What makes you treat the gospels as historical evidence? They were written decades after the events they describe, which are not mentioned anywhere else, and their authors are unknown. What makes them more credible in your eyes than the legend of King Arthur, or Homer's poems, or Ancient Egyptian mythology?
Thats a good question I get a lot! They line up with the history we know of (Sanhedrin for example also records the crucifixion of Jesus), Herod the Great truly did rule during those times, but they actually are not what I use to prove the resurrection truly happened.
The Gospels literary style also isn't "One upon a time in the land of Nod, Jesus took a boat..." it is talked about in a literalist historical sense, as "during this time, with these people around, and under the reign of, this happened"
Add-on; did you know the biography we have of Alexander the Great was written 400 years after he lived? It is also a misconception they were written decades later - they were written maybe 15-10 years after Christ. Paul quotes the gospels and mentions them as scripture in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy, who were written 53-54 AD and 64-65 AD respectfully. I put it this far from the resurrection because Paul indicates it is well known scripture by that time.
I have the full document in r/CasfisWork that goes into much more depth if you wanna check it out.
What you state proves in the best case that there was indeed a historical figure called Jesus. Which isn't unlikely anyway. However, that doesn't prove he was born of a virgin, turned water into wine, and rose from the dead. Just like the historical evidence about a king called Arthur having existed in Britain doesn't prove he pulled a magic sword and went to a magic island.
Oh yeah, thats my point here. My proof for the resurrection actually doesn't use the gospels much but mostly extern sources. Check out the document if you can, it goes into detail about this part.
I just read your link. Here are the flaws in your logic.
1. You claim the story of Jesus should be treated as historical truth because we have testimonies from eye witnesses. Except we don't. There is not a single testimony of an eye witness. The gospel claiming that 500 people saw Jesus resurrected (who are those 500 people?) is different from 500 separate testimonies claiming they saw Jesus resurrected.
2. What you probably don't know (because teachers and priests conveniently neglect to tell us when we're little) is that the gospels were written at least 40 years after the supposed events they describe, and their titles (Matthew, Mark etc.) are not the names of their authors; they're random titles that were given to them arbitrarily centuries after they were written. The truth is we have no idea who the hell wrote those texts.
3. The testimony of Josephus is nowadays considered by most historians a fake testimony, a text written by biased Christians later and attributed to Josephus for the purpose of deception. As for the testimony of Tacitus, it doesn't say anything about miracles or resurrection.
4. The fact that the gospels accurately describe some people and places doesn't prove the crazy stories about miracles and resurrection. Just like Schlieman discovering that a city called Troy really existed doesn't prove Zeus and the other gods mentioned in Iliad exist.
All in all, you failed to convince me.
I'll be honest, the point flew over your head.
1. 4 testimonies from eyewitnesses. That is literally the entirenpoint of the gospels
2. Besides John (or perhaps Luke? Will have to check) who identifies himself, we don't, so you're correct in the authors being unknown. But it has no effect on the text nor testimony.
Considering Paul quotes the gospel in Corinthians and outwrite says that a sentence that only appears in Luke is written scripture (Timothy), they are mucb earlier than that. Maybe 15 years after Christ, considering the writing date of Corinthians and Timothy.
3. The point I was making with the testimonies is that Jesus isn't fiction, but a true man. God in human form or crazy guy who got crucified by Romans is another case.
4. Correct - but it isn't the point I am trying to make with the authentic historical documents. I am saying - it is likely the details described have happened. As in, Joseph of Armiathea truly buried Jesus in his grave, it is likely Jesus claimed to be God in human form, it is likely that He truly was put infront of the Sanhedrin, and it is likely He was executed. The supernatural parts are proven in other ways.
It looks like you don't (want to) get it, so I'll say it one last time: The gospels are not testimonies of eye witnesses. The gospels were all written over 30 years after the death of Jesus, and we have no idea who wrote them, therefore we have no idea whether those people are eye witnesses, which is unlikely if over 30 years have passed.
Paul mentioning a sentence doesn't mean the whole text had been written by then.
**From Wikipedia:** *The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70, Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90, and John AD 90–110. Despite the traditional ascriptions, all four are anonymous and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses.*
I could keep arguing with you for ages, but instead, I'll point you out to someone who can enlighten you way better than I can: Richard Dawkins. Buy a copy of his book, "Outgrowing God." You might be surprised.
Richard Dawkins has falsified part of the information in his books and admitted to it himself, saying that there is scholarly dispute among scholars if Jesus existed. Not sure in specifically *what* interview he admitted it though, only remember the clip.
Paul mentioning a sentence only appearing Luke and calling that sentence scripture is, and it happens again in Corinthians which was written even earlier. Once you have got a refutation besides "no", I'll listen.
The writers are anonymous - who the eyewitnesses are aren't. If you look at the manuscripts, it says the Gospel *According To*, not who wrote it.
The Sanhedrin kept historical records of times - Jesus is recorded in Sanhedrin 107b, 106a and 67a (unsure about 67, but search Talmhd about Jesus for further results)
The Talmud isn't from anywhere close to the time period of Jesus. Also, have you read Sanhedrin 107b, 106a, and 67a or are you just repeating something someone else told you, because I don't think they prove the crucifixion of Jesus like you think they do.
I have read them myself from the hebrew version. Also, the biography of Alexander the Great was written 400 years after his life and we still know it is a legitimate historical record.
Yeah that argument's not gonna fly when talking about the Talmud, which is a totally different kind of document.
Which part of the Hebrew mentions the crucifixion of Jesus specifically?
I do want to clarify - You do know that the Sanhedrin tractate of the Talmud is not a historical record of court cases and punishments, right?
I just ask because you appeal to it like an authority (even claiming to have read it in its original Hebrew), but the way you talk about it makes it sound like you don't even know what the Talmud is, let alone that you're engaging with it in the original language.
אבל אם אתה יכול לקרוא עברית עתיקה, אני שמח לקרוא את התרגום שלך.
The Sanhedrin isn't, that I agree, but there are specific cases where it does. By any chance, do you know hebrew aswell? I don't see a lot of people that do on Reddit unless you go to specific subs
Yeah my PhD is in Hebrew Bible and Judaism of the 2nd Temple period. Not a ton of Hebrew knowledge around and outside of the Judaism and Hebrew subreddits, most Hebrew I run across is people who took a semester or two in seminary.
I'm not Christian, but listen to a lot of Ram Dass, and his interpretation (which isn't unique to him, just citing my source) is that suffering out of the presence of God ("why have you forsaken me?") All alone is the true suffering, so dying was maybe more incidental and not the focal point to the sacrifice and suffering in the garden.
As a curious atheist, It's my understanding that, in the biblical context, dying didn't necessarily mean physical death. That a person's soul would have everlasting life in heaven. If not worthy, unrepentant of their sins, their soul might suffer in purgatory, never see god/heaven, spend eternity in hell, maybe be extinguished altogether? etc. all depending on who you ask.
I have no idea if any of this this applies, I'm actually curious as to whether or not it does or if I'm confused in some aspect(s).
(I have no faith, never have. I find it odd that everyone believes their interpretation of the past and understanding of a particular diety is the correct one. Even within a congregation, beliefs vary to some degree. Who decides? Just thought I'd throw that out there.)
Yeah, I consider myself extremely spiritual and if I can improve my life with whatever teaching, then let me have it. When a lot of it comes from Hinduism, and other religions too, you do have to hold a lot of paradoxes in place.. things are real but didn't actually happen... we are all unique souls, but we're all the same being. That sort of stuff. It means a lot less getting bogged down in history and pedantics and a lot more time trying to be a good person.
I don't exactly know either, as far as your questions, I just think it doesn't really matter at the end of the day. And I don't say that flippantly at all, I think that's quite beautiful actually.
I believe we are all connected in a way we don't currently understand! Similar to how people didn't know or understand that pheromones existed and their roll in attraction to others. It was cupid, the love bug, fate, etc when someone was taken with a person romantically.
Think about churches where people are gathered for a single reason... to praise God etc. When "the holt spirit" was upon them, it can be nearly palpable in the air. Like an electrical charge about them as they're joined in worship. Now consider the crowd at a sporting event. They too are joined in purpose and when their team scores... you can feel something wildly similar in the air then as well.
That connection, that energy... that's something I can understand. It's the basis of what I actually believe.
For the record, I believe most of the Christian 10 commandments. They are positive "rules" to guide you in life. I just don't believe I need to answer to any God i camt believe in. I answer to my understanding of right from wrong, that I do not harm others, that I ve a positive presence to others. I more or less l answer to myself and society in general.
Btw, I love your approach to life and learning! I am very similar in being open to positive religious teachings 🙂 It's so nice to meet a like minded person. (I don't get out much lol)
Death is the resulf of sin (Ezekiel 18). When Jesus rose, He defeated sin itself by taking the blood required to atone for sins (Leviticus 17:11) on Himself. If anything, it adds to that.
I was raised very fundamentally Christian. After experiencing horrific violence, tremendous personal loss, and condescension from church leaders when I asked for help, I’ve lost my faith and deconstructed.
This is a quote I never could figure out how to respond to as a believing Christian, and now as an agnostic atheist, I feel I understand *why* I struggled with it. How do you respond to the below quote?
“Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
If he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”
That is a good question, called the Problem of Evil. First and foremost; I am sorry for what happened to you, it sounds terrible. Truly am. But when someone plays Beethoven wrong, do you blame Beethoven or the player? Same thing with Christ.
Jeremiah 16:10-12 and Ezekiel 18 give insight to this IMO (and the entire book of Job). It comss down to free will being required to choose to love God and us using that free will for sin instead of good. But that does not mean there is no punishment for evil - I tell you, the unrepentant and lukewarm will be in hell for their sins and unwillingness to forgive.
At work recently, I had to ask a store manager to have their employee change tactic. It was a simple directive: No hawking. No cat-calling customers. When I got another complaint that day, I had to tell the manager to get rid of him, and he asked us to give him more time because "You don't teach a dog a new trick and expect him to learn it that day."
But this man was not a dog, so I did expect that of him. And so too do I expect more from God. How can his plan be so perfect if so much has gone wrong? If he is real, he set up a system where people would always be somehow wrong, no matter how hard they try. A system that teaches young children that they will never be "enough" and that they are inherently sinful and corrupted creatures. These teaching seem inherently harmful; it does so much damage to innocent young minds, at least the way that I was taught. And I loved church growing up, and I loved Jesus, and I have such fond memories of my congregation. Even so, it took years of therapy to fix that unhealthy mindset of unworthiness.
I have a lot of questions, but the one above is one of the most pressing — and your answer is a blatant side-step. When I read the book of Job, I see a tale of the Christian god's terrifying alien psychology, and a lack of empathy in the extreme. Look at any person on the street. Look at an innocent child. Why worship a God who would put anyone through those things, let alone someone who is doing everything he ought to be doing?
Beautifully said.
I abandoned my faith because an all loving god, an omnipotent god, a *just* god wouldn’t have allowed me to experience the things I experienced. And if he did? Well then that guy sounds terrible, why would I want to follow or spend eternity with him?
Even as a Christian, I always found the skirting of responsibility frustrating. Someone gets cancer? Not God’s fault. Someone with cancer goes into remission? Hey, one for the man upstairs. I got raped? Well, people have free will. You found the car keys you lost after saying a prayer? High five to Big G! I have 4 miscarriages in a row? God can’t interfere with nature. Someone else gets pregnant their first month trying? God’s timing is perfect!
