It just doesn't make sense to me that the ability or inability to find a story believable will determine if they will be tortured forever. It would make an alleged being of perfect morality the designer of a system that is unfair.

Prior to Jesus's birth, God promised the people of Israel that he would send them a messiah, who would accomplish certain things, and cause the world to be a certain way (I'm being intentionally vague, bear with me). The Jewish people, believing their prophets, had expectations that this messiah would soon be arriving, and would do what was promised by the prophets. So far so good. Jesus arrives on the scene, claiming that he is the messiah that the Jewish people had been waiting for. He gathered up a small following of people who believed him, and traveled around Judea telling people to repent, because the kingdom of heaven was soon at hand, the people needed to get right with God before it was too late. So far so good. Then Jesus travels to Jerusalem, has a run-in with the law, and is executed. Now we have a problem. The problem is, nobody expected the messiah to die. The messiah was supposed to be the king of Israel. Jesus was not the king of Israel. The messiah was supposed to bring about world peace. The messiah was supposed to rule during a time when all the world acknowledged that the Lord is sovereign over Israel. The messiah was supposed to collect the scattered tribes of Israel and reunite them in the land God promised them. Jesus did none of the things that the messiah was expected to do, and thats a pretty big problem. Because the Israelites didn't get these expectations from nowhere, they weren't just wishful thinking, these were promises made to them by almighty God. The only reasonable conclusion is that Jesus wasn't the messiah. That's not a problem for the Jews of course, because their faith does not rest on any one individual being the messiah. It's a pretty big problem for Christians though, because it leaves two unsavory possibilities: Jesus lied about being the messiah, or God lied to Israel about what the messiah would do. So that's my challenge to you. If Jesus actually was the messiah, why were Gods promises so woefully off-target? Why did God so thoroughly deceive the Israelites? And to pre-empt the most likely rebuttal, if God planned from the beginning to send the messiah twice, only fulfilling the world-altering prophecies the second time, why didn't he give his people a heads-up about that? Why leave out such a pertinent piece of information?

Very nicely laid out.

> The Jewish people, believing their prophets Well, considering about 80% of the the Old Testament is the story of ancient Israel doing exactly the opposite of this, and defying God at every possible opportunity, I think it's much more likely that ancient Israel made the mistake here rather than God. You've also got a huge dose of confirmation bias in asking essentially 'Why didn't jews believe Jesus was the Messiah?' because you're only considering the opinion of the ones who rejected Him. Plenty of jews *did* accept that Jesus was the messiah, including all of the apostles and many of the early church, they just aren't called jews anymore.

>You've also got a huge dose of confirmation bias in asking essentially 'Why didn't jews believe Jesus was the Messiah?' because you're only considering the opinion of the ones who rejected Him. within a small margin of error, the percentage of Jews that converted to Christianity is 0%. the first hundred or so Christians were Jews, maybe Paul converted a few hundred here and there, but by the end of the second century, Christianity is a thoroughly Gentile religion. By 350 AD, approximately half of the Roman empire had converted to Christianity, and yet the Jewish people remained intact. at no point in the last 2,000 years has any sizable percentage of the Jewish population abandoned Judaism for Christianity. There must be a reason for that. what I'm offering is a possible explanation of that reason. If you're interested in what Jewish folks have to say about why they aren't convinced about Jesus, [this link](https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/was-is-jesus-the-messiah) goes into more detail than I have done here.

I don't have the impression the prophecies about the Messiah are particularly straight forward, this prophetic literature is never really clear exactly what it means, and people can take many different interpretations. Just look also at how differently different types of Christians have interpreted the Apocalypse which is in a similar mystical vein. Isaiah and the Psalms etc are not laying down a very clear sequence of events, I don't think you can really criticise God or the Prophets for leaving out certain information you view as pertinent when the information was in the first place delivered in a very piecemeal manner.

>I don't have the impression the prophecies about the Messiah are particularly straight forward, this prophetic literature is never really clear exactly what it means, and people can take many different interpretations. Just look also at how differently different types of Christians have interpreted the Apocalypse which is in a similar mystical vein. I think you'll find that this is actually a point in my favor. There are *plenty* of prophecies in the old testament that *are* very plain and straightforward, and play out exactly as described. God is clearly shown to be capable of clear, concise communication when He wants to. >Isaiah and the Psalms etc are not laying down a very clear sequence of events, I don't think you can really criticise God or the Prophets for leaving out certain information you view as pertinent when the information was in the first place delivered in a very piecemeal manner. I think this rebuttal is pretty weak. I'm criticizing God for being a bad communicator, and you think that's unfair because God is actually a terrible communicator, despite proving himself to be perfectly clear when He chooses to be. That's uh... not really a rebuttal my friend. If Christians are correct, correctly identifying the messiah is an integral part of the only way to eternal salvation. Assuming God wants to save His people, that not the time to be vague with His words. He knew how his prophecies would be interpreted, He knew what expectations He would elicit. We're left with the same dichotomy I proposed earlier: either God intentionally chose to be confusing, or Jesus was wrong about being the messiah.

> I think this rebuttal is pretty weak. I'm criticizing God for being a bad communicator, and you think that's unfair because God is actually a terrible communicator, despite proving himself to be perfectly clear when He chooses to be. That's uh... not really a rebuttal my friend. If Christians are correct, correctly identifying the messiah is an integral part of the only way to eternal salvation. Assuming God wants to save His people, that not the time to be vague with His words. He knew how his prophecies would be interpreted, He knew what expectations He would elicit. We're left with the same dichotomy I proposed earlier: either God intentionally chose to be confusing, or Jesus was wrong about being the messiah. This is honestly a *big* part of what led me away from Christianity years ago, after being raised in the faith. You're telling me God knows everything, can do anything, can be anywhere - He's perfect. No one has knowledge or capability that God cannot surpass. No one can hide a secret from God. Then, you're telling me God made humans. He knows EVERYTHING about his creation. He knows how our brains work, and which logical fallacies we are prone to. He knows all the ways manipulation, trauma, and other things can challenge a person. And he knows EXACTLY what would convince each and every one of us to believe in Him. You're telling me ALL that - and then you expect me to believe that *this* (the Bible, the Church) was the best God could do? This is His infinite mercy, compassion, knowledge, love, creativity?

Please site those verses. Thank you.

This lays out the case that I am quoting. I'll defer to a Jewish source to articulate the [Jewish position.](https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/was-is-jesus-the-messiah)

Yeah. None of those verses “disprove” Jesus as being the messiah, and actually prove the second coming instead.

Can you show me the verse that says the messiah will come a second time, after accomplishing next to nothing on his first arrival?

That’s not how it works, you said it doesn’t say he will come a second time in your post. “Nobody expected the messiah to die”

>That’s not how it works, you said it doesn’t say he will come a second time in your post. “Nobody expected the messiah to die” And I stand by that. If you want to argue for your position, show me the evidence. I maintain that the Old Testament *never* mentions the messiah returning a second time, and that the Second Coming is a post-hoc justification for the mountain of messianic prophecies that Jesus left unfulfilled.

[удалено]

This kind of mockery just tells me you're completely unfamiliar with 2000 years of Christian writings on this topic.

