XxSabrinaxX:

It appears that YOU have missed a key point. You have two options here:

1. Worship a God that sends babies to heaven

2. Worship a God that doesn’t send babies to heaven

It appears your options are quite limited, exposing that your understanding of your Creator may be as such.

Again: James 4:12: There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?

XxSabrinaxX:

Option one leads to mass baby murdering. Option two, good luck trying to get someone to worship a God who potentially does not send babies to heaven.

Understand, you aren't the lawgiver nor judge. So you're really in no position to set how it is.

Good day.

TheArranger:

Premise: Those who are innocent automatically go to heaven

"innocent" is defined as someone who could not have reasonably known about God or the bible (i.e. babies, indigenous tribes people, severely mentally retarded people etc.)

The conclusion is then to strive to make all people fit into this "innocent" category. Mothers should kill their babies before they grow up and have a chance of becoming a nonbeliever, people should destroy all of the bibles and any other evidence of Christianity so that no one could reasonably know about God or the bible.


[s]Notes on this argument:


Don't even start with that "The evidence for God is all around you" bullshit from Romans because I could easily magic wand away that evidence with a severely retarded person or a baby, and you also have to know about Jesus in order for you to accept him as your lord and savior, or else there was no point of him coming here in the first place. Also don't even try that "The bible obviously doesn't tell a mother to kill her child" or "killing/destroying the bible is wrong; you will go to hell for an action like that". One, any decent mother would probably gladly suffer an eternity in Hell if it meant her child was guaranteed a one-way ticket to heaven; the same concept is applicable for the "killing/destroying the bible is wrong...". If you knew an action could potentially guarantee all of humanity a free trip to heaven, you should probably feel obligated to do so, even if it lands you in Hell... I mean come on, that's like 10 Billion : 1 ratio of Heaveners to Hellers (If one person was able to ensure that everyone was indeed innocent, but even a significantly lower ratio is still more than sufficient for this argument).[/s]

Well, if you're going to address Christianity, then you'd have to address the fact that Christians believe that genuine faith alone in Jesus makes a person righteous (this may perhaps be the main/biggest point of the Christian faith). Maybe you have a totally different take on it than me, but I think Christians would rather try to get people to believe in Jesus to become "innocent" instead of, you know, killing a bunch of babies and other people.

It appears that you have missed a key point.

James 4:12: "There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?"

So only God can say who is innocent or not.

Vic2Ree:

This is an unsubstantiated claim.

Actually, it's not me who has to offer the evidence. I'm simply pointing out that there's not a hint of reason to think more exposure would lead to more people being saved. This fallaciously assumes that knowing Christianity is true increases your odds of being saved. But it has nothing to do with that -- it only has to do with someone's moral character. Even Satan knows Christianity is true.

Vic2Ree:

It's really not that effective.

2.3 billion followers, more language translations of the Bible than any other document. I know you're trying to be dumb, but you need to know when you're a wee bit too good at something.

Vic2Ree:
Furthermore, Islam is proving to be more effective if we are just talking numbers here.

Might want to do a quick google double-check before writing something this wrong.

Vic2Ree:

What are we deciding as right morals?

See New Testament.

Vic2Ree:
Another unsubstantiated claim and false claims too.

What false claims?

Vic2Ree:

If Jesus Christ himself posted a tweet it would give solid reasoning at least to accept his existence and make it harder not to follow Christianity. A tweet can be read around the world, Christianity would not reach the "New World" until 1492.

You're failing to hear me. The plain reality is that a single tweet from Jesus wouldn't increase the number of people being saved by even one. There's no point in rewriting my comment if you're going to fail to offer a rebuttal.

Vic2Ree:

If it's so effective then why did it leave out multiple continents?

There's a difference between being incredibly effective, which Christianity certainly is, and being infinitely effective. Christianity is the most effective religion in history. The Bible is in more languages than any other document by a gigantic margin. It would take some sneering intellectual dishonesty to deny the effectivity of Christianity. Give us a few more decades and we'll continue taking over academia as well.

Vic2Ree:

Still sounds like an advantage to me. If I never heard of Christianity I would have that option available to me.

It would take very little thought to get to that conclusion. Someone who wouldn't accept Christianity if they heard about it is unlikely to choose the right morals on their own to begin with. The fat fallacy in your thinking is that going to heaven is a total coincidence of your social conditioning rather than your objective moral character.

Vic2Ree:

If that is the qualifier then why not send Jesus now instead of the Roman times when with a simple tweet the world could know the actual existence of Jesus?

What would God tweet that would convince you he was real? How many fingers you’re holding up?

The point is to maximize the number of people going to heaven. The reality is is the fact that knowing Christianity is true won't do this at all. There are hundreds of millions of Christians, absolutely certain Christianity is true, who nevertheless act in immoral ways and will not see the light of heaven. Getting people saved is much more complicated than announcing the truth. Even Satan knows Jesus died for our sins.

It is a logical Christian proposition that the way God acted in history will maximize the number of people being saved in all possible universes.