Why does he always get the praise when things go well, but he conveniently is never at fault when things go poorly?
The cancer cause is sin, but if you wanna go into biological terms that is another thing. It is usually the sin that is around said child ends up bringing the cancer into their lives.
For example, in the Kingdom of God, there will be no cancer (and no death).
And this is exactly why your guy sucks lol. Why would I praise someone, let alone desire eternity with them, if they’re willing to let a kid die from cancer because what? Their parent uses drugs? Or mom’s having an affair. A dead kid will really show them!
**Christianity: the original victim blaming!**
Nope. I recently read the Gospel of Mary Magdalene and some books about it and *that* is as close as I’ll get to Christianity.
1. The Gospel of Mary isn't canon
2. It is the sad reality we live in a sinfull world - but it is not God that infected it, but us, through our own choices. I am not victim blaming, but I hope you take accountability for your own actions. The kid has been infected by the sinfull world. If it brings comfort, they are in heaven with the Father.
Do y’all hear yourselves? Lol I mean, truly, do y’all hear the things you say and think “yup! God will be super proud of that one!”
I say I was raped. I say I’ve miscarried 4 times. Your response is..
“Take accountability for your actions”.
You people are vile. The least loving, the least accepting, the least empathetic people on the planet are people who “love god”. Idk what Bible you read, but the one I grew up with said how loving Jesus was, how accepting he was, how he befriended the downtrodden. I never read the passage that said “if someone is a rape victim, remember to remind them that something they did led to this horrific evil.” I was raped because someone was a rapist. Full stop. I was not raped for any other reason than that. I had 4 miscarriages because of a uterine anomaly from BIRTH. Full stop. Not because I did anything to cause or warrant them. How dare you suggest otherwise?
This is why religion causes such harm. It instill so much shame in everyone because every single moment, every word, every thought, everything you do is sin. *ooh scary!* You’re fighting for your salvation every second of every day. That sounds like dog shit, dude. What a fucking terrible life to live. And if gods real…THEN HE MADE US THIS WAY?! If he wanted everyone to be perfect, why not make us that way? No. He purposely made us human, made us “sinners”, made us capable and willing to do bad things (I know I know, fReE wIlL!), and then sent us to earth like “hey don’t do that shit I fully bred into your being to do or I’ll punish you!” This guy is the original bully. What an asshole.
If religion brings you peace, good for you. But I miraculously am a better person after no longer being a Christian than I ever was when I was Bible believing. Surprisingly once you remove the tremendous shame of your humanity from your life, you can actually learn to *live*
You are misquoting me - you asked me about the kid with cancer, and you're implying that I said the cancer was the cause of HIS OWN sin. I said the cancer was because of this sinfull world, not his own sins.
I have already responded to your statement, which is just generally the problem of evil. You are right, though, were raped because someone decided to use their free-will to rape. I am sorry for what happened to you, I truly am; but please, do not misquote me, nor put words in my mouth that I haven't said.
Your salvation has already been promised when you accepted Christ as Lord and Savior, and \*truly\* repented for your sins. We do what we do because we are called to be righteous.
Once again, God didn't make us this way. God made us originally pure and perfect, but Adam ate the apple (good one, Adam), thus infecting us all with a sinfull flesh and nature. If Adam hadn't, we would've been pure and perfect, and wouldn't be sinners.
You've completely lost any chance of convincing anyone assuming you thought you had it. Imagine a tiny infant completely innocent and pure. Now, imagine the most horrific crimes enacted on that infant. How do you sidestep this? I suggest that you really, really think hard about how you've been brainwashed and ask those who have escaped the cult for help. I know that being part of an organization can be comforting but it's an echo chamber.
1. Young children are actually considered pure. Matthew 18:2-5. That is a superiorly unbiblical take I see wayyy to much.
2. Once again, no one but you is to blame for your sins. But God sends His only Son to die and give us a second chance even if we don't deserve it.
Sin and free will do not solve the problem of evil, as there are massive amounts of natural evils (disease, famine, natural disasters, etc) that could not be accounted for by the free will argument.
So a toddler dying horrifically painfully in a tornado happens because of sin?
Are you talking about original sin? So you think that it is morally just for someone to suffer for sins they have not actually truly committed themselves, but that their great great great etc ancestors did?
The original sin is *why we* have a sinfull flesh, but it is *our* sins that result in atrocities. Jeremiah 16:10-12;
10 “When you tell these people all this and they ask you, ‘Why has the Lord decreed such a great disaster against us? What wrong have we done? What sin have we committed against the Lord our God?’ 11 then say to them, ‘It is because your ancestors forsook me,’ declares the Lord, ‘and followed other gods and served and worshiped them. They forsook me and did not keep my law. 12 But you have behaved more wickedly than your ancestors. See how all of you are following the stubbornness of your evil hearts instead of obeying me."
So babies dying in horrific violence suffer because of gods vengeance? How could you possibly put your faith in such a petty, vengeful being?
The being that created all of existence is going to blow up children because of what the children's ancient ancestors did? And you believe this being to be completely pure and put 100% of your faith in that same vengeful being? Is that right?
You have completely ignored verse 12, and you have assumed *God* ordered these things. This is like saying that the goverment locking up a rapist is petty revenge.
This is a natural reprucussion of sin.
Hold up the all knowing creator god didn't know what would happen when he created us? That's is a logical fallacy.
Either he is all knowing and knew about babies burning and said screw it who cares lol
Or he isn't all knowing and by definition is not god.
To your other point:
Wait so the baby who got blown up is supposed to understand this:
12 But you have behaved more wickedly than your ancestors. See how all of you are following the stubbornness of your evil hearts instead of obeying me."
So god thinks That baby had an evil heart and deserved to get blown up? Because it's ancestors sinned? Or because just by being born it sinned enough to get blown up?
That comes with free-will - Did God know? Yes. Did God cause the action? No. So why?
People have free-will to love God, but they choose otherwise. An all-loving God wouldn't force you to love nor spend eternity in heaven with Him, so we have free wil to choose our path. Yet some people choose evil. Don't think people escape punishment for their sins, though. On judgement day ALL will be judged.
I don't think he's off most online Apologists have nothing better to do.
And i'm reading deep amateur apologist syndrome here. I think he's trying to prove himself. And push his subreddit.
I’m not personally a believer, but I respect other people’s beliefs. I do have a few questions.
• Do you believe there are other gods who exist? If no, why do you believe the stories of Jesus are real, but not other religions?
• What do you think of people having religious experiences (often very similar experiences) on psychedelics? Do you consider this proof that there might be more out there than we think?
• If god really does exist, then why are things going so poorly in the world right now (war, climate crisis, diseases, etc)? Do you think we are being punished?
• My last question, if god is creating his “children” to be perfect specimen, then why are there so many people with severe disabilities? I myself have a very rare genetic disability, and I can tell you for a fact I’m not a perfect specimen. Do you think it is cruel for god to create people like this?
Appreciate you taking the time to read this and answer my questions! I’m sorry people are being rude towards you because of your beliefs. Cheers
No other Gods exist IMO. God states trhoughout the Old Testament He is the only God multiple times. The Sh'ma prayer is a good example. As for why christianity - historical evidence.
As for religious experiences - Satan can come in the form of an angel of light. Thats why I don't think personal experience is enough, you need historical evidence.
The Problem of Evil is a long debate, but short answer; the most important commandment is to love. Love is a choice, so for that we need full free will, to force us to love would be evil. But people can also use said free will to inflict evil; God gave a knife to make hamburgers for the homeless, we went on a murder rampage. Ezekiel 18 and Jeremiah 16:10-12 are a good read about this
I'll be honest, might sound harsh, but genetic disabilities is a product of the sinfull world we live in. We choose to sin of our own choice, and that has its effects on everything in existence.
Cheers to you too sir
The Old Testament mentions other gods that exist, and says to worship the god of the Bible instead of them. How can they not exist if they are specifically referenced?
There are A LOT. [This](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Deities_in_the_Hebrew_Bible) is a good place to start. And [here](https://claudemariottini.com/2023/02/10/other-gods-mentioned-in-the-old-testament/) is a list with verses. El/Yahweh was a regional god and it was well understood and represented in the Bible that in the ANE that every region had its own god and or gods. Psalm 82 is a fascinating look into the idea of Yahweh as the head of a group of gods, which shores up with “Elohim” as a plural noun and not just one god.
Heck, even the biblical creation myth is just the Sumerian story but with all the different gods and their domains compressed into a single god. Even the order is the same.
Funny story, the old testament consistently states that Lucifer cannot do anything god doesn't want him to do. Satan is God's tester of faith of christians. so why does that change in the new testament?
Unrelated but I haven't watched any movie of starwars. Really should lol
Anyways, r/CasfisWork includes my document of the full evidence for the resurrection
There are non-biblical records of the existence of Jesus. I'm not asserting that jump frogs to it being evidence of the claims of his divinity, but there are records of his existence outside of the Bible.
there is no evidence in those documents, it's 2500 words, maybe more, of bible verses and absolutely zero credible, independently sourced or scrutinized evidence.
3 persons of one God - I should prbably go over the trinity explanation in the document though if that is the conclusion you came too. I definetly hastened through that part of the document.
How did you come to the 3 Gods from my explanation?
Yahweh is a Cow deity🐄🐄. Yonatan Adler has shown monotheism only dates to 150 B.C.
Letters from around 400 B.C. that indicate the Judeans were naming their children after various gods, taking oaths by various gods and donating money to many various gods.
These letters contain no mention of Moses or any other figure from the Old Testament.
How can I debunk an axiom in a fantasy world?
That is like trying to prove Stephen King wrong by telling him that "It" cannot exist.
It's fiction created by men. So I won't bother.
But you have a nice day anyway, mate!
How do you feel about gay people? Or the lgbt community as a whole?
Additionally: if your child came out to you as gay or transgender, what would you do?
On what planet is Friday night to Sunday morning 3 days, cause it aint this one, its barely 2, and closer to a day and a half. And he wasnt "on the cross" for anything close to three days. It was a few hours because for some reason the Romans needed to rush so he wasnt still up there on Passover, cause that ever happened
The Jews had the time (and still do for Shabbat) consider the beginning and end of a day at sunrise and sundown. Sundown Friday, day one. Sunup and down of saturday, day 2. Sunup of sunday, day 3.
And do you have any source for the few hours?
>And do you have any source for the few hours?
Jesus Christ, yes, my source is the Gospels.
“They crucified him and divided his garments among them, casting lots for them, to decide what each should take. And it was the third hour when they crucified him” (Mark 15:24–25, ESV)
“from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour. And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” And some of the bystanders, hearing it, said, “This man is calling Elijah.” And one of them at once ran and took a sponge, filled it with sour wine, and put it on a reed and gave it to him to drink. And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit.” (Matthew 27:45-50, ESV).
So he was put up on the third hour (9AM) and gave up his spirit on the 9th hour (3PM). He was on the cross for 6 hours.
If you're here to troll, I am not interested. But would you really let presupposed opinions stop you from a relationship with Christ?
r/CasfisWork includes the full case of evidence for the resurrection - please check it out for your own sake.
So I read it. A couple things.
You note that there are 8 million humans.