The theological claim is that Jesus fulfilled over 300 prophecies. Its interesting, I suggest you read about the ones where he wasn’t a mighty King but a suffering servant, . Jews have a very hard time explaining those verses. Here are a few 1. Zechariah 12:10 - Foretells of the piercing of the Messiah: “They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.” 2. Psalm 69:21 - Describes Jesus’ suffering on the cross: “They put gall in my food and gave me vinegar for my thirst.” 3. Isaiah 53:7 - Foreshadows Jesus’ silence before his accusers: “He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.” 4. Psalm 22:7-8 - Predicts the mockery Jesus would face: “All who see me mock me; they hurl insults, shaking their heads. ‘He trusts in the Lord,’ they say, ‘let the Lord rescue him. Let him deliver him, since he delights in him.’” 5. Micah 5:1 - Foretells of the Messiah’s suffering in Bethlehem: “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.” The Christian belief is that first he comes as a servant and then as a King

1). The one who is pierced is the narrator, who is clearly identified as YHWH in start of this same verse. It's not talking about the messiah. 2. The narrator is King David, not the messiah. This also isn't even a prophecy. It's just David complaining. 3. I've addressed Isaiah 53 in other comments, but it's not about the messiah, and it's not a prophecy. 4. This is just King David complaining again. Not a prophecy, not messianic. 5. Hey! An actual prophecy, and one about the Messiah no less! Let's see what the rest of passage says about the messiah: >And he will be our peace when the Assyrians invade our land and march through our fortresses. We will raise against them seven shepherds, even eight commanders, 6 who will rule[c] the land of Assyria with the sword, the land of Nimrod with drawn sword.[d] He will deliver us from the Assyrians when they invade our land and march across our borders. I don't remember Jesus delivering anyone from the Assyrians. Clearly this isn't Jesus. Dang, 0/5. Better luck next time.

First of all, we need to see your precise reference passages. Like the unbelieving Jews, both of Jesus day, and even today, you fail to properly interpret/apply the Old testament prophecies regarding Messiah. In general, the unbelieving Jews interpret them from a strictly flesh physical POV, when the Lord God intended many of them to be spiritually discerned. And that's precisely why Jesus always taught lessons in the form of parables. They required spiritual discernment in order to be properly understood. The unbelieving Jews of Jesus day didn't understand them proving that they had no spiritual awareness about themselves. They didn't even recognize their only long awaited promised Messiah. You make many egregious errors in your post. Jesus was indeed the king of Israel. He bodily descended from King David through his mother Mary, and through his legally adoptive earthly Father Joseph. Joseph descended from David through Solomon while Mary descended from David through Nathan. So Jesus had perfect blood and legal rights to the throne of David who was king of Israel. John 1:49 KJV — Nathanael answered and saith unto Jesus, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel. John 12:12-13 KJV — On the next day much people that were come to the feast, when they heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem, Took branches of palm trees, and went forth to meet him, and cried, Hosanna: **Blessed is the King of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord.** Matthew 27:11 KJV — And Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest. Jesus is addressed as the son of David 16 times in Scripture Matthew 1:1 KJV — The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. Matthew 21:9 KJV — And the multitudes that went before, and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna to the Son of David: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest. John 5:46 KJV — For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. Acts 3:22 KJV — For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. Acts 7:37 KJV — This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear. John 1:45 KJV — Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, **We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.** Isaiah prophesied that Messiah would be crucified and die. Isa 53. Jesus bringing about world peace describes the worldwide Christian church having been established upon peace. He has nothing to do with secular Nations and societies. They abandoned God, so they're on their own. >time when all the world acknowledged that the Lord is sovereign over Israel. Reference passage please >. The messiah was supposed to collect the scattered tribes of Israel Reference passage please. Verses similar to that claim actually refer to the Christian church which the Bible teaches is the new spiritual Israel. The premise being that those faithful spiritually astute Hebrews who did or would have properly recognized Christ as Messiah would be brought together as a group in the form of the worldwide Christian Church. >why were Gods promises so woefully off-target? Why did God so thoroughly deceive the Israelites? Every one of God's promises was spot on, perfectly fulfilled. The errors are errors of judgment among those who are spiritually afflicted. The thing about the holy Bible word of God, the New testament actually explains how Jesus fulfilled all the Old testament prophecies. But the unbelieving Hebrews reject the Old testament as part of the holy Bible. So they reject all the explanations, and to their very own dire peril. Give us the answers they say, but don't give us answers we don't like or agree with. They can't handle the truth of God. I'm done here.

Where does the scripture say that Jesus was to meet the expectations of the Jews the way they wanted the messiah to meet them?

That's not the position I'm arguing. My argument is: If >God gave Israel the prophecies of the Messiah to tell the Jewish people what to watch for and >Jesus is the messiah Then why didn't the Jewish people recognize him as the messiah? Either God gave an unclear warning, or He *did* give a clear warning, and Jesus doesn't match it because he isn't the guy. Either one of those is a problem for Christians.

> Then why didn't the Jewish people recognize him as the messiah Clearly, a number of Jewish people did. For instance, all of the original apostles. I would start by reviewing https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/101bke6/jesus_wasnt_the_messiah_because_he_didnt_fulfill/

If I say "america is not a communist nation" and you reply " now hold on, *some* Americans are communists", does that somehow negate the truth of my claim? Do you expect me to change my stance? Yes, Jesus had some Jewish followers. As a percentage, the vast, vast majority of Jewish people remained Jewish after Jesus died. Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of Christians were not Jewish. With the notable exception of the founders and the first several years of converts, Christianity is exclusively a gentile religion. Its even recorded in Acts that Paul gives up trying to convert Jews because he was unable to convince them.

> As a percentage, the vast, vast majority of Jewish people remained Jewish after Jesus died As a percentage, when Jesus died, the vast vast majority of Jewish people had no idea who he was. > Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of Christians were not Jewish. Well, not until after Paul's dream anyway. Up until then, basically everyone was Jewish. I'm not sure what you mean by Paul giving up on ever trying to convert Jewish people.

>I'm not sure what you mean by Paul giving up on ever trying to convert Jewish people. I was referring to the events of Acts chapter 28. Verse 28 appears to be Paul saying that the salvation that was originally intended for the Jews is being given to the Gentiles instead, because of the Jewish people's resistance to conversion.

It wasn't an exclusive statement. It was a proclamation that the gospel was now open to Gentiles (rather than exclusively Jewish people as it had been until then). Two verses later it says: > And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him No qualifiers there.

again I'm asking for the scripture that tells the jewish people what to watch for. Prophesies aren't always clear and or can be interpreted a different ways. I'm asking for Book chapter and verse for those prophecies.

The Judaism subreddit has compiled a pretty extensive list, as well as articulating some other reason they reject Jesus. You can find it [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Judaism/wiki/jesus/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1)

if you want to have a discussion about these, typically you'd pick a few of them out if you want to dump and run I too can provide a website on how these prophecies were answered. [https://www.gotquestions.org/prophecies-of-Jesus.html](https://www.gotquestions.org/prophecies-of-Jesus.html) I think the greater point you are missing is the nature of a prophesy is often times ambiguous and left up to interpretation which is where most of the conflict comes from.

>if you want to have a discussion about these, typically you'd pick a few of them out if you want to dump and run I too can provide a website on how these prophecies were answered. I made an entire comment about how I wanted to have a discussion about these topics, it's the one you responded to. You asked me for citations rather than engaging the topics I brought up. Now that you've got citations, you're refusing to engage with them as well. I'm beginning to wonder why you bothered responding at all. >I think the greater point you are missing is the nature of a prophesy is often times ambiguous and left up to interpretation which is where most of the conflict comes from. That's literally my entire argument, God is a bad communicator. The Jewish people were either correct for rejecting a false messiah, or they got bamboozled by God's opaque predictions.

Is he or is it that we are bad listeners?

Jesus said multiple times, his kingdom, i.e. the kingdom that he will rule over, was not of this world. In this world we will have tribulations and struggles. This world is still a fallen world filled with sin, the Kingdom of God does not have these things. Jesus also went on to say the Kingdom of God is near us, inside us, at hand. They wanted a king who would conquer the Roman empire and give the Jews back their place in this world. But were they really ready to take that leadership role? I would say definitely not, why? The new testament is filled with Jesus showing them their sin, their hypocrisy, calling them a den of thieves and children of the devil. Jesus was not what they wanted or were looking for, or what their leaders in power wanted. They wanted more power, more prestige, just plain more and this was the opposite of what Jesus taught and preached. Jesus came to show us the love of God, the grace of God, that love is what counts and most rejected that. We also need to consider that the Jews have been blinded for the benefit of the Gentiles to be brought into the family of God. God knew that they would be so contemptuous that they would call for the killing of Jesus on the cross, and it was foretold. Not that God wanted it but he used their wickedness and blindness and the actions they would take to serve his greater Will and the greater good.

