BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

"I am a follower of Christ who believes in a higher being that created the universe."-Baylorjacket 4/19/22


Again, I ask the question, what has changed?

Why have you chosen differently than before?

---

Copying & pasting my response as I have already answered this:
"What has changed since then is I continued to pull on that thread, studied the Bible seriously, read numerous books on both sides of the argument, reflected & meditated on it, and eventually deconverted"

I collected the empirical evidence and made the (speaking for myself) most rational decision.

---

But that's what I'm trying to evaluate - your rational decision making process behind whether Jesus was a real historical figure or not. You lean that way, but you are not convinced. Given the overwhelming evidence we have in Paul for all the reasons I won't repeat again, I am curious as to what empirical evidence exists you've critically examined, that pulls you the other way. But you seem to be avoiding this.

---

You seem really stuck on this historical Jesus thing - are you perhaps dealing with doubt yourself? The Historical Jesus potentially being myth has 0%, absolutely nothing, to do with why I de-converted from Christianity. It never even crossed my mind and seemed blasphemous.

Nonetheless, I will do my best to answer your question so we can move on.

It's important to approach the question of whether Jesus was a real historical figure with an open mind and a willingness to critically evaluate the evidence available. Therefore, it's reasonable to approach the question of Jesus' existence with a degree of skepticism and a commitment to carefully evaluate all available evidence, including alternative theories and arguments. This includes taking into account potential biases and limitations in the sources of evidence, and understanding the historical and cultural context in which that evidence was produced.

While the writings of Paul are certainly an important source of information about the early Christian movement, they do not necessarily provide conclusive evidence for the historicity of Jesus. I listed out several criteria when evaluating historical texts earlier. If your goal is to gain knowledge of the early Christian movement, I feel confident Paul gives us one (of many) views into this. There were many, many early sects of Christianity that died out that paint an incredibly different picture of Jesus.

If your goal is to conclude the historicity of Jesus, it is impossible to come to that conclusion based on his writings. Paul did not know Jesus the man, nor does he pretend to. Paul has bias just like anyone else, and his claims are unprovable. Let's take for example his claim that he met the disciples. Scholars have long questioned the historicity of these claims and have suggested that they may have been exaggerated or even fabricated by Paul in order to bolster his own authority and credibility within the early Christian movement. Can we prove this either way? Nope.

Beyond Paul, the gospels are not historically reliable. They were written 3-6 decades after Jesus' supposed death by fluent, Greek, unnamed authors. They have numerous contradicting claims that lowers their credibility as painting an accurate and historically true story.

In summary, we have gospels written by anonymous authors filled with contradicting claims, and we have letters written by a man filled with unprovable claims as there is no corroborating evidence. I feel like me giving a ~70% chance Jesus existed is generous.

---

No, I have no doubt. I'm just interested in yours. I know it has nothing to do with your topic of God's existence, but as I already mentioned several times, I'm addressing something different. But look at it this way: perhaps the evidence to God's existence is through Jesus, and so what we're talking about is of central importance.

Everything you said about the gospels is defeatable, and has been defeated repeatedly on this forum, but let's do that another time. Let's narrow down your problem with Paul. Here's what it has come down to: You attack the credibility and reliability of the gospels because you say it's written by non-witnesses, from stories passed down orally, and that there's no name attached to them. But then I give Paul, who claims direct witness, as well as having direct contact with the disciples themselves, and whose writings we do know came from him. So now, your argument becomes "well, Paul may be lying". You see where this is going?

So, let's establish where you are at with your argument against Paul - essentially, you are saying that Paul is an unreliable source for the historicity of Jesus, because his claims can not be proven, that he may have lied. Is that correct? Wasn't Paul meeting the disciples mentioned in Acts, whose author was the "historian of first rank", and also mentioned by Peter in 2 Peter? If you answer anything, at least answer the first question in this paragraph.

---

Everything I have said has been "defeated", yet any serious scholar will admit the unknown authorship of the gospels and their contradictions. I am not making any claims of validity and truth in their message, simply pointing out the obvious.

Yes, Paul being a fallible human is absolutely 100% something we should consider when analyzing the texts. Paul makes magnificent claims, so I naturally would expect to have magnificent and corroborating evidence to back these claims up.

He Hate Me said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Golem said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

cms186 said:

---

There is no evidence that God, or Allah, or whatever Deity someone chooses to believe in exists, but conversely, there isn't any concrete evidence that proves that said Deity doesn't exist, that is precisely why it is called Faith.

I'm an Agnostic, I don't believe that God in his Christian (or Islamic or whatever) form exists, but I'm certainly not arrogant enough to believe that just because I think something is a certain way, that that automatically means it is true, if I'm wrong, then that sucks for me, but I cant change the way I feel about something just because of that.

---

Which agruments for God have you investigated and why did they fail to convince you?

---

I'm sure there are many arguments for (and against) that I haven't encountered, as an agnostic, I certainly believe that some sort of Higher Power could exist, I don't know, I haven't seen anything to convince me that a God (or not one as Christians believe in) is likely, The amount of Evil that goes on in the World, Rape, Murder, Paedophilia etc. and the way that the World seems to be developing into a small elite of Rich people and corporations designed to milk as much as they can from the common man, I fail to believe that an all powerful, beneficent God would let that happen in a World he created.

---

In your view, what actions/reactions must be allowed in a world for true free will to exist? Can the most evil actions be prohibited by God and free will still exist?

Secondarily, if free will cannot exist in a world of constant divine intervention, would you prefer the life of an automaton?

---

There is no clear delineation about what "must be allowed" I feel that my words speak for themselves, God is said to be Omniscient and Omnipotent, therefore he has the ability to know what someone is thinking/intending and has the power to do something about it, theoretically, he could strike down a Serial Killer before they acted, he could cause a Paedophile to drop dead of a Heart Attack before they ever set hands on a Child, etc, but, he doesn't. Yet, there are good, truly innocent people who die before their time every second, I had to watch my Mother writhe in agony as she died from Cancer, a truly good, selfless woman, who volunteered with local Children, who loved her Family and whilst she may not have been particularly religious, was as virtuous as anyone on here. I struggle to believe for a second that a Loving, Caring God as so many Christians love to depict him, allows things like that to happen.