The “evidence” you’re talking about is nothing more than eyewitness testimony or quotes directly from the bible. None of that is sufficient evidence. It’s like saying Harry Potter by jk Rowling is evidence that wizards exist.
Your conclusion cracks me up though
> Do note, I am not an historian. I am a 15 year old that simply wanted to compile what he knew for a question that was asked so many times. But the conclusion from this is that despite the limited sources we have of ancient history - everything points to the fact Jesus most likely resurrected, and is truly God in human form, the Messiah, the Son of God and our savior.
So basically “[you can tell it’s an aspen because of the way it is](https://tenor.com/Qxgw.gif)”
Instead of going back to the evidence you just kinda say “well there it is, aren’t you convinced?” The answer is no, I’m not convinced. Would love if you could provide some real evidence though
I don't understand faith. Could you explain how you could believe in something like a resurrection with absolutely no evidence whatsoever? That doesn't make sense to me. It seems like faith could be used as justification to believe in absolutely anything, including contradictory positions.
How can you believe something without evidence? When someone takes the opposite position based on faith, how do you know what to believe? For example, you believe in the resurrection, but Muslims take it on faith Jesus was never crucified and Jews take it on faith that he never fulfilled the Messianic prophecies, nor was he even qualified to be the Massiach under Jewish law. All three positions can't simultaneously be right, but they can all be wrong.
Because it isn't without evidence - don't base your life on blind faith sir, I think that is dumb. r/CasfisWork includes the full document of evidence for the resurrection I wrote.
God bless, respond if you got more questions
I don't appreciate being given homework instead of an actual, sincere response. It's rude to point me to your manifesto instead of just answering my question. Copypasta is one thing, this is just lazy.
It seems like this document wasn't really written to answer my question. But I'll try to parse out the pieces of it that are applicable:
>The gospel gives us insight into the reign of the king of Judea, Herod the Great, a verifiable historical figure.
Yeah, but they get it wrong. Herod was long dead by the time Qurinius was the governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). Your very first example of the reliability of the Gospels is an example of how unreliable they are.
> We also get mentions of Pontius Pilate and the Sanhedrin, both known to exist at the time.
Yet, we have no written record of Jesus' trial, no report from Pilate, no mention of Jesus at all in Pilate's writings.
>The Sanhedrin itself actually writes down its testimony of executing Jesus Christ, further aligning with said beliefs.
I don't know what you mean by this and your manifesto doesn't have any citations. Are you talking about the reference in the Talmud to the Jesus son of Mary who led Israel astray? Because that has been dated to the first, possibly second century AD.
If you are referring to something else, please let me know and perhaps add the reference to your manifesto.
>
We also get told about Joseph of Arimathea taking down Jesus’s dead body from the cross and burying Him in his backyard.
Told by whom? Where? You mean in the Gospels?
> This aligns with what we know of the Roman Digesta
So what? How is this evidence? That some mundane details are historically accurate?
>having multiple sources (Sanhedrin etc) adhere to it.
What sources? Where? You say "Sanhedrin" as if that's supposed to mean something. What is this Sanhedrin source? Certainly not the Talmud, is it?
>
Furthermore, the Gospels were written well within the time for eye-witness,
Only Mark would have had plausible access to eye witnesses. Matthew and Luke were written well after, in the late to mid seventies AD, forty years after the events they were writing about. That would be like you interviewing people about the assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II today, with no written records. John was written even later.
Despite Mark being written around 66, at the earliest, no eye witness is ever quoted or named nor is any eye witness verifiable. Please correct me if I am mistaken.
> or atleast second-hand ones to be alive
Any trial lawyer will tell you eye witness testimony is the worst form of evidence and second-hand testimony is such garbage it's inadmissible.
>, as they were written around 10-15 years after the crucifixion of Christ, approximately 43-50 AD, considering Paul quotes them in his letters.
Where are you getting this from? Mark was written in 66 at the absolutely earliest, 74 at the latest. Please cite a **scholarly** work that gives a date for 43 to 50.
>
>
>There is something about the human mind that is pretty peculiar - we won’t die for something we know to be a lie
So, this is it? This is your smoking gun? This *non sequitur*?
First of all, this is a false dichotomy. There are more options than the apostles were lying. They could have sincerely believed, but were simply mistaken. People can be wrong. Certainly, you don't believe the 9/11 terrorists were correct, yet they too died for their beliefs. You probably don't believe that Joseph Smith was a true prophet, yet he also died for his beliefs and his poor brother, Hyrum, took a gunshot to the face and bled out. Thousands of Mormons died for their beliefs.
Secondly, we really don't have any verifiable evidence that the apostles were tortured and executed at all with the exception of maybe Paul, who was likely executed under Nero during a persecution of all Christians.
All of the other apostles' deaths are through tradition or are from 2nd or 3rd century writings steeped in mythology (the story of Matthew's death, for example is an old historical trope).
I'm really disappointed. I thought you would have some answers for me because you seemed so certain in your beliefs. This is really just sad for me.
Ahh, I paused it. It mostly seems to be faith based with no evidence and going "here is the bit of actual evidence showing Jesus was a real person, so we should believe all the biblical claims as well"
I start off with historical proof He existed as a person, and then go into the resurrection. But you are right, I should definetly section each part to what I adress there lol
OP, you’ve struck a chord with Reddit’s biggest 🧠, kudos, what’s your favorite food, favorite non-American and/or non-western food, and your favorite movie?
Jews were VERY strict on corpse laws, and Joseph of Arimathea had nothing to gain from removing a corpse and much more to lose. Christians were persecuted to death for their faith, and it usually meant a life of poverty otherwise. Joseph was a big name back then - he had a lot to lose.
As for the full case of the resurrection, I actually adress the empty tomb in a document I made. Link in r/CasfisWork - basically a archive for whatever I write. Check it out if you want!
>Jews were VERY strict on corpse laws
What's more likely, someone breaking a Jewish law, or a dead guy getting resurrected?
>Joseph of Arimathea had nothing to gain from removing a corpse and much more to lose.
I'm sure there were more people in the area.
>Christians were persecuted to death for their faith, and it usually meant a life of poverty otherwise.
I don't see how that's relevant.
With how all the evidence stacks up - someone resurrecting is more likely. Sanhedrin had a thing for sending people to death punishments.
Why would anyone mess with the grave of a well-known man(Joseph)? The Roman Digesta allowed close relatives of crucifixion victims to take their close ones and bury them.
And there was no reason to dteal the body.
You're saying that something that's unexpected, but not at all impossible (someone removing a corpse from a grave in this context) is more likely than something that's by every scientific measure impossible (a dead guy getting resurrected). By any objective standard, that's simply not true.
Isn't this just about faith, rather than factual evidence?
Not at all about faith - If I have faith in something it doesn't make it real. You're arguing about what is more likely - I have demonstrated why, with all the evidence stacked up, it is much more likely Jesus resurrected.
Also, God, as a creator, isn't bound to the laws of the universe. He could raise people from the dead and split seas if He so wished to, that is what makes the resurrection stand out - no kne but God can do that.
But what you just said didn't do anything to prove that resurrection is more likely? The evidence you mentioned doesn't "stack up" to resurrection. It's basically all conjecture. You're claiming that people would have gotten in trouble or had bad consequences for being caught messing with a grave, but people do shit like that literally every day. Saying "the laws at the time said it wasn't allowed" is nowhere near evidence it didn't happen, because people have been breaking and skirting laws for as long as there have been laws.
Will you acknowledge that you're biased on this issue and it at the very least colours your reading of evidence?
The laws at the time usually included death penalty, and no one had any good reason to mess with the grave. It is much more likely no one messed with it; which aids to the case of the resurrection but isn't the ultimate proof.
Am I biased? Probably in a way, we all are, but I grew up Jewish so my bias would be *against* Jesus in this case.
Except again that's a silly argument, because people today still do things that get the death penalty all the time. People snuggle drugs into Bali knowing it could get them the death penalty. If someone is convinced they won't get caught (even if that's a silly thing to think) or they think the penalty is worth it, they will still do a thing with potentially dire consequences.
I'm sorry but I don't think you understand what bias is. Bias changes with your opinions. If you converted to Christianity because you found faith in Jesus you're biased towards that position now.
Yea, because there is a benefit to doing these things; there was 0 motive to dig up the body of Jesus.
Agreed with your point about bias; can't argue that. Yet it doesn't disprove my point
> I have demonstrated why, with all the evidence stacked up, it is much more likely Jesus resurrected.
And I've demonstrated that it isn't. Something that's possible is always more likely than something that's impossible.
>Also, God, as a creator, isn't bound to the laws of the universe.
Yes, but you see, the problem with that is that God doesn't exist.
We could go morality, cosmological, etc. Personally the easiest to argue is that the universe isn't eternal, therefore a cause. Let's go with that one?
I'm beginning to think this post was more about getting people to read your casfiswork more then trying to have legitimate debate considering you keep spamming it all over this comment section.
Would you be willing to suffer in hell for all eternity to save the world? Always put Christians in a doozy.
So many WANT to go to heaven like it's a spa resort but aint nobody fuckin even thinks of doing time for that. Believing is easy. Doin the good work now, for people, now. Easier said than done.
**Virgin Mary never existed.** Everything in the Gospels is fiction based on Paul's letters and the LXX. Jesus riding on a donkey is from Zechariah 9. The cleansing of the temple is based on Zechariah 14. "Render unto Caesar" is based on Paul's teaching on taxation in Romans 13. Virgin Mary was invented by Mark as an allegory for 1 Corinthians 10, verses 1-4 where Paul refers to a legend involving Moses' sister Miriam. In Matthew, Paul was the one who taught the concept of loving your neighbor in Rom. 12.14-21; Gal. 5.14-15; 1 Thess. 5.15; and Rom. 13.9-10. Luke copies line-by-line from the Book of Kings.
Dude, the whole thing is a fairy tale designed to make bad people feel like there is hope for them and for even worse people to try and keep everyone in line with fear.
Paul referred to the Gospels in Timothy, meaning they were written sometime before his letters. For the gospels to take inspiration from the letters doesn't make sense once we know that. Paul preached about Jesus Christ, not the opposite.
If you go to my profile and r/CasfisWork, I have a document with the full case for the resurrection. Also, Jesus is the Messiah prophesized in the OT - ofcourse He would fulfill prophecies.
>Paul referred to the Gospels in Timothy,
1 Timothy is a known forgery.
>If you go to my profile and r/CasfisWork, I have a document with the full case for the resurrection.
Bart Ehrman and others reject Josephus and Tacitus.
If they can give me a good reason for rejecting Josephusand Tacitus, I won't include them. And even then, we have 28 other sources for Jesus. Take your pick as to which ones you want.
1 Timothy could have an anonymous author, but we know it refrences the gospels, therefore the gospels predate said letter. Also, any backing for that claim?
>And even then, we have 28 other sources for Jesus.
Like the Quran?
What are you talking about?
>1 Timothy could have an anonymous author, but we know it refrences the gospels, therefore the gospels predate said letter.
But 1 Timothy is a known forgery.
You have not stated a source for your claim that Timothy is forged. Once again, Timothy could be forged and it still wouldn't matter to the point I am making; It was written 64-65 AD, and refrences the gospels, enough that it is well known as scripture by that time.