Vic2Ree:

Doesn't that make Christianity more dangerous to share with people? It creates an unfair advantage for those who never heard of Christianity. Second, why would your God even do it this way? It sounds completely inefficient.

It's actually the most efficient way, since there is no other possibiliy where more people are saved. Sharing the gospel with people is a good thing, since you simply make a wrong assumption -- the idea that if people don't hear the Gospel, they get an instantly free pass to heaven. Wrong, God still judges them based off of their moral decisions in relation to the information they have.

GreatResearcher:
it has been proven.

Your OP is vague as hell

The point of life in Christianity certainly makes a lot of sense. Follow Christ, live morally and preach so that others may also be saved. It's very commendable.

In my opinion, I feel like this OP is a cheap-shot against Christianity. The arguments just don't stack up.
1) The idea is that Christ comes at the appropriate time in history so that the maximum possible people freely accept it. This is certainly the Roman period, where the Roman Empire connected the entire Mediterranean and ideas and culture were flowing unlike any prior period in history.
2) The point of the earlier prophets was not to preach about Jesus, nor should it have been. Each had a certain moral goal to achieve with the Israelite's, and trying to conflate the job of one prophet with another is narrow-minded.
3) Obviously, people who haven't heard of Jesus can't fill the Christian purpose of creation ... but that's because they're not Christian. Nor are they required to if they haven't heard. The Bible is very clear people who haven't heard of the gospel are not judged for not knowing, so I see no problem.

LordReed:


I must express surprise, this I did not expect.

James 4:12 " There is only one lawgiver and judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you - who are you to judge your neighbor?"

It shouldn’t need to be justified or even commented on, but...

The "wrongness" of homosexuality is based on prejudice, nothing else. Being gay is completely unrelated to your actual morality. An LGBT person can easily be selfless or kind or humble or any other good thing...not despite being LGBT but unrelated to it.

XxSabrinaxX:

It's actually not a good guess. If ink were such an issue, we shouldn't have letter after letter after letter from Paul. But we do.

Since Luke wrote more than Paul, and John wrote roughly as much as Paul, this remains a very strong argument. Plus, Paul wrote many small letters at various times, so your argument fails.

XxSabrinaxX:

And we especially shouldn't have five whole books written (supposedly) by Moses, who would have had it even harder as someone in a way older time. But we do.

On what basis? This is a bit weak because it’s entirely plausible that ink an parchment were not as difficult to obtain 1500 years earlier in the Israelite camp, especially as Moses was the leader among them and likely had access to virtually unlimited resources, and especially considering that the Israelites plundered the Egyptians before they left.

XxSabrinaxX:

Except we disagree. The Easter account and the genealogy is off.

It’s clearly not, as I’ve shown you how the Easter accounts are easily harmonized. Your only rebuttal was "I’m not convinced" because of the ink conjecture.

XxSabrinaxX:

How do you know? Mark was from the 60s CE to the 70s; how are you sure that none of the Apocryphal works came earlier?

We have extant copies of the gospels from the first centuries and none of the apocryphal works from that time. Maybe they were earlier but we have no good evidence that they were and a lot of evidence that they weren’t.

XxSabrinaxX:

An angel. Singular. Not "angels of the Lord". His appearance, not their appearance.

Exactly. None say "one." If Matthew had said “one angel appeared,” then we’d have a contradiction. But here Matthew only references one of the angels, but we know there were at least two. Same with Mark. Its possible that these two were unaware of a second angel, but it’s not a contradiction because they didn’t exclude the possible of multiple angels, and more likely, they were simply emphasizing the one who spoke those words.

XxSabrinaxX:

Didn't answer my question, but on the independence... the Gospels aren't really all that independent, except for John. Here.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_Gospels
Look under the Structure tab.

Only parts of the synoptic gospels rely on one source, but much of the three are independent. So they are independent but not wholly independent.

XxSabrinaxX:

That's not how that works. They were not written during the times of the events they described— they are decades later. Mark, the earliest, is in the 60s CE at best.

Which is contemporary. Remember, the important part is that the authors had access to those who were alive during the time of Christ, and especially those who could confirm or contradict the gospel claims. All four gospels meet this criteria.

XxSabrinaxX:

Citation needed on the Illinois bit;

Citation for conjecture? You don’t think it’s likely that persecution would have quashed Mormonism if they hadn’t left for greener pastures? The Mormons certainly thought so, as an extermination order had been issued against them by the governor of Missouri and Joseph Smith had been killed.

XxSabrinaxX:

As for the persecution, I've already told you it wasn't as you claim to be.

It is what I’ve claimed it to be. It wasnt attempted genocide in every case, but it was in a few cases. Most of the others were plain old targeting and murder.

XxSabrinaxX:

And for Jesus's crucifixion, a rabbi being crucified was in no way unique whatsoever, not even a rabbi named Yehoshua. So no one would deny that. And all we have on the resurrection are some books claiming there were multiple people, and those books themselves are in question on reliability between us— why would I take that as a source? They're not independent, they're decades out, they have an agenda... yeah, no.

