I was thinking in my room one day and idk if I thought this myself or if it was just a revelation He gave me out of random, but I’m gonna give all glory to Him of course. I was thinking of when people say: “if God has no gender(besides Jesus) then why is He identified as a man” and I had a realization and remembered that He is the Beginning and the End. Meaning: since God is present outside of time itself and is both the Beginning and the End and He knows everything that will happen and has happened then He would see/know that males were the authority over the female. God “taught” God as we see in Isaiah 40:13-14 saying: “Who has directed the Spirit of the Lord, Or as His counselor has taught Him? With whom did He take counsel, and who instructed Him, And taught Him in the path of justice? Who taught Him knowledge, And showed Him the way of understanding?” A bit confusing, but basically because God knows/knew everything even before His creation of the universe.

You often hear that they did have bias in favor of resurrection from skeptics who are attempting to weaken their testimony in favor of the resurrection. I think this is wrong. Their bias actually was in the opposite direction, which makes their testimony still more compelling.

If "bias" means "predisposition to believe that something is true," where do we see this in the disciples?

For example, nobody would say that Saul had a predisposition to believe in the resurrection because, before he believed in the resurrection, he hated Christ as a heretic. All of his bias ran in the other direction. He believed in spite of his bias.

Now for the disciples. Doesn't literally all of the evidence show that they had no predisposition to believe that he came back from the dead?

None of them really seemed to understand what he meant when he told them plainly that he would rise from the dead.

And none of them believed he would come back from the dead until he actually appeared them in person. On the contrary, all the male disciples were cowering in fear and despair after his death because they did not believe he would come back from the dead. Even the women, who were brave enough to visit the tomb, were not going there to greet the risen Lord. They thought he was dead. And even when the found the empty tomb, their first thought was that somebody had stolen the body.

So, like Paul, their bias was in the other direction. They did not hate Christ, but despair and fear predisposed them not to believe in the resurrection. Like Paul, only Christ's appearance changed their minds.

And if you don't accept the resurrection as the explanation for the change, you still have to posit some mechanism to explain how they all became believers in the face of such strong bias against belief in the resurrection.

Hi all,

I had a thought on why there is really only one emergent answer to the fine-tuning of the universe, and I wanted to share it with you guys and get your thoughts on it. The usual fine-tuning argument begins with: "if the gravitational constant were even slightly off (like 10^-40 different), stars, and life wouldn’t exist".

This raises the question: "Why does our universe seem precisely tuned (like a watch) to allow for observers like us?"

Some rationalists and theists typically posit:

Option 1. Intelligent Design – The universe was designed by a Creator.

However, atheists and hard-naturalists typically counter with:

Option 2. Infinite Randomness with Anthropic Bias – We exist in one of countless universes, where universal constants and laws are scrambled across configurations, and ours happens to support life through cosmic survivorship bias.

Option 3. Brute Fact – The universe simply exists without explanation.

Why Rationalists Should Reject Option 3:

A brute fact assertion has no explanatory power when there are plausible alternatives with explanatory power. For example, if we were hiking and found a strange red plant not native to the area, we could say:

1. Someone put it there
2. It’s seeds travelled here naturally and got lucky
3. It’s just always been there forever, it’s a brute fact.

3 defies our empirical experience and thus is not preferred when options with more explanatory power are available.

Thus a brute fact explanation should be unsatisfying for rationalists and empiricists alike, as it doesn’t address why this universe exists or why it supports life. It halts all further inquiry, and is just as dogmatic as saying, "the only thing that could exist is a fully assembled car or tree", or perhaps, "because I am certain God decided it". Arguably Occam's Razor prefers option 1 or 2.

Why Naturalist/Rationalists Pick Option 2 (but should also assume a creator):

Option 2, infinite randomness, initially seems plausible. It aligns with natural processes like evolution and allows for observer bias. But there’s a hidden wager here: accepting this requires assuming that no “God-like” designer can emerge in infinite time and possibility. This is a very bad wager because if infinite potentiality allows for everything (assumed in option 2), it must also permit the emergence of entities capable of structuring or influencing reality. Denying this means resorting to circular reasoning or brute facts all over again (ex. there is an arbitrary meta-constraint across random iterations).