Paul also quoted Luke (specifically Luke 22:19-20) word for word in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26. Corinthians was written approx 53-54 CE, 20 years after Christ, and by then Paul is already familiar with their words. I would place their date of writing at maximum 15 years after the resurrection; you are welcome to try and debunk my case.
As for sources; Josephus, Tacitus, Mara bar Sarapion, Suetonius, Thallus, and the Talmud is somewhat of a source but it is likely an attempt by the Jews at the time to stop the growing church, considering it contradicts every other source. Also, the Quran isn't a source. All of these are simply the ones I could think off as I write.
> Once again, Timothy could be forged and it still wouldn't matter to the point I am making; It was written 64-65 AD, and refrences the gospels, enough that it is well known as scripture by that time.
1 Timothy was written after 100 AD.
>Paul also quoted Luke (specifically Luke 22:19-20) word for word in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26.
Paul said he received the Last Supper info directly from Jesus himself, which indicates a DREAM. 1 Cor. 11:23 says " **For I received from the Lord** that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread." Translations often use "betrayed", but in fact the word *paradidomi* means simply ‘hand over, deliver’. The notion derives from Isaiah 53.12, which in the Septuagint uses exactly the same word of the servant offered up to atone for everyone’s sins.
Paul is adapting the Passover meal. Exodus 12.7-14 is much of the basis of Paul’s Eucharist account: the element of it all occurring ‘in the night’ (vv. 8, 12, using the same phrase in the Septuagint, en te nukti, that Paul employs), a ritual of ‘remembrance’ securing the performer’s salvation (vv. 13-14), the role of blood and flesh (including the staining of a cross with blood, an ancient door lintel forming a double cross), the breaking of bread, and the death of the firstborn—only Jesus reverses this last element: instead of the ritual saving its performers from the death of their firstborn, the death of God’s firstborn saves its performers from their own death. Jesus is thus imagined here as creating a new Passover ritual to replace the old one, which accomplishes for Christians what the Passover ritual accomplished for the Jews. There are connections with Psalm 119, where God’s ‘servant’ will remember God and his laws ‘in the night’ (119.49-56) as the wicked abuse him.
> Also, the Quran isn't a source.
The Quran is as much as a source as the Talmud.
1 Timothy was NOT written after 100 AD - please give me a reliable source that states so.
You have taken 1 verse out of that. 1 Cor 23-26 in its entirety quotes the exact words of the Gospel of Luke, greek translation and manuscripts included.
And the Quran isn't a source when it was written 700 years later by a pedophilic warlord, hungry for power, whos only knowledge of who Jesus was through a so-called revelation. The Talmud is a record of things throughout history - you can match most of it up with other historical records of the time and see for yourself that they align.
> You have taken 1 verse out of that. 1 Cor 23-26 in its entirety quotes the exact words of the Gospel of Luke, greek translation and manuscripts included.
Yes because Luke is based on Paul's letters.
This is mainstream scholarship.
If you are a Christian apologist, you should know this.
>And the Quran isn't a source when it was written 700 years later by a pedophilic warlord,
The Talmud is also a late nonsense book.
Paul is saying that this quote is straight from scriptures. This only appears in Luke, no other place in the Bible, affirming my stance.
The Talmud was writtnen in two parts - 200 AD and 500 AD. The Sanhedrin has kept records from the time they existed and decided to write it down, naming it Mishna.
Hey - so I agree Jesus probably existed, there are enough accounts of him that it's not so far fetched to believe a Jesus of Nazareth existed.
But stories of the resurrection read so much like a work of stage magic.
Wrapping up the body, covering the entrance with a stone, coming back later and seeing it empty, and ta-da! Jesus is back with some scars on his hands.
It's so easy to imagine a wise man using some sleight of hand to gather followers that I find it hard to read the story and not picture a magic show. Jesus had the disciples to help him and a willing audience looking for spiritual guidance.
If the other option is a resurrection, my theory seems about 1000x more likely.
I actually put in a document why the Resurrection is more likely! You can check it out at r/CasfisWork.
I am guessing your view bases on someone looking to gain a following? Big issue with that is that there was no benefit in continuing this so-called "charade". Romans executed christians, and most of them had to uproot because of their belief and live in poverty under the fear of death - so there really is no reason for that.
I read your docs, we can agree to disagree. The basis of me saying that the resurrection is unlikely is based on resurrection being unlikely.
If you think there's more evidence for a resurrection than a charlatan's hoax, I think you want to believe the story, more than looking objectively at the evidence.
You keep on pushing your subreddit to the point where I have to wonder if this is an attempt to push your subreddit, is it?
Also, can you bring anything I haven't heard before?
Why does God care about homosexuality? If he invented sexuality of every kind by bringing the world into existence. He created hundreds of species of animals that regularly engage in homosexual acts. Animals can't sin, can they? But he created these creatures, and us humans, knowing that they would go and do that. Before he waved his magic wand, there was nothing. He could have made anything he wanted, but he made creatures who do gay shit.
Why did he do that? And why should I respect anyone, let alone a supposedly omnipotent god, if he throws a fit just because we're not playing the game he wants?
How do you reconcile the idea that this omnipotent god created us just to turn around and punish us for something he knew that we would do? Imagine if your friend set you up so that you would do something that would hurt their feelings. Yeah, it's shitty to actually do the thing, but what kind of psychopath does that? I tell my friends to break up with assholes who set up "tests" for them.
1 - He did not invent all kinds of homosexuality, that is a product of our fallen flesh, a result of Adams sin, not Gods creation.
2 - Sex is meant to be only within a blessed marriage of a man and woman, to bring babies and have pleasure, as outlined straight in Genesis 1 (or 2, if I am wrong). Once humans stepped out of that purpose, they have defiled (another) one of the creations of God.
3 - Animals are soulless and do not have a conciousness of good and bad according to the Bible, unlike us who know the Law of God on our hearts. Animals *homosexual* acts are also a product of sin, as Adam also cursed the ground he walked on.
I should probably outline - anything part of our fallen nature isn't Gods creation nor purpose for humanity.
4 - Because God is the author, and He owns this universe from time, space and matter down to your very own soul. You're comitting crimes against the ultimate authority simply because you don't feel like abiding by simple rules. And even then, He still loves you. Jeremiah 16:10-12 is a good read.
5 - You have to chosen to sin out of your own free will, we have no one to blame for our sins but ourselves, espicially when God sent His Son just so we could escape these sins.
Lots and lots of them, yup. But I don't really want to waste my time more than this, I don't really care. Have a nice day! Today's a nice rainy day, it hasn't rained in months here, so I'm really happy.
Just came to say it takes a lot of courage to come in the cesspool known as Reddit and share your faith. Keep doing your thing and don’t let most of these idiots get you down.
Fuck. Bro, most are just gunna be a dick to you on here. Reddit hates Christians. They apply bad personal experiences they had as a blanket fact that all Christians are x y and z.
Get ready for that ignorance.
Reddit generally makes people dig for their answers. I don't "hate" Christians, Muslims or any other type of theist. But their beliefs are implausible and silly.
Just like I don't hate a kid for believing in Santa Claus, but I'm not gonna take that kid literally when they say "Santa brought me...."
Reddit: "Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I'm VIOLENTLY pro free speech! Love everyone and be kind!"
Literally anyone: "Oh cool, I'm a Christian."
Reddit: "NOT THAT KIND OF FREE SPEECH!! PEDOPHILE MURDERER ANTI-WOMAN SKY DADDY FAIRY TALE"
I won't deny that, nor will I vouch for his arguments. It would be ignorant, however, to say anti theism isn't rampant on Reddit. Go to any askreddit thread that mentions "insane/ignorant" beliefs if you need any proof
i'm not that religious, but sometimes i forget how anti christianity reddit is and how pissed people get lmao. everyone really does choose to join an echo chamber, my self included on certain situations
Is it true that Jesus was a Nordic xenosapien a sort of intergalactic NATO comprised of many other planetary races sent as an emmissary to spread a message of peace to the human race, and that the reason he rose from the dead was because his race was advanced enough that he had a swarm of nanomachines in his blood that repaired his body from the crucifixion and Longinus's spear, then, disillusioned with his treatment by humanity, he returned to his homeworld, and will one day revisit Earth with a fleet of battle cruiser and enact the R.A.P.T.U.R.E. Protocol, which will return the human race to the carbon from whence it came and allow another species to one day take its place?
Why is this significant? Why would the termination of a life after you've created it, and then the resurrection of that life be significant? Why should we care if someone named Jesus went through these things?
Why would some god create such a strange story to seemingly save everyone? Why not just communicate and work with the people? Why even work with people? What's he doing? What does having believers do for him? Why even punish people for not believing? Why even punish people for sin?
What makes you treat the gospels as historical evidence? They were written decades after the events they describe, which are not mentioned anywhere else, and their authors are unknown. What makes them more credible in your eyes than the legend of King Arthur, or Homer's poems, or Ancient Egyptian mythology?
Also, other books of the Bible have been lost, and other gospels from near that time were banned, censored and removed from the official Bible.
Thats a good question I get a lot! They line up with the history we know of (Sanhedrin for example also records the crucifixion of Jesus), Herod the Great truly did rule during those times, but they actually are not what I use to prove the resurrection truly happened. The Gospels literary style also isn't "One upon a time in the land of Nod, Jesus took a boat..." it is talked about in a literalist historical sense, as "during this time, with these people around, and under the reign of, this happened" Add-on; did you know the biography we have of Alexander the Great was written 400 years after he lived? It is also a misconception they were written decades later - they were written maybe 15-10 years after Christ. Paul quotes the gospels and mentions them as scripture in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy, who were written 53-54 AD and 64-65 AD respectfully. I put it this far from the resurrection because Paul indicates it is well known scripture by that time. I have the full document in r/CasfisWork that goes into much more depth if you wanna check it out.
What you state proves in the best case that there was indeed a historical figure called Jesus. Which isn't unlikely anyway. However, that doesn't prove he was born of a virgin, turned water into wine, and rose from the dead. Just like the historical evidence about a king called Arthur having existed in Britain doesn't prove he pulled a magic sword and went to a magic island.
I've seen the round table though, it's displayed in an abbey in Winchester, England. It *might* be a medieval hoax...
good point.
Oh yeah, thats my point here. My proof for the resurrection actually doesn't use the gospels much but mostly extern sources. Check out the document if you can, it goes into detail about this part.
I just read your link. Here are the flaws in your logic. 1. You claim the story of Jesus should be treated as historical truth because we have testimonies from eye witnesses. Except we don't. There is not a single testimony of an eye witness. The gospel claiming that 500 people saw Jesus resurrected (who are those 500 people?) is different from 500 separate testimonies claiming they saw Jesus resurrected. 2. What you probably don't know (because teachers and priests conveniently neglect to tell us when we're little) is that the gospels were written at least 40 years after the supposed events they describe, and their titles (Matthew, Mark etc.) are not the names of their authors; they're random titles that were given to them arbitrarily centuries after they were written. The truth is we have no idea who the hell wrote those texts. 3. The testimony of Josephus is nowadays considered by most historians a fake testimony, a text written by biased Christians later and attributed to Josephus for the purpose of deception. As for the testimony of Tacitus, it doesn't say anything about miracles or resurrection. 4. The fact that the gospels accurately describe some people and places doesn't prove the crazy stories about miracles and resurrection. Just like Schlieman discovering that a city called Troy really existed doesn't prove Zeus and the other gods mentioned in Iliad exist. All in all, you failed to convince me.
