crowds while the Roman garrison of 500 men secured the temple treasury. This time, however, the crowds fought back, aided by many of Herod’s Jewish soldiers who switched sides. Beaten and besieged, Sabinus and the surviving Romans barricaded themselves in Herod’s palace and appealed to Varus for rescue.

In Sepphoris, less than four miles from Nazareth, Judah ben Hezekiah responded to the news from Jerusalem by leading a mob to loot the royal arsenal and palace in Galilee’s largest city. After arming the populace, Judah proclaimed himself King of the Jews and headed for the hills with his followers, styling himself in the mold of David, who had roamed the countryside with his warriors before ascending to the throne. Simultaneously, two others were competing with Judah for the title. Simon of Perea, a freed slave in Herod’s household service, also proclaimed himself King of the Jews. He and his supporters plundered and burned Herod’s palace in Jericho (as well as many more homes belonging to the wealthy) before eventually being defeated by Herodian troops. A Judean shepherd, Athronges, likewise declared himself king and, aided by his four brothers, organized a guerilla army that was active for years before finally surrendering to Archelaus’s generals.

At the head of three legions, Varus marched south from Antioch to Jerusalem. Along the way, he sent one detachment under his son’s command to deal with Judah ben Hezekiah, who disappeared before the soldiers could arrive. Sepphoris, ironically the most pro-Roman city in the region, was burned to the ground and its citizens sold into slavery. By the time Varus reached Jerusalem, the rebellion likewise had vanished. Herod’s nephew and an envoy of Jewish nobles met the Syrian governor and explained that it was all a horrible mistake. No one had intended to rebel. They blamed Sabinus, who had absconded with the temple treasury as soon as Varus arrived, for instigating the crowd to riot. With a large army and no one to fight, Varus rounded up 2,000 “leaders” of the non-rebellion and crucified them. Then, he sent a glowing report to Rome of his brilliant victories against the rebel forces.

Antipas would rebuild Sepphoris and make it his capital until A.D. 19, when he constructed Tiberias on the Sea of Galilee and moved his capital there to honor the emperor. Despite the obvious proximity of both cities to Nazareth and Capernaum, the gospels do not record Jesus visiting either of Antipas’s pro-Roman capitals.

Archelaus had inherited the bulk of his father’s kingdom, but complaints about him continued to flow to Rome, and 10 years later, Augustus reversed himself. He deposed Archelaus and banished him to Gaul. Judea would become a province governed directly by Rome.

Previously, taxes had been funneled through Jewish intermediaries – Herod the Great and his sons. Now, taxes would be collected by the governor as the representative of the emperor. This new arrangement also required payment in Roman coin, the denarius, which meant it would enter circulation in Judea. Respecting the Second Commandment’s prohibition against idols, Jewish coinage under the Hasmoneans had featured only inanimate symbols, such as anchors and stars. In contrast, the denarius of the Roman Empire usually depicted pagan gods, and as an early form of propaganda, the denarius always bore the emperor’s image and an assertion of his divinity. Augustus issued many versions of the silver coin, but a typical example would bear his image and DIVIF, which stood for Divi Filius, “Son of the God,” a claim based upon the Senate’s deification of Julius Caesar after his death.

Once again, Galilee stood at the epicenter of trouble. Where previous messianic claimants had failed, however, Judas the Galilean (Acts 5:37) and a Pharisee named Zadok succeeded: They garnered enough popular support to launch not just an uprising, but a movement. In the next few decades, their followers, the Zealots, grew numerous enough to be termed by the historian Josephus “the fourth philosophy” of Judaism (after the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes).

(The scholars Emil Schurer, Sean Freyne, and Martin Hengel have concluded that Judas the Galilean and Judah ben Hezekiah, who fled the uprising in Sepphoris and dropped from view 10 years earlier, were the same man.)