It’s better textual evidence than for any other claims from antiquity, so in order to be consistent, you need to deny most historical claims from antiquity. But I can’t tell you why you should accept it, I would simply like to know what tests you subjects historical claims to in order to reject the gospels.

XxSabrinaxX:

Judaism is fundamentally incompatible with Christianity. The basis of Christianity rests on something they reject. Additionally, the two religions have had such a rocky history that it doesn't boost Christianity at all— if the two were so similar, if the Christians saw Judaism as mostly correct, then they wouldn't have expelled them from countries, murdered them, accused them of murdering children for blood rituals, or generally treated them like crap up to and well after 1945.

A religious people’s tolerance for members of another religion have nothing to do with the veracity of that religion’s claims. This is simply misguided. Christ himself holds that Judaism was correct, but that he came to fulfill its prophecies. But again, I have to point out that you’re missing the point. I’m specifically referencing the rapid growth of the early Christian church, who were quite close to the resurrection, the central claim of the faith. To compare it with the persecution of Jews hundreds and thousands of years after the formation of Judaism is not remotely analogous and completely misses the point.

XxSabrinaxX:

I gave you a source, one published fairly recently through Yale University. Where's yours on these claims? The books are what's in question; you can't use them to defend themselves. So where is your justification?

As I said, your source isn’t technically incorrect. Instead, it trivializes all of the persecution of Christians between Nero and the third century because it doesn’t quite amount to state sponsored genocide. But that doesn’t mean that Christians weren’t constantly persecuted for the first 300 years after Christ, and they clearly were.

@Hermes019, I just want to inform you of something... misunderstanding of the bible is very common and it can arise from the following (I'd advise you to focus on number 5)

1. Misunderstanding and confusion can arise simply because readers are imperfect. Often I have discovered I misinterpreted what others have said for that very reason. It was not their fault. It wasn’t really even my fault, as I was not trying to prove anything. I simply misunderstood. When it comes to scriptures such misunderstanding can result in people forming opinions or beliefs that aren’t really sustainable, but do not come from any sort of dishonesty or motive. It just happens.

2. Misunderstanding can occur because we are unfamiliar with the nature of literature. Scripture consists of words and thoughts, whether the be the words and thoughts of humans or of God. When people communicate they do so by a great number of means. Communication is never strictly literal or strictly allegorical. It’s a hodge podge of everything. Because scripture is communication it utilizes all the various genres of communication - metaphor, allegory, parables, similes, anagrams [edit: this should read acrostic. As far as I know there are no anagrams in the scripture.] and musical poetry, narrative, personal letters and official documents. If we are unskilled with such things we will most undoubtably confuse amd misinterpret the meaning. This also means we cannot approach scripture with a one size fits all mentality as so many believers (and non-believers) try to do.

3. Related to the above, misunderstanding can occur because the reader is unfamiliar with facts or customs or any number of things that the original readers were quite familiar with. When it comes to the scripture, we are dealing with documents that are at the minimum 2000 years old. The whole range of scripture was itself written over a period of 1,500 years, in at least 3 different languages, and by authors ranging from shepherds to statesmen. There is so much historical background behind the words that those of us of the 21st century are absolutely bound to misunderstand certain things. The remedy is to educate ourselves as far as possible with the history of the ancient world and be humble enough to know that we simply don’t know all the facts. Archeology has been extremely helpful in this regard in giving us greater insight into the ways and customs of the ancient world. But archeology still at best gives us very fragmentary knowledge of the ancient world.

4. Misunderstanding can occur when we read the scripture through the filter of our experience. We often don’t even realize we do such a thing. If you were raised from childhood to believe that scripture taught such and such a doctrine, it’s a very good chance you won’t even consider questioning that asusmption. A great historical example is that of Martin Luther. He had grave difficulty with the letter of James on account of James’ insistence on the necessity of works. Luther called it “a right strawy epistle” and had he been given his ‘druthers’ he would have removed it from the canon. What he did not recognize was that he was reading James’ teachings about faith and works through the filter of medieval Roman Catholicism which advocated works such as penance. A particularly odious “work” being touted by Teztel was the selling of indulgences. Pay up now and be absolved from that adultery you’re going to commit with your neighbor’s wife later on. These were the kind of works that Luther was familiar with. It simply never occured to him James was talking about something completely different. Which leads to the next.