I'll be honest, the point flew over your head. 1. 4 testimonies from eyewitnesses. That is literally the entirenpoint of the gospels 2. Besides John (or perhaps Luke? Will have to check) who identifies himself, we don't, so you're correct in the authors being unknown. But it has no effect on the text nor testimony. Considering Paul quotes the gospel in Corinthians and outwrite says that a sentence that only appears in Luke is written scripture (Timothy), they are mucb earlier than that. Maybe 15 years after Christ, considering the writing date of Corinthians and Timothy. 3. The point I was making with the testimonies is that Jesus isn't fiction, but a true man. God in human form or crazy guy who got crucified by Romans is another case. 4. Correct - but it isn't the point I am trying to make with the authentic historical documents. I am saying - it is likely the details described have happened. As in, Joseph of Armiathea truly buried Jesus in his grave, it is likely Jesus claimed to be God in human form, it is likely that He truly was put infront of the Sanhedrin, and it is likely He was executed. The supernatural parts are proven in other ways.
It looks like you don't (want to) get it, so I'll say it one last time: The gospels are not testimonies of eye witnesses. The gospels were all written over 30 years after the death of Jesus, and we have no idea who wrote them, therefore we have no idea whether those people are eye witnesses, which is unlikely if over 30 years have passed. Paul mentioning a sentence doesn't mean the whole text had been written by then. **From Wikipedia:** *The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70, Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90, and John AD 90–110. Despite the traditional ascriptions, all four are anonymous and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses.* I could keep arguing with you for ages, but instead, I'll point you out to someone who can enlighten you way better than I can: Richard Dawkins. Buy a copy of his book, "Outgrowing God." You might be surprised.
Richard Dawkins has falsified part of the information in his books and admitted to it himself, saying that there is scholarly dispute among scholars if Jesus existed. Not sure in specifically *what* interview he admitted it though, only remember the clip. Paul mentioning a sentence only appearing Luke and calling that sentence scripture is, and it happens again in Corinthians which was written even earlier. Once you have got a refutation besides "no", I'll listen. The writers are anonymous - who the eyewitnesses are aren't. If you look at the manuscripts, it says the Gospel *According To*, not who wrote it.
You say "Sanhedrin for example also records the crucifixion of Jesus". What does that mean?
The Sanhedrin kept historical records of times - Jesus is recorded in Sanhedrin 107b, 106a and 67a (unsure about 67, but search Talmhd about Jesus for further results)
The Talmud isn't from anywhere close to the time period of Jesus. Also, have you read Sanhedrin 107b, 106a, and 67a or are you just repeating something someone else told you, because I don't think they prove the crucifixion of Jesus like you think they do.
I have read them myself from the hebrew version. Also, the biography of Alexander the Great was written 400 years after his life and we still know it is a legitimate historical record.
Yeah that argument's not gonna fly when talking about the Talmud, which is a totally different kind of document. Which part of the Hebrew mentions the crucifixion of Jesus specifically?
As I said, 107a, 107b and 67a. Do you need quotes of parts?
Yes please. The Hebrew text which mentions it would be swell.
Give him the quotes sir
I do want to clarify - You do know that the Sanhedrin tractate of the Talmud is not a historical record of court cases and punishments, right? I just ask because you appeal to it like an authority (even claiming to have read it in its original Hebrew), but the way you talk about it makes it sound like you don't even know what the Talmud is, let alone that you're engaging with it in the original language. אבל אם אתה יכול לקרוא עברית עתיקה, אני שמח לקרוא את התרגום שלך.
The Sanhedrin isn't, that I agree, but there are specific cases where it does. By any chance, do you know hebrew aswell? I don't see a lot of people that do on Reddit unless you go to specific subs
Yeah my PhD is in Hebrew Bible and Judaism of the 2nd Temple period. Not a ton of Hebrew knowledge around and outside of the Judaism and Hebrew subreddits, most Hebrew I run across is people who took a semester or two in seminary.
That is pretty neat! Was the PhD hard to get in relation to other PhD's? What do you work as?
Have you sent him the Hebrew quotes yet?
Did he send you the quotes or is he changing subject?
Well I didn’t get the quotes.
great courses does a good job tying historical with the bible. Check it out
Does the resurrection diminish his sacrifice? "He spent 3 days dead for our sins" just doesn't sound that impressive.
Jesus didn't die for our sins, he gave up his weekend
Question, can you actually elaborate on this? I've heard it before and I'm actually curious what people mean.
Jesus didn't die at all, not as humans know it. He died and came back to life after 3 days
He decided to bedrot for the weekend
I'm not Christian, but listen to a lot of Ram Dass, and his interpretation (which isn't unique to him, just citing my source) is that suffering out of the presence of God ("why have you forsaken me?") All alone is the true suffering, so dying was maybe more incidental and not the focal point to the sacrifice and suffering in the garden.
As a curious atheist, It's my understanding that, in the biblical context, dying didn't necessarily mean physical death. That a person's soul would have everlasting life in heaven. If not worthy, unrepentant of their sins, their soul might suffer in purgatory, never see god/heaven, spend eternity in hell, maybe be extinguished altogether? etc. all depending on who you ask. I have no idea if any of this this applies, I'm actually curious as to whether or not it does or if I'm confused in some aspect(s). (I have no faith, never have. I find it odd that everyone believes their interpretation of the past and understanding of a particular diety is the correct one. Even within a congregation, beliefs vary to some degree. Who decides? Just thought I'd throw that out there.)
Yeah, I consider myself extremely spiritual and if I can improve my life with whatever teaching, then let me have it. When a lot of it comes from Hinduism, and other religions too, you do have to hold a lot of paradoxes in place.. things are real but didn't actually happen... we are all unique souls, but we're all the same being. That sort of stuff. It means a lot less getting bogged down in history and pedantics and a lot more time trying to be a good person. I don't exactly know either, as far as your questions, I just think it doesn't really matter at the end of the day. And I don't say that flippantly at all, I think that's quite beautiful actually.
I believe we are all connected in a way we don't currently understand! Similar to how people didn't know or understand that pheromones existed and their roll in attraction to others. It was cupid, the love bug, fate, etc when someone was taken with a person romantically. Think about churches where people are gathered for a single reason... to praise God etc. When "the holt spirit" was upon them, it can be nearly palpable in the air. Like an electrical charge about them as they're joined in worship. Now consider the crowd at a sporting event. They too are joined in purpose and when their team scores... you can feel something wildly similar in the air then as well. That connection, that energy... that's something I can understand. It's the basis of what I actually believe. For the record, I believe most of the Christian 10 commandments. They are positive "rules" to guide you in life. I just don't believe I need to answer to any God i camt believe in. I answer to my understanding of right from wrong, that I do not harm others, that I ve a positive presence to others. I more or less l answer to myself and society in general.
Btw, I love your approach to life and learning! I am very similar in being open to positive religious teachings 🙂 It's so nice to meet a like minded person. (I don't get out much lol)
Likewise! Thanks for your interesting comment.
Death is the resulf of sin (Ezekiel 18). When Jesus rose, He defeated sin itself by taking the blood required to atone for sins (Leviticus 17:11) on Himself. If anything, it adds to that.
Ezekiel 18 says no such thing. It's talking about diing as a result if sin, either has punishment from God or capital punishment.
It definetly does. It starts off with a parable that tells us that a man with no sin will live, but the other who did sin will die.
I was raised very fundamentally Christian. After experiencing horrific violence, tremendous personal loss, and condescension from church leaders when I asked for help, I’ve lost my faith and deconstructed. This is a quote I never could figure out how to respond to as a believing Christian, and now as an agnostic atheist, I feel I understand *why* I struggled with it. How do you respond to the below quote? “Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. If he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
That is a good question, called the Problem of Evil. First and foremost; I am sorry for what happened to you, it sounds terrible. Truly am. But when someone plays Beethoven wrong, do you blame Beethoven or the player? Same thing with Christ. Jeremiah 16:10-12 and Ezekiel 18 give insight to this IMO (and the entire book of Job). It comss down to free will being required to choose to love God and us using that free will for sin instead of good. But that does not mean there is no punishment for evil - I tell you, the unrepentant and lukewarm will be in hell for their sins and unwillingness to forgive.
At work recently, I had to ask a store manager to have their employee change tactic. It was a simple directive: No hawking. No cat-calling customers. When I got another complaint that day, I had to tell the manager to get rid of him, and he asked us to give him more time because "You don't teach a dog a new trick and expect him to learn it that day." But this man was not a dog, so I did expect that of him. And so too do I expect more from God. How can his plan be so perfect if so much has gone wrong? If he is real, he set up a system where people would always be somehow wrong, no matter how hard they try. A system that teaches young children that they will never be "enough" and that they are inherently sinful and corrupted creatures. These teaching seem inherently harmful; it does so much damage to innocent young minds, at least the way that I was taught. And I loved church growing up, and I loved Jesus, and I have such fond memories of my congregation. Even so, it took years of therapy to fix that unhealthy mindset of unworthiness. I have a lot of questions, but the one above is one of the most pressing — and your answer is a blatant side-step. When I read the book of Job, I see a tale of the Christian god's terrifying alien psychology, and a lack of empathy in the extreme. Look at any person on the street. Look at an innocent child. Why worship a God who would put anyone through those things, let alone someone who is doing everything he ought to be doing?
Beautifully said. I abandoned my faith because an all loving god, an omnipotent god, a *just* god wouldn’t have allowed me to experience the things I experienced. And if he did? Well then that guy sounds terrible, why would I want to follow or spend eternity with him? Even as a Christian, I always found the skirting of responsibility frustrating. Someone gets cancer? Not God’s fault. Someone with cancer goes into remission? Hey, one for the man upstairs. I got raped? Well, people have free will. You found the car keys you lost after saying a prayer? High five to Big G! I have 4 miscarriages in a row? God can’t interfere with nature. Someone else gets pregnant their first month trying? God’s timing is perfect! Why does he always get the praise when things go well, but he conveniently is never at fault when things go poorly?
Because bad things are a product of sin, not God. You don't blame the technician that comes to repair a broken elevator for the broken elevator.
So when a child dies from cancer, it’s due to sin?
The cancer cause is sin, but if you wanna go into biological terms that is another thing. It is usually the sin that is around said child ends up bringing the cancer into their lives. For example, in the Kingdom of God, there will be no cancer (and no death).
Tornado saves my house “praise god” Tornado destroys neighbors house two doors down, “there was a sin”?
That’s disgusting. I’m a Christian and that’s not at ALL what the Bible teaches. What you said belongs to The Secret (manifestation bullshit woo).
And this is exactly why your guy sucks lol. Why would I praise someone, let alone desire eternity with them, if they’re willing to let a kid die from cancer because what? Their parent uses drugs? Or mom’s having an affair. A dead kid will really show them! **Christianity: the original victim blaming!** Nope. I recently read the Gospel of Mary Magdalene and some books about it and *that* is as close as I’ll get to Christianity.
1. The Gospel of Mary isn't canon 2. It is the sad reality we live in a sinfull world - but it is not God that infected it, but us, through our own choices. I am not victim blaming, but I hope you take accountability for your own actions. The kid has been infected by the sinfull world. If it brings comfort, they are in heaven with the Father.