That, to me, indicates one of two things, either, he doesn't care enough about Human Life to do something about these evil people, or he doesn't exist, at least, not in the form our Religions say he does. I choose to think the latter, I thought this way before my Mum died, her sad Death merely cemented my belief.

---

The idea that is hard to grasp is that even the best of us are wicked on some level. It is a lot easier to compare ourselves and our loved ones against other people. We can always find someone that we think is worse than us or worse than our mom or dad and that allows us judge ourselves and loved ones as "good people."

When we judge ourselves against God's law, we do not look good at all. We have all broken every single commandment and fallen short of God's character. That is the bad news. The Good News is that God Himself provided a way back to him through his Sovereign Grace and the sacrifice that Christ made on the cross. The Good News is that no matter how much we suffer for a finite period of time on Earth, we can live forever in paradise where there is no pain or suffering if we will repent of our sin and turn to God for forgiveness.

---

So you're saying that someone can live a virtuous and pure life (by comparison) and if they don't ask for forgiveness for some set of arbitrary commandments (I assume we're talking about the 10 commandments passed down to Moses? if so, seeing how one of those Commandments is "Thou shall not Kill" I would argue that most people HAVENT broken every single one tbh) then they are doomed to spend eternity in Hell after they die, but someone can be the worst kind of sinner, but as long as they repent and ask for forgiveness, they are ok to spend Life after Death in Heaven?

cms186 said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Golem said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

cms186 said:

---

There is no evidence that God, or Allah, or whatever Deity someone chooses to believe in exists, but conversely, there isn't any concrete evidence that proves that said Deity doesn't exist, that is precisely why it is called Faith.

I'm an Agnostic, I don't believe that God in his Christian (or Islamic or whatever) form exists, but I'm certainly not arrogant enough to believe that just because I think something is a certain way, that that automatically means it is true, if I'm wrong, then that sucks for me, but I cant change the way I feel about something just because of that.

---

Which agruments for God have you investigated and why did they fail to convince you?

---

I'm sure there are many arguments for (and against) that I haven't encountered, as an agnostic, I certainly believe that some sort of Higher Power could exist, I don't know, I haven't seen anything to convince me that a God (or not one as Christians believe in) is likely, The amount of Evil that goes on in the World, Rape, Murder, Paedophilia etc. and the way that the World seems to be developing into a small elite of Rich people and corporations designed to milk as much as they can from the common man, I fail to believe that an all powerful, beneficent God would let that happen in a World he created.

---

In your view, what actions/reactions must be allowed in a world for true free will to exist? Can the most evil actions be prohibited by God and free will still exist?

Secondarily, if free will cannot exist in a world of constant divine intervention, would you prefer the life of an automaton?

---

There is no clear delineation about what "must be allowed" I feel that my words speak for themselves, God is said to be Omniscient and Omnipotent, therefore he has the ability to know what someone is thinking/intending and has the power to do something about it, theoretically, he could strike down a Serial Killer before they acted, he could cause a Paedophile to drop dead of a Heart Attack before they ever set hands on a Child, etc, but, he doesn't. Yet, there are good, truly innocent people who die before their time every second, I had to watch my Mother writhe in agony as she died from Cancer, a truly good, selfless woman, who volunteered with local Children, who loved her Family and whilst she may not have been particularly religious, was as virtuous as anyone on here. I struggle to believe for a second that a Loving, Caring God as so many Christians love to depict him, allows things like that to happen.

That, to me, indicates one of two things, either, he doesn't care enough about Human Life to do something about these evil people, or he doesn't exist, at least, not in the form our Religions say he does. I choose to think the latter, I thought this way before my Mum died, her sad Death merely cemented my belief.

---

The idea that is hard to grasp is that even the best of us are wicked on some level. It is a lot easier to compare ourselves and our loved ones against other people. We can always find someone that we think is worse than us or worse than our mom or dad and that allows us judge ourselves and loved ones as "good people."

When we judge ourselves against God's law, we do not look good at all. We have all broken every single commandment and fallen short of God's character. That is the bad news. The Good News is that God Himself provided a way back to him through his Sovereign Grace and the sacrifice that Christ made on the cross. The Good News is that no matter how much we suffer for a finite period of time on Earth, we can live forever in paradise where there is no pain or suffering if we will repent of our sin and turn to God for forgiveness.

---

So you're saying that someone can live a virtuous and pure life (by comparison) and if they don't ask for forgiveness for some set of arbitrary commandments (I assume we're talking about the 10 commandments passed down to Moses? if so, seeing how one of those Commandments is "Thou shall not Kill" I would argue that most people HAVENT broken every single one tbh) then they are doomed to spend eternity in Hell after they die, but someone can be the worst kind of sinner, but as long as they repent and ask for forgiveness, they are ok to spend Life after Death in Heaven?

---

Everyone one of has committed murder. By sinning, we brought death on ourselves and did not have the authority to take the life. Moreover, if you have even looked on another with intense anger or hatred, then you have murdered him in your heart.

President Carter once said he lusted in his heart. That is adultery. We have all done it. Virtuous character goes beyond physical acts and into unspoken matters of the heart. Even being virtuous is far from G-d's perfect standard.

This demonstrates we all have fallen short. We all deserve death. And we all need a savior to provide a way back to the perfect God we sinned against. This is true even for the people we respect as "good people" or even people we think are far better than ourselves.

He Hate Me said:

---

cms186 said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Golem said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

cms186 said:

---

There is no evidence that God, or Allah, or whatever Deity someone chooses to believe in exists, but conversely, there isn't any concrete evidence that proves that said Deity doesn't exist, that is precisely why it is called Faith.

I'm an Agnostic, I don't believe that God in his Christian (or Islamic or whatever) form exists, but I'm certainly not arrogant enough to believe that just because I think something is a certain way, that that automatically means it is true, if I'm wrong, then that sucks for me, but I cant change the way I feel about something just because of that.