Intelligent Design as an Emergent Conclusion:

Here’s the kicker: intelligent design doesn’t have to conflict with randomness. If infinite configurations are possible, structured, purposeful phenomena (like a Creator) can emerge as a natural consequence of that randomness. In fact, infinite time and potentiality almost guarantee a maximally powerful entity capable of shaping reality. Significantly, the environment actually "naturally selects" for order enforcing entities. Ostensibly, entities that cannot delay or order chaos "die", and ones that can "live". Thus, across infinite time, we should expect a maximal ordinator of reality, or at least one transcendent in our context.

This doesn’t prove that God certainly exists, but it does highlight that dismissing the idea outright is less rational than many think. It's a huge wager, and the odds are very much against you. After all, if randomness allows everything, why not an order-enforcing, transcendent Creator?

Why This Matters:

This doesn’t aim to “prove” God but shows that intelligent design is the singular emergent rational and plausible explanation for the universe’s fine-tuning (probabilistically). It means whether we approach this from science or philosophy, the idea of a Creator isn’t just wishful thinking—it’s a natural conclusion of taking the full implications of infinite potentiality seriously.

Objections

But This “God” is Created, Not Eternal:

It is true that a created (or perhaps a randomly generated) “God” is not what Abrahamic theology posits. However, the thought experiment’s goal is to walk the accepted assumptions of a naturalist to their logical conclusion. There is no use discussing whether God is eternal or created (perhaps generated), if one does not first consider the premise of God’s existence. Furthermore, even if God is generated or eternal, we would have no way of telling the difference.

More significantly, across infinite potentiality, there is possibly a parameter that allows retro-casual influence. If there is a parameter that allows retro-casual influence, then there is a maximal retro-casual influencer. If there is a maximal retro-casual influencer, then it can also make itself the first and only configuration there has ever been. Thus, this entity would become eternal.

For Fine-Tuning to be Entertained, You Must Demonstrate Constants Could Have Been Different:

This objection seems to assume reality is a brute fact, and then demand proof otherwise. It is true that “math” is a construct used by humans to quantize and predict reality, and predicting that something might have been something else is not inherently “proof” it could have actually been. However, this objection is not consistent with rational effort to explain the world. For example, suppose we opened a room and found 12 eggs in it. We can count the eggs, and validate there is only a constant 12. The next question is, how did the eggs get here, and why are there 12? We could say:

1. Someone put them in here
2. A bird laid them here
3. They’ve just always been here

However, saying, “I refuse to decide until you can prove there could have been 13” doesn’t make sense. It is actually the burden of the person who makes this particular rebuttal to demonstrate that explaining reality deserves special treatment on this problem, and explain why a decision can’t be made.

If Infinitely Many God-like Entities Can Exist, You Must Prove Your God Couldn’t Be Different:

This objection seems to accept the possibility of intelligent design, but points out that of infinite configuration, there could be infinitely many God-like entities far different than the Abrahamic one.

Our empirical experience confirms that there is an optimum configuration for every environment or parameter. A bicycle is far more efficient at producing locomotion for the same amount of energy than a human walking. A rat outcompetes a tiger in New York.

Across random infinite potentiality and time, there is also an optimum configuration. The environment selects for a maximal optimum “randomness controller”. Beings that cannot control randomness as well as other beings are outcompeted across time and influence. Beings that can effect retro-casual influence outcompete those who can’t. Across infinite time and potentiality, the environment demands that a singular maximal retro-casual randomness-controller emerges. For all intents and purposes, this is very much like the Abrahamic God.

Are they similar?

Hey, I know I'm a nuisance on this sub, but please bear with me.. I'm a severe ocd sufferer ;-;.

But what do you say to the people who say Jesus was an avatar of a god/devotee from like hinduism?