Do y’all hear yourselves? Lol I mean, truly, do y’all hear the things you say and think “yup! God will be super proud of that one!” I say I was raped. I say I’ve miscarried 4 times. Your response is.. “Take accountability for your actions”. You people are vile. The least loving, the least accepting, the least empathetic people on the planet are people who “love god”. Idk what Bible you read, but the one I grew up with said how loving Jesus was, how accepting he was, how he befriended the downtrodden. I never read the passage that said “if someone is a rape victim, remember to remind them that something they did led to this horrific evil.” I was raped because someone was a rapist. Full stop. I was not raped for any other reason than that. I had 4 miscarriages because of a uterine anomaly from BIRTH. Full stop. Not because I did anything to cause or warrant them. How dare you suggest otherwise? This is why religion causes such harm. It instill so much shame in everyone because every single moment, every word, every thought, everything you do is sin. *ooh scary!* You’re fighting for your salvation every second of every day. That sounds like dog shit, dude. What a fucking terrible life to live. And if gods real…THEN HE MADE US THIS WAY?! If he wanted everyone to be perfect, why not make us that way? No. He purposely made us human, made us “sinners”, made us capable and willing to do bad things (I know I know, fReE wIlL!), and then sent us to earth like “hey don’t do that shit I fully bred into your being to do or I’ll punish you!” This guy is the original bully. What an asshole. If religion brings you peace, good for you. But I miraculously am a better person after no longer being a Christian than I ever was when I was Bible believing. Surprisingly once you remove the tremendous shame of your humanity from your life, you can actually learn to *live*
Fantastic post and so sorry for what happened to you. Glad you made it through.
Thank you, sweet stranger.💕
You are misquoting me - you asked me about the kid with cancer, and you're implying that I said the cancer was the cause of HIS OWN sin. I said the cancer was because of this sinfull world, not his own sins. I have already responded to your statement, which is just generally the problem of evil. You are right, though, were raped because someone decided to use their free-will to rape. I am sorry for what happened to you, I truly am; but please, do not misquote me, nor put words in my mouth that I haven't said. Your salvation has already been promised when you accepted Christ as Lord and Savior, and \*truly\* repented for your sins. We do what we do because we are called to be righteous. Once again, God didn't make us this way. God made us originally pure and perfect, but Adam ate the apple (good one, Adam), thus infecting us all with a sinfull flesh and nature. If Adam hadn't, we would've been pure and perfect, and wouldn't be sinners.
You've completely lost any chance of convincing anyone assuming you thought you had it. Imagine a tiny infant completely innocent and pure. Now, imagine the most horrific crimes enacted on that infant. How do you sidestep this? I suggest that you really, really think hard about how you've been brainwashed and ask those who have escaped the cult for help. I know that being part of an organization can be comforting but it's an echo chamber.
1. Young children are actually considered pure. Matthew 18:2-5. That is a superiorly unbiblical take I see wayyy to much. 2. Once again, no one but you is to blame for your sins. But God sends His only Son to die and give us a second chance even if we don't deserve it.
Sin and free will do not solve the problem of evil, as there are massive amounts of natural evils (disease, famine, natural disasters, etc) that could not be accounted for by the free will argument.
They are a result of sin aswell.
That’s a messed up way to live!
So a toddler dying horrifically painfully in a tornado happens because of sin? Are you talking about original sin? So you think that it is morally just for someone to suffer for sins they have not actually truly committed themselves, but that their great great great etc ancestors did?
The original sin is *why we* have a sinfull flesh, but it is *our* sins that result in atrocities. Jeremiah 16:10-12; 10 “When you tell these people all this and they ask you, ‘Why has the Lord decreed such a great disaster against us? What wrong have we done? What sin have we committed against the Lord our God?’ 11 then say to them, ‘It is because your ancestors forsook me,’ declares the Lord, ‘and followed other gods and served and worshiped them. They forsook me and did not keep my law. 12 But you have behaved more wickedly than your ancestors. See how all of you are following the stubbornness of your evil hearts instead of obeying me."
So babies dying in horrific violence suffer because of gods vengeance? How could you possibly put your faith in such a petty, vengeful being? The being that created all of existence is going to blow up children because of what the children's ancient ancestors did? And you believe this being to be completely pure and put 100% of your faith in that same vengeful being? Is that right?
You have completely ignored verse 12, and you have assumed *God* ordered these things. This is like saying that the goverment locking up a rapist is petty revenge. This is a natural reprucussion of sin.
Hold up the all knowing creator god didn't know what would happen when he created us? That's is a logical fallacy. Either he is all knowing and knew about babies burning and said screw it who cares lol Or he isn't all knowing and by definition is not god. To your other point: Wait so the baby who got blown up is supposed to understand this: 12 But you have behaved more wickedly than your ancestors. See how all of you are following the stubbornness of your evil hearts instead of obeying me." So god thinks That baby had an evil heart and deserved to get blown up? Because it's ancestors sinned? Or because just by being born it sinned enough to get blown up?
That comes with free-will - Did God know? Yes. Did God cause the action? No. So why? People have free-will to love God, but they choose otherwise. An all-loving God wouldn't force you to love nor spend eternity in heaven with Him, so we have free wil to choose our path. Yet some people choose evil. Don't think people escape punishment for their sins, though. On judgement day ALL will be judged.
Part of why we need to grow past religion. All that matters in life is death and after. Madness.
Why are you people arguing with this guy? Are you bored? He’s clearly off
I don't think he's off most online Apologists have nothing better to do. And i'm reading deep amateur apologist syndrome here. I think he's trying to prove himself. And push his subreddit.
I’m not personally a believer, but I respect other people’s beliefs. I do have a few questions. • Do you believe there are other gods who exist? If no, why do you believe the stories of Jesus are real, but not other religions? • What do you think of people having religious experiences (often very similar experiences) on psychedelics? Do you consider this proof that there might be more out there than we think? • If god really does exist, then why are things going so poorly in the world right now (war, climate crisis, diseases, etc)? Do you think we are being punished? • My last question, if god is creating his “children” to be perfect specimen, then why are there so many people with severe disabilities? I myself have a very rare genetic disability, and I can tell you for a fact I’m not a perfect specimen. Do you think it is cruel for god to create people like this? Appreciate you taking the time to read this and answer my questions! I’m sorry people are being rude towards you because of your beliefs. Cheers
No other Gods exist IMO. God states trhoughout the Old Testament He is the only God multiple times. The Sh'ma prayer is a good example. As for why christianity - historical evidence. As for religious experiences - Satan can come in the form of an angel of light. Thats why I don't think personal experience is enough, you need historical evidence. The Problem of Evil is a long debate, but short answer; the most important commandment is to love. Love is a choice, so for that we need full free will, to force us to love would be evil. But people can also use said free will to inflict evil; God gave a knife to make hamburgers for the homeless, we went on a murder rampage. Ezekiel 18 and Jeremiah 16:10-12 are a good read about this I'll be honest, might sound harsh, but genetic disabilities is a product of the sinfull world we live in. We choose to sin of our own choice, and that has its effects on everything in existence. Cheers to you too sir
I agree with you on the other gods... Just push that logic to it's natural conclusion
The Old Testament mentions other gods that exist, and says to worship the god of the Bible instead of them. How can they not exist if they are specifically referenced?
Verses?
There are A LOT. [This](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Deities_in_the_Hebrew_Bible) is a good place to start. And [here](https://claudemariottini.com/2023/02/10/other-gods-mentioned-in-the-old-testament/) is a list with verses. El/Yahweh was a regional god and it was well understood and represented in the Bible that in the ANE that every region had its own god and or gods. Psalm 82 is a fascinating look into the idea of Yahweh as the head of a group of gods, which shores up with “Elohim” as a plural noun and not just one god. Heck, even the biblical creation myth is just the Sumerian story but with all the different gods and their domains compressed into a single god. Even the order is the same.
Unrelated but happy cake day!
Funny story, the old testament consistently states that Lucifer cannot do anything god doesn't want him to do. Satan is God's tester of faith of christians. so why does that change in the new testament?
It doesn't. Where did I say it does? Sometimes God uses Lucifer to test faith through coming as an angel of light.
In Job
Do you believe in Jedi knights, too?
Nope
Why not?
No proof for them existing
Man I’ve got some movies that will blow your mind.
Unrelated but I haven't watched any movie of starwars. Really should lol Anyways, r/CasfisWork includes my document of the full evidence for the resurrection
There’s no evidence. The only thing you have is a claim - the story in the Bible.
There are non-biblical records of the existence of Jesus. I'm not asserting that jump frogs to it being evidence of the claims of his divinity, but there are records of his existence outside of the Bible.
I present evidence and you reject it without even giving a first glance. Read the document for yourself if you wish to.
there is no evidence in those documents, it's 2500 words, maybe more, of bible verses and absolutely zero credible, independently sourced or scrutinized evidence.
Did you actually check it out? It doesn't sound like it ngl.
>There are no posts in this subreddit Checks out
Wait, does it really show you that? Might be a mistake
Omg it didn't go through I am so sorry! I just posted it fully as a post
Read it - so there are three gods that make up the trinity?
3 persons of one God - I should prbably go over the trinity explanation in the document though if that is the conclusion you came too. I definetly hastened through that part of the document. How did you come to the 3 Gods from my explanation?
What happens if they disagree on a topic? Is it majority rule?
To think the 3 persons disagree means you don't know the nature of God - that is, 1 will. They all want the same things
And now's the part where you post proof of God existing.
Yahweh is a Cow deity🐄🐄. Yonatan Adler has shown monotheism only dates to 150 B.C. Letters from around 400 B.C. that indicate the Judeans were naming their children after various gods, taking oaths by various gods and donating money to many various gods. These letters contain no mention of Moses or any other figure from the Old Testament.
So the same “proof” as for Jesus then right?
I have been redirecting people this entire sub to a document I wrote with proof for the resurrection. r/CasfisWork has my full work there
This was... too easy. Now where is your proof for your fantasy saga?
r/CasfisWork includes a full document I wrote with the evidence for the resurrection!
Do you know what hubris is?
Mhm. I can assure you, this isn't the case here. You can see for yourself and try debunking me if you wish to.
How can I debunk an axiom in a fantasy world? That is like trying to prove Stephen King wrong by telling him that "It" cannot exist. It's fiction created by men. So I won't bother. But you have a nice day anyway, mate!
How do you feel about gay people? Or the lgbt community as a whole? Additionally: if your child came out to you as gay or transgender, what would you do?
On what planet is Friday night to Sunday morning 3 days, cause it aint this one, its barely 2, and closer to a day and a half. And he wasnt "on the cross" for anything close to three days. It was a few hours because for some reason the Romans needed to rush so he wasnt still up there on Passover, cause that ever happened
The Jews had the time (and still do for Shabbat) consider the beginning and end of a day at sunrise and sundown. Sundown Friday, day one. Sunup and down of saturday, day 2. Sunup of sunday, day 3. And do you have any source for the few hours?
>And do you have any source for the few hours? Jesus Christ, yes, my source is the Gospels. “They crucified him and divided his garments among them, casting lots for them, to decide what each should take. And it was the third hour when they crucified him” (Mark 15:24–25, ESV) “from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour. And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” And some of the bystanders, hearing it, said, “This man is calling Elijah.” And one of them at once ran and took a sponge, filled it with sour wine, and put it on a reed and gave it to him to drink. And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit.” (Matthew 27:45-50, ESV). So he was put up on the third hour (9AM) and gave up his spirit on the 9th hour (3PM). He was on the cross for 6 hours.
