I’ve taught Apologetics before. I didn’t like it. I wouldn’t consider myself a Christian apologist as apologists are expected to come up with black and white answers to difficult issues. I do not believe there are black and white answers. Also, apologists seem less interested in discovering truth than they are defending presupposed dogmas.

However, as unlikely as it seems, there’s a chance I might teach the subject again. Therefore I thought, “What are some legitimate reasons why one would doubt the supernatural nature of Christianity?”

Here is my list…

1. Unfalsifiability of Christianity

• Claims about heaven, hell, or divine judgment rely on post-mortem experiences, which are unverifiable in life, aligning with critiques of supernatural claims lacking empirical testability.

Christians cannot claim that living a faithful Christian life guarantees success or well-being in this life, nor that rejecting the Christian life necessarily leads to hardship or misfortune here and now. We know this from simple observation. Plenty of non-religious people live happy fulfilling lives, and plenty of Christians live difficult unhappy lives. The promise of whether things go good or bad for you can apply only to the after-life, which is unfalsifiable.

The hope found in the New Testament is grounded on the soon return of Christ, the transformation of the world, and the transformation of the individual bodies of believers. This leads to my next reason…

2. Failed Eschatological Expectations

• New Testament passages suggest Jesus’ return was expected within the first century, which didn’t occur, undermining divine foresight.

Modern Christians have no clear explanation for what happens at death since the New Testament doesn’t teach it. The authors of the New Testament did not expect the world to continue on for thousands of years after Pentecost. The New Testament authors expected the Parousia (return of Christ, resurrection/transformation of bodies, judgement) to happen within their own lifetimes or shortly after.

The Parousia did not happen at that time, nor has it happened from that time till now. This calls into question the divine inspiration of the New Testament writings.

I can also include here the issue of the scripture’s focus on national Israel and the covenant promises. The New Covenant was promised only to Israel (Jeremiah 31:31-34; Hebrews 8:8-13). While it is true that Paul preached the gospel to the gentile world, his primary concern was Israel, which is why he always began his preaching in the synagogues. He clearly was passionate about Israel embracing their New Covenant gospel (Romans 9:1-5). And while I am not a proponent of the Israel Only movement, one can ask, “What if the original Jesus movement, a sect within Judaism, was only a failed Israelite eschatology?”

3. Persistence of Evil Under Divine Rule/Absence of Physical Manifestation/Decline of Verifiable Miracles

• If Jesus reigns as a divine king, the ongoing existence of suffering and injustice suggests a lack of observable supernatural governance or intervention.

• Despite theological claims of Jesus’ ongoing divine presence, the lack of any verifiable physical manifestation calls into question the active role or power of a supernatural agent.

• Whereas early Christian accounts abound with miracles, such as healings and resurrections, modern times lack consistent, empirically verified equivalents, raising doubts about the reliability of early miracle claims.

I’ve combined three reasons here into one as they all have to do with the tangible presence of Christ in the current world.

Since the Parousia did not happen in the first century, the Church had to adopt a new way of seeing things. For the most part the Church began to teach that the kingdom of Christ is partially manifest in the Church, and that Christ rules in the hearts of believers. There will still be a future Parousia and history as we know it will end.

One can ask then, “What has actually changed in the world post-Pentecost?” If Jesus is king, what exactly is he king over? The world? The Church? Heaven? He doesn’t appear to be ruling the world, at least not in any obvious way. Perhaps he is king over the Church, but the Church is so fragmented (see reason #7) that he could only be king over an invisible Church: the “true believers,” whoever they may be. Only God knows. We might say he reigns over heaven, which we presume to be perfect. Since we cannot see heaven, we cannot verify this.

4. Spread of Christianity Through Natural Means

• Christianity’s global expansion correlates with historical forces such as imperial conquest, colonialism, demographic trends, and migration—factors that suggest a sociopolitical rather than supernatural spread.

Has the spread of Christianity over the last two thousand years been remarkably different than the spread of any other religion?