---

Which agruments for God have you investigated and why did they fail to convince you?

---

I'm sure there are many arguments for (and against) that I haven't encountered, as an agnostic, I certainly believe that some sort of Higher Power could exist, I don't know, I haven't seen anything to convince me that a God (or not one as Christians believe in) is likely, The amount of Evil that goes on in the World, Rape, Murder, Paedophilia etc. and the way that the World seems to be developing into a small elite of Rich people and corporations designed to milk as much as they can from the common man, I fail to believe that an all powerful, beneficent God would let that happen in a World he created.

---

In your view, what actions/reactions must be allowed in a world for true free will to exist? Can the most evil actions be prohibited by God and free will still exist?

Secondarily, if free will cannot exist in a world of constant divine intervention, would you prefer the life of an automaton?

---

There is no clear delineation about what "must be allowed" I feel that my words speak for themselves, God is said to be Omniscient and Omnipotent, therefore he has the ability to know what someone is thinking/intending and has the power to do something about it, theoretically, he could strike down a Serial Killer before they acted, he could cause a Paedophile to drop dead of a Heart Attack before they ever set hands on a Child, etc, but, he doesn't. Yet, there are good, truly innocent people who die before their time every second, I had to watch my Mother writhe in agony as she died from Cancer, a truly good, selfless woman, who volunteered with local Children, who loved her Family and whilst she may not have been particularly religious, was as virtuous as anyone on here. I struggle to believe for a second that a Loving, Caring God as so many Christians love to depict him, allows things like that to happen.

That, to me, indicates one of two things, either, he doesn't care enough about Human Life to do something about these evil people, or he doesn't exist, at least, not in the form our Religions say he does. I choose to think the latter, I thought this way before my Mum died, her sad Death merely cemented my belief.

---

The idea that is hard to grasp is that even the best of us are wicked on some level. It is a lot easier to compare ourselves and our loved ones against other people. We can always find someone that we think is worse than us or worse than our mom or dad and that allows us judge ourselves and loved ones as "good people."

When we judge ourselves against God's law, we do not look good at all. We have all broken every single commandment and fallen short of God's character. That is the bad news. The Good News is that God Himself provided a way back to him through his Sovereign Grace and the sacrifice that Christ made on the cross. The Good News is that no matter how much we suffer for a finite period of time on Earth, we can live forever in paradise where there is no pain or suffering if we will repent of our sin and turn to God for forgiveness.

---

So you're saying that someone can live a virtuous and pure life (by comparison) and if they don't ask for forgiveness for some set of arbitrary commandments (I assume we're talking about the 10 commandments passed down to Moses? if so, seeing how one of those Commandments is "Thou shall not Kill" I would argue that most people HAVENT broken every single one tbh) then they are doomed to spend eternity in Hell after they die, but someone can be the worst kind of sinner, but as long as they repent and ask for forgiveness, they are ok to spend Life after Death in Heaven?

---

Everyone one of has committed murder. By sinning, we brought death on ourselves and did not have the authority to take the life. Moreover, if you have even looked on another with intense anger or hatred, then you have murdered him in your heart.

President Carter once said he lusted in his heart. That is adultery. We have all done it. Virtuous character goes beyond physical acts and into unspoken matters of the heart. Even being virtuous is far from G-d's perfect standard.

This demonstrates we all have fallen short. We all deserve death. And we all need a savior to provide a way back to the perfect God we sinned against. This is true even for the people we respect as "good people" or even people we think are far better than ourselves.

---

2 (main) problems I have with what you are saying, one, feeling anger or hatred towards someone is not "Murdering them in your heart" that is a really bizarre way of phrasing it, Murder (or killing, as it specifically mentions in the 10 Commandments) is a brutal, final act, , a flash of internal anger that you don not act upon is in no way comparable.

You say God is perfect, yet Anger is essentially murdering people in your heart, God in the bible is depicted as being angry several times, surely this would make him imperfect, as that makes him a murderer in your eyes, no?

cms186 said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

cms186 said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Golem said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

cms186 said:

---

There is no evidence that God, or Allah, or whatever Deity someone chooses to believe in exists, but conversely, there isn't any concrete evidence that proves that said Deity doesn't exist, that is precisely why it is called Faith.

I'm an Agnostic, I don't believe that God in his Christian (or Islamic or whatever) form exists, but I'm certainly not arrogant enough to believe that just because I think something is a certain way, that that automatically means it is true, if I'm wrong, then that sucks for me, but I cant change the way I feel about something just because of that.

---

Which agruments for God have you investigated and why did they fail to convince you?

---

I'm sure there are many arguments for (and against) that I haven't encountered, as an agnostic, I certainly believe that some sort of Higher Power could exist, I don't know, I haven't seen anything to convince me that a God (or not one as Christians believe in) is likely, The amount of Evil that goes on in the World, Rape, Murder, Paedophilia etc. and the way that the World seems to be developing into a small elite of Rich people and corporations designed to milk as much as they can from the common man, I fail to believe that an all powerful, beneficent God would let that happen in a World he created.

---

In your view, what actions/reactions must be allowed in a world for true free will to exist? Can the most evil actions be prohibited by God and free will still exist?

Secondarily, if free will cannot exist in a world of constant divine intervention, would you prefer the life of an automaton?

---

There is no clear delineation about what "must be allowed" I feel that my words speak for themselves, God is said to be Omniscient and Omnipotent, therefore he has the ability to know what someone is thinking/intending and has the power to do something about it, theoretically, he could strike down a Serial Killer before they acted, he could cause a Paedophile to drop dead of a Heart Attack before they ever set hands on a Child, etc, but, he doesn't. Yet, there are good, truly innocent people who die before their time every second, I had to watch my Mother writhe in agony as she died from Cancer, a truly good, selfless woman, who volunteered with local Children, who loved her Family and whilst she may not have been particularly religious, was as virtuous as anyone on here. I struggle to believe for a second that a Loving, Caring God as so many Christians love to depict him, allows things like that to happen.