You see because I'm in India, and I wanna help my friend a little bit, so I wanted to learn about his reason for his faith. But this came up.. Now I know the reason why they think this is because that's their spiritual lense.. they have 330 million gods and decided to unify them using this..

My mind is also getting seriously scared cuz.. it always makes up stuff like "You sure you're praying to Jesus? Or someone who is pretending to be Jesus?" So I guess this is also a kind of effort to ease my mind too..

But what on earth do I say against unfalsifiable claims like this?

Dr hillman is a classical Greek expert and he recently went on the Danny jones podcast again and he was making claims about how Jesus was a pedo and drug trafficking the apostles no one has been able to debunk him and he’s gaining a bigger fan base I don’t know what to believe if you can find me a expert in his field it would helpful

There is a subreddit that goes by r/AcademicBiblical which pretends to be a reddit for Biblical scholarship (something helpful for apologetics) except it bans almost every single Christian who goes there to contribute, allowing only posts from secular individuals.

There are dozens of comments and posts that are allowed without any scholarship or Citation as long as they critique Christianity, whereas I (and others) have tried posting well sourced and academic material (all following their supposed requirements) supporting Christianity and it's authenticity and have simply had our content removed.

When I went to dispute this with the moderation staff, the first encounter was great, and the moderators seemed reasonable, but afterwards they seemed to enforce the rules erratically and inconsistently. When I asked for what rule I specifically broke or what I could have done better, they blocked me from posting and messaging the moderators for 28 days. After the time, I asked again, and was met with similar treatment.

It is not scholarly, it is not unbiased, and it is not Biblical. They will have a thousand posts criticizing Christianity but will hardly allow any supporting it. If your interest is apologetics or Biblical scholarship, I suggest avoiding it.

I've realized that.. People will believe whatever they want.. Because everyone has turned religion as subjective.. Some think it's getting peace, some thing it's being with God, some thing it's just self satisfaction in life.. So the whole point of "Religion's ultimate goal" is broken..

Like I read Cold Case Christianity, and Warner talks about how other religions merged Jesus into their worldview.. And so, it makes sense now that people will choose whatever they want based on what they feel is best..

So what is true then?

I guess only looking at the Historical evidence can one say this is true.. For which the Bible has the most accuracy..

Muslims came 600 years after Christ's death, and have a lot of inconsistencies within them..

Buddhism is just about obtaining peace by cutting off sensations and desires and suffering..

Hinduism is multiple religions mashed into one and saying "Choose whatever you want"

New age is just... weird lol..

So I guess.. There is no real definition of religion..

But there is a definition of Truth.

Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

Because not only did He show Himself to us, and prove that He is who He says He is, but He said to us "I am the way, and the truth and the life, no one can get to the father except through Me".. Which means, nothing else matters. And Christ Himself never used religion as a case for Himself.. He preached only HIMSELF, no other religion or doctorine.. That's why I guess, He can be modified to fit into people's world view, but He Himself doesn't want any religion..

You even look at Jews and see that they expected the Messiah to be a military leader and a powerful dude. But Jesus came along born in a manger of all places.. So Jesus.. didn't fit anyone's description.. so people turned Him into fit whatever world view they had..

I'm not sure if this is a good point to make, but it sound right in my head.. I would love to hear your takes on it, cuz I'm not that.. well versed with this stuff..

Thank you!

Grace be with you all.

In passages like Acts 8:32, the early Christians recognize the Isaiah 53 passage as Messianic, and yet many of the most famous modern Christian apologists like Craig and N.T. Wright claim that the first century Jews had no expectation of a humiliated/suffering Messiah. Why do they say this?

The potential discovery of dark energy being false is my reason for asking.

to create something from nothing,we see many things emerge from something that already exists not nothing cause nothing is the negation of existence if you said tht it possible then why you disagree with people saying the universe began to exist without cause.

I've been asked to put together six interactive sessions (half an hour each) on apologetics for my church's young people (ages 11-16).

I realise apologetics is a broad subject but what does this sub believe to be the essential topics that should be covered in these sessions?

