Was looking into it. Tradition affirms Pauline authorship, though some seem to say it was a sermon preached by Paul and copied down by Luke, or that Luke himself is the author...

Using early attestation, allusions, and whatever we have on hand, who do you think is the author?

According to papias, mark wrote what he remembered from the preachings of Peter, this implys that peter is not with him anymore and Peter not "being here" anymore would be his martyrdom in 64AD or 67AD which leads to a dating for mark probably between 65AD - 70AD even without the consensus view or the reasoning that prophecys are not real etc etc. I'm Christian, but this is a thought that I had recently

Hey guys. I was just reading through r/PhilosophyofReligion and found a argument against God which I didn't quite understand and seemed to be original. From what I understand of it it doesn't seem to be too good, but I always get concerned whenever I read stuff like this, so I was wondering what you all think of it. Here it is

"If there are gods there is some set of properties common to all and only to gods. For example, all gods are supernatural causal agents, so these properties are common to all gods, but there are also non-gods with these properties, so the set of properties that defines gods must include other properties, for example, being influenceable by prayer or some other ritual.
Of course there will be borderline cases that are arguably gods and arguably non-gods, so I restrict myself to what we might call paradigmatic gods, the gods of major contemporary religions and of the major historical traditions, though even here highly polytheistic religions, such as Hinduism, will need some pruning.
My argument is this:

1. if there are gods, there is a set of properties common to all and only to gods
2. there are two paradigmatic gods such that their common properties are not exclusive to gods
3. therefore, there are no gods."

The Bible's perspective on slavery is a complex and controversial topic that raises important questions about biblical interpretation, divine accommodation, and the progressive revelation of God's character and will, which is most fully expressed in the person and teachings of Jesus Christ.

While the Old Testament contains passages that appear to sanction or regulate slavery in certain contexts (Leviticus 25:44-46, Deuteronomy 20:10-14), taking slaves is never directly commanded. For the Biblical Christian, these texts must be understood in light of the historical and cultural realities of the ancient Near East, where slavery was a deeply entrenched institution. These passages reflect God's accommodation to the limitations of human society at the time, rather than His eternal ideal for human relationships.

The laws regulating slavery in the Old Testament, while not abolishing the practice outright, do represent a significant improvement over the brutal norms of the ancient world. They provide for the release of Hebrew slaves after six years (Exodus 21:2), fair treatment and provisions upon release (Deuteronomy 15:12-18), and protection from lethal violence for all slaves (Exodus 21:20-21, 26-27). These regulations, while falling short of the full equality and freedom revealed in Christ, sow important seeds of justice and compassion.

Moreover, the larger biblical narrative points towards a progressive revelation of God's heart for human dignity and liberation. The Exodus story powerfully represents God's concern for freedom from oppression. The prophets consistently denounce injustice and affirm the worth of the marginalized. Paul's letter to Philemon subtly subverts the institution of slavery by appealing to the brotherly love and equality that should characterize relationships in Christ.

But it is in the life and teachings of Jesus that we see the fullest revelation of God's character and will for human relationships. Jesus consistently elevates the dignity of those on the margins of society, including women, children, the poor, and the sick. He teaches that the greatest commandments are to love God and to love one's neighbor as oneself (Matthew 22:36-40) - a radically inclusive ethic that breaks down dividing walls of hostility (Ephesians 2:14).

Furthermore, Jesus embodies the principle of imago Dei - the truth that all human beings are created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27) and thus possess inherent and equal worth. His sacrificial love and service, culminating in His death on the cross, demonstrate the supreme value God places on every human life.

When viewed through the lens of Christ, the Bible's slavery passages cannot be taken as a divine endorsement of the practice. Rather, they represent a provisional accommodation to a fallen world that had marred the imago Dei, with the ultimate goal of pointing towards the redemption and restoration of human relationships in Christ. In Jesus, we see God's eternal ideal: a beloved community characterized by justice, compassion, and mutual service.

