Is Bruce Metzgers work good for new testament reliability? Why does Bart revere him then? Been planning on checking out his work cause I love new testament reliability stuff.

are the channels like myth vision and rationality rules, paulagia any credible for their claims against apologists being manuplilating and misleading? Or are these atheist channels misleading when they speak? A good amount of evidence is needed for an answer for above 2 questions But the title is the most important question, please state what your unshakable foundation is my brothers, pray for me

I asked a similar question about apocalyptic books being added to the bible

is there a case to be made that John wrote revelation? I’ve heard that the Greek style of writing is way different and that the early church had issues with its authenticity. But there could’ve been scribes and whatnot for the other John works. So I’m at a loss whether it is or not.

Hi Guys,

I'm interested in understanding how the earliest Christians convinced so many Jews and Romans that the resurrection was a true event, if both groups were far more inclined to believe it was fake?

Did Judea see a rapid growth of Christians first?

If a bunch of people claimed that Jesus rose from the dead, with no proof, surely the truth would be falsifiable by the population of Jerusalem? I mean, the vast majority were either Jews who considered Jesus a blasphemer, or Romans who thought he was delusional, very few believed and wanted him to come back to life. So when he died, wouldn't the verbal truth have been established in society that he never rose from the dead, which others could have used to falsify the religion?

If Christianity proliferated in Judea following Jesus' death,

I'm trying to figure out how the 0.1% managed to convince such a significant portion of Jews and Romans (who had plenty of incentive to dismiss the resurrection as fake) that the resurrection occurred - with no evidence, and the verbal truth in society established against them

The majority of this population didn't want to believe the resurrection happened, everyone around them would've claimed it didn't happen and there is no evidence to support that it happened. How did so many people believe?

(this is under the assumption that there were not 500 eyewitness testimonies, for arguments sake to understand the atheist perspective)

On a scale of 1-4, how confident are you that there is no God?

By “God,” I mean the perfect being of Christianity.

1. Not confident, but there is enough evidence against God to justify my unbelief.

2. Somewhat confident; there is enough evidence to justify my unbelief and to make theists seriously consider giving up belief in God, too.

3. Very confident; there is enough evidence such that everyone lacks justification for belief in God.

4. Extremely confident; near certainty; there is enough evidence such that it is irrational to hold belief in God.

Now there is evidence. Christians, atheists, and other critics all see the same data/evidence, however Christians offer an explanation but atheists, and other critics usually do not. Does the atheist actually have a well-thought-out explanation for the world as we know it, or is their view is mainly complaints about Christianity/religion?

If the atheist answers honestly, you now have a starting point to question them. Too often, the theist/Christian is put on the defensive. However, this helps atheists to see they are making some kind of claim, and a burden of proof rests upon them to show why others should agree with their interpretation of the evidence.

Others posts on atheism

The atheist's burden of proof

Atheism is a non-reasoned position/view

Hey guys,

Just recently started my apologetics research and was having trouble figuring out which pieces of evidence/arguments are actually worthwhile looking into and are the least biased

Please leave your favourite defenses for Christianity

Title, a lot of people say that we don't know if Matthew Mark Luke and John actually wrote the gospels, so who did then? whats your responses?

I asked this question on a few subs I’m just highly into refuting this belief right now and reading up on it. Because the belief terrifies me.

I believe that Jesus was the perfect sacrifice and he and rose from the dead. I am a believer.

What do you guys make of the cases of recalling “past lives”? I think the past life hypnosis is definitely them giving you these thoughts, but what about little kids who recall certain events of these “past lives”? What are your thoughts? Has anyone dove into this topic in depth?

I found it from a moderator from r/AcademicBiblical, and I thought it was an interesting take. I would like to see your opinions.

https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/2017/12/11/on-the-plausibility-and-purpose-of-pauls-sea-voyage-in-acts-27/

He’s some new atheist author who has published a book claiming that Jesus and Paul weren’t even real people. He’s been gaining traction on TikTok and YouTube I think.