5. Misunderstanding will occur when people interpret the scripture for selfish purposes. Perhaps at this point misunderstanding is not the proper term as we move from honest misunderstanding to deliberate attempts to justify one’s desires.
5a) Some will misinterpret out of a desire for personal gain. I include in this group all those writing books making fabulous and spectacular claims about this or that of scripture and making quite a name for thsemselves, not to mention money. Books about the 2nd coming are quite popular now as well as books about hidden keys or forgotten truths. As long as the claims are spectacular, people will buy the book and the author gets his check and 15 minutes of fame. I have no use for any of them.
5b) Some will misinterpret out of a desire for power. There’s a lot of people out there who understand there is no greater power to be held over other people than spiritual power. If a man or woman can so interpret scripture so as to make it seem that they hold the eternal destiny of the people, then they wield very great power. Many atheists justify their disbelief on account they see (rightfully so) the horrible abuse of power carried out by individuals in the name of God. The truth though, is that God has nothing to do with these frauds, and they will receive the justice due them.
5c) Some will misinterpret out of pride. They want to be somebody in the church. Therefore they look for novel meanings and interpretations. Preachers are often guilty of this, misinterpreting scripture so as to have a reputation of being novel and clever or for promoting personal opinions as somehow authorized by divine creed.
5d) Some will misinterpret out of a spirit of schism. They are at heart divisive people. Their interest is not in the one gospel, or the one faith, or the one anything. They have their pet doctrine and through cleverness are able to find it established throughout all scripture beginning with Genesis and ending with Revelation. These interpreters do not listen to any else. They cannot be instructed. If someone should happen to successfully point out the error of their thinking, they are quick to pass it off.

Let’s not leave out the self-confessed unbeliever. Many such do not read scripture out of a genuine desire to know what is really contained therein, but out of a strong desire of self-justification. These scour the pages of scripture seeking out fragments and tidbits they may then wrench completely out of any context that they may then accuse and ridicule. As i have noticed, Nairaland is full of such.

I just want you to remember these when next you scrutinize the bible. Don't overrate your intelligence. Humans are fallible.

Hermes019:



Alright I appreciate the explanations but u haven't answered my question,I did not ask u if there was a contradiction there or not,I simply asked "who us Jesus paternal grandfather",I expect a one word answer for now,explanations would come later

Jacob was Joseph's father, hence the paternal grandfather of Jesus.

Hermes019:

I don't mean to be brusque,not at all,but again I'm afraid I didn't get the answer I requested,seriously why do u guyz have to be in defense mode all the time,chill,u are sure ur Bible is inerrant so no need to be all worked up,just give me a straight forward answer confidently
what was the last word of ur saviour Jesus on the cross ?

"It is finished"

Hermes019:

what do you mean by "we",the bible gives two reports of a woman whose child was exorcised by Jesus and made metion of the place the woman came from ,u claim that the bibke was inspirwd by the joly spirirt and is inerrant,how come u don't know the answer to such a simpke question,so if u sit for UTME exam and u read "Last days at forcados high school",and u were asked the name of Jimi's brother u would say u don't know,something that was mwntioned in the book ?
I don't understand thus " we don't know " that u guyz are saying,the buble mentioned the answers to these questions
However, we can't call this a conflict. Let me explain why...
Matthew and Mark, the writers of the two seperate accounts, are directing their respective documents to different segments of that ancient society. Thus, they adapt their terminology to the understanding of their targeted recipients.
Matthew tailors his record for the Jews. This is apparent from a number of different vantage points. For example, his heavy reliance upon the Old Testament scriptures indicates this. He is writing for those who accept the Old Testament Scriptures as authoritative.
Mark, on the other hand, is writing for the benefit of the Romans, who controlled the Mediterranean world of the first century. His Roman interest is seen, for instance, in the Latin forms which he employs to render Greek equivalents (Mark 3:17; 5:41; 7:11,34; 14:36; 15:22,34) so because of that Matthew decided to call a Greek woman a Canaanite and Mark decided to call a Canaanite woman a Greek,u got to be kidding me

Its conjecture. Besides, I still don't see how not knowing where the woman came from is an issue.
Ihedinobi3, could you please help me out here? I'm still dealing with XxSabrinaxX.

XxSabrinaxX:

1. It's conjecture on his part. He doesn't know.

It’s an educated guess, which satisfies the Easter challenge. I guess the challenge wasn’t created to convince you, but rather only to harmonize the gospel accounts of Easter Day, which is shown to be quite easy. But fair enough, you’re not convinced. I am. We disagree.

XxSabrinaxX:
I mean, hell, if I'm John or Luke or Matthew, Mark is already out there. The message is out. Why not make a more complete account?

The accounts are quite clear. They tell us what happened without contradiction.

XxSabrinaxX:
We also know that there were other Gospels written (over 200!) that weren't accepted into the Bible, and these go against the narrative by these four entirely.

But none of them were contemporary, unlike the canonical gospels.

XxSabrinaxX:
Bartholomew, for one.

No extant copies or fragments exist of this gospel.

XxSabrinaxX:
It's that it's frankly kind of ridiculous to say it's not a contradiction when someone wrote "one" and someone else wrote "two".

No gospel says "one." It would be a contradiction if that were the case, but it’s not.

XxSabrinaxX:
Why wouldn't you want the most accurate words to describe the scenario instead of leaving it up to "well, he mentioned one, but there could be another"?

The differences in perspective show the independence of the writer, otherwise they’d appear to be copies or forgeries and we’d assume there were only one gospel.

XxSabrinaxX:
By the definition I provided, this is just incorrect. For the exact same reason that Josephus is not a contemporary of Herod, these authors were not contemporaries of Jesus. They were not writing at the same time, we don't know where they got their information— why are we concluding that they got this from eyewitnesses or contemporaries without evidence?