Any suggestions would be appreciated. I'd also welcome input from non-Christians. Thanks.

The Standard Biblical text (King James version) has multiple references to Enoch.

He is clearly established as a historical figure by the following Biblical texts:

Genesis 4:17-18

[17] Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. When he built a city, he called the name of the city after the name of his son, Enoch. [18] To Enoch was born Irad, and Irad fathered Mehujael, and Mehujael fathered Methushael, and Methushael fathered Lamech.

Genesis 5:21-23

[21] When Enoch had lived 65 years, he fathered Methuselah. [22] Enoch walked with God after he fathered Methuselah 300 years and had other sons and daughters. [23] Thus all the days of Enoch were 365 years.

However, the Bible also endorses the story that Enoch was taken on his ascent into the heavens (in which the Book of Enoch describes the various Angels and Demons within the realms). This Biblical textual support is both within the Old and New Testaments:

Genesis 5:24

[24] Enoch walked with God, and he was not, for God took him.

Hebrews 11:5-6

[5] By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death, and he was not found, because God had taken him. Now before he was taken he was commended as having pleased God. [6] And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.

As the author of Hebrews notes, Enoch had faith and was “taken up” to the heavenly realms- this doesn’t discredit the events described in the Book of Enoch, it endorses them as credible.

This conclusion makes the Jude 14-15 verses quoting from 1 Enoch 1:1-9 all the more relevant. At the bare minimum, the Bible supports the view that: Enoch was a special person in God’s eyes and his claim that he ascended into the heavens was accredited as true.

Jude 14-15 states:

It was also about these that Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, “See, the Lord is coming with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all, and to convict everyone of all the deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”

Compare that with 1 Enoch 1:91:

Behold, he comes with the myriads of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all, and to destroy all the wicked, and to convict all flesh for all the wicked deeds that they have done, and the proud and hard words that wicked sinners spoke against him.

In the Book of Jude, which is unquestionably scripture, it is clear the author uses 1 Enoch 1:91 as authoritative.

Logically, would it not then follow that if 1 Enoch was relied upon as a source for the Book of Jude, then at least 1 Enoch should be considered as scripture?

As I walk on my journey of faith, I’m really struggling with the UFO Phenomenon and how it fits within the Biblical framework. Ezekiel 1 is the most often cited example of a potential UFO/Alien encounter but the Book of Enoch describes fallen angels with even more striking resemblance to Alien encounters.

It leads me to the conclusion that the Book of Enoch provided so much detail pertaining to Angels/Demons actually being Aliens that the early church determined that it would be too much for believers to understand or accept, so they excluded the Book of Enoch entirely.

I just cant understand how the Book of Jude could be scripture but it uses the Book of Enoch - which is considered to not be scripture.

If anyone has any insights on this - particularly as it relates to Aliens, I’d welcome and appreciate your comments as I sort this out in my head.

i think its logically possible that our universe is changing from a state to state first big bang then expanding then big crunch to infinity i dont think that there is a logical problem in that.

i dont see a need for an eternal god while i can have eternal physical universe.

I’m fairly new to apologetics so I need some help with this one. I met this person who tried to tell me the Bible is a game of telephone that since it was written thousands of years ago, but the words might not mean the same as they do now and that it’s a game of telephone that the words might not have the same meaning. What is a good response to this?

What do you say to people who talk about reincarnations and spiritual planes, meditation, "vibrations" is a thing apparently lol? etc..

I know it's bogus and they're making up crap in their mind but.. What do you guys say to it?? Especially when someone says "Oh I remember this, I remember my past life" etc etc..

Is there a list somewhere of archeological (or other "empirically significant") discoveries that add weight and historicity to the accounts of the Bible or such? In my lifetime there seems to be quite a few. I'm wondering if someone is keeping tabs.

Can soneone please help me with this question i've been struggling with this problem.

I presume around here it's not widely accepted that predestination is true for anyone and everyone.

That acknowledged, is it possible that there is a select group among God's creation that he chose for a predestined path before they were born? I mean, I realize He knew beforehand what was going to play out in the same way we do when we've watched a movie repeatedly.