I personally have no desire to murder anyone or steal from them. I also think it’s perfectly natural for people to have empathy and love other people.

Conversely, I think one of man’s greatest desires is to live forever, and to have meaning and purpose assigned to their life.

I don’t see how the Bible conflicts with man’s desires unless you’re an outlier who wants to hate and do harm to people and doesn’t find the idea of an afterlife in paradise appealing.

The Christian God is traditionally conveyed as being all knowing, all powerful, and all good; Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnibenevolent.  

This is an attempt to produce a valid, deductive, REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM argument exploring the “problem of evil” 

For the sake of argument, grant the following propositions. (1-9) 

1. God exists. 

2. God is Omnipotent   

3. God is Omniscient  

4. God is Omnibenevolent  

5. From Premise 2, God has the power to cause any logically possible state of affairs obtain. 

6. From Premise 3, God has knowledge of all possible states of affairs. 

7. From Premise 4, God desires to eliminate evil whenever possible.  

8. God would cause any state of affairs to obtain should he desire to (supposing its logical possibility). 

9. Evil (states of affairs) exist.  

:/ Therefore, a state of affairs in which there is no evil is not logically possible.  

However, both Heaven and the Garden of Eden (pre-apple) are states of affairs created by God in which there was no evil. 

If this reductio argument is valid, it entails rejection of one or more of the premises. Allow us to explore the possibilities. I will not go into a rejection of premise 1 for the sake of conciseness. 

OMNIPOTENCE 

Either God is not omnipotent to prevent evil (reject premise 2)  

or  

God’s Omnipotence is such that he can make any state of affairs obtain, even logically impossible ones. (revise premise 5) 

This seems to take us to the realm of the lazy “Can God create a rock that he cannot lift?” problem, which I find to uncharitable and deserving of little attention.  

OMNISCIENCE 

Either God is not Omniscient (reject premise 3)  

Or 

God’s Omniscience is such that he does not have knowledge of (at least some) evil states of affairs. (revise premise 6) 

This revision seems to leave us with a definition of omniscience that is contradictory. Any being that lacks any knowledge could be said to not be omniscient. 

OMNIBENEVOLENCE 

Either God is not Omnibenevolent (reject premise 4)   

Or 

God’s Omnibenevolence is such that he does not desire to eliminate evil whenever possible. (revise premise 7) 

I find this last revision very interesting and worthy of analysis. 

I find the most common defense to be; that allowing (the possibility of) evil states of affairs obtaining is necessary to allow free will to exist. (The Greater Good) 

It follows from this reasoning that, since God is both omnipotent and unable to overcome this obstacle, it must not be logically possible for free will to exist without (the possibility of) evil.  

This reasoning leads to the conclusion that free will cannot exist in Heaven, as it is a state of affairs lacking evil.  

RESTRAINT  

One might argue that, just because God 1) has the power to and 2) has the desire to cause a certain state of affairs to obtain does not mean he actually would do so. (rejection of premise 8).  

As far as I understand, a tri-omni God could not retain his benevolence without preventing evil, except for the sake of a greater good. This brings us back to revision of premise 6.  

EVIL 

Some argue that “evil does not exist” (denial of premise 9), however I have yet to find an explanation of this reasoning that does not feel like a cop-out.  

To me, this comes off as semantic swoonery and a bad attempt at dodging the question. We are discussing the concept of suffering in the world. As far as I have been convinced, “denying the existence of evil” does not get you out of explaining the coexistence of suffering with a tri-omni God. 

FINAL THOUGHTS 

Overall I find the revision of premise 6 (detailed in the omnibenevolence section) is the most thought provoking.  

I would love to hear your thoughts on my argument and its validity. 

I am also interested in your reaction to my potential revised premises. Was I charitable in my interpretation?  

Please call me out on any mistakes and/or contradictions in my reasoning.  

Lastly, thank you for your time and have a great day.  

What would be the actual explanation for why God made humans with a will to sin? Free will?