5. Syncretism with Pre-Christian Traditions/Parallels with Other Religious Traditions/Shift from Jewish Sect to Gentile Religion

• Many Christian customs have clear roots in earlier pagan traditions, indicating a blending of cultural practices rather than the emergence of a wholly distinct revelation.

• Christianity shares core motifs (such as virgin births and dying-and-rising gods) with older mythologies, implying that its supernatural claims may stem from universal myth-making rather than unique divine revelation.

• Christianity’s shift from a Jewish Messianic sect to a Gentile-dominated religion suggests human-driven evolution rather than divine preservation.

I’ve again combined three points here to highlight the evolution of religion throughout time. Many scholars agree that pre-exilic Israel was shaped by the dominant cultures surrounding it in the formation of its theocratic system. Likewise, post-exilic Second Temple Judaism was significantly influenced by Zoroastrian and Hellenistic thought. Christianity, which began as a Jewish sect, is often seen as a synthesis of Jewish tradition and elements from first-century mystery religions. Over time, it evolved into a predominantly Gentile movement. These developments suggest a gradual, human-driven evolution of religious ideas rather than a singular, divinely revealed system.

6. Theological Discontinuity Between Testaments/Moral Progress Beyond Scripture

• The portrayal of God in the Old Testament (wrathful and nationalistic) differs markedly from the loving and universal God of modern Christianity, suggesting doctrinal evolution shaped by cultural change rather than consistent divine character.

• Modern ethical stances (e.g., the condemnation of slavery) often diverge from or contradict biblical teachings, indicating that moral advancement may arise from secular humanism rather than scriptural guidance.

I am not comparing God as portrayed in the Old Testament to God as portrayed in the New Testament here as much as I am comparing God as portrayed in the Old and New Testaments to God as portrayed by modern Christians. Modern Christians tend to read the Old Testament allegorically, and even Fundamentalists struggle to reconcile the differences.

7. Fragmentation Within Christianity/Subjectivity in Scriptural Interpretation

• Theological and cultural divisions across denominations (e.g., Evangelical, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox) suggest Christianity is not a unified divine revelation but a diverse, evolving human tradition.

• The need for personal or ecclesiastical interpretation of scripture underscores the role of human subjectivity in defining doctrine, weakening claims of an objective or universally clear divine message.

Christianity exhibits such a high degree of internal diversity that one expression of the faith may, in practice, function as a distinct religion from another. For example, American Evangelicalism and Syrian Orthodoxy differ so significantly in theology, worship, and worldview that they can be seen as fundamentally separate religious traditions.

Personality often plays a significant role in shaping the style of Christianity a person gravitates toward. For example, someone devoted to John MacArthur’s church is unlikely to transition to a Charismatic congregation. While he may claim his reasons are purely scriptural, it’s more likely that his theological preferences align with his personality (which, of course, includes his politics).

8. Modern Biblical Scholarship and Archaeology

• Scholarship questions the historicity of key biblical events (e.g., Exodus, Canaanite conquests), and textual criticism highlights inconsistencies in manuscripts, undermining claims of divine inspiration.

Did Moses write the Pentateuch? Or was it written by several authors and compiled later? Did the exodus out of Egypt actually happen? Did Daniel write Daniel? Did Daniel exist? Or was the book of Daniel Maccabean propaganda? Who wrote the gospels? Did Paul write all the letters attributed to him?

Modern scholars differ much in their opinions, and I find they often overstate their arguments. However, their work cannot simply be dismissed because it contradicts traditional Christian beliefs.

9. Psychological and Sociological Explanations for Religious Experience

• Neuroscience and psychology offer naturalistic explanations for spiritual experiences (e.g., visions, divine presence) as brain-based phenomena, and sociological factors like community bonding explain Christianity’s appeal.

Worship services with dimmed lighting and emotional music absolutely influence how a person feels about what they perceive to be Jesus. This isn’t just true of modern western services, but it is true of ancient style Orthodox services as well.

It’s easy to see, especially with productions like The Chosen, that Christians will form their religion to fit their specific needs and desires. One would think it would be impossible to turn Jesus into a false idol, but how can modern Christians be sure that’s not exactly what they’re doing?