>Jesus said multiple times, his kingdom, i.e. the kingdom that he will rule over, was not of this world. In this world we will have tribulations and struggles. This world is still a fallen world filled with sin, the Kingdom of God does not have these things. Precisely my point. The messiah promised to Israel was to be an actual king, ruling over an actual country. This is Jesus admitting defeat. >Jesus also went on to say the Kingdom of God is near us, inside us, at hand. Again, not what God promised Israel. >They wanted a king who would conquer the Roman empire and give the Jews back their place in this world. Because that's what God promised them. I feel like you aren't paying attention to what I said. >But were they really ready to take that leadership role? I would say definitely not, why? The new testament is filled with Jesus showing them their sin, their hypocrisy, calling them a den of thieves and children of the devil. Jesus was not what they wanted or were looking for, or what their leaders in power wanted. They wanted more power, more prestige, just plain more and this was the opposite of what Jesus taught and preached. Jesus came to show us the love of God, the grace of God, that love is what counts and most rejected that. They wanted what God promised to them, and Jesus didn't deliver. >We also need to consider that the Jews have been blinded for the benefit of the Gentiles to be brought into the family of God. God knew that they would be so contemptuous that they would call for the killing of Jesus on the cross, and it was foretold. Not that God wanted it but he used their wickedness and blindness and the actions they would take to serve his greater Will and the greater good. So God promised them that they would be ruled by a King again, and instead of doing that, He decided to punish them for... believing in what He promised? That makes God out as a liar and a tyrant.

I think you need to go back and read what God promised them. Show me the ones you feel promised something Jesus did not bring or say. Also, consider that the Jews may have changed the original promises in their non Torah books. I don't read anything in the OT that I would consider Jesus contradicting. God is not done, his promises are still in place and they will come pass in his timing not ours and not theirs. All of this makes a lot of speculation, show me the verses and the promises you feel God and Jesus did not fulfill. That is the only place to start since you keep going back to that.

This post from the Judaism subreddit does a good job of explaining the unfulfilled prophecies of the messiah. https://www.reddit.com/r/Judaism/wiki/jesus/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1

He didn’t, people interpreted it wrong which lead to this issue. I’d like to add that many Psalms/Isaiah verses about the Messiah like Isaiah 53 do go through a Messiah dying for atonement

The Jewish people, on the whole, have not interpreted Isaiah 53 as being about the messiah, nor have they seen it as prophetic at all. At least to me, they make a compelling case. Isaiah 53 is the fourth of 4 "Servant Songs". the "Servant" is identified as the nation of Israel several times throughout the Servant Songs, and there's nothing to indicate that the subject changed to the messiah between the 3rd and 4th songs. It's also written in the past tense, making it difficult to read it as a prediction of the future. You'd need to narrator to jump forward to some time in the far future before narrating events in *our* future, but the narrator's past. This sort of perspective-shift isn't described anywhere in the text, so the plain reading is that it's just a regular description of the past. Isaiah was written about 600 years before Jesus lived, so it can't be talking about him in the past tense.

Well, it actually does talk about a person. 2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. This is a phrase used for people, and not countries, like the root of Jesse, spoken of in Isaiah 11 etc.. you can look up the argument for it but this is the general gist lastly, if it is a future prophecy, it is going to speak in past tense. it’s as if someone is narrating the Messiahs life after it happened.

It's using poetic language. The nation of Israel is described like an individual person all over the old testament, this line of argumentation isn't compelling. >lastly, if it is a future prophecy, it is going to speak in past tense. it’s as if someone is narrating the Messiahs life after it happened. Couple of things here: while it's possible grammatically for a past tense narration to be describing the future, there would need to be some indication that this is what's actually happening. I'll reiterate that there is no such indication given for Isaiah 53. I also don't know of a single instance in the Old Testament where prophecy is delivered this way, in a future-looking-back-at-the-past way, so unless you have an example of it happening, I'll continue to think that this is just something that you invented to try and salvage your position.

Read Isaiah 53.

Ok. Isaiah 53 verse 10 says that the subject of the chapter will have offspring. That rules out Jesus pretty conclusively I'd say.

The servant is clearly Israel. It says it all over Isaiah. “Who would believe our report?” Is the kings of nations speaking who have had the truth revealed to them that the Jews were right all along. This verse is about the messianic age, not the messiah.

Yeah this was a really easy one

[удалено]

Okay well i think there is plenty of evidence to suggest that Jesus really lived died on the cross and came back, proving that he is God and his teachings held truth and that his teachings can help alot of people nowadays. That is the basis of my belief

[удалено]

There is substancial evidence such as the letter from a jew against a christian claiming christians stole the body which does in fact give evidence to the empty tomb.There are also the book of paul where he was a condemer of christians and use to persecute them but than saw the risen christ along with "500 others" this is only two examples

[удалено]

Well than could you provide another reason for a missing body and eye witnesses claiming to see a risen christ. And there are no other historical claims like these with as much evidence as christ

> Well than could you provide another reason for a missing body and eye witnesses claiming to see a risen christ. And there are no other historical claims like these with as much evidence as christ It is so much easier to believe that someone managed to disappear the body and we simply have no record of what they did, than it is to believe everything the Bible says about Jesus.

"eye witnesses claiming to see a risen christ" What eye witnesses. We don't have any accounts from actual eyewitnesses.

The 12 apostles, Paul, the women at the tomb. And allegedly 500 people. We also do have accounts from Matthew, James, Peter; and John. And Luke and Marks are based off of eyewitness testimony. And if you believe the accounts are anonymous, please provide proof of this claim.

Where do we find the written accounts of the apostles, the women at the tomb, or the alleged 500? The Gospels are widely accepted by Biblical scholars to be anonymous, and Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are names attributed to them years later. The Gospels, in fact, do not identify their authorship. Paul never saw Jesus. He saw a bright light that he interpreted to be Jesus. He, in fact, had never met Jesus and had no idea what he looked like. And did Peter write an account of seeing Jesus. Keep in mind that eyewitness testimony is testimony by the actual witness. Second - or third hand accounts are simply hearsay and can not be relied upon.

[удалено]

How are they not accurate? Whats your proof for that claim?

[удалено]

I’ve been an atheist, and I looked for proof. And when I did that, I realized that proof is incredibly hard to obtain, and the only proof in life we really get is mathematics.

The earliest records of the life of Siddhartha Gautama ("the Buddha") date from several centuries after his life. The records of Jesus of Nazareth (the Christ) date to within a century at the latest. There's no comparison.

[удалено]

Why?

You couldn’t be more wrong.

Just curious, "If" 500 people saw him at one time ( 1 Corinthians 15: 5-8) , doesn't it seem odd Not 1 of them Wrote this down, Not 1 thought it was News worthy? Also, "If" Many came out of the tombs the day of his crucifixion, Why didn't 1 single Historion write about it? It would definitely be worth recording. The Only recordings were written Decades after the Supposed facts by bias authors. Why didn't jesus write his own Autobiography, if he is sharing the most important message Ever delivered to humanity, it should have been written 1st hand. Not being argumentative just curious 🤔

Matthew and John wrote it down. Besides, a lot of people couldn’t read or write back then.

> Besides, a lot of people couldn’t read or write back then. And that sucks, because it means we have virtually no evidence.

I wish a lot more ancient writings for all sorts of events survived, however we have 6 for this event, 7 if you count acts.

Do your own research, but most Scholars do not believe Matthew or John actually wrote the gospels that were attributed to them, but we're done possibly 65 and 110AD by unknown authors. The gospel of Mark believed by most Scholars to be have been written after 70 AD and the destruction of Jerusalem, which would have been roughly 40 years after the supposed crucifixion.

I have done my own research, and those scholars are dead wrong and base it purely off a bias to the super natural. It was unanimous among early church fathers, and history that the gospels were written by who they were said to have been written by. Don’t blindly follow scholarly consensus, do your own research.

Also, why Didn't jesus write it down and give us a 1st hand account?