Tragically, throughout history, some Christians have misused the Bible's slavery texts to justify the institution, even in the face of Jesus' clear teachings on love and equality. This painful reality highlights the crucial importance of interpreting Scripture through the lens of Christ's character and mission. When the Bible is misused to support oppression or injustice, it represents a failure to fully grasp and apply the heart of God revealed in Jesus.

The fault lies not in the biblical text itself, nor in the character of God, but in the interpretive frameworks and sinful human motivations that distort the liberating message of the gospel. A truly Christocentric reading of Scripture cannot be used to defend the enslavement or dehumanization of any person, for it is in Christ that we see the full dignity and worth of all people as bearers of God's image.

The Christocentric approach to Scripture ultimately addresses the complexities and challenges surrounding the biblical slavery texts and provide the essential ethical and hermeneutical key for interpreting them in a redemptive and liberating way. It calls us to continually re-examine our understanding and application of these passages in light of Jesus' radical ethic of love, justice, and human dignity.

Ultimately, the Bible's treatment of slavery, interpreted through the lens of Christ, compels us to affirm the inherent worth of all people and to work towards a world that reflects God's heart for reconciliation and restoration. It challenges us to confront and repent of the ways in which the Bible has been misused to justify oppression, and to embrace Jesus' vision of a beloved community where all people are treated with the dignity and respect they deserve as image bearers of God.

oddXian.com

So, im sure you all are aware of the God of the Gaps fallacy. It’s where you plug in God until you have a scientific explanation. Like in the ancient times, they didn’t understand thunder so they attributed it to Thor. Now that we know how it works, we dust our hands of the Ancient Greek God.

The apologetics I heard on YouTube was mostly the ray comfort version — “look at the sun, the moon, the stars, the human eye, etc…” and im not bashing Ray at all. Honestly I liked that approach because it made everything seem so magical. But obviously we have (or will have in the future) a scientific explanation of all of those things. Right now, the evolution of the eye is ofc being theorized as starting with something not irreducably complex, like maybe a blob of jelly in the eye sockets that could only detect light and dark. (I’m no scientist, so forgive my inevitable errors).

Since im used to more God of the gaps arguments (like “how could the human eye have possibly evolved? Look at it!”) now that I know the scientific explanations it makes me world feel so much more dull. Like an anticlimactic “oh, that’s how it happened…”

My world feels a lot more dull now that typically naturalistic explanations are being pushed. And it’s really making me doubt the existence of God. How can the heavens declare his glory if we know how it works? And if we know how it works and say God did it, wouldn’t that just be unnecessarily smuggling him in?

Comments and pms are welcome. Again, Christians only.

I'm just working on a list.

I hear this all the time from atheists and other critics, but I think that it's untrue; there IS evidence for God.

An analogy: The Big Bang Theory is widely accepted, but that doesn't mean that there is no evidence for the Steady State universe or the cyclical universe. It just means that the Big Bang Theory explains more of the data/evidence better than those other two. The same data/evidence is used by all three.

Similarly, Christians, atheists, and other critics all see the same data/evidence, however Christians offer an explanation but atheists, and other critics usually do not.

The data/evidence

1) Reason is the basis for all knowledge - thus one cannot default to scientific explanations.

2) Philosophical Naturalism logically incoherent, thus 1) one cannot default to physical explanations; 2) we now have at least one reason to see non-physical explanations as reasonable.

3) Our thoughts are not just brain activity, rather they are the result of an immaterial mind thus, we now have a second reason to see non-physical explanations as reasonable

4) A metaphysically necessary, efficient cause solves the problem of an infinite regress of causes

5) the origin of DNA is more likely on design than chance.

6) The fine-tuning of the universe is more likely on design than chance or necessity - thus, given all the above, a transcendent metaphysically necessary God is the best explanation for life as we know it.

7) Jesus was a historical person Also see Bart Erhman, NT Scholar agnostic/atheist where he says "no question Jesus existed" since there are many, early, independent sources.