That, to me, indicates one of two things, either, he doesn't care enough about Human Life to do something about these evil people, or he doesn't exist, at least, not in the form our Religions say he does. I choose to think the latter, I thought this way before my Mum died, her sad Death merely cemented my belief.

---

The idea that is hard to grasp is that even the best of us are wicked on some level. It is a lot easier to compare ourselves and our loved ones against other people. We can always find someone that we think is worse than us or worse than our mom or dad and that allows us judge ourselves and loved ones as "good people."

When we judge ourselves against God's law, we do not look good at all. We have all broken every single commandment and fallen short of God's character. That is the bad news. The Good News is that God Himself provided a way back to him through his Sovereign Grace and the sacrifice that Christ made on the cross. The Good News is that no matter how much we suffer for a finite period of time on Earth, we can live forever in paradise where there is no pain or suffering if we will repent of our sin and turn to God for forgiveness.

---

So you're saying that someone can live a virtuous and pure life (by comparison) and if they don't ask for forgiveness for some set of arbitrary commandments (I assume we're talking about the 10 commandments passed down to Moses? if so, seeing how one of those Commandments is "Thou shall not Kill" I would argue that most people HAVENT broken every single one tbh) then they are doomed to spend eternity in Hell after they die, but someone can be the worst kind of sinner, but as long as they repent and ask for forgiveness, they are ok to spend Life after Death in Heaven?

---

Everyone one of has committed murder. By sinning, we brought death on ourselves and did not have the authority to take the life. Moreover, if you have even looked on another with intense anger or hatred, then you have murdered him in your heart.

President Carter once said he lusted in his heart. That is adultery. We have all done it. Virtuous character goes beyond physical acts and into unspoken matters of the heart. Even being virtuous is far from G-d's perfect standard.

This demonstrates we all have fallen short. We all deserve death. And we all need a savior to provide a way back to the perfect God we sinned against. This is true even for the people we respect as "good people" or even people we think are far better than ourselves.

---

2 (main) problems I have with what you are saying, one, feeling anger or hatred towards someone is not "Murdering them in your heart" that is a really bizarre way of phrasing it, Murder (or killing, as it specifically mentions in the 10 Commandments) is a brutal, final act, , a flash of internal anger that you don not act upon is in no way comparable.

You say God is perfect, yet Anger is essentially murdering people in your heart, God in the bible is depicted as being angry several times, surely this would make him imperfect, as that makes him a murderer in your eyes, no?

---

There is an intense anger you and everyone else has felt toward someone in which you thought of committing a violent act against them. There is something that restrained you, but it did not restrain your heart. You really undersell the fact that we all are capable of unspeakable evil. Secular behavioral scientists will tell you this.

cms186 said:

---

There is no clear delineation about what "must be allowed" I feel that my words speak for themselves, God is said to be Omniscient and Omnipotent, therefore he has the ability to know what someone is thinking/intending and has the power to do something about it, theoretically, he could strike down a Serial Killer before they acted, he could cause a Paedophile to drop dead of a Heart Attack before they ever set hands on a Child, etc, but, he doesn't. Yet, there are good, truly innocent people who die before their time every second, I had to watch my Mother writhe in agony as she died from Cancer, a truly good, selfless woman, who volunteered with local Children, who loved her Family and whilst she may not have been particularly religious, was as virtuous as anyone on here. I struggle to believe for a second that a Loving, Caring God as so many Christians love to depict him, allows things like that to happen.

That, to me, indicates one of two things, either, he doesn't care enough about Human Life to do something about these evil people, or he doesn't exist, at least, not in the form our Religions say he does. I choose to think the latter, I thought this way before my Mum died, her sad Death merely cemented my belief.

---

First, thanks for both of your honest responses. I apologize for my delay in replying. Sorry for the loss of your "mum". I am fortunately that I haven't had to experience that yet.

I won't try to offer my list of reasons as to why to believe. I will encourage you, if you haven't done so already, to investigate some of the philosophical proofs for the existence of God. Some of them might be of help to break down some of your barriers.

With respect to the Problem of Evil that you addressed above, that is a very common reason as to why people loss their belief in God. "How can a good God allow "X" to happen?"

I just ask you to contemplate these two things:
1) Why are we upset that evil exists? Wouldn't that mean that the world is "supposed" ordered differently? What makes us think that "good" should exist. This is loosely related to St. Thomas Aquinas 4th way - Graduation. "Since all existent things can be compared to such qualities as degrees of goodness, there must exist something that is an Absolutely Good Being"

2) With respect to suffering - Most Christians believe that God will allow this evil to exist; however, He will use it for a greater good. I won't insult you and say "just accept that your mother's suffering because God will make the sun shine somewhere else." I won't pretend to know why she suffered. I will trust God. (Easy for me to say, because I haven't been in your/her shoes yet. My parents are 78 - my time will come sooner than I want.)

As a Catholic, I fully embrace that Rev. 21:27 "Nothing unclean enters heaven." We all have an attachment to sin. Whether it be lust, pride, gluttony, envy, calumny, detraction, etc. Until we are purged of those sins, we aren't entering heaven. We Catholics believe in the concept of Purgatory - "purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven," which is experienced by those "who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified" (CCC 1030). It could be possible that while you mother was suffering, she was freed (purged) from any attachments of sin giving her a "fast pass into heaven" and enjoying the beatific vision.

He Hate Me said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Golem said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

cms186 said:

---

There is no evidence that God, or Allah, or whatever Deity someone chooses to believe in exists, but conversely, there isn't any concrete evidence that proves that said Deity doesn't exist, that is precisely why it is called Faith.

I'm an Agnostic, I don't believe that God in his Christian (or Islamic or whatever) form exists, but I'm certainly not arrogant enough to believe that just because I think something is a certain way, that that automatically means it is true, if I'm wrong, then that sucks for me, but I cant change the way I feel about something just because of that.

---

Which agruments for God have you investigated and why did they fail to convince you?