Is it also possible that for a subset of us He had plans to influence affairs in our lives so that we end up in certain places so that we can serve His purpose? And can influence our location, careers, social interactions and other aspects so that we are in the right place to fulfill His plan? Again, not for everyone but for a select group.

Need help understanding a step in Anselm’s argument. Can someone explain why Anselm thinks it’s impossible to just imagine a maximally great being exists because to be maximal, it must be real? I find this hard to wrap my head around since some things about God are still mysteries, so if the ontological argument is sound, then God is just what we could conceive of Him being. As a consequence, you’d need to know that “God’s invisible spirit is shaped like an egg” or “has eight corners” and anyone who doesn’t is thinking of something inconceivable and therefore they, including Anselm, most not be thinking about God, as the real God has to be conceived in an empirical manner. Does Anselm’s argument lead to this? I mean if Anselm thinks existing in reality is greater, I think he’d also consider having no mysteries and being available for everyone to fully inspect and understand to be greater.

So, I wanted to buy his book "Evidence for Historical Jesus: Is Jesus of history the Christ of faith?" and I wanted to verify, is this a great source to know Jesus was divine with good methodology and grounded in known history, or it's merely a book with poor methodology and not grounded in historical facts or with debated claims? I just wanted to know if that book is good for truth of Christianity or I should get a better one. And how is Gary R. Habermas verifying the claims for Deity of Christ, Ressurection etc.

If you’ve read anything on Luke, you probably came across his account of Jesus’ birth given in Chapter 2. According to most scholars, conservative and liberal, Christian and atheist, Luke’s errors are persistent and contradictory, making his account non-historical. Here are the main five points scholars usually make (summarized by E. Schürer):

1. Apart from Luke 2:1 there is no record of an empire-wide census in the time of Augustus.
2. A Roman census would not have required Joseph to travel to Bethlehem.
3. It is unlikely that a Roman census would have been conducted in Palestine during the reign of Herod.
4. Josephus says nothing about a census in Palestine during the reign of Herod.
5. A census held under Quirinius could not have taken place in the reign of Herod, for Quirinius was not governor of Syria during Herod’s lifetime.

While there are a certain number of proposals made by some scholars and apologists,[1] even going so far as claiming that Josephus misdated the census or that there was some other census, none of them seem to be convincing for most. Even though I am a Christian and therefore an apologist for faith, I can’t say I’m convinced by any solution provided so far. So the issue is, like the one with Jesus’ genealogy, persistent and hard (impossible?) to solve. What are your thoughts on all of this? Do you have any suggestions for solving the problem? If not, how do we avoid it in debates with skeptics, who are always ready to bring it up?

Notes

[1] Although they are mostly dismissed as “exegetical acrobatics”, one worth mentioning is David Armitage’s attempted reinterpretation of Luke 2:1–7. Essentially he argues that the mention of a census refers to the childhood of John the Baptist mentioned in 1:80, not the birth narrative of Jesus, which only begins in chapter 2 verse 6. Therefore the census has nothing to do with Jesus’ birth. It appears promising and even convincing, but there is a short, decent critique of it on r/AcademicBiblical linked here. Cf. David J. Armitage, “Detaching the Census: An Alternative Reading of Luke 2:1-7”, Tyndale Bulletin 69 (2018), 75–95

so yeah basically what evidence is there because I hear non Christians say that it is just conjecture?

WITHOUT GOD ALL MORALITY CAN BE REDUCED TO SUBJECTIVE OPINION. LOGIC, AUTONOMY, CONSENT ETC. ALL ARE HINGE ON SUBJECTIVE OPINION OR MAJORITY OPINION:

Any belief about the value of autonomy, consent or kindness or community has no foundation in and of itself the foundation is only ever subjective opinion or majority opinion.