I mean his life, crucifixion and ressurection and him claiming to be God...

that the gospels are truly about Jesus' life and he was crucified under Pontius Pilate

and in Book of Acts, how do we know it is historically accurate and that apostles indeed met risen Jesus, how did author of Acts knew who met risen Jesus etc. or you can provide Evidence for Ressurection...

Jesus says in Matthew 5:17-19

“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished"

What does Jesus mean and how do you support your interpretation?

The title, in the sense of why aren’t you Buddhist apologist or Jewish apologists or Muslim apologists or [insert religion] apologists?

I’ve always found apologetics interesting to study ( past ~4 years ), learning new concepts and whatnot. Although I didn’t place my confidence in him because of “knowledge” in the first place.

But I feel like obsessing over apologetics is hindering my relationship with Jesus. It’s weird, because I believe God is reasonable to believe in so I’ve started to look for evidence to get “closer” but I find myself in the same spot.

I’m assuming I gotta stop thinking so much and focus on the relationship aspect more again.

Anyone had experience like this? Or any thoughts in general would be appreciated..

How ironic. I get banned from the hebrew language subreddit for quoting Isaiah 53 and Psalm 72. Jesus being the Messiah is strongly present in the Hebrew scriptures. So much so that Jews suppress this and try to ignore what he fulfilled. What other verses do you all like that discuss the Messiah?

“Give the king Your judgments, O God, And Your righteousness to the king’s son. May he judge Your people with righteousness And Your afflicted with justice. Let the mountains bring peace to the people, And the hills, in righteousness. May he vindicate the afflicted of the people, Save the children of the needy And crush the oppressor.” ‭‭Psalms‬ ‭72‬:‭1‬-‭4‬ ‭

“Surely I am more stupid than any man, And I do not have the understanding of a man. Neither have I learned wisdom, Nor do I have the knowledge of the Holy One. Who has ascended into heaven and descended? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has wrapped the waters in His garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name or His son’s name? Surely you know!” ‭‭Proverbs‬ ‭30‬:‭2‬-‭4‬

https://www.lyingforjesus.org/Bible-Contradictions/

Tradition holds that the Pentateuch (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy) was authored by Moses, and Jesus seems to refer to part of scripture as things Moses wrote (John 5:46-47).

Are there any reasonably respectable scholars who would argue that the Pentateuch goes back to Moses (Or at least his time period) in some way? Or, perhaps more realistically, that it could plausibly go back to Moses?

Not necessarily that he sat down to write to personally write all five books (Afaik books were typically a more collaborative effort back then), or even that the entire thing goes back to him, but that there is plausibly something to the association between Moses and parts of scripture.

Also, for anyone who doesn't believe the Pentateuch goes back to Moses in any meaningful way, how are we to interpret Jesus' reference to Moses writing of him?

Edit: I realize that "Serious" might seem a bit snobbish and a bit imprecise. I really just mean someone who is reasonably grounded in the historical data can compete with the counter-arguments you'll hear from mainstream/critical academic scholars. Really just anyone you personally find persuasive.

I mean doesn't God love everyone and willing to give chances to everyone? What's with all this killing?

What tittle says

are there good sources for reliability or unreliability of Apocalypse of Peter and or Revelation?

I think Apocalypse of Peter was canon at some time or at least like pretty decently regarded?

Obviously Revelation is canon but it is definitely controversial. I know some don’t believe John the apostle wrote it. I’ve heard people say that the original Greek has diff vocab between John’s gospel and Revelation. Don’t know how strong that argument is.

Also it does not mean it isn’t divinely inspired if it was someone else of course.

Hello everyone I am a skeptic of Christianity and I will be entirely honest I think that the resurrection argument is a pretty solid case however I have other intellectual questions about Christianity that just don't make sense to me. I will also be honest that I am biased in this because I do have other dogs in this fight that aren't intellectual such as my pornography addiction FYI don't look at my page. Saying that here's something that drove me away from Christianity and was probably one of the main reasons why I left. The argument for free will just steps me and yes I know there are those scriptures that argue for and against free will and at one point I thought I had it solved with William Lane Craig's version of Free Will in molinism however one thing just stuck out to me that I couldn't shake. I would see skeptics ask this question over and over and it didn't seem like the Christian apologists even William Lane Craig would address it properly.