---

I'm sure there are many arguments for (and against) that I haven't encountered, as an agnostic, I certainly believe that some sort of Higher Power could exist, I don't know, I haven't seen anything to convince me that a God (or not one as Christians believe in) is likely, The amount of Evil that goes on in the World, Rape, Murder, Paedophilia etc. and the way that the World seems to be developing into a small elite of Rich people and corporations designed to milk as much as they can from the common man, I fail to believe that an all powerful, beneficent God would let that happen in a World he created.

---

In your view, what actions/reactions must be allowed in a world for true free will to exist? Can the most evil actions be prohibited by God and free will still exist?

Secondarily, if free will cannot exist in a world of constant divine intervention, would you prefer the life of an automaton?

---

There is no clear delineation about what "must be allowed" I feel that my words speak for themselves, God is said to be Omniscient and Omnipotent, therefore he has the ability to know what someone is thinking/intending and has the power to do something about it, theoretically, he could strike down a Serial Killer before they acted, he could cause a Paedophile to drop dead of a Heart Attack before they ever set hands on a Child, etc, but, he doesn't. Yet, there are good, truly innocent people who die before their time every second, I had to watch my Mother writhe in agony as she died from Cancer, a truly good, selfless woman, who volunteered with local Children, who loved her Family and whilst she may not have been particularly religious, was as virtuous as anyone on here. I struggle to believe for a second that a Loving, Caring God as so many Christians love to depict him, allows things like that to happen.

That, to me, indicates one of two things, either, he doesn't care enough about Human Life to do something about these evil people, or he doesn't exist, at least, not in the form our Religions say he does. I choose to think the latter, I thought this way before my Mum died, her sad Death merely cemented my belief.

---

The idea that is hard to grasp is that even the best of us are wicked on some level. It is a lot easier to compare ourselves and our loved ones against other people. We can always find someone that we think is worse than us or worse than our mom or dad and that allows us judge ourselves and loved ones as "good people."

When we judge ourselves against God's law, we do not look good at all. We have all broken every single commandment and fallen short of God's character. That is the bad news. The Good News is that God Himself provided a way back to him through his Sovereign Grace and the sacrifice that Christ made on the cross. The Good News is that no matter how much we suffer for a finite period of time on Earth, we can live forever in paradise where there is no pain or suffering if we will repent of our sin and turn to God for forgiveness.

---

The Good News in two paragraphs!

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

"I am a follower of Christ who believes in a higher being that created the universe."-Baylorjacket 4/19/22


Again, I ask the question, what has changed?

Why have you chosen differently than before?

---

Copying & pasting my response as I have already answered this:
"What has changed since then is I continued to pull on that thread, studied the Bible seriously, read numerous books on both sides of the argument, reflected & meditated on it, and eventually deconverted"

I collected the empirical evidence and made the (speaking for myself) most rational decision.

---

But that's what I'm trying to evaluate - your rational decision making process behind whether Jesus was a real historical figure or not. You lean that way, but you are not convinced. Given the overwhelming evidence we have in Paul for all the reasons I won't repeat again, I am curious as to what empirical evidence exists you've critically examined, that pulls you the other way. But you seem to be avoiding this.

---

You seem really stuck on this historical Jesus thing - are you perhaps dealing with doubt yourself? The Historical Jesus potentially being myth has 0%, absolutely nothing, to do with why I de-converted from Christianity. It never even crossed my mind and seemed blasphemous.

Nonetheless, I will do my best to answer your question so we can move on.

It's important to approach the question of whether Jesus was a real historical figure with an open mind and a willingness to critically evaluate the evidence available. Therefore, it's reasonable to approach the question of Jesus' existence with a degree of skepticism and a commitment to carefully evaluate all available evidence, including alternative theories and arguments. This includes taking into account potential biases and limitations in the sources of evidence, and understanding the historical and cultural context in which that evidence was produced.

While the writings of Paul are certainly an important source of information about the early Christian movement, they do not necessarily provide conclusive evidence for the historicity of Jesus. I listed out several criteria when evaluating historical texts earlier. If your goal is to gain knowledge of the early Christian movement, I feel confident Paul gives us one (of many) views into this. There were many, many early sects of Christianity that died out that paint an incredibly different picture of Jesus.

If your goal is to conclude the historicity of Jesus, it is impossible to come to that conclusion based on his writings. Paul did not know Jesus the man, nor does he pretend to. Paul has bias just like anyone else, and his claims are unprovable. Let's take for example his claim that he met the disciples. Scholars have long questioned the historicity of these claims and have suggested that they may have been exaggerated or even fabricated by Paul in order to bolster his own authority and credibility within the early Christian movement. Can we prove this either way? Nope.

Beyond Paul, the gospels are not historically reliable. They were written 3-6 decades after Jesus' supposed death by fluent, Greek, unnamed authors. They have numerous contradicting claims that lowers their credibility as painting an accurate and historically true story.

In summary, we have gospels written by anonymous authors filled with contradicting claims, and we have letters written by a man filled with unprovable claims as there is no corroborating evidence. I feel like me giving a ~70% chance Jesus existed is generous.

---

No, I have no doubt. I'm just interested in yours. I know it has nothing to do with your topic of God's existence, but as I already mentioned several times, I'm addressing something different. But look at it this way: perhaps the evidence to God's existence is through Jesus, and so what we're talking about is of central importance.

Everything you said about the gospels is defeatable, and has been defeated repeatedly on this forum, but let's do that another time. Let's narrow down your problem with Paul. Here's what it has come down to: You attack the credibility and reliability of the gospels because you say it's written by non-witnesses, from stories passed down orally, and that there's no name attached to them. But then I give Paul, who claims direct witness, as well as having direct contact with the disciples themselves, and whose writings we do know came from him. So now, your argument becomes "well, Paul may be lying". You see where this is going?

So, let's establish where you are at with your argument against Paul - essentially, you are saying that Paul is an unreliable source for the historicity of Jesus, because his claims can not be proven, that he may have lied. Is that correct? Wasn't Paul meeting the disciples mentioned in Acts, whose author was the "historian of first rank", and also mentioned by Peter in 2 Peter? If you answer anything, at least answer the first question in this paragraph.