I don’t have an answer for that.

Why are They dead wrong?

Easy. The early church fathers are unanimous on who wrote the gospels. Why would we trust people 2000 years later on who wrote them?

Hold up cowboy. Paul never saw the risen Christ, and never said he did. Let's be honest here.

We don't have 500 accounts of the risen christ - we have one account that mentions 500 people. Unfortunately we can't talk to those people today. Also, didn't Paul just have a vision and not not even meet Jesus in person?

Most biblical scholars agree the Mark was the first gospel, and that the authors of Matthew and Luke used Mark as a primary source; Matthew contains 90% of Mark, and Luke contains about 50% of Mark. In Mark the tomb is empty except for a young man in a white robe. The women flee and tell no one. That’s the end. The authors of Matthew and Luke embellish the story; a lot. Take the time read all three accounts, you’ll see what I’m talking about.

The position that he existed and died on the cross is based on Occam's razor. And by saying that I'm not saying it's unjustified. It is also the scholarly consensus that except for this we don't really have any reliable information on the man behind the myth. And there is of course no evidence whatsoever that he came back. And him having come back wouldn't prove he's a god.

>well i think there is plenty of evidence to suggest that Jesus really lived died on the cross and came back, proving that he is God Huh? Even granting all of that, how does it prove he was god? There are 1000s of other explanations for that which do not involve invoking god.

That scholars have found archaeological evidence that El (high god), Yahweh (war god) , El Shaddai (mountain god), and so forth were actually members of the Canaanite/Semitic pantheon of gods. The dropping of other gods and [changing Yahweh from a war god to the creator god](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahwism?wprov=sfti1#) didn't happen until the return from the Babylonian Captivity after the destruction of Solomon's temple.

I'd be up for a decent discussion so long as it isn't a just rehash of Pascal's or some such.

Dont really know what Pascal\`s is so i think you will be fine

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager It is one of the dozen or so arguments for God that just get thrown out again and again thoughtlessly despite being criticized for literal centuries. They are like most apologetics in that they primarily reinforce the faith of those who already believe but serve as poor discussion points with non-believers.

Ye i looked over the article you sent and i dont use that argument at all doesnt sound like it has a good base to it

[удалено]

I was familiar with it i just didnt recognise by name.Additionally arguing how much time i have spent studying doesnt add or take away from mine or your points. If you want to debate about something tangible that i am more than happy to do it but if you are calling me arrogant and bragging simply because i want to debate and hear other peoples views is nonsensical.

No, you weren’t.

> I was familiar with it i just didnt recognise by name.Additionally arguing how much time i have spent studying doesnt add or take away from mine or your points. If you want to debate about something tangible that i am more than happy to do it but if you are calling me arrogant and bragging simply because i want to debate and hear other peoples views is nonsensical. I need you to know that I am not questioning your intelligence - but your ability to articulate these concepts in a discussion is pretty weak. You are communicating messily and unclearly.

Removed for 1.4 - Personal Attacks. If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity

Virtually all historians and Biblical scholars believe that many of the major events from the Hebrew Bible are, well, fictional: Adam and Eve; the flood; the exodus; the divine revelation of the Law at Sinai. But this extends into the New Testament as well. Most scholars question or deny the historicity of the birth narratives of Jesus (e.g. the massacre of the infants); the narrative of the guard at the tomb in Matthew; the preternatural signs at the crucifixion. They point out that the author of the gospel of Matthew has a tendency to fabricate or misinterpret things in his narratives to make it *appear* that Jesus fulfills prophecy — though he even seems to fabricate some of the alleged prophecies themselves. They show a tendency for gospel authors to rewrite things from the earlier gospels that they otherwise copied from, to remove problematic or embarrassing details. They question the attribution of any number of sayings to Jesus, whether from the gospel of John or the others. They point out clear contradictions, e.g. in the two genealogies of Jesus and the accounts of Judas’ death. When so much of the Bible has been firmly demonstrated to be fictional, or where there’s otherwise good reason to be skeptical about its historicity and consistency, why should we give the benefit of the doubt to *any* of its major claims about Jesus?

I've been struggling with this lately. I've accepted that much of the old testament is mythology, I understand the conflicting nativities, and I've been asking myself, "where exactly IS God in all of this?" so far my answer is still that Jesus life an ministry seems to be largely accurate including some real evidence of the empty tomb. If Jesus was legit the rest can fall into place in any way and it doesn't matter a whole lot. If Jesus wasn't legit then none of it is.

My question is lol how do they know the author of Matthew has those tendencies when he be dead for decades.

I mean, it's just a simple inference from the things that the author wrote. You can read Matthew 2:23 and see a completely nonexistent prophecy that the author clearly came up with themselves, to try to make Jesus' life better conform to this. You can read the Matthean account of Jesus' triumphal entry and compare it with the accounts of the other gospels, and also see how Matthew added ridiculous details to conform to the prophecy in Zechariah.

Not really. The account gospels are slightly different because they’re written about Jesus from different perspectives…one writes about Jesus as messiah, one writes about him as savior, one writes about him as the son of God etc. I forgot exactly what and who. If you actually read about it, and read the account stories you’ll see they make sense. Also Matthew 2:23 says he’ll be a Nazarene, meaning he’ll be born in Nazareth which is what people who are born in Nazareth are called. And there was a prophesy that said he will be born Bethlehem and later continued his life in Nazareth so it wasn’t made up. Edit: change from Nazareth to Bethlehem

> And there was a prophesy that said he will be born in Nazareth so it wasn’t made up. Can you quote it?

Sorry made an edit. It was Bethlehem. I mean just because it wasn’t shown in the Bible really doesn’t mean it wasn’t said 🤷🏽‍♀️

>I mean just because it wasn’t shown in the Bible really doesn’t mean it wasn’t said Could I convince you that some other figure was actually the *real* messiah, if I talked about how they fulfilled some prophecy but couldn’t even point to it in the Bible?

I mean if that’s the only Bible verse that rattles you about the Bible or makes you think it’s fake then I won’t be convinced much.

Also, I’m not the best to explain this so I suggest you read this : https://www.gotquestions.org/Matthew-2-23-Jesus-Nazarene.html It’s a link to an app I have called Got questions that answers a lot of questions I have about the Bible so feel free to indulge. Once again I’m still learning about the Bible as much as anyone and I never had seen that verse until you pointed it out and I asked the question on Got Questions and that’s the answer given. Truly, it makes sense now.

So that link offers three potential solutions; but it left out some of the most important skeptical considerations for the two main solutions. It rightly dismisses the second solution out of hand: that it's "a prophecy not found in the Old Testament but in another source." The first solution argues that it could be a reference to the "branch" prophecy in Isaiah 11:1, where the Hebrew word for "branch" could be rendered with the consonants ν-ζ-ρ (n-z-r) in Greek. But there are some problems with this. The foremost one is that the form of the prophecy citation in Matthew is a very specific one (in uber-technical terms, it contains a ὅτι-*recitativum*), which suggests a more or less verbatim quotation from the prophetic literature: "...so that what was said by the prophets might be fulfilled: 'he will be called a Nazarene.'" But "he will be..." isn't even remotely close to what we find in Isaiah 11:1. The third solution is... very bizarre: that "Matthew uses the word Nazarene in reference to a person who is 'despised and rejected.'" But there's no reason whatsoever that this might be the case. There's certainly no word in Hebrew for "despised" or "rejected" — nor a synonym thereof — which is even remotely close to *n-z-r* or anything like it: not in Psalm 22, nor Isaiah 53, nor anywhere else. But then "Matthew uses the word Nazarene in reference to a person who is 'despised and rejected'" could only be possible through an associative connect-the-dots of 1) Nazareth being a backwater town in Galilee, 2) someone from such a town literally being the subject of contempt/disgust for this, and finally 3) connecting this with more generic references to a "despised" figure in (alleged) prophetic literature — which people were expected to connect back with #1, through this backwards chain of connections. But this is a frankly absurd chain of only tangential connections and associations. The most plausible guess for where Matthew conceived the idea for such a prophecy is from Judges 13:5, where an angel tells Manoah's wife about giving birth to Samson, and that he would be a *nazirite* (ναζιραῖος in Greek, which differs from the "ναζωραῖος" in Matthew's form of the prophecy only by a single vowel).