1. If subjective opinion has value then all subjective opinions have equal value. If not then why are some above others? Is that just another subjective opinion? If one person says rape is good (rapist) and another says it's bad what how do you decide which is acceptable if both views are equal? Do you need a tie breaker/majority to decide? PART 2

2. If majority is the source of the true morality then any majority creates anything good: rape, murder, pedophilia, human sacrifice etc. Might makes right. Why does majority create morality? If a single subjective opinion has no value why does many suddenly have value? 0+0=0 how can many 0s equal a non 0? What do we have left? Human autonomy or logic? Evolution? PART 3

3. It seems secular arguements use appeals to objective assumptions such as truth logic, reality, autonomy as given when proceed forward wherever they want to go. If all these are subjective then how can we use them to build up our own subjective opinions if they themselves are still subjective? It seems appeals to logic, reality or autonomy or sometimes even effort (a long "conversation" about ethics people have had throughout history to decide these things) are just relying on majority consensus.

Inconclusion: In this way all secular morality is simply using the culmination of majority consensus opinions throught history to then justify the validity of majority subjective opinions about morality or truth. It is circular and has no foundation other than using itself to justify itself.

In a post for r/theology I made two days ago, I set forth the problem of differences between the genealogy of Jesus in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke and my opinion on solving it. It is undoubtedly one of the most puzzling differences in all the New Testament. Almost all scholars, regardless of being conservative or not, see the issue(s) as insurmountable and explain the genealogies as theological rather than historical.[1] However, during research, I found a new solution that might serve as a plausible alternative to accepting the contradiction. I hope you’ll find what I have to say here interesting. One more thing: I’m nothing close to a professional scholar, so don’t expect much, if anything.

Even though I said in my post that I don’t accept the explanation that Luke provides Mary’s genealogy while Matthew provides Joseph’s, I have since discovered that there may be something to it. I’m going to present a solution advanced by scholar John Nolland in his commentary on Luke.[2] He writes:

The most attractive of the harmonizing solutions is that proposed by Holzmeister [and cf. Nolle]. Holzmeister argues that Mary was an heirless (i.e., had no brothers) whose father Eli, in line with a biblical tradition concerned with the maintenance of the family line in cases where there was no male heir (Ezra 2:61 = Neh 7:63; Num 32:41 cf. 1 Chr 2:21–22, 34–35; Num 27:3–8), on the marriage of his daughter to Joseph, adopted Joseph as his own son. Matthew gives Joseph’s ancestry by birth, Luke that by adoption. (p. 170)

I think there is a certain plausibility to this theory, especially since it lines up nicely, although not entirely (see no. 1 of Objections), with what we know of Mary and her parents from the Church tradition: Mary was the daughter of an older fruitless couple, but the angels appeared to them and promised a child. It also elegantly resolves virtually all problems regarding the differences between genealogies. Moreover, the very early Church tradition is that Joseph had a brother named Cleopas or Clopas. Unfortunately, it does have weaknesses, and they are not so easy to resolve.

Objections

No. 1) Mary’s family and the Church tradition. While it’s most likely that Mary didn’t have a brother, it’s not as clear if she was the only child, since John 19:25 says that Mary had a sister. Also, if it’s true that Luke lists Mary’s genealogy, why has the Church tradition recognized Joachim, not Heli, as Mary’s father?

First, the Greek word adelphē (sister) might be ambiguous, although I’m not 100% sure. The Church tradition on the question of Mary’s sister is not clear. If she is to be identified with Mary of Clopas, she would be Mary’s sister-in-law, for Joseph and Clopas were, according to the tradition, brothers.[3] If she is to be identified with Salome of Zebedee, it’s unlikely that they would be full, blood relatives.[4] The things are even less clear if she is not named. Nevertheless, the point of her not having a brother still stands, so it’s not impossible to understand why Heli would adopt Joseph.

The second point is regarding the name of Mary’s father. While there were proposals that Heli could be a shortening of Joachim since it’s an equivalent of Eliakim, they are mostly not convincing. Since Joachim’s name comes from the Protoevangelium of James, which is a source of the Church tradition, I think we don’t need an apocryphal book and a canonical one to be in agreement: we can chalk up the difference to traditions[5] (maybe the names got mixed up?).