No they definitely were contemporary, by definition. They were written during the lifetimes of those who knew Christ personally, so by definition they were contemporary. The evidence is that we know when they were written, so we know that they were contemporary.

XxSabrinaxX:
In terms of the Gospels being from eyewitnesses? I don't know what you're looking for, since it's been pretty long established that these were not eyewitnesses.

It has not. That is a popular view, but is not established. But I’m willing to concede that, though I don’t really agree, because it’s not important.

XxSabrinaxX:
how about Mormonism?

As you pointed out, Mormonism moved to a location that was not hostile toward it, and that is where it grew and propagated, which is the opposite of how christianity grew. If Mormonism had stayed in Illinois, it wouldn’t be around today. That’s why they moved. Christianity grew despite the persecution. It’s also important to note that the claims of Christ’s resurrection were historically falsifiable as many were purported to have witnessed it. On the contrary, Joseph Smith was the only one receiving divine revelation, which already renders his claims suspect, since they can’t be falsified. This is an important distinction.

XxSabrinaxX:
Judaism is another good example, then.

Judaism was correct until the time if Christ. The new testament indicates that it will always exist despite persecution. I agree that it is remarkable what Judaism had to endure but frankly that only bolsters the Christian position due to the interrelation between the two faiths.

XxSabrinaxX:
Additionally, the first bit of persecution sanctioned by the Roman government was in 64 CE, under Nero. Until the 3rd century CE, there was no empire-wide persecution:

This is incorrect. The New Testament writes of persecution before Nero, for example, the martyrdom of Stephen. While nothing between 64 and the 3rd century was quite as bad as those times, there was constant persecution of Christians in Rome during those centuries. Your source is simply misinformed. Or possibly intentionally vague so as to to trivialize persecution that doesn’t quite amount to genocide.

Hermes019:
MODIFIED
Nnenna,few questions

Sure

Hermes019:
1) who is Jesus paternal grandfather

This is a common question I've heard from atheists and all other skeptics as regards Jesus' genealogies according to the books of Matthew and Luke. First, we should establish that a contradiction occurs when two or more claims conflict with one another so that they cannot simultaneously be true in the same sense and at the same time. Honestly, this is the way I see it...
a) In Matthew 1:16 when it describes "Jacob was the father of Joseph" the Greek verb for "was the father" is ἐγέννησεν and speaks of literal and biologically fathering. Put another way, Jacob begotten Joseph.
b) However when we look at Luke 3:23 it is more general: "Joseph, the son of Eli." It doesn’t say "begotten."
c) Thus it is possible that Joseph had Heli as a father in another sense than the way Jacob was his father. Which means there’s not necessarily a contradiction in terms of it conflicting in the same sense.
d) Nor does it mean there’s necessarily a contradiction in terms of the two claims conflicting at same time if Heli and Jacob were fathers to Joseph in different senses. From Luke 3:23 we can establish that Jacob was the biological father. But then something happened in which Heli became generally speaking the father; very likely it is through adoption. And that takes place in another time than when Jacob was the father to Joseph. So there’s not necessarily a contradiction in terms of timing of when the two were fathers either.
Another thing to note is the custom of levirate marriage. It can be found in the Old Testament laws in Deuteronomy 25:5-10 and description of the understanding of this practice in Genesis 38:1-30. It is familiar even in Jesus’ days as some of Jesus’ enemies used this practice to try to argue against Jesus. This is described within the book of Matthew itself in Matthew 22:23-28 and in Luke 20:27-33. It is significant to note that both books that have genealogies also have accounts of the understanding of levirate marriages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levirate_marriage
I don't know if this fully clears the contradiction, but it makes sense to me. Besides, the atheists' claim of a contradiction means they have the burden of proof that there is no possible and no plausible explanation in which Heli and Jacob can’t be fathers in different times and in different senses/means.

Hermes019:
2) what was the last word Jesus said on the cross

Jesus' last words were "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" according to Matthew 27:46-50. These words from Jesus are specifically found in verse 46. But note what verse 50 states: "And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit." While verse 50 does not record what it was specifically that Jesus cried out it could have been "Father, into Your hands I commit My spirit" that Luke 23:46 record or "It is finished!" that John 19:30 record. It can even be both phrases that Jesus cried out. The point here is that Matthew 27:50 itself indicates that after Jesus said "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Matthew was aware that further last words were said. So Matthew 27:46-50 doesn’t show a Bible contradiction but rather suggests strongly that Jesus spoke other words.

Hermes019:

3)Jesus had an encounter with a certain woman who had a sick child and likened her to a dog,pls were was the woman from, was she Greek(syrophoenician by birth) or a Canaanite

We don't know exactly. However, we can't call this a conflict. Let me explain why...
Matthew and Mark, the writers of the two seperate accounts, are directing their respective documents to different segments of that ancient society. Thus, they adapt their terminology to the understanding of their targeted recipients.
Matthew tailors his record for the Jews. This is apparent from a number of different vantage points. For example, his heavy reliance upon the Old Testament scriptures indicates this. He is writing for those who accept the Old Testament Scriptures as authoritative.
Mark, on the other hand, is writing for the benefit of the Romans, who controlled the Mediterranean world of the first century. His Roman interest is seen, for instance, in the Latin forms which he employs to render Greek equivalents (Mark 3:17; 5:41; 7:11,34; 14:36; 15:22,34)

XxSabrinaxX:

I already said why, just above.