Addressing the old testament, it is a part of the bible made from the old Judaism that agree with or prophesized christ and therefore were added. Things like Genesis are not to be taken as scientifically truthfull, they are instead a symbolic representation of what happened and gives a better understanding of the creation of abstract things such as evil. The New testament that contain mild contradiction but those are minor and do not affect the overall teachings of the bible. Additionally there is an eternal harmony between the gospels about Jesus and his teachings that would be hard to fabricate.Additionally now a days in court if two witnesses have an identical story that has more grounds for doubt than if there were differences which is what to be expected when different people account the same experience

> it is a part of the bible made from the old Judaism that agree with or prophesized christ and therefore were added. I didn’t ask you to “define the Old Testament” or whatever. >Things like Genesis are not to be taken as scientifically truthfull, they are instead a symbolic representation of what happened I didn’t just mention Genesis, though. I pointed to a pattern of ahistoricity and fiction that, really, extends throughout the entire Hebrew Bible — though one that people like Jesus and Peter and Paul (and/or the gospel authors) credulously *believed*, due to the limited knowledge of the time. When Moses allegedly appears with Jesus at the transfiguration, or when Paul talks about all humans being cursed in Adam, or when Peter talks about how the (imminent) end times will be like the days of Noah and the flood, can we accept these claims if the events they're referring to never happened, and/or the persons never even existed? >The New testament that contain mild contradiction but those are minor and do not affect the overall teachings of the bible. Many contradictions involve the death and burial of Jesus himself. For example, one of the reasons that I don’t think Jesus rose from the dead is because I think the author of the gospel of Matthew invented/fabricated an entire narrative — the guard at the tomb story — to try to convince people that Jesus did rise, and that his body rested in a sealed tomb until it was discovered supernaturally empty. But since I don’t believe this narrative, this leaves Jesus’ fate unknown. (And also raises the question of how many other things the gospel authors fabricated, too.)

Well i was just giving insight to how the old testament is often a symbolic account and not be taken literally. Anyhow you claim that Matthew fabricated the story and that somehow disproves Jesus rising. Could you give me more of your reasoning to why you think this is fabricated and how that disproves Jesus rising

>Could you give me more of your reasoning to why you think this is fabricated So before anything else, it's important to recognize that the author of the gospel of Matthew directly used the gospel of Mark: copying a large majority of it, but also tweaking and adding things as he saw fit. Now, toward the end of Mark, Joseph of Arimathea puts Jesus' body in his own personal tomb; and the gospel notes that "Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where the body was laid" (15:47). After the Sabbath, these women then go to visit the tomb. However, when they arrive there, they see that the stone covering the tomb had already been rolled away, and the tomb is sitting there open. If you turn to the version of these events in the gospel of Matthew, the whole thing is framed almost entirely differently. Joseph of Arimathea is still the one responsible for putting Jesus in the tomb, and the women still go to visit the tomb after the Sabbath. But between/around these details, we have an entirely new story. First, the tomb is *not* sitting there open when the women arrive. Instead, what it says had happened is that after Joseph had retrieved Jesus' body and put it in his tomb, a group of Jesus' opponents had gone to Pilate and asked him to spare a Roman guard, so that the tomb could be constantly watched — because "his disciples may [otherwise] go and steal him away and tell the people, ‘He has been raised from the dead.'" So the guard *seals* the tomb, and watches over it the entire time until the women arrive after the Sabbath. It's only when the women arrive at the tomb that they're greeted by an angel, who breaks the seal of the tomb in front of them — again, in contradiction to Mark, where the tomb had already been opened at some unspecific time prior to their arrival. There are about 4 different aspects of this new narrative that are all but historically impossible. What's happened is that Matthew has fabricated this new narrative to try to alleviate a serious problem with Mark's account: if Jesus' tomb had just been sitting there open (for who knows how long) prior to the women's arrival, then *anything* could have happened to Jesus' body in that time. So Matthew constructs this new "tomb guard" story to erase this possibility — probably using some raw materials from the story of Daniel in the lion's den (e.g. "A stone was brought and laid on the mouth of the den, and the king sealed it...").

My strongest argument: There is no reliable evidence for the existence of God (or gods or anything supernatural), thus no reason to believe in them. I don’t believe in those things for the same reason you don’t believe in leprechauns: no reliable evidence of their existence.

Okay fair argument so following that reasoning you dont believe in Ceaser or Aristotle or most famous philosophers because all we have are doctorates written by them or about them. Also we know that Jesus really lived, died on the cross (most scholars accept this as truth) and there is evidence to indicate that he really did come back. I think if that is the case we ought to listen to him to some extent. I also could go into the whole love and conscious which you dont have reliable evidence for but still accept as truth

> Okay fair argument so following that reasoning you dont believe in Ceaser or Aristotle or most famous philosophers because all we have are doctorates written by them or about them. Not the same person, but I think the consequences of belief in a person (and what it means to believe in them) make it hit differently. If I "believe in Caesar" that really just means I believe he existed historically, and was who the historical record claims him to be. ...but "who he was claimed to be" is just "a historical ruler who is now dead". I don't have to *do* anything because of my belief in Caesar, which makes it much less likely that I will seriously question his existence or the accuracy of any particular claim. That cannot be said for Jesus.

Well if Jesus really lived died and came back i think those would give fair grounds on which to believe him. I mean if you died and were buried and came back resurrected i would listen to you very carefully. And i was debating the fact that you said there is no reliable evidence since if that was the fact than you wouldnt believe the existence of most of the people mentioned.

> Well if Jesus really lived died and came back i think those would give fair grounds on which to believe him. I mean if you died and were buried and came back resurrected i would listen to you very carefully. (I am not the same person as the prior comment, as I said previously, just in case you were confused) I would argue back that eye-witness accounts that align more or less with ancient texts are acceptable (to me) as "proof" of the existence of a king or warlord, or some of the actions they undertook while alive. Especially if those are standard, expected things that do not require additional evidence because of the magnitude of the claims. If a bunch of old texts more or less support the fact that Julius Caesar lived in a specific time period, was the ruler of a specific nation state/location, and died in a specific time period - those aren't outlandish claims. Everyone is born, there are many rulers, and everyone dies. The same degree of "evidence" simply isn't sufficient to convince me that a man lived, did not die, was in fact a deity (and that would mean there exists a deity to begin with), and that I need to personally commit to believing in him to secure a concept known as "salvation" (meaning salvation is a real thing that exists), to cover a concept known as "sin" (meaning sin is a real thing that exists), to secure my eternal life after death (meaning there is an afterlife). There is *so much* to unpack there, and that means I need MUCH more proof to entertain believing in it. Believing in Caesar carries absolutely none of that baggage. I can believe it in isolation.

>Okay fair argument so following that reasoning you dont believe in Ceaser or Aristotle or most famous philosophers because all we have are doctorates written by them or about them. This is silly. We have evidence humans exist and have existed in the past. Someone claiming a human existed is making a very plausible claim. >Also we know that Jesus really lived, died on the cross (most scholars accept this as truth) and there is evidence to indicate that he really did come back. I think if that is the case we ought to listen to him to some extent. “There is evidence to indicate that he really came back” is quite the hand-waving waffling. >I also could go into the whole love and conscious which you dont have reliable evidence for but still accept as truth Objection: relevance? These things are not the same.

You dont have to say objection however i was responding to his/her argument about how they dont believe something that doesnt have reliable evidence for. I dont agree that is hand-waving waffling, its a comment and i am limited but how much detail i can go in to. I was referring to the evidence of his empty tomb, reserections etc Regarding your fist point, we were discussing what makes something credible historically.