---

Everything I have said has been "defeated", yet any serious scholar will admit the unknown authorship of the gospels and their contradictions. I am not making any claims of validity and truth in their message, simply pointing out the obvious.

Yes, Paul being a fallible human is absolutely 100% something we should consider when analyzing the texts. Paul makes magnificent claims, so I naturally would expect to have magnificent and corroborating evidence to back these claims up.

---

I know of differences but I don't know of contradictions. Help me out please.

cms186 said:

---

You say God is perfect, yet Anger is essentially murdering people in your heart, God in the bible is depicted as being angry several times, surely this would make him imperfect, as that makes him a murderer in your eyes, no?

---

"God's the biggest mass-murderer of all time." This is a common phrase issued by some atheists and agnostics.

In Exodus, when God is said to be Angry, these are anthropomorphic terms to used to describe God's actions. God doesn't literally get angry. He does not have emotions. He transcends all creatures.

God's actions in the bible are to discipline His people so that they would not go astray. He set certain rules and asks us to abide by them. As a parent, I have rules for my kids. If they break the rules they are punished.

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

"I am a follower of Christ who believes in a higher being that created the universe."-Baylorjacket 4/19/22


Again, I ask the question, what has changed?

Why have you chosen differently than before?

---

Copying & pasting my response as I have already answered this:
"What has changed since then is I continued to pull on that thread, studied the Bible seriously, read numerous books on both sides of the argument, reflected & meditated on it, and eventually deconverted"

I collected the empirical evidence and made the (speaking for myself) most rational decision.

---

But that's what I'm trying to evaluate - your rational decision making process behind whether Jesus was a real historical figure or not. You lean that way, but you are not convinced. Given the overwhelming evidence we have in Paul for all the reasons I won't repeat again, I am curious as to what empirical evidence exists you've critically examined, that pulls you the other way. But you seem to be avoiding this.

---

You seem really stuck on this historical Jesus thing - are you perhaps dealing with doubt yourself? The Historical Jesus potentially being myth has 0%, absolutely nothing, to do with why I de-converted from Christianity. It never even crossed my mind and seemed blasphemous.

Nonetheless, I will do my best to answer your question so we can move on.

It's important to approach the question of whether Jesus was a real historical figure with an open mind and a willingness to critically evaluate the evidence available. Therefore, it's reasonable to approach the question of Jesus' existence with a degree of skepticism and a commitment to carefully evaluate all available evidence, including alternative theories and arguments. This includes taking into account potential biases and limitations in the sources of evidence, and understanding the historical and cultural context in which that evidence was produced.

While the writings of Paul are certainly an important source of information about the early Christian movement, they do not necessarily provide conclusive evidence for the historicity of Jesus. I listed out several criteria when evaluating historical texts earlier. If your goal is to gain knowledge of the early Christian movement, I feel confident Paul gives us one (of many) views into this. There were many, many early sects of Christianity that died out that paint an incredibly different picture of Jesus.

If your goal is to conclude the historicity of Jesus, it is impossible to come to that conclusion based on his writings. Paul did not know Jesus the man, nor does he pretend to. Paul has bias just like anyone else, and his claims are unprovable. Let's take for example his claim that he met the disciples. Scholars have long questioned the historicity of these claims and have suggested that they may have been exaggerated or even fabricated by Paul in order to bolster his own authority and credibility within the early Christian movement. Can we prove this either way? Nope.

Beyond Paul, the gospels are not historically reliable. They were written 3-6 decades after Jesus' supposed death by fluent, Greek, unnamed authors. They have numerous contradicting claims that lowers their credibility as painting an accurate and historically true story.

In summary, we have gospels written by anonymous authors filled with contradicting claims, and we have letters written by a man filled with unprovable claims as there is no corroborating evidence. I feel like me giving a ~70% chance Jesus existed is generous.

---

No, I have no doubt. I'm just interested in yours. I know it has nothing to do with your topic of God's existence, but as I already mentioned several times, I'm addressing something different. But look at it this way: perhaps the evidence to God's existence is through Jesus, and so what we're talking about is of central importance.

Everything you said about the gospels is defeatable, and has been defeated repeatedly on this forum, but let's do that another time. Let's narrow down your problem with Paul. Here's what it has come down to: You attack the credibility and reliability of the gospels because you say it's written by non-witnesses, from stories passed down orally, and that there's no name attached to them. But then I give Paul, who claims direct witness, as well as having direct contact with the disciples themselves, and whose writings we do know came from him. So now, your argument becomes "well, Paul may be lying". You see where this is going?

So, let's establish where you are at with your argument against Paul - essentially, you are saying that Paul is an unreliable source for the historicity of Jesus, because his claims can not be proven, that he may have lied. Is that correct? Wasn't Paul meeting the disciples mentioned in Acts, whose author was the "historian of first rank", and also mentioned by Peter in 2 Peter? If you answer anything, at least answer the first question in this paragraph.

---

Everything I have said has been "defeated", yet any serious scholar will admit the unknown authorship of the gospels and their contradictions. I am not making any claims of validity and truth in their message, simply pointing out the obvious.

Yes, Paul being a fallible human is absolutely 100% something we should consider when analyzing the texts. Paul makes magnificent claims, so I naturally would expect to have magnificent and corroborating evidence to back these claims up.

---

The claim of "unknown authorship" of the gospels has been dealt with extensively in this forum, and yes, it has been defeated as an intellectually dishonest claim. We can go into all that again, but right now I'm narrowing the focus so as to keep these comments from being long essays.

As for Paul, we aren't talking about "magnificent claims" necessarily, we are dealing with the historicity of Jesus. Is it a magnificent claim that Jesus existed and was crucified? These were what you questioned. And you haven't responded to the part where it is mentioned in Acts and in 2 Peter that Paul did meet at least a couple of disciples, thus supporting Paul's claim as being true. So what evidence do you have for Paul lying about the existence of Jesus?

If you are discounting the historicity of Jesus from Paul' writings simply on the grounds that Paul is a fallible human and may "lie", without actual evidence for it, then you have a tremendously weak argument.