You merely said you don’t find it convincing. I want to know why.

XxSabrinaxX:

Then they are incredibly misleading documents, and it's shocking that they'd use the ink to write "young man" rather than "two angels".

I don’t see how. As the writer pointed out in that link, it was common to refer to angels as a young man and there is no contradiction in the amount of angels. I think you’re grasping at straws.

XxSabrinaxX:

John is pushing that boundary easily, and no, the authors still were not contemporaries. We can't even show if they spoke to anyone who was around when Jesus was.

Yet we know that they were contemporary. If you don’t like the term “contemporary,” you’re wrong, but I’ll gladly substitute it for a description instead. The gospels were written in the first century, during the lifetimes of those who are referenced in the gospels, and those who knew Christ. That’s what is important.

XxSabrinaxX:

I don't have a problem with a popular rabbi getting killed for his teachings, but the miracles are shaky. And I don't think it's reasonable at all, considering that there is no evidence for what you're saying. If there is, show me. Because everything I've seen says otherwise.

What kind of evidence would you require for historical claims, aside from the historical evidence we’ve already discussed?

XxSabrinaxX:

I'm saying Christianity as a movement comes after Jesus, by the historical view of what Christianity is.

And I’m saying that Christ already had many followers by the time of his death, and many orders of magnitude more followers in the decades after his death.

XxSabrinaxX:

Buddhists absolutely were. Hindus got it later.

Buddhists absolutely weren’t, not until long after Buddha supposedly lived. Neither Buddhism nor Hinduism are remotely analogous.

XxSabrinaxX:

It became a state religion in 150s ish, which, regardless of reason, isn't too special in terms of how long it takes for a religion to gain a foothold.

The earliest I’m aware of is 201 AD, long after all contemporaries had died. It is remarkable because Christians were violently persecuted for most of Christianity’s existence until then.

XxSabrinaxX:

But by Constantine's time, yeah, absolutely it grew due to authority, as it did in Armenia before.

This is false. It grew, especially in the Roman Empire, DESPITE authority, which actively sought to suppress and annihilate Christianity.

XxSabrinaxX:

Edit: by the way, I have no desire to reject Christianity or any other religion. I just struggle finding real convincing reasons to believe.

Then I sincerely hope you hang around here for answers to your questions and find what you’re looking for, here or elsewhere.

XxSabrinaxX:

but like TheArranger, I too don't find this author's one on ink to be terribly convincing.

Why not, aside from you atheists' desire to reject it? I think it’s a great explanation and one that is highly likely.

XxSabrinaxX:

The author also explicitly says that the different reactions from the women are likely due to variations with oral tradition, which is the exact issue being pointed out.

Regardless of your opinion here, this is actually quite trivial. There is no reason to think a contradiction exists where one account speaks of two angels and another account speaks of one. Neither account states that the number of angels given was the complete number of angels. Any reasonable explanation could be given per the requirements of the Easter challenge. Whether you find it convincing is irrelevant since it harmonizes the accounts with a reasonable guess.

XxSabrinaxX:

No, by definition they're not. They weren't written during Jesus's time, but after, just as Josephus was not a contemporary of Herod.

They were written in the lifetimes of eyewitnesses and those who knew Christ. They had access to contemporary information. So by definition they are contemporary accounts.

XxSabrinaxX:
It's the Bible in question,

No it’s not. It’s the claims regarding Christ’s life, death and resurrection. The gospels and the New Testament are my sources. I think it’s reasonable to suggest that it’s likely that two gospel writers were eyewitnesses and the other two were close friends of eyewitnesses as well. This isn’t certain but I am convinced that the gospels were written by the men to whom they’re traditionally attributed.

XxSabrinaxX:

Having followers ≠ Christian and people, even ones of the same religion, wanting to kill him ≠ Christian. He was a Galilean Jew.

Christians are followers of Christ. He had many followers when he lived, and many more after he died. I’m not sure what you’re getting at here.

XxSabrinaxX:

Hinduism and Buddhism spread by communication and trade, so not by conquest.

But they weren’t subject to persecution, especially in the first decades and centuries of their existence, like Christianity was. Both properties are important as having one or the other is unremarkable.

XxSabrinaxX:

Martyrs aren't specifically Christian either, and Christianity absolutely grew by colonization... which... well, it wasn't pleasant.

But it did not grow by colonization in its early years, a time period that I’m pointing out is important to the veracity of the claims of the historicity of Christ’s resurrection.

XxSabrinaxX:

Nnenna, permission to step in for TheArranger?