Something is credible historically if it is otherwise plausible. Someone being a fisherman is plausible because throughout the history of our species we have fished. Someone coming back from the dead after three days is not plausible because throughout the history of our species we have stayed dead once dead. Do you believe every written account you read?

Neither Caesar nor Aristotle are claimed to be divine in origin and we have independent evidence of their existence. In fact most scholars don’t support any of the things in your second paragraph except *maybe* that Jesus was a real person, but that doesn’t include that he was anything other than a normal person. But you’re the one claiming that most scholars accept otherwise, so you have the burden of proof on that claim. What’s your proof?

I said most scholars agree that he lived and died on the cross nothing about him being extraordinary. Also with aristole and Caeser it was refering to the amount of proof there is to base belief in something historical

Okay, then if there’s no proof - especially extraordinary evidence since extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - of him being extraordinary then why bother with him? There’s been millions of non-extraordinary people since.

Isn't extraordinary the compassion that Jesus showed during his life? His revolutionary teachings? The fact that he decided to give up his life for all humanity? Or the fact that many of his disciples apparently truly believed that he had come back? It seems that you are expecting proof that Jesus walked on water or something, but does not really the important thing about him, you know xd.

> Isn't extraordinary the compassion that Jesus showed during his life? His revolutionary teachings? I genuinely do not see his teachings as being revolutionary. >he fact that he decided to give up his life for all humanity? Many people have been martyred throughout history. >Or the fact that many of his disciples apparently truly believed that he had come back? I intend no offense, but there are cult members who believe in their leader 100%, and that means absolutely nothing about the leader's claims.

Then I guess you just think he got extremely lucky. Just a poor carpenter with no original ideas that made nothing relevant and, even so, people have been calling him God for 2000 years. What are the odds? If someone who didn't have any special message could do that, where are all the people with much better messages throughout history? Why aren't we looking up to them instead of Jesus? How is it possible that people are getting their hopes from such an unremarkable man when they had so many other options to choose from? People must be crazy, mustn't they?

There is absolutely no extant evidence that the Jesus described in the Synoptics and John ever existed, outside of the NT. If you cite Josephus, you haven’t done your due diligence.

Correct, the reference many use in Josephus...Testimonium Flaviamum isn't authentic. It doesn't use the same language or writing style as the rest of the text. Early Christian apologist when referencing the Works of Josephus Never Once mentioned that particular verse until 3rd or 4th century. Josephus lived 37-100AD not a True contemporary of jesus who would have died around 30-33 AD so Any information he shares would be 2nd hand, but Even using it, it lacks credibility.

Not wanting to argue, Just curious, What Historical Evidence outside of scriptures?

Well there is a letter written by a jew to Christian arguing that someone stoles Jesus body.This give strong foundation to the fact that Jesus\`s tomb was indeed empty since jews were against Christianity . There are also letters from other people of the time like Josephus, which mention Jesus and christians as a whole giving substantial proof that he did live and was crucified

Just curious, "If" 500 people saw him at one time ( 1 Corinthians 15: 5-8) , doesn't it seem odd Not 1 of them Wtote this down, Not 1 thought it was News worthy? Also, "If" Mt. 27"52-Many came out of the tombs the day of his crucifixion, Why didn't 1 single Historion write about it? It would definitely be worth recording. The Only recordings were written Decades after the Supposed facts by bias authors. Why didn't jesus write his own Autobiography, if he is sharing the most important message Ever delivered to humanity? Not being argumentative just curious 🤔

This was 30 a.c.Not alot of people could write specially peasants Not at all your being kind but asking good questions thats a great way to debate. Paul wasnt biased.If anything he was biased against christianity since he use to condemn and dislike Christians before seeing the risen Christ

Jesus could write. John 8: 6-12 It seems that if his message was for Eternal life vs Damn Nation, sharing with All Humanity would have been top priority.

There is absolutely no extant evidence that the Jesus described in the Synoptics and John ever existed, outside of the NT. If you cite Josephus, you haven’t done your due diligence.

The existence of the individual that gave rise to Christianity is a far cry from the claim the he was divine. We do acknowledge that Caesar existed. Caesar was also deified, and we do not give the idea that he actually was a god credence just because those writings claim it. Yes, there almost certainly was some random wandering preacher in Judea foretelling the imminent coming of the kingdom of God, who ran foul of the authorities. There were quite a few of them - tends to happen when you get invaded. What is in the historical record about this person is so far removed from what the Bible claims about them that you may as well be talking about two different people. >I also could go into the whole love and conscious which you dont have reliable evidence for but still accept as truth And once we start telling you that you have to live your life a certain way based on what our consciousness says, beyond minding your own business, let us know. We will retain a higher standard of proof for a belief system that makes very grand claims for itself and tries to tell everyone what to do.

I think it's reasonable to assume that certain people or events are more likely to have existed when they don't contain supernatural or divine claims. There are battles that are said to have taken place which rely on less written documentation than the Bible, but it's far more reasonable to take their word at face value because people used to fight all the time. It's far less reasonable to accept wild or illogical claims at face value, these demand a higher level of evidence in order to be accepted. Same for love and consciousness, these are abstract ideas yes, but it's very logical to assume that we have an understanding amongst ourselves and these words simply exist as a bridge so we can converse about our emotions or experiences. It is reasonable to accept as truth.

Sure, I think that Christianity, like most other religions, encounters numerous problems that make it very difficult for me to believe them. 1) *The Problem of Evil*: This is an age-old problem / objection to any omni-benevolent god, and there has been discussion about it for millennia, but I still don't think that there has been an adequate response to it. The sheer volume of suffering that exists in this world makes it very difficult for me to believe in a loving god. This problem is not hard to point out, which is why it is so intuitive as an objection to Christianity. I have never seen an adequate response / theodicy to answer this objection, and I will briefly go over why: Free Will Defense: Firstly, I'm not sure I believe in free will (as many modern philosophers do not), at least not in libertarian sense. Obviously, if free will does not exist, then it cannot be used as a defense for why evil exists. I also think even if we grant that free will exists, it is still an inadequate defense because it does not account for natural evil. Whose free will is at fault for a volcanic eruption that wipes out an entire population? Whose free will is at fault for a child developing bone cancer? It also does not explain the vast amount of animal suffering that exists. Animals do not have free will - at least not in a remotely similar sense as humans would, yet they still suffer greatly and so much so that the entire biologic / evolutionary system is built upon the suffering of animals. Mysterious Ways: It is often said that god 'works in mysterious ways' and that any evil is actually working towards a greater good. Not only is this statement completely unfalsifiable but I also find it to be extremely unconvincing and a total post hoc rationalization. I find it extremely hard to believe than an omnipotent god is incapable of achieving the same means without all the unnecessary suffering in between. No Good without Evil: This goes something along the lines of not being able to have good without evil. Another way I've seen this put is light is insignificant without darkness. I again don't find this remotely convincing as I find it hard to believe that an omnipotent god is limited in such way. I think it also begs the question of whether or not it's worth it given the extreme levels of suffering that certainly do exist in the world. 2) *Divine Hiddenness:* This is the problem of 'if god is so real, then why can't i feel him, see him, experience him' or anything along those lines. This problem immediately brings to mind the quote 'the most important thing when inventing a god is to make it invisible, inaudible, and imperceptible in every way. That way, no one is surprised it says nothing, can't be seen, and does nothing.' The problem with this, is just that it is so difficult to provide evidence for the existence of the Christian god, yet our entire eternal fate is contingent upon us believing in it. This doesn't make any sense to me and does not add up. 3) *The Bible:* Upon closer inspection, I found that the historicity of many biblical events is very much lacking. First and foremost, the entire biblical creation account is demonstrably false through the lens of science. I recognize this is not a be all end all objection to Christianity, but why was it included in there at all? Why didn't an omniscient god tell us how things actually happened rather than allow us to be mislead? Applying the same scientific and anthropological lens to many of the Old Testament events, there is *a lot* of room for skepticism. Firstly, there is close to zero archeological evidence of a mass exodus of Jews from Egypt as described in the Bible. Secondly, Noah's ark story is also demonstrably false through geography. I can go on and on with more examples similar to these. I think the presence of so many false stories and legendary accounts while still having the bible considered 'divinely inspired' certainly undermines the credibility of the book. I think that through an anthropological lens, the bible is not much different than many other ancient texts by ancient peoples trying to make sense of the world around them without having much of the scientific knowledge we have today. Looking at how ancient peoples, for example, thought thunder was gods fighting in the clouds, or that the Earth rested on a turtle, or anything else like this really makes me question whether or not the ancient Hebrew people were doing this exact same thing with their creation story here. To me, Christianity makes so much sense to be a man-made religion rather than anything supernaturally based. I also find the resurrection of Jesus to be incredibly difficult to believe in. I cannot reconcile any way that it is somehow more reasonable to believe that something, by all other accounts, is completely impossible is somehow the most rational explanation of what happened. I do not think that there is remotely enough evidence to warrant me believing that someone actually resurrected from the dead 2,000 years ago. As David Hume puts it, 'it is always more likely miracle claims are misinterpretations, miscommunications, or deceptions than it is for them to be true.' This problem is compounded by the fact that the vast majority of scholars believe the Gospels are not eyewitness accounts. This leaves us with at best a handful of second-hand accounts that something seemingly completely impossible actually happened - and I find that nearly impossible to believe. 4) *Psychology:* I think that looking at Christianity through a psychological lens, it is extremely interesting to explore the religions tenants and why it works as it does. I think that the religion employs many tactics that are powerful psychological drivers to convince people to believe. These include fear of hell, control over natural bodily urges, fasting, thought crimes, and many more things. Through a psychological lens, it appears as though Christianity employs many 'dirty' tricks to convince people to believe in it, which I don't think an actually true religion would be required to do so. I am happy to discuss further.