Oh, I forgot one more thing: I know I said I wanted to just focus on Paul for now, but I did want to just touch on your point about contradictions in the gospels damaging their reliability - first of all, contradictions do not necessarily disqualify texts as being historical. In fact, it may even authenticate them even more, given that if the same events were described by different human perspectives, one would expect differences and even minor contradictions to exist. In actuality, one should be very suspicious if NO contradictions or differences were to exist. Because that would suggest external manipulation. The Quran is a good example.

Given that, I do understand that if MAJOR contradictions exist, then it would be problematic. Which contradiction do you think is the most important, the most damaging to its reliability and historicity? Can you name just one that we can discuss, for the sake of brevity?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oh, I forgot one more thing: I know I said I wanted to just focus on Paul for now, but I did want to just touch on your point about contradictions in the gospels damaging their reliability - first of all, contradictions do not necessarily disqualify texts as being historical. In fact, it may even authenticate them even more, given that if the same events were described by different human perspectives, one would expect differences and even minor contradictions to exist. In actuality, one should be very suspicious if NO contradictions or differences were to exist. Because that would suggest external manipulation. The Quran is a good example.

Given that, I do understand that if MAJOR contradictions exist, then it would be problematic. Which contradiction do you think is the most important, the most damaging to its reliability and historicity? Can you name just one that we can discuss, for the sake of brevity?

---

Correct. Another good point. If Jesus as a historical figure was fabricated, why have four gospels that do not perfectly align on the details? Not the best strategy for a hoax. It's laregly the imperfections from mankind's perspective than make it perfect from G-d's perspective.

cms186 said:

---

Golem said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

cms186 said:

---

There is no evidence that God, or Allah, or whatever Deity someone chooses to believe in exists, but conversely, there isn't any concrete evidence that proves that said Deity doesn't exist, that is precisely why it is called Faith.

I'm an Agnostic, I don't believe that God in his Christian (or Islamic or whatever) form exists, but I'm certainly not arrogant enough to believe that just because I think something is a certain way, that that automatically means it is true, if I'm wrong, then that sucks for me, but I cant change the way I feel about something just because of that.

---

Which agruments for God have you investigated and why did they fail to convince you?

---

I'm sure there are many arguments for (and against) that I haven't encountered, as an agnostic, I certainly believe that some sort of Higher Power could exist, I don't know, I haven't seen anything to convince me that a God (or not one as Christians believe in) is likely, The amount of Evil that goes on in the World, Rape, Murder, Paedophilia etc. and the way that the World seems to be developing into a small elite of Rich people and corporations designed to milk as much as they can from the common man, I fail to believe that an all powerful, beneficent God would let that happen in a World he created.

---

In your view, what actions/reactions must be allowed in a world for true free will to exist? Can the most evil actions be prohibited by God and free will still exist?

Secondarily, if free will cannot exist in a world of constant divine intervention, would you prefer the life of an automaton?

---

There is no clear delineation about what "must be allowed" I feel that my words speak for themselves, God is said to be Omniscient and Omnipotent, therefore he has the ability to know what someone is thinking/intending and has the power to do something about it, theoretically, he could strike down a Serial Killer before they acted, he could cause a Paedophile to drop dead of a Heart Attack before they ever set hands on a Child, etc, but, he doesn't. Yet, there are good, truly innocent people who die before their time every second, I had to watch my Mother writhe in agony as she died from Cancer, a truly good, selfless woman, who volunteered with local Children, who loved her Family and whilst she may not have been particularly religious, was as virtuous as anyone on here. I struggle to believe for a second that a Loving, Caring God as so many Christians love to depict him, allows things like that to happen.

That, to me, indicates one of two things, either, he doesn't care enough about Human Life to do something about these evil people, or he doesn't exist, at least, not in the form our Religions say he does. I choose to think the latter, I thought this way before my Mum died, her sad Death merely cemented my belief.

---

May I suggest a God who uses these rules for you would be more to your liking…


First Law
A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
Second Law
A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
Third Law
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

"I am a follower of Christ who believes in a higher being that created the universe."-Baylorjacket 4/19/22


Again, I ask the question, what has changed?

Why have you chosen differently than before?

---

Copying & pasting my response as I have already answered this:
"What has changed since then is I continued to pull on that thread, studied the Bible seriously, read numerous books on both sides of the argument, reflected & meditated on it, and eventually deconverted"

I collected the empirical evidence and made the (speaking for myself) most rational decision.

---

But that's what I'm trying to evaluate - your rational decision making process behind whether Jesus was a real historical figure or not. You lean that way, but you are not convinced. Given the overwhelming evidence we have in Paul for all the reasons I won't repeat again, I am curious as to what empirical evidence exists you've critically examined, that pulls you the other way. But you seem to be avoiding this.

---

You seem really stuck on this historical Jesus thing - are you perhaps dealing with doubt yourself? The Historical Jesus potentially being myth has 0%, absolutely nothing, to do with why I de-converted from Christianity. It never even crossed my mind and seemed blasphemous.

Nonetheless, I will do my best to answer your question so we can move on.

It's important to approach the question of whether Jesus was a real historical figure with an open mind and a willingness to critically evaluate the evidence available. Therefore, it's reasonable to approach the question of Jesus' existence with a degree of skepticism and a commitment to carefully evaluate all available evidence, including alternative theories and arguments. This includes taking into account potential biases and limitations in the sources of evidence, and understanding the historical and cultural context in which that evidence was produced.

While the writings of Paul are certainly an important source of information about the early Christian movement, they do not necessarily provide conclusive evidence for the historicity of Jesus. I listed out several criteria when evaluating historical texts earlier. If your goal is to gain knowledge of the early Christian movement, I feel confident Paul gives us one (of many) views into this. There were many, many early sects of Christianity that died out that paint an incredibly different picture of Jesus.