Sure. No problem

LordOfNaira:

You are using evidences of religious fanaticism to lay credence to the notion that the gospels were reliable and accurate? Can we also lay credence to the notion that Islam is also right simply because many Muslims, including Mohammed, endured persecution?

One reason I think Islam remains a prominent religion is due to the fact that it's a sister religion to Christianity and both stem from Judaism. All three religions still acknowledge the Abrahamic God so there's elements of truth in all.

Hermes019:

Besides Nnenna,in ur own words u said God's features can not include "omnibenovolence" and "love",that seems a bit contrary to the way Yahweh is described,the bible even says that God is love!
What sayeth thou ?

I never dismissed Omnibenevolence and Love as not being qualities of God. I simply stated that these attributes require an object or a comparison and do not preclude the creation of the universe.

Ihedinobi3:

I see. I almost commented because I thought that it might be coming from a flawed Christian perspective but I figured that I was assuming too much, so I refrained.

I admire your effort to be gentle and reasonable in your conversations. But it is my opinion that if a Christian wades into the madness that is philosophical debate, they should do their best to understand the Bible first so that they don't shoot themselves in the foot. I encourage you to consider that approach as well, if I may be so bold.

Thank you

Ihedinobi3:
NnennaG6, excuse my importunity. I did not realize that you are a Christian. Was your thread about the existence of God supposed to be a Christian argument? I thought that perhaps you were making an argument for a new or strange mix of deism and theism.

Yes, it was

TheArranger:

This wasn't very compelling at all on the issue of why the women went, whether there were two men or one... Luke and John contradict each other on Mary Magdalene and the issue of Jesus's body. They're assuming why the authors left parts out, with no basis that I see— they've got limited ink? Really? They wrote this over the span of years and it's the most important text they had. What's one more year if it got a better, fuller narrative? And there's no evidence that the authors knew they were leaving bits out. I don't find this to be a great answer.

I find it to be a great answer, but I could have easily done the same, if I wanted to put in the time to do so. The Easter challenge does not demand that someone put together an exhaustive narrative, it only asks that they be coherently harmonized with some degree of educated guesses. This article clearly and successfully completes the Easter challenge

TheArranger:
Prove that. We don't know who the authors were, so where are you getting that?

They are corroborating first century narratives of Jesus’s life. They are written as contemporary accounts and we have manuscript copies from the first century. By definition, they’re contemporary.

TheArranger:
As far as I'm aware, no source but the Bible says that the Jews wanted Jesus dead. Got anything there?

Multiple contemporary accounts are good enough for me, and any historian.

TheArranger:
I don't see how this in any way answers my point. Jesus was Jewish. The earliest parts of the New Testament are decades after when he died. So where are you getting that Christianity was widespread by the 30s CE?

Christ had many followers, such that he was met with great excitement upon entering Jerusalem for the sabbath, and so much that the Jews sought to kill him. His followers were Christians.

TheArranger:
Islam had that too.

Islam grew by conquest, Christianity grew in spite of conquest. That’s the point. Any religion can grow, but no religions grow based on an historical claim which it’s followers adhere to in spite of persecution, except Christianity.

TheArranger:

My point that was just because people are persecuted and stay firm doesn't mean that they're correct.

I agree. I explained this above.

TheArranger:
I've seen this argument for Muhammad, and Islam is a rapidly growing religion in terms of population.

But it bears repeating, Islam grew by conquest. Christianity grew because people were willing to die in defense of the claim that Christ actually resurrected from the dead.

TheArranger:

Yes, they do
https://ffrf.org/legacy/books/lfif/?t=stone

No, they don't
http://www.tektonics.org/qt/rezrvw.php

TheArranger:
These people were decades after Jesus.

And alive during the lifetime of Jesus and/or those who knew him personally and were subjects of the gospel narratives. In other words, contemporary.

TheArranger:
No, it wasn't. The 30s CE did not have widespread Christianity. Where is your source on that?

It was widespread enough that the Jews conspired to kill Christ. And you wouldn’t argue that it grew rapidly over the next few decades despite it being illegal to believe and propagate Christianity, would you?

TheArranger:
This is better evidence for Judaism than Christianity, considering they've been persecuted for longer, and even by Christians.

Judaism is mostly true, except one important detail, so I’m with you here. But keep in mind that I’m using that fact as evidence for a particular historical claim, not a religion in general. The point is that millions of people came to believe a remarkable historical claim in a very short time, despite extreme persecution for the very belief in that claim.

TheArranger:
Also, the followers of David Koresh faced hostility too, because they were certain that he was right. I don't find this to be compelling at all.

How much has Branch Davidianism grown since the early 90s? You can’t see how this bolsters my position? You’re making my arguments for me. Persecution against Branch Davidians resulted in exactly what we would expect from a religion based on false claims, and what would have happened to Christianity if Christ hadn’t resurrected. But that kind of persecution did not slow down the growth of Christianity, as it did with the Branch Davidians.

TheArranger:

The Gospels contradict one another, though,

No they don’t.

TheArranger:
and they're all decades after any crucifixion, written by people who weren't eyewitnesses,

Right, written by contemporaries

TheArranger:
And it wasn't widely accepted for quite some time.