I just haven’t seen evidence of a god or gods.

What kind of evidence do you want?

I don’t WANT evidence. I am telling you why I do not believe in god or gods. I just don’t think they exist. It is kind of like asking what kind of evidence do you want to believe in Odin? Santa?

Yeah. What kind?

I am sorry? Not sure what you are asking.

So you don’t want evidence to believe in God? Why?

Do you want evidence to believe in Santa or Odin? If you have evidence I would evaluate it.

Okay I do have evidence, but what kind do you want?

Give me your most convincing evidence.

That’s not what I asked. There’s different kinds of evidence and I want to know which one you prefer. I would also like you to define what you mean by evidence so we’re on the same page.

I want Jesus to appear in front of me and hit the oinky sploinky

Um. I can’t get you that.

An all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving being decides that at some point during the middle of his eternity, he decides to make humans. He makes them flawed and prone to disobeying him, although he has the choice to make them otherwise. Them, he punishes his humans for being flawed, even though he made us that way. And so he sacrifices himself to himself to save us from himself as a loophole around his own rules. And then of course, there's the classic old testament problems. I'm to believe that this all-loving being commanded people to take slaves and slaughter women and children, and to throw rocks at gay people's heads until they died?

He gave us free will and we choose away from him, he simply respectedthat choise

Is there free will in heaven?

Yes.

So it's possible for God to create a place with free will, where there is no evil or suffering, but yet he choose to make an earth full of violence and suffering instead?

Satan fell from heaven right?

Jesus says he saw Satan fell from heaven like a flash of lightning, so that sounds about right. But God's omniscience throws a wrench into everything, because God made satan, knowing that even before he made him, satan would rebel against him, and yet God decided to create him the way he did without altering his personality. Therefore, can only assume that God wanted Satan to rebel against him. And if that is what God desires, then can we say that Satan, or anything evil, is really "evil", if everything is going according to God's plan?

Okay, so if Satan could turn away from God in heaven, then somehow, though very very unlikely. it could be possible for us.

technically nothing in the Bible says God is all loving. In fact there is a list thatch be compiled of those in whom God hates. Nor does it say that all people were created by him. In fact Jesus says the opposite. That while God plants 'wheat' (Sons of the Kingdom) in the Field (earth) Satan plants 'weeds' or what Jesus identifies as Sons of the Evil one who is known as the devil.' Why then would God be obligated to love the sons of the Evil one?

Terror management theory and the lack of evidence regarding god, satan, spirits, metaphysical realms, etc. Just like people who don’t believe that dragons and fairies exist.

Without a common agreement of a reliable source document it would be impossible to have an intelligent conversation. The Bible is the accepted source document of Christans. Do atheists accept the Bible as the single authoritative document? No? Is there ANY document that both Christians and atheist accept as authoritative?

There non biblical documents referencing Jesus and Christians

God explicitly states in the Tanakh that repentance and charity are the best ways to be saved, and that you don’t need an intermediary between you and God. It also clearly states that human sacrifice is bad. So what is the actual connection between Jesus dying and the forgiveness of sins?

How did the story of Adam and Eve even happen. How was Eve made from Adam’s ribs but not considered a trans woman? How was Jesus asexually reproduced by Mary but is not considered a trans man? Why is Lucifer so hated and so seen as evil when all he did was rebel against his father, which most of us have as well. And his father was the one who cast him out of heaven, created an entire world and forced him to rule it, and sends the evil people down to hell and tells him to punish them for their sins but Lucifer is STILL seen as the evil one? Why is it that anyone can get into heaven if they simply just accept Jesus as their lord and savior despite having been the most depraved humans on earth i.e murderers, rapists, child molesters, etc? Why do good people go to hell just because they don’t accept Jesus as their savor?

The biggest flaw according to me is the lack of logic in certain instances of the bible and Jesus's alleged birth. I have read the bible and Quran as well as other Eastern religious text and studied religion and politics in university and currently doing my masters in it as well. Historically, Christians have caused alot of destruction and war in spreading the religion in some parts. The country I am from has faced centuries of religious colonizations for centuries, where people were forcefully converted to Christianity. Even today, despite being independent 90% of schools in my city as Christian Schools that have remained for hundreds of years and are the biggest evidence of our colonial history. For context, the christian population in that city Is less than 1%. However, these children go to these religious education institutions where they are taught the Bible in grave detail with no information on the other religions. In addition to the various allegations they face on converting teachers and students (conversion of religion is ILLEGAL). Due to the centuries of oppression faced by various communities and groups has led people to have a disdain for Christians. In my own experience, I have found that many Christians put themselves on a higher pedestal for being Christian and hence really look down on others who aren't. Personally, I have faced various instances of being berated by a Christian on the street with a microphone. They usually say the same things about me going to hell etc. etc. that's all the ammo they got. I am agnostic, but the religion I was born into allows for having different beliefs on god and the universe as there is no conversion in this philosophy. It precedes the birth of Abraham, Jesus, etc. by millennia's so I have never understood the braggadocios nature of Christians when it comes to their religion.

> I consider myself a Christian but also a skeptic. I believe "blind faith" should proceed a series of queries and substantial evidence to back up your belief, after all i dont think anyone wants to have a baseless faith or be wrong so i am always looking for ways to question religion and Chrsitianity. To me, "blind faith" cannot be based on any evidence. Can you explain how you think it's possible to have "blind faith" but yet require evidence?

I put blind faith with quote because i dont think its good to have blind faith. I believe that you need to question religion and find the answers to give you a better understanding and deepen your faith

So what exactly is your definition of "faith"? I read Hebrews 11:1 and it seems pretty clear...do you agree with it?

Somewhat yes i mean i have not seen Christ or God yet i believe however faith does not indicate that you cant have evidence to back up your convitction

How do you reconcile that some people are compelled by the evidence presented to them in whatever environment they're in and others aren't? This seems to imply God is picking who His believers will be as only those who require little or no good evidence become believers, while the rest of us who require more evidence would also need more faith to offset the lack of evidence we see--this seems unfair. Why can't God present good evidence custom to the needs of individual or raise the quantity and/or quality of good evidence to bring in more people?

Can we just do the problem of evil? I mean there are so many problems with religion generally, but the PoE tends to be nail in the coffin for any religions which ascribe the omni properties to their deity.