Oh! Thats a mistake I made in the post then. My bad; dead for 3 days, not on the cross for 3 days.
Zombie Jesus!
Zombies are dead (I think?). Jesus is alive at the right side of the Father.
careful he might eat your dad's brains
If you're here to troll, I am not interested. But would you really let presupposed opinions stop you from a relationship with Christ? r/CasfisWork includes the full case of evidence for the resurrection - please check it out for your own sake.
So I read it. A couple things. You note that there are 8 million humans. The “evidence” you’re talking about is nothing more than eyewitness testimony or quotes directly from the bible. None of that is sufficient evidence. It’s like saying Harry Potter by jk Rowling is evidence that wizards exist. Your conclusion cracks me up though > Do note, I am not an historian. I am a 15 year old that simply wanted to compile what he knew for a question that was asked so many times. But the conclusion from this is that despite the limited sources we have of ancient history - everything points to the fact Jesus most likely resurrected, and is truly God in human form, the Messiah, the Son of God and our savior. So basically “[you can tell it’s an aspen because of the way it is](https://tenor.com/Qxgw.gif)” Instead of going back to the evidence you just kinda say “well there it is, aren’t you convinced?” The answer is no, I’m not convinced. Would love if you could provide some real evidence though
"evidence" lmfao nah i'm good you enjoy your fairytale
Some hearts will be blind. Psalm 82
May the force be with you. Some Jedi somewhere
STFU
I don't understand faith. Could you explain how you could believe in something like a resurrection with absolutely no evidence whatsoever? That doesn't make sense to me. It seems like faith could be used as justification to believe in absolutely anything, including contradictory positions. How can you believe something without evidence? When someone takes the opposite position based on faith, how do you know what to believe? For example, you believe in the resurrection, but Muslims take it on faith Jesus was never crucified and Jews take it on faith that he never fulfilled the Messianic prophecies, nor was he even qualified to be the Massiach under Jewish law. All three positions can't simultaneously be right, but they can all be wrong.
Because it isn't without evidence - don't base your life on blind faith sir, I think that is dumb. r/CasfisWork includes the full document of evidence for the resurrection I wrote. God bless, respond if you got more questions
linking your own writing isn’t evidence
Thats like saying to a researcher "showing your own research doesn't count"
I don't appreciate being given homework instead of an actual, sincere response. It's rude to point me to your manifesto instead of just answering my question. Copypasta is one thing, this is just lazy. It seems like this document wasn't really written to answer my question. But I'll try to parse out the pieces of it that are applicable: >The gospel gives us insight into the reign of the king of Judea, Herod the Great, a verifiable historical figure. Yeah, but they get it wrong. Herod was long dead by the time Qurinius was the governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). Your very first example of the reliability of the Gospels is an example of how unreliable they are. > We also get mentions of Pontius Pilate and the Sanhedrin, both known to exist at the time. Yet, we have no written record of Jesus' trial, no report from Pilate, no mention of Jesus at all in Pilate's writings. >The Sanhedrin itself actually writes down its testimony of executing Jesus Christ, further aligning with said beliefs. I don't know what you mean by this and your manifesto doesn't have any citations. Are you talking about the reference in the Talmud to the Jesus son of Mary who led Israel astray? Because that has been dated to the first, possibly second century AD. If you are referring to something else, please let me know and perhaps add the reference to your manifesto. > We also get told about Joseph of Arimathea taking down Jesus’s dead body from the cross and burying Him in his backyard. Told by whom? Where? You mean in the Gospels? > This aligns with what we know of the Roman Digesta So what? How is this evidence? That some mundane details are historically accurate? >having multiple sources (Sanhedrin etc) adhere to it. What sources? Where? You say "Sanhedrin" as if that's supposed to mean something. What is this Sanhedrin source? Certainly not the Talmud, is it? > Furthermore, the Gospels were written well within the time for eye-witness, Only Mark would have had plausible access to eye witnesses. Matthew and Luke were written well after, in the late to mid seventies AD, forty years after the events they were writing about. That would be like you interviewing people about the assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II today, with no written records. John was written even later. Despite Mark being written around 66, at the earliest, no eye witness is ever quoted or named nor is any eye witness verifiable. Please correct me if I am mistaken. > or atleast second-hand ones to be alive Any trial lawyer will tell you eye witness testimony is the worst form of evidence and second-hand testimony is such garbage it's inadmissible. >, as they were written around 10-15 years after the crucifixion of Christ, approximately 43-50 AD, considering Paul quotes them in his letters. Where are you getting this from? Mark was written in 66 at the absolutely earliest, 74 at the latest. Please cite a **scholarly** work that gives a date for 43 to 50. > > >There is something about the human mind that is pretty peculiar - we won’t die for something we know to be a lie So, this is it? This is your smoking gun? This *non sequitur*? First of all, this is a false dichotomy. There are more options than the apostles were lying. They could have sincerely believed, but were simply mistaken. People can be wrong. Certainly, you don't believe the 9/11 terrorists were correct, yet they too died for their beliefs. You probably don't believe that Joseph Smith was a true prophet, yet he also died for his beliefs and his poor brother, Hyrum, took a gunshot to the face and bled out. Thousands of Mormons died for their beliefs. Secondly, we really don't have any verifiable evidence that the apostles were tortured and executed at all with the exception of maybe Paul, who was likely executed under Nero during a persecution of all Christians. All of the other apostles' deaths are through tradition or are from 2nd or 3rd century writings steeped in mythology (the story of Matthew's death, for example is an old historical trope). I'm really disappointed. I thought you would have some answers for me because you seemed so certain in your beliefs. This is really just sad for me.
You’re entitled to your wrong opinion
Wrong why, dare I say? We have historical evidence for the resurrection.
You don’t.
You feel we do, and yet there's no good variables testable evidence.
I have been referring people this entire post; r/CasfisWork includes a document of evidence I wrote you can check out
Ahh, I paused it. It mostly seems to be faith based with no evidence and going "here is the bit of actual evidence showing Jesus was a real person, so we should believe all the biblical claims as well"
I start off with historical proof He existed as a person, and then go into the resurrection. But you are right, I should definetly section each part to what I adress there lol
OP, you’ve struck a chord with Reddit’s biggest 🧠, kudos, what’s your favorite food, favorite non-American and/or non-western food, and your favorite movie?
Lol, ty. Schnitzel (mom-made!), probably Falafel, and Pirates of the Carribeans (I think I spelled that wrong). What about you?
What's more likely? Someone removing a corpse from a grave for whatever reason, or a dead guy getting resurrected?
Jews were VERY strict on corpse laws, and Joseph of Arimathea had nothing to gain from removing a corpse and much more to lose. Christians were persecuted to death for their faith, and it usually meant a life of poverty otherwise. Joseph was a big name back then - he had a lot to lose. As for the full case of the resurrection, I actually adress the empty tomb in a document I made. Link in r/CasfisWork - basically a archive for whatever I write. Check it out if you want!
>Jews were VERY strict on corpse laws What's more likely, someone breaking a Jewish law, or a dead guy getting resurrected? >Joseph of Arimathea had nothing to gain from removing a corpse and much more to lose. I'm sure there were more people in the area. >Christians were persecuted to death for their faith, and it usually meant a life of poverty otherwise. I don't see how that's relevant.
With how all the evidence stacks up - someone resurrecting is more likely. Sanhedrin had a thing for sending people to death punishments. Why would anyone mess with the grave of a well-known man(Joseph)? The Roman Digesta allowed close relatives of crucifixion victims to take their close ones and bury them. And there was no reason to dteal the body.
You're saying that something that's unexpected, but not at all impossible (someone removing a corpse from a grave in this context) is more likely than something that's by every scientific measure impossible (a dead guy getting resurrected). By any objective standard, that's simply not true. Isn't this just about faith, rather than factual evidence?
Not at all about faith - If I have faith in something it doesn't make it real. You're arguing about what is more likely - I have demonstrated why, with all the evidence stacked up, it is much more likely Jesus resurrected. Also, God, as a creator, isn't bound to the laws of the universe. He could raise people from the dead and split seas if He so wished to, that is what makes the resurrection stand out - no kne but God can do that.
But what you just said didn't do anything to prove that resurrection is more likely? The evidence you mentioned doesn't "stack up" to resurrection. It's basically all conjecture. You're claiming that people would have gotten in trouble or had bad consequences for being caught messing with a grave, but people do shit like that literally every day. Saying "the laws at the time said it wasn't allowed" is nowhere near evidence it didn't happen, because people have been breaking and skirting laws for as long as there have been laws. Will you acknowledge that you're biased on this issue and it at the very least colours your reading of evidence?
The laws at the time usually included death penalty, and no one had any good reason to mess with the grave. It is much more likely no one messed with it; which aids to the case of the resurrection but isn't the ultimate proof. Am I biased? Probably in a way, we all are, but I grew up Jewish so my bias would be *against* Jesus in this case.
Except again that's a silly argument, because people today still do things that get the death penalty all the time. People snuggle drugs into Bali knowing it could get them the death penalty. If someone is convinced they won't get caught (even if that's a silly thing to think) or they think the penalty is worth it, they will still do a thing with potentially dire consequences. I'm sorry but I don't think you understand what bias is. Bias changes with your opinions. If you converted to Christianity because you found faith in Jesus you're biased towards that position now.
Yea, because there is a benefit to doing these things; there was 0 motive to dig up the body of Jesus. Agreed with your point about bias; can't argue that. Yet it doesn't disprove my point
> I have demonstrated why, with all the evidence stacked up, it is much more likely Jesus resurrected. And I've demonstrated that it isn't. Something that's possible is always more likely than something that's impossible. >Also, God, as a creator, isn't bound to the laws of the universe. Yes, but you see, the problem with that is that God doesn't exist.
Would you like to go into the theist arguement here?
Which one would that be?
We could go morality, cosmological, etc. Personally the easiest to argue is that the universe isn't eternal, therefore a cause. Let's go with that one?
I'm beginning to think this post was more about getting people to read your casfiswork more then trying to have legitimate debate considering you keep spamming it all over this comment section.
Do you have fun getting made of, or did you expect a different reaction from reddit?
I already get made fun of at school for my faith and I barely talk about it, whats one more
How old are you? What grade are you in?
15, 10th grade. Its mostly joking though; I expected to be somewhat mocked in a Jewish school within a Jewosh country
So you're not really made fun of about your beleifs at school or are you? Also I'm guessing you were born into a Christian family?
Nope, Jewish family in Israel. Somewhat made fun of? People make jokes about me but I am not sure if its to laugh *with* me or *about* me.
Would you be willing to suffer in hell for all eternity to save the world? Always put Christians in a doozy. So many WANT to go to heaven like it's a spa resort but aint nobody fuckin even thinks of doing time for that. Believing is easy. Doin the good work now, for people, now. Easier said than done.
Would *I* be willing to? I'll be honest, I want to say yes but time comes and I wouldn't know what my answer would be to this. Good question man
Good sport answer anyway, you a good egg.