It was widely accepted during the lifetimes of those who were alive when Christ was, in other words, contemporaries.

TheArranger:
That's an argument ad populum.

It would be an argument ad populum if I were trying to argue that Christianity is true because a lot of people believe so, but I’m obviously not arguing that because that would be silly and logically fallacious. I’m using the fact that so many people believed it despite violent hostility to lend credence to the notion that the gospels were reliable and accurate in that time. I don’t mean to say that it’s true because people believed, but rather that we would expect people to believe in such a hostile environment only if they could be reasonably certain that it’s true. But this fact only bolsters the case and is actually unnecessary as evidence for Christianity.

BluntBoy:


Anyway, best of luck.

Lol. Thanks

TheArranger:

Can I ask what evidence?

The multiply attested, corroborated, contemporary accounts of Christ known as the gospels, which exist with no contradictory contemporary accounts. Also the wide acceptance of Christ’s divinity in Judea and the Roman Empire despite the violent hostility toward Christians in that time and place.

BluntBoy:


Nnenna, you are always putting yourself in a difficult position.

These atheists are very knowledgeable in the matters of the scriptures. The only thing they lack is faith. The only way you can convince them is to show them Christ, not tell them.

Its hard for a christian to convert an atheist and vice versa. But sometimes i just love to challenge their ideas

TheArranger:

Brilliant. How do you know Christianity is true?

Because all the evidence indicates that it is.

MhizAngel99:
Why should I believe in Christianity?

Because it’s true.

I've been trying to find an answer to this question but most of the stuff I found is more statistical rather than providing answers as in the studies of more people not getting married and such.

I've only been in a couple of relationships and now that I'm close to thirty I'm not at all interested in meeting someone for a long term or short term relationship. I have an average life with friends, family, my hobbies and work so a lot of people ask "what about dating" or "go try dating apps". I've done online dating and speed dating but nothing clicks even if I do end up on a date or two with someone. Its just one of those things that never seem to cross my mind on an average day. Sometimes it feels like if I don't try and find someone I'm left out or people say that you'll find someone because its an important part of being an adult. I know all that but there is something about dating and finding romance that feeling like a horrible mistake or the person feels more like an intruder rather than someone who I want in my life. I don't really want romantic dinners or holding hands in public. If anything I'd rather my partner treat me like a best friend. I don't even know if I want to be a wife. I mean I'm already looking into buying a house in the next couple of years and a year ago my coworker said to me "What about the husband and kids, you should wait until that happens first." None of that crossed my mind and its still not a concern. Even my mom said she felt sorry for me for feeling this way and that kind of hurt as it made me feel abnormal.

So I want to know, is this a normal thing. Is it normal that some people just not want to date and want to be independent or at least not want a husband or wife? I know that asexuality exists but I'm not sure if I fall into that category. I'm also not sure if this is the right place to ask but I figured maybe people here know what I'm asking about or know people who are similar.

XxSabrinaxX:

We don't know. That's no reason to go right to "god did it".

It might be, if enough of the constants allow matter to form. It now becomes a question of "Are the finely-tuned constants of the universe more probable under atheism or theism?" I think the answer to that is obvious. If you think it's likely under atheism, then by all means go ahead and prove it so.

XxSabrinaxX:
And nothing in theoretical physics includes a necessary diety, or fine tuner.

I don't think you've understood what I was trying to say.

XxSabrinaxX:
The conditions of the universe...which we don't fully know...have allowed animate matter to emerge. And that's all we can say. There is no justification for assigning great significance or teleological "intent" to it.

Then is there also no justification for assuming God isn't behind it? I'm confused as to what your position is to the fine-tuning argument. Are you agnostic? Or atheist?

The argument definitely still holds up. We find ourselves in an ordered universe that has permitted life to come about. Whether we have the argument backwards or forwards or upside down, doesn't matter. It demands an explanation.

I would also like to hear your positive argument for why you believe we are not special. How would you go about proving something like this?

XxSabrinaxX:
Omnipotence is by definition unlimited and unrestricted. Unless you have another definition? Do you believe God can make 2+2=5?

Absolutely I do. It's very common for atheists to misunderstand this. God can't make 2+2=5.
First, the question is not a legitimate omnipotence question. A legitimate omnipotence question would be: "Can God make a stone so heavy that he can not carry it ?"
Second, your question already violates your definition, so I think you have the wrong definition.

BluntBoy:


I am a believer in Christ but honestly, I find your arguments for the existence of God rather excruciatingly weak.

Our belief in God is purely subjective (faith-based), and that is exactly how God wants it. Our experiences of God are purely personal and that underlines our limited understanding of Him.

The death of our Lord was to make proper our relationship with God but religion is what has destroyed the essence of that relationship and made believers a laughing stock rather than people worthy of emulation to the people of the world (atheists, and other nonbelievers).

I don't see any contradictions. The statement I bolded in your quote is a recurring fact that I've been trying to establish through all my posts in this thread. How no one is seeing this is beyond me