Judas and Zadok argued that God was the only rightful king of Israel, and paying taxes to the emperor was a form of slavery. They preached that the kingdom of God would be established only after all traces of paganism and Roman tyranny were rooted out of Israel, and that God would certainly help if they actively fought for their liberty. We do not know how Judas died, but his family pushed his agenda to the end. Two of his sons were crucified for fomenting rebellion in 47, and his grandson, Menahem, led a force of Zealots to capture the fortress of Antonia and Herod’s old palace at the outbreak of hostilities with Rome in 66. Menahem donned a purple royal robe and proclaimed himself “the Messiah,” after which he promptly was assassinated in the temple by a rival faction of rebels. He was the fifth of seven messianic pretenders listed by Josephus.

Sorry for the wall of text. The upshot is that Israel was in the grip of “messianic fever” in the first century, but every pretender was a tax protestor who sought political deliverance from Rome. That’s exactly why the spies sent by the Sanhedrin question Jesus about paying taxes to Rome in Luke 20:20ff. They can’t comprehend that a potential Messiah wasn’t also a tax protestor.

3 Likes

Gasp! Are you calling ChatGPT dumb :face_with_raised_eyebrow:?

1 Like

Quite a bit else. As I mentioned before, I do my best to try and avoid these objections. I used to busy myself with college and high school work, and now busy myself with ground school and flying lessons. Occasionally, I jump online to do things along the lines of hobby science research or just relaxing to some videos or movies on whatever I’m feeling today.

For the most part, I don’t actually try to encounter these objections because it does nothing else than make me stressed. What usually happens is I’m doing something unrelated (I actually try to avoid directly searching for Christian stuff through a search engine because of it’s tendency to bring up many unrelated or unhelpful things, something I learned from my struggles prior to this forum) and, through whatever alignment of the stars occurs, I either (A) have a random thought pop into my head regarding something I just seen (I.e. if I’m learning about cosmology in my astronomy class, I may encounter different theories on how the universe came to be; one of these theories could involve universes existing prior to ours and makes me wonder how I should look at God with this possibility) or (B) whatever I’m looking at (for whatever reason) either says something about God or is connected to God in some way. Judging by the fact that (at least in internet circles like traditionalist Christian websites) science is often seen as having friction with religion (so mentions of said “friction” sometimes comes up in science discussions) or many people online want to use their platforms to project their views on others (Christian, atheist, and others), it only takes a small amount of online digging (whether intentional or not) to accidentally come across a question as this.

Like the example above: I wanted to learn more about World War II so I watched a video about how the war in the Pacific went horribly wrong for Japan. I thought it was insightful so I looked on this guy’s channel for other videos. Thus, in the process, since history is also connected to faith (I.e. when did this belief arise), it wasn’t impossible that this guy also discussed religion a bit. As someone who lacks the experience with my faith to understand how to reconcile new information (I the sort of person who cannot read the textbook; I need someone to tell me what it says so I know what guidelines to look for), I often ask others for help so I can get a better under of what to look for.

Again, I think I sometimes over reaction with many things but I think sometimes that’s just the way I am. Sometimes I think I overly criticize my own side (because years of seeing bad Christian arguments has somewhat made me have a higher bar for accepting something now) and give any opposition the benefit of the doubt (because I don’t have experience in knowing what is exaggeration and what is balanced thought for say an atheist perspective; I.e. what is an atheist conspiracy theory and what is an actual question) because my brain seems hardwired to believe that whatever I had previously believed may be wrong because why else would these people have these views?

I hope that I haven’t bothered you guys too much with these questions. You guys have been really helpful and I’ve somewhat been silent for a tiny bit because many of my major concerns have indeed been answered :smiling_face_with_tear:.

3 Likes

I tutored a student in physics who had that problem. I told him fine, he didn’t have to read the textbook, we’d just tackle his homework. Instead I sat down and read his entire textbook and two others – I can learn in several ways, so I was effectively being a “tour guide”.

You know how the Secret Service in the U.S. teaches people to recognize counterfeit currency? They never look at counterfeits, they study the real thing so thoroughly that counterfeits come to stand out.

4 Likes