2. There was no adoption in Judaism. This is probably the strongest objection to our proposal.[6] While it’s true that the Old Testament sometimes alludes to something similar to adoption (Genesis 15:2, 48:5; Exodus 2:10; Esther 2:7; 2 Samuel 21:8), Jewish law simply didn’t know the legal procedure of entirely freeing biological parents from their obligations.

Nevertheless, Nolland (see quote above) provides three examples. First, Ezra 2:61 mentions certain “Barzillai, who had married one of the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite and was called by their name”; second, Numbers 32:41 refers to “Jair son of Manasseh” when he was actually the son of Manasseh’s granddaughter (1 Chronicles 2:21–22); and third, 1 Chronicles 2:34–35 mentions a marriage between a slave and a daughter of Sheshan. Do these amount to what is claimed about Joseph and Heli? It’s a bit uneasy for me to decide.

What is the case then? While it’s not possible that Heli adopted (in the strictest lawful sense) Joseph, I suppose we can imagine there was some kind of an informal arrangement (M. Gold) that Joseph would become a non-biological heir of Heli, since he had no sons. However, I understand that this is speculative and can be contested.

3. There is no mention of this in the texts. Not really an objection per se, but a thing to note. That’s an unfortunate thing you are stuck with if you try to follow any of these harmonization attempts. While the texts don’t disprove them, they cannot strictly prove them either.

Conclusion

I tried to present the best alternative to accepting the errors. When we look at all the available data, it’s clear that the problem is present. Some of the difficulties can be resolved, but some are persistent, and necessarily entail speculation. All this to say, I’m not arguing for the truth of either genealogy, I’m just attempting to resolve the differences between them using my limited knowledge. Ultimately, I cannot solve everything, some things are just meant to remain as they are. Call it whatever you will – mystery, difference, contradiction, blunder. As to why I’m trying to solve this puzzle, for the same reason that Church fathers defended their faith.

Lastly, please comment. I want need to know your thoughts on this proposal, especially if you disagree with something presented.

Notes

[1] See my first post linked above for a selected bibliography.

[2] John Nolland, Luke 1:1-9:20, Dallas: Word Books, 1989.

[3] Eusebius, Church History, Book III, Chapter 11, remarks that Hegesippus (c. 110–180) recorded so.

[4] It’s for the simple reason that John and James the Great are never called brothers of Christ.

[5] Nolland, op. cit., 171, remarks that the Protoevangelium contains “an isolated tradition with almost no support in the early centuries of Christian tradition”. However, as the Catholic Encyclopedia notes, “It should be borne in mind, however, that the apocryphal character of these writings, that is to say, their rejection from the canon, and their ungenuineness do not imply that no heed whatever should be taken of some of their assertions; side by side, indeed, with unwarranted and legendary facts, they contain some historical data borrowed from reliable traditions (emphasis mine) or documents; and difficult though it is to distinguish in them the wheat from the tares, it would be unwise and uncritical indiscriminately to reject the whole.”

[6] As Wikipedia rightly points out, “A key difficulty with these explanations, however, is that there is no adoption in Jewish law.” For additional context, see also Rabbi Michael Gold, “Adoption: The Jewish View”, Adoption Quarterly 3 (1999), 3–13.

Has anyone created or found a curated list of common arguments against God, the Bible, the resurrection, etc.. that also has the best response to that objection in a somewhat digested form? Aka something you can use if you get into a discussion with someone and they are willing to wait a sec while you search a single resource with either great keywords or in document links.

I am not great at remembering all the info I know and sure would like a handy online table to access.

Example of what I am hoping for:

Q: Only the Bible talks about Jesus and God so why should I believe it? A. Best digestable answer goes here.

Q. Why should I believe a bible that has been translated so many times and has so many errors. A. Best digestable goes here.

Etc...

TIA

Also, if one doesn't exist, would anyone be interested in partnering?

[Help]

I'll start, John 17:3 is classic

Idk if this is the right place to ask, or should I go to r/philosophy?