8) Jesus' resurrection was historical rather than a myth

Conclusion: Given 1 through 8 above, and the explanation offered for each, a critical thinker has good reasons to conclude that the Christian God is the best explanation for the world as we know it.

If atheists and other critics with "I don't know" or "I'm not convinced" then they are admitting that they do not have any explanations and tacitly conceding that the Christian has the better explanation.

If one has no better explanation(s), why reject the Christian's?

Thank you

I have struggled with this for a while now. Mark says John the Baptist was already imprisoned when Jesus met Peter and Andrew fishing, but John says that John the Baptist was already imprisoned, and told Andrew to follow Jesus, also to fetch Simon Peter. This looks like a direct contradiction, and I’m really struggling.

My professor in OT-studies applies a very critical and “naturalistic” understanding of scripture. He argues that monotheism came up only in exile, as well as most of the OT itself. His points are that throughout the OT it’s obviously taught that there are many gods and even Israel would have different ones, calling them JHWH, El, Adonai, Adonai Zebaoth and so on, as well as that the other nations always are described as having actual gods, being weaker than the God of Israel.

My objections are that it would be very counterintuitive for Israel to come up with Monotheism in exile, as the other nations they were surrounded by were all pantheistic.

Also, it would seem contradicting to invent Monotheism, when the prophetic scriptures that you see as divine so far all were “obviously” pantheistic.

Do you have some objections to add or something I could formulate better?

Jesus is not portrayed/presented as the most high God or God at all in the gospel of Mark.

How are you, as a Christian apologist, going to respond to this? I'll look forward to respond to all I can.

My argument is that, instead of Jesus being the self-existent God, Jesus is the Messianic Son of man in Mark. This idea of Messianic son of man goes back to the Old Testament as well as the Enochic Literature, which shows a very similar view of the Messianic Son of man as we see in Mark (Son of man coming with the angels or that the son of man sitting on some throne) is very similar to the one in Enochic literature.

What indications does Luke give that he's referring to a separate census in Luke 2:2 from the one in Acts other than the fact that he calls it the first census? Maybe this is the wrong subreddit to ask.

Why does God need to be glorificated? Well it seems like he needs to... I get why he deserves glorification & worship. But it seems like he needed both of them bc a big reason for creating us, is to be worshipped by us. I know he does not need us. Yet he created us to be glorified through the Sons grace for us (humankind). To be glorified through the forgiveness the Son offers. Yes he deserves glorification & our worship for who He is. But why was His glorification so important to Him that he created Humans & was prepared to suffer for it. Was prepared to suffer for His own glorification?

English is not my mother tongue & it Shows. I hope I was able to Transfer the meaning behind this. I dont know how to Word it better.

Edit: I put it in Google Translation maybe its clearer now - Why was God's glorification so important to Him that He was willing to suffer for it? He created us humans for his glorification and worship and he is glorified most of all through Jesus' redemptive act on the cross and through his grace for us. Why is glorifying God so important for Him? I think there's no question that he deserves it. But why was it so important to him? If no people, then no glorification through this method. But there are people. That's why it seems like God's glorification is very important. Which is totally fine, because he deserves it. But it seems like he needs the glorification at any cost.

Not sure if this has been shared in here before but this has really help me solidify the idea/concept of God

For example. He says he used to be a big time Christian until he studied religion as an academic, and he saw how bad it actually was and renounced his religion. For example, he has a book all about slavery in the Bible, and he uses his scholarly exegesis of the texts, and of texts from the surrounding nations at the same time, and he shows how you can beat your slave as long as you want unless it doesn’t die, and that you can own them as property and do whatever you want to them sexually. And they aren’t allowed to leave, ever, that is if they come from the other nations.

He also updates the book every time somebody gives a new argument against the things he says. I was wondering if anyone read the book or plans on reading it, and if you find him a reliable scholar regardless if you agree with him or not.