The question is if God created us then how can we have free will and yes he can give us a will to choose but the Christian in this situation would say something like well just because God knows everything that we're going to do doesn't mean that he influenced us in doing it but here's the issue I can understand that if God was an earthly parent who just had really good intuition or even the ability to see the future but in that scenario you don't get to genetically design your baby to have certain qualities when you have marital relations with your wife it's a roll of the dice not only in personality but in genetics and ability and all kinds of other factors. And so when we're talking about our soul that God creates if he creates our soul it's really hard for me to condemn people who sin when God made them that way. And I mean even if you're one of those people who is not a Christian in the beginning and then later in life gives your life to God I could see somebody making the argument that you were programmed that way in your soul to do that. But seeing all this out loud maybe the soul could be pliable because it's non-physical I don't know what do you guys think?

Hello, I'm someone on a journey to explore the truth wherever it may lead. Right now I have more of a secular mindset towards religion but I don't nexecessarily have any issues with it.

I have been trying to expose myself to all kinds of thought and philosophical theory in the pursuit of the trut and I'm at point where I would benefit from purposeful discourse with someone who has different views.

If you're willing to have a discussion with me on these topics I would really appreciate it. Feel free to DM me or reach out to discuss further your reasoning or your beliefs, and maybe we could have a fruitful discussion on the nuances of various religious beliefs.

are there good sources (besides acts) for various apostle’s martyrdom? I know Josephus writes about James brother of Jesus the so called Christ. That is a great source.

Another thing I don’t understand is that even if they were immaterial, how this would point the existence of a god. At the most, this would only be a defeater for materialism. But I guess my main contention is that I don’t see how they are immaterial in the first place. The way I see it, the laws of logic are concepts - they’re our descriptions of how the universe tends to behave. They exist solely in our minds. The behaviors are going to be present where we observe them or not, but the laws we have developed to describe them aren’t.

I wonder if people in East, West, and South Africa might interpret the Bible differently from Western perspectives, based on our backgrounds. Though, I find this challenge as the body of Christ, we should ideally perceive the Truth as singular.

Take, for example, Zephaniah 3:10 and the following verses. When I read these as an African, I see the prophecy as relating to people I am familiar with. Similarly, in Isaiah 18, I see references to African nations. However, many commentaries seem to underplay Africa's role in the Bible, which baffles me. They don’t acknowledge that African peoples are worthy of being among the “strong nations” mentioned in Isaiah 18.

African theological scholarship grows stronger through African universities and a Nigerian will see the bible differently from an English man in some cases. I find it difficult to adopt Western interpretations of the Word, given the biases (racism, colonialism) that have historically impacted perspectives on African people.

There are African scholars who interpret these verses differently from their Western counterparts, which makes me wonder how unity in the Church will look in the future if such interpretive differences remain. Is it that we will have a strictly African view of the bible versus the current Western view?

Thoughts Im having about the byzantine text type, they sound harsh sorry: How could the writers of the Byzantine text type pure heartedly add text to the bible? To my understanding there are almost none Byzantine text type new testamental texts before the year 300 AD. The earliest bible texts we have are Alexandrian text type, which is more minimalistic than Byzantine. So why did the writers of Byzantine or rather Editors add text even though it wasnt inspired like the original text anymore? Wouldnt God have Protected the original original text??

If you think byzantine was written BEFORE alexandrian, even though the evidence seems to suggest a different situation, please explain why.

Is there any explanation how these two types developed and why the byzantine text could be Legitimate?

PS: just potentially speaking - maybe I can lead my thoughts to this conclusion - maybe its not a big Deal that byzantine text type has some additions bc we probably know which verses & can probably still reconstruct the original text which is probably alexandrian. The original meaning of the text is not changed and the Editors probably had no malicious Intent. IF this is the case, does anybody know HOW different the two text types really are? Like is it completely different, is every chapter extremely different or are there just some occassionally added verses?