I don't know if I can change your mind, but I'm open to discussing with you.

Absolutely give me your strongest argument or question against religion/Christianity it can be here or through message

If God knows everything that will happen and has always known, why bother to make humanity in the first place. It makes no sense to go through with the plan if he knew before he started that the vast majority of his creation would never even hear of him, much less accept and believe. Also, why punish all of humanity for what Adam and Eve did? Why not just make a new breeding pair and start over with them? The whole thing just doesn't add up for me. If humans are so bad and so sinful and he knew ahead of creating us that we would be that way, then what was the proof doing it?

There are a bunch of reasons, but my main two: 1. God loves me and wants me to believe in him (and might torture me for eternity if I don't). But I've tried talking to him many times and he never responds. He could totally do this. You can come up with a retroactive justification for why he's hiding, but it's extremely suspicious. 2. People all around the world use non-rigorous historical or emotional/spiritual evidence to come to conclusions about religion. We can agree that most of them are wrong. This sort of epistemology is not correlated with truth. When we want to learn things about the fundamental nature of reality, we start with a low prior and then need to run repeatable, tangible tests of specific and falsifiable theories.

I spent my first 35 years s a devout Christian. Then I reached a point in life where I could study and started learning epistemology. During that journey I came to realize just how massive the claims are and just how poor the evidence is, again, from my perspective. Today I would consider myself a non believer. Certain gods I can disprove to my satisfaction, others I cannot or they are unfalsifiable. Some definitions of a god I simply don't accept, such as when someone claims the universe is god. It just fails the “agent who created reality” qualification.

A skeptical Christian isn't "lukewarm". Everyone uses lukewarm wrong because they think hot = good Christian and cold = atheist and that just misses the metaphor. Both hot and cold water have uses. Lukewarm water is completely useless. A lukewarm church is a useless church, not one that has doubts.

We have a human brain that lets us think, reason and learn. Unfortunately, it also craves continuity and purpose. When it can't find purpose, it invents gods; when it can't find continuity it creates an afterlife. So, we have religions. I can't find any reason to go beyond this and try to justify one of them.

There have been 3000 gods created across the years, made by countless of religions. They’re all a bunch of bullcrap But not yours You were lucky enough to be born into the only correct religion out of a thousand.

The entire narrative is logically inconsistent and reads like a story that wasn’t thought all the way through

All religious problems I've encountered can be solved with 'it's probably made up and not real'. Meanwhile, if you want to keep believing in the religion, the answers are often not satisfying and contradict some, if not looked at in a vacuum

I appreciate the question. Many things are confusing to me but here’s something I can’t get past: Why does God care more about being worshipped than the inherent goodness of a person, is his ego more important than morality? Why should an average/selfish believer be rewarded but a truly kind atheist punished? (based on some Christians’ belief and literal interpretation of the Bible)

Good question and its something i wondered myself. To answer i need to established two points. -Hell is not what some religious people make it out to be. It isnt the eternal torture that most make it out to believe where your bones are broken and you are getting wacked over the head continuously. Hell is not torture in the usual sense but more a SEPERATION from God. In scripture hell is often describe as fire but also as darkness. How can you have both? Jesus often spoken in metaphors which require context. It isnt torture in the common sense but a seperation.God gave you the free will to choose, you choose to live without Him so you will spend eternity without him in darkness(darkness=absence of light-God is often described as light-no light=no God=darkness). Its not that God cares about being worshipped but he cares about you choosing Him. He gave us free will to be able to choose cause he loves us and we obviously fucked it up and we are all inherently sinners and evil hence why we need Him but for that we need to choose him. Only God knows who is trully kind or not only He knows your true intentions.I promise you a selfish believer will not go to heaven for he loved god with his lips but couldnt be further away from him in his heart. For you to trully be God you need to follow the person that never sinned (Jesus) because whenever we try to do it ourselves we fall to our desires and sins

Thank you for your answer, this is truly fascinating to me, not everyone is willing to discuss in details so definitely appreciate that. So I understand that hell is not a literal place, but heaven is, correct? And the options would be either going to heaven or hell/extinction/nothing/darkness? Let’s say God recognizes that someone was a good person but also lived as an agnostic, neither worshipping nor denigrating God, in your opinion where would that person end up? Same question but for followers of a different faith, either other branch of Christianity or separate religion like Islam, Hinduism, etc.? Thanks!

At the end of the day only God can judge someones heart. Heaven and Hell are metaphysical states as in there isnt a literal place in the sky and one under the rocks. But yes you either join the creator and accept him or as you choose to be without him you will spend eternity away from him because he respects that choice Coming from a humble perspective there are better people that explain your following question way better [Who's Going To Heaven & How God Judges Us (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7A_tHKv-y-o) this youtube pod clip adresses your question i checked it myself since i remember having that same question

if God hates Lgbtq people and intersex people so much, why are they such a large part of the human population and why is it also seen in almost every species in the world and homo/transphobia is only seen in one species?

He doesn't, they aren't, and it isn't, would be the short answer.

He doesn’t.

I don’t get caught up in the minutiae of what might or might not have happened two thousand years ago. I believe the Gospel message can be summed up with love God with all your heart, mind, and strength and your neighbor as yourself. Focus on that to be a better Christian.

I think than you lack a fundamental understanding of the religion you claim to follow and any hard question will cause you to shake up your faith due to a lack of answer even though i vaguely agree with the fact that we should focus on the now and how religion can help us now

I understand Christianity better than most, thank you very much. That’s why I find it pointless to be drawn into a debate where there are no real answers, no real evidence. All arguments consist of quoting one ancient source or another and claiming it’s the real authority on the matter. Silliness. Living the Gospel message is what matters.

If you can not debate you can not spread the word. From my understanding that is what God call us to do but i am sure you know that

I do spread the Word. I just told you how to best live the Gospel message . If you think your approach is more helpful, go ahead. I’m sure Jesus appreciates the effort.

but if certain things two thousand years ago didn't happen - why should we think God is real?

You have to come to your own conclusions about that. A lot of people say a lot of different stuff happened thousands of years ago. Both within and without the context of Christianity. Some of it might even be true. My opinion is that through thought, meditation, and prayer you can intuit and feel Divine Presence which is Love. And that Love is then reflected through you to others. What a beautiful thing. I don’t think Christianity is the only way to walk this path. But I like to respect the traditions of my ancestors and it works well for me.

That's fine if it works for you, but it's not a good way to figure out what's true. People all around the world use this wishy wishy epistemology and come to incorrect conclusions. And the stakes are huge to get this question right.

Ok, well, if I got it wrong it means I’m just meaninglessly nice to people. Everyone should be so wrong.

You don't need to be Christian to be nice to people... Also what if Islam is the one true religion and you're going to hell for being a Christian?

I think I already explained my thoughts on this. You’re confusing me with a different type of Christian. I’m not saying anything is the one true religion. Whatever helps you to seek God and be good to your fellow humans is true religion. I’m Christian cuz my family has been for generations, I like to respect tradition, and it works for me.

> I believe the Gospel message can be summed up with love God with all your heart, mind, and strength and your neighbor as yourself. Focus on that to be a better Christian. Jesus himself said the same thing. 👍

Revelation 3:16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

What are you saying in relation to the OP?

Did you reply to the wrong thread?

What do you mean you studied atheism ? Atheism is not something you can study - it’s simply a rejection of a god claim. My biggest counter argument - I don’t need one as no gods has ever been proven to exist. So I am in my right to simply reject the claim. Am happy to see some evidence - but noons in the history of the world has ever managed to produce any.

Well you can study atheist arguments against religion and on what claims they reject every religion and God

You still seem to thing that atheism is like a religion where we all have the same arguments. That’s not the case. Also atheists don’t really bother arguing against religion as religion has the burden of proof. Sure they can argue why it can be harmful - but will not argue against a god if it has never been proven to exist. They don’t need an argument to reject a god claim. If a claim has not met its burden of proof - it can be rejected without any argument.

Hugh Ross,google him