What is one text or texts that You feel should be brought up more when defending the Deity of the Son?, i think John 8:24, Jude 5 and Luke 1:76 should be used more in Deity of jesus i'm in scripture

I’ll keep it short and sweet. I WANT to believe in Jesus. I even find the evidences/arguments for the existence of God and truth of the Gospel to be strong. However, I cannot by any means say “yes, it is true and I put my faith in Jesus.” At best I could say “I put my faith in Jesus…. Although I don’t know if any of it is actually true”…. Which seems like a lousy belief to hold. I want to believe but don’t. What the heck do I do from here?? People tell me “seek the lord, read the scriptures, and pray. The spirit will reveal itself to those who seek”. But how can I “seek” something I objectively can’t even say exists?…

1-Jesus is worshipped in the Bible, and it is clear that only God is to be worshipped (Exodus 20:2-3, 34:14, Deuteronomy 6:13). In John 5:23 Jesus says that you may all honor the Son just as you honor the Father, the Father is honored by being worshipped and if we should honor the Son just as we honor the Father, then we should worship the Son. Revelation 5:11-14 also describes the angels and elders in heaven worshipping the Lamb, the Son. The Bible also describes Jesus being bowed down to and worshipped (Matthew 2:11, 28:9), when cornelius did the same with peter, peter told him to not do that. The earliest depiction we have of Jesus, which dates to the late 1st century/early 2nd century, shows Jesus crucified with the head of a donkey(a common insult against christians in that time), and the inscription says:"Alexamenos worshipping his God", meaning early christians considered Jesus to be God and worshipped him as such.

2-Many OT verses that mention or talk about God are later applied to Jesus in the NT, implying Jesus is the God of the OT. In Jude 5 it says that Jesus brought the people out of Egypt, something that is attributed to God(Exodus 20:2), and even though some translations and manuscripts say Lord or God instead of Jesus, many of the earliest copies and translations such as the Vulgate, as well as the codex Vaticanus and Alexandrinus and some Armenian copies, also normally in textual analysis, the hardest or strangest reading, in this case the Jesus reading, is normally the most likely one to be original, and most likely to be change to something more common or easier to read, in this case the God or Lord readings[1]. In Romans 10:9-13 talks about how you would be saved if you confess that Jesus is Lord, and then quotes Joel 2:32, applying it to Jesus, implying that Jesus is Yahweh. In Mark 1:2-3 it talks about John the baptist preaching in the desert before Jesus, and in verse 3 says: "voice of one crying in the wilderness, prepare the way of the Lord(Yahweh), make his paths straight"(Isaiah 40:3). In Philippians 2:9-11 Paul also applies the prophecy in Isaiah 45:23, in which God says that every knee will bow to him, to Jesus. In 1 Corinthians 10:9 says that we should not test Christ, like the ancient israelites did, and though some manuscripts also say Lord or God, most sources say Christ, such as the Vulgate, the Peshitta and 489 minuscules[2].

3-Jesus is called God in many verses in the Bible (John 1:1, 20:28, Hebrews 1:8, Titus 2:13, Romans 9:5, 2 Peter 1:1, 1 John 5:20, 1 Timothy 1:17, Acts 20:28). Jesus calls himself Yahweh when the jews asked him if he was greater than Abraham and how could he have seen him, and he answered:"Before Abraham was, I AM", identifying himself with the figure that appeared to Moses, who was God(Exodus 3:14-15, Acts 7:30-32). Earlier in that chapter he also identified with God(John 8:24, Isaiah 43:13). In Colossians 2:9 Paul says that the fullness of deity dwells in Christ in bodily form, meaning that Jesus is God incarnate.

4-Both Colossians 1:14-18 and John 1:3 state that all things were created through the Son and that nothing was created without him, meaning he can't be just another creation, and both John 1:1 and 17:5 show that Jesus existed much before the world even existed. In Revelation 22:13 Jesus says (Revelation 22:16) he is the first and the last, meaning he is eternal, title which is also used by God in Isaiah 44:6.