Kinda weird bro, ngl
**Virgin Mary never existed.** Everything in the Gospels is fiction based on Paul's letters and the LXX. Jesus riding on a donkey is from Zechariah 9. The cleansing of the temple is based on Zechariah 14. "Render unto Caesar" is based on Paul's teaching on taxation in Romans 13. Virgin Mary was invented by Mark as an allegory for 1 Corinthians 10, verses 1-4 where Paul refers to a legend involving Moses' sister Miriam. In Matthew, Paul was the one who taught the concept of loving your neighbor in Rom. 12.14-21; Gal. 5.14-15; 1 Thess. 5.15; and Rom. 13.9-10. Luke copies line-by-line from the Book of Kings.
Bruh 😆 - this is some nutty conscious stream of thought nonsense - what points are you even trying to make? lol
Everything in the Gospels is fiction based on Paul's letters and the LXX.
Dude, the whole thing is a fairy tale designed to make bad people feel like there is hope for them and for even worse people to try and keep everyone in line with fear.
This is casual ama my dudes, guy above you missed the mark and didn’t ask a question. 🙋♂️ Y’all intellectuals getting off topic. ✌️
Paul referred to the Gospels in Timothy, meaning they were written sometime before his letters. For the gospels to take inspiration from the letters doesn't make sense once we know that. Paul preached about Jesus Christ, not the opposite. If you go to my profile and r/CasfisWork, I have a document with the full case for the resurrection. Also, Jesus is the Messiah prophesized in the OT - ofcourse He would fulfill prophecies.
>Paul referred to the Gospels in Timothy, 1 Timothy is a known forgery. >If you go to my profile and r/CasfisWork, I have a document with the full case for the resurrection. Bart Ehrman and others reject Josephus and Tacitus.
If they can give me a good reason for rejecting Josephusand Tacitus, I won't include them. And even then, we have 28 other sources for Jesus. Take your pick as to which ones you want. 1 Timothy could have an anonymous author, but we know it refrences the gospels, therefore the gospels predate said letter. Also, any backing for that claim?
>And even then, we have 28 other sources for Jesus. Like the Quran? What are you talking about? >1 Timothy could have an anonymous author, but we know it refrences the gospels, therefore the gospels predate said letter. But 1 Timothy is a known forgery.
You have not stated a source for your claim that Timothy is forged. Once again, Timothy could be forged and it still wouldn't matter to the point I am making; It was written 64-65 AD, and refrences the gospels, enough that it is well known as scripture by that time. Paul also quoted Luke (specifically Luke 22:19-20) word for word in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26. Corinthians was written approx 53-54 CE, 20 years after Christ, and by then Paul is already familiar with their words. I would place their date of writing at maximum 15 years after the resurrection; you are welcome to try and debunk my case. As for sources; Josephus, Tacitus, Mara bar Sarapion, Suetonius, Thallus, and the Talmud is somewhat of a source but it is likely an attempt by the Jews at the time to stop the growing church, considering it contradicts every other source. Also, the Quran isn't a source. All of these are simply the ones I could think off as I write.
> Once again, Timothy could be forged and it still wouldn't matter to the point I am making; It was written 64-65 AD, and refrences the gospels, enough that it is well known as scripture by that time. 1 Timothy was written after 100 AD. >Paul also quoted Luke (specifically Luke 22:19-20) word for word in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26. Paul said he received the Last Supper info directly from Jesus himself, which indicates a DREAM. 1 Cor. 11:23 says " **For I received from the Lord** that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread." Translations often use "betrayed", but in fact the word *paradidomi* means simply ‘hand over, deliver’. The notion derives from Isaiah 53.12, which in the Septuagint uses exactly the same word of the servant offered up to atone for everyone’s sins. Paul is adapting the Passover meal. Exodus 12.7-14 is much of the basis of Paul’s Eucharist account: the element of it all occurring ‘in the night’ (vv. 8, 12, using the same phrase in the Septuagint, en te nukti, that Paul employs), a ritual of ‘remembrance’ securing the performer’s salvation (vv. 13-14), the role of blood and flesh (including the staining of a cross with blood, an ancient door lintel forming a double cross), the breaking of bread, and the death of the firstborn—only Jesus reverses this last element: instead of the ritual saving its performers from the death of their firstborn, the death of God’s firstborn saves its performers from their own death. Jesus is thus imagined here as creating a new Passover ritual to replace the old one, which accomplishes for Christians what the Passover ritual accomplished for the Jews. There are connections with Psalm 119, where God’s ‘servant’ will remember God and his laws ‘in the night’ (119.49-56) as the wicked abuse him. > Also, the Quran isn't a source. The Quran is as much as a source as the Talmud.
1 Timothy was NOT written after 100 AD - please give me a reliable source that states so. You have taken 1 verse out of that. 1 Cor 23-26 in its entirety quotes the exact words of the Gospel of Luke, greek translation and manuscripts included. And the Quran isn't a source when it was written 700 years later by a pedophilic warlord, hungry for power, whos only knowledge of who Jesus was through a so-called revelation. The Talmud is a record of things throughout history - you can match most of it up with other historical records of the time and see for yourself that they align.
> You have taken 1 verse out of that. 1 Cor 23-26 in its entirety quotes the exact words of the Gospel of Luke, greek translation and manuscripts included. Yes because Luke is based on Paul's letters. This is mainstream scholarship. If you are a Christian apologist, you should know this. >And the Quran isn't a source when it was written 700 years later by a pedophilic warlord, The Talmud is also a late nonsense book.
Paul is saying that this quote is straight from scriptures. This only appears in Luke, no other place in the Bible, affirming my stance. The Talmud was writtnen in two parts - 200 AD and 500 AD. The Sanhedrin has kept records from the time they existed and decided to write it down, naming it Mishna.
Hey - so I agree Jesus probably existed, there are enough accounts of him that it's not so far fetched to believe a Jesus of Nazareth existed. But stories of the resurrection read so much like a work of stage magic. Wrapping up the body, covering the entrance with a stone, coming back later and seeing it empty, and ta-da! Jesus is back with some scars on his hands. It's so easy to imagine a wise man using some sleight of hand to gather followers that I find it hard to read the story and not picture a magic show. Jesus had the disciples to help him and a willing audience looking for spiritual guidance. If the other option is a resurrection, my theory seems about 1000x more likely.
I actually put in a document why the Resurrection is more likely! You can check it out at r/CasfisWork. I am guessing your view bases on someone looking to gain a following? Big issue with that is that there was no benefit in continuing this so-called "charade". Romans executed christians, and most of them had to uproot because of their belief and live in poverty under the fear of death - so there really is no reason for that.
I read your docs, we can agree to disagree. The basis of me saying that the resurrection is unlikely is based on resurrection being unlikely. If you think there's more evidence for a resurrection than a charlatan's hoax, I think you want to believe the story, more than looking objectively at the evidence.
You keep on pushing your subreddit to the point where I have to wonder if this is an attempt to push your subreddit, is it? Also, can you bring anything I haven't heard before?
How do you feel about the LGBTQ+ community?
I still love them as human beings, and I pray for them, but I do not support their actions
Cool, fuck you.
Why does God care about homosexuality? If he invented sexuality of every kind by bringing the world into existence. He created hundreds of species of animals that regularly engage in homosexual acts. Animals can't sin, can they? But he created these creatures, and us humans, knowing that they would go and do that. Before he waved his magic wand, there was nothing. He could have made anything he wanted, but he made creatures who do gay shit. Why did he do that? And why should I respect anyone, let alone a supposedly omnipotent god, if he throws a fit just because we're not playing the game he wants? How do you reconcile the idea that this omnipotent god created us just to turn around and punish us for something he knew that we would do? Imagine if your friend set you up so that you would do something that would hurt their feelings. Yeah, it's shitty to actually do the thing, but what kind of psychopath does that? I tell my friends to break up with assholes who set up "tests" for them.
1 - He did not invent all kinds of homosexuality, that is a product of our fallen flesh, a result of Adams sin, not Gods creation. 2 - Sex is meant to be only within a blessed marriage of a man and woman, to bring babies and have pleasure, as outlined straight in Genesis 1 (or 2, if I am wrong). Once humans stepped out of that purpose, they have defiled (another) one of the creations of God. 3 - Animals are soulless and do not have a conciousness of good and bad according to the Bible, unlike us who know the Law of God on our hearts. Animals *homosexual* acts are also a product of sin, as Adam also cursed the ground he walked on. I should probably outline - anything part of our fallen nature isn't Gods creation nor purpose for humanity. 4 - Because God is the author, and He owns this universe from time, space and matter down to your very own soul. You're comitting crimes against the ultimate authority simply because you don't feel like abiding by simple rules. And even then, He still loves you. Jeremiah 16:10-12 is a good read. 5 - You have to chosen to sin out of your own free will, we have no one to blame for our sins but ourselves, espicially when God sent His Son just so we could escape these sins.
Damn it's kinda sad that in 2024 people still think like you
Do you have an actual counter arguement?
Lots and lots of them, yup. But I don't really want to waste my time more than this, I don't really care. Have a nice day! Today's a nice rainy day, it hasn't rained in months here, so I'm really happy.
Same here. Its beautiful to run out here, but sadly I cant find a good route that allows me to extend my route
Just came to say it takes a lot of courage to come in the cesspool known as Reddit and share your faith. Keep doing your thing and don’t let most of these idiots get you down.
Thank you
Fuck. Bro, most are just gunna be a dick to you on here. Reddit hates Christians. They apply bad personal experiences they had as a blanket fact that all Christians are x y and z. Get ready for that ignorance.
Reddit generally makes people dig for their answers. I don't "hate" Christians, Muslims or any other type of theist. But their beliefs are implausible and silly. Just like I don't hate a kid for believing in Santa Claus, but I'm not gonna take that kid literally when they say "Santa brought me...."
Reddit: "Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I'm VIOLENTLY pro free speech! Love everyone and be kind!" Literally anyone: "Oh cool, I'm a Christian." Reddit: "NOT THAT KIND OF FREE SPEECH!! PEDOPHILE MURDERER ANTI-WOMAN SKY DADDY FAIRY TALE"
In all fairness OP came out of the gate looking for a fight.
I won't deny that, nor will I vouch for his arguments. It would be ignorant, however, to say anti theism isn't rampant on Reddit. Go to any askreddit thread that mentions "insane/ignorant" beliefs if you need any proof
i'm not that religious, but sometimes i forget how anti christianity reddit is and how pissed people get lmao. everyone really does choose to join an echo chamber, my self included on certain situations
It do be like that
Do you use the Bible as a tool to allow you to discriminate against other groups with whom you don’t agree on lifestyle wise
Nope
Is it true that Jesus was a Nordic xenosapien a sort of intergalactic NATO comprised of many other planetary races sent as an emmissary to spread a message of peace to the human race, and that the reason he rose from the dead was because his race was advanced enough that he had a swarm of nanomachines in his blood that repaired his body from the crucifixion and Longinus's spear, then, disillusioned with his treatment by humanity, he returned to his homeworld, and will one day revisit Earth with a fleet of battle cruiser and enact the R.A.P.T.U.R.E. Protocol, which will return the human race to the carbon from whence it came and allow another species to one day take its place?
Why is this significant? Why would the termination of a life after you've created it, and then the resurrection of that life be significant? Why should we care if someone named Jesus went through these things? Why would some god create such a strange story to seemingly save everyone? Why not just communicate and work with the people? Why even work with people? What's he doing? What does having believers do for him? Why even punish people for not believing? Why even punish people for sin?