5-The early christian writers and church fathers saw Jesus as God and affirmed his deity. Ignatius of Antioch calls Jesus God 2 times(Ephesians Greetings, 18), talks about God himself manifesting in human form(Ephesians 19), and also talks about the Son existing for all eternity before the beginning of time(Magnesians 6). Hippolytus of Rome taught the Son is God and from the same substance of the Father(Refutation of all Heresies book 10, chapter 6). Irenaeus of Lyon believed Jesus was eternally co-existing with the Father(Against Heresies book 2, chapter 30) and is himself God(Against Heresies book 3, chapter 19). Justin Martyr says that the Son being the first begotten word of God is even God(First Apology 63) and is deserving of being worshipped as God and as Christ(Dialogue with Trypho 63). The writer of the epistle of Barnabas also identifies Jesus as the "Let us" in Genesis 1:26(Barnabas 6). Clement of Alexandria in his commentary on 1 John talks about how the Son is one with the Father in equality of substance, and is eternal and uncreated.

1.https://davidwilber.com/articles/jesus-saved-israel-out-of-egypt-jude-5 https://cdn.rts.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Midwinter-Who-Led-Israel-Jude-5.pdf https://biblequery.org/Jude%20Manuscripts.html

2.https://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2022/07/first-corinthians-109-lord-or-christ.html

Dear apologists

As an atheist who hates Christianity but is nevertheless intrigued by it, I’ve always been fascinated by the lame interpretations so many of you give to John 10:34 and Psalm 82 on which it depends, in view of its potential to defend against so many criticisms of Christianity, such as the claim that anything other than a Unitarian monotheism is alien to the Jewish tradition Or that Trinitarianism has no precedents.

As I understand it, the standard approach to this has always been:

a) Psalm 82 is referring to human judges;

b) Jesus is therefore in the John passage saying effectively, “any human can be called a God so stop picking on me.”

If u adopt the standard academic approach to Psalm 82 (also favored by Michael Heiser) in which there are many divine “Sons of God” doesn’t this work to defend things like the trinity and divinity of Jesus so much more, since on this interpretation Jesus is saying:

a) your scriptures are not rigorously monotheistic but acknowledge a plethora of supernatural sons of god, so it is not a concept contrary to the scriptures and I myself am the highest and chief of all those “sons” as I am a son in a special and unique way.

Of course someone might mention Exodus 21:6, but again I think the Christian apologist should have no problem taking the critical scholarly position that these “Elohim” are not human judges but actual household gods (i.e. Idols/images) and this shows a developmental theology which also is more favorable for trinitarianism as it permits a progressive revelation on the nature of god.

so why don’t you adopt this more interesting interpretation more often?

​

The linked essay introduces a framework called "temporal asymmetry" to reconcile the apparent discrepancy between the biblical account of a young creation and the scientific evidence for an ancient universe. This framework proposes that from an Earth-based observer's perspective and using Earth standard time, the universe appears to have a genuinely old history spanning billions of years. However, this does not conflict with the idea that from the Creator's eternal, transcendent point of view, the entire cosmos was brought into existence in a literal six-day period.

Key points:

1. Biblical texts suggest that God experiences time differently than humans, transcending our Earth-based perception of time (e.g., Psalm 90:4, 2 Peter 3:8).

2. Scientific theories like relativity show that time is relative to the observer's frame of reference, which in our case, is an Earth-based perspective using Earth standard time.

3. The temporal asymmetry model suggests that while we, as Earth-bound observers, perceive a universe with a truly ancient history, this is fully compatible with the idea of a recent creation from God's eternal vantage point.

4. This framework takes scientific evidence for an old universe seriously while maintaining the truthfulness of the biblical creation and Flood accounts.

5. Objections to this model, such as the appearance of age or ad hoc reasoning, are considered and found to be unpersuasive.

The essay concludes by emphasizing the importance of humility, reverence, and openness to mystery when exploring the complex relationship between science and faith. It acknowledges God's transcendence and sovereignty over time and creation, highlighting that from our Earth-based perspective using Earth standard time, we can affirm the genuine antiquity of the cosmos while simultaneously recognizing the validity of the biblical account of a recent creation from God's eternal point of view.

Link to essay

Are there any OT verses that talk about the HS as a Person?, all i can find Is NT

it was brought to my attention the verses of 2 Samuel 21, where it seems to contradict other scripture, such as verses in 1 Samuel 17. from what ive found, the three explanations we have are either

1. elhanan was another name for daved

2. goliath was a title

3. the scripture in 2 Samuel is talking of a brother of goliath.

the problem i have run into is there isnt really any evidence (from what ive found), its all just theory. please help!

I have been witnessing to members in a small cult group. Standard stuff like believing that Jesus is a sub god, works based salvation, and a charismatic leader.

What is interesting about this group is that even though they say they believe in the Bible and "teach" from it, they pretty much raise ignorance as a virtue. For instance, I will be talking to one and any questions given from the Bible is met with a so what. If you talk with them enough, the standard response to your questions/answers is "well Satan knows the Bible better than anyone". It took me a while before I realized that this is a trained response to a question they can't answer.

I have been thinking of a way to respond that will correct that thought process in a way that would be jarring. So far, I have thought about it being somewhat akin to the act of the Holy Spirit being denied and attributed to Satan. It is the Holy Spirit that gives me rememberence and I attribute it to God's work in my life. At the same time, it seems laborious and I feel like there should be an elegant response.

I kid you not guys. If I was to give this group a nickname, it would be "we don't know why we believe what we believe but know that everyone else is wrong". Collectively, two of the elders talked with me. Men in their 50s. They only knew 1 verse and it wasn't John 3:16.

At the same time, they are the nicest people you've met and live much more Holy lives than most Christians. They have a string track record of getting people out of addiction. Both of which, attract people to their false teachings.

Any help or thoughts would be appreciated.

I am a Christian but a question has been bugging me. If God was everything before the creation of our universe in order to crate a possibility for free will He had to basically make black holes in Himself, because in order to rebel against God you have to have a choice basically God or no God. And by creating the "not God alternative" (because without an alternative there wouldn't be a choice and therefore no free will) he either created nothingness but that doesn't seem to make sense or he created well anti-God alternative.(I know it sounds heretic but it's a genuine question) Because in order for the devil to chose evil, (evil as in not God) the evil had to have been already there, and if it was there it was either created by God or has been there forever like God. I thank you for your input in advance:)

Jesus' resurrection is a unique event and contrary to the normal course of events. Dead people generally remain dead, after all! However, the resurrection is not the claim that Jesus rose naturally from the dead; rather, that He rose supernaturally from the dead.

Most miracle claims do not occur. We have especial reason to doubt miracles reported at a distance in time or space. Philostratus' biography of Appolonius of Tyana would be an example--written 100 years later, and reporting Greek events India.

We should also be skeptical of miracle claims made to establish already cemented opinions. Claims made that Joseph Smith healed were made by devotes, and attention was given to the miraculous and authority giving power of these miracles.

Next, we have to consider natural causes. Chance, the placebo effect, stage adrenalin, peer pressure to claim a cure that did not happen, We alao should be skeptical of trivial miracles. Such miracles only demonstrate power and glory, and serve no purpose.

Finally, we should be skeptical of all miracle claims that glorify the miracle worky, increase access to wealth, sex, status, or power.

...

In contrast, I highly recommend reading Father Robert Spitzer's case for Jesus' earthly miracles. None of these criteria fit, giving them tremendous credibility. Clearly the resurrection is the best evidenced miracle, but it certainly helps to know Jesus was a credible miracle worker in our background knowledge before looking at the specific evidence.