If your goal is to conclude the historicity of Jesus, it is impossible to come to that conclusion based on his writings. Paul did not know Jesus the man, nor does he pretend to. Paul has bias just like anyone else, and his claims are unprovable. Let's take for example his claim that he met the disciples. Scholars have long questioned the historicity of these claims and have suggested that they may have been exaggerated or even fabricated by Paul in order to bolster his own authority and credibility within the early Christian movement. Can we prove this either way? Nope.

Beyond Paul, the gospels are not historically reliable. They were written 3-6 decades after Jesus' supposed death by fluent, Greek, unnamed authors. They have numerous contradicting claims that lowers their credibility as painting an accurate and historically true story.

In summary, we have gospels written by anonymous authors filled with contradicting claims, and we have letters written by a man filled with unprovable claims as there is no corroborating evidence. I feel like me giving a ~70% chance Jesus existed is generous.

---

No, I have no doubt. I'm just interested in yours. I know it has nothing to do with your topic of God's existence, but as I already mentioned several times, I'm addressing something different. But look at it this way: perhaps the evidence to God's existence is through Jesus, and so what we're talking about is of central importance.

Everything you said about the gospels is defeatable, and has been defeated repeatedly on this forum, but let's do that another time. Let's narrow down your problem with Paul. Here's what it has come down to: You attack the credibility and reliability of the gospels because you say it's written by non-witnesses, from stories passed down orally, and that there's no name attached to them. But then I give Paul, who claims direct witness, as well as having direct contact with the disciples themselves, and whose writings we do know came from him. So now, your argument becomes "well, Paul may be lying". You see where this is going?

So, let's establish where you are at with your argument against Paul - essentially, you are saying that Paul is an unreliable source for the historicity of Jesus, because his claims can not be proven, that he may have lied. Is that correct? Wasn't Paul meeting the disciples mentioned in Acts, whose author was the "historian of first rank", and also mentioned by Peter in 2 Peter? If you answer anything, at least answer the first question in this paragraph.

---

Everything I have said has been "defeated", yet any serious scholar will admit the unknown authorship of the gospels and their contradictions. I am not making any claims of validity and truth in their message, simply pointing out the obvious.

Yes, Paul being a fallible human is absolutely 100% something we should consider when analyzing the texts. Paul makes magnificent claims, so I naturally would expect to have magnificent and corroborating evidence to back these claims up.

---

The claim of "unknown authorship" of the gospels has been dealt with extensively in this forum, and yes, it has been defeated as an intellectually dishonest claim. We can go into all that again, but right now I'm narrowing the focus so as to keep these comments from being long essays.

As for Paul, we aren't talking about "magnificent claims" necessarily, we are dealing with the historicity of Jesus. Is it a magnificent claim that Jesus existed and was crucified? These were what you questioned. And you haven't responded to the part where it is mentioned in Acts and in 2 Peter that Paul did meet at least a couple of disciples, thus supporting Paul's claim as being true. So what evidence do you have for Paul lying about the existence of Jesus?

If you are discounting the historicity of Jesus from Paul' writings simply on the grounds that Paul is a fallible human and may "lie", without actual evidence for it, then you have a tremendously weak argument.

---

I responded to your question on the historicity of Jesus, and am quite frankly not interested in continuing this debate. It is unprovable and circular, and I even have told you many times I find it more probable than not that he exists. We literally both have the same conclusion (you are just more confident) - do you see how this is a ridiculous argument lol?

I can genuinely say I completely understand your thinking and perspective, as for 2+ decades I would align with your words. Yes, the collective gospels and Paul's words have lost credibility from my perspective which lowers my confidence percentage - but I still agree that the most probable and likely explanation is a literal Jesus existed

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oh, I forgot one more thing: I know I said I wanted to just focus on Paul for now, but I did want to just touch on your point about contradictions in the gospels damaging their reliability - first of all, contradictions do not necessarily disqualify texts as being historical. In fact, it may even authenticate them even more, given that if the same events were described by different human perspectives, one would expect differences and even minor contradictions to exist. In actuality, one should be very suspicious if NO contradictions or differences were to exist. Because that would suggest external manipulation. The Quran is a good example.

Given that, I do understand that if MAJOR contradictions exist, then it would be problematic. Which contradiction do you think is the most important, the most damaging to its reliability and historicity? Can you name just one that we can discuss, for the sake of brevity?

---

There is no contradiction that I can point to and say "this is it, this unravels everything!" - it is the collective contradictions along with (I don't think you'll disagree with this), objective proof that some of the gospels written later used other gospels and even copied many things word for word losing its status as an independent source.

For contradictions though, let's start with a simple one: the genealogy of Jesus.

cms186 said:

---

Golem said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

cms186 said:

---

There is no evidence that God, or Allah, or whatever Deity someone chooses to believe in exists, but conversely, there isn't any concrete evidence that proves that said Deity doesn't exist, that is precisely why it is called Faith.

I'm an Agnostic, I don't believe that God in his Christian (or Islamic or whatever) form exists, but I'm certainly not arrogant enough to believe that just because I think something is a certain way, that that automatically means it is true, if I'm wrong, then that sucks for me, but I cant change the way I feel about something just because of that.

---

Which agruments for God have you investigated and why did they fail to convince you?

---

I'm sure there are many arguments for (and against) that I haven't encountered, as an agnostic, I certainly believe that some sort of Higher Power could exist, I don't know, I haven't seen anything to convince me that a God (or not one as Christians believe in) is likely, The amount of Evil that goes on in the World, Rape, Murder, Paedophilia etc. and the way that the World seems to be developing into a small elite of Rich people and corporations designed to milk as much as they can from the common man, I fail to believe that an all powerful, beneficent God would let that happen in a World he created.

---

In your view, what actions/reactions must be allowed in a world for true free will to exist? Can the most evil actions be prohibited by God and free will still exist?

Secondarily, if free will cannot exist in a world of constant divine intervention, would you prefer the life of an automaton?

---

There is no clear delineation about what "must be allowed" I feel that my words speak for themselves, God is said to be Omniscient and Omnipotent, therefore he has the ability to know what someone is thinking/intending and has the power to do something about it, theoretically, he could strike down a Serial Killer before they acted, he could cause a Paedophile to drop dead of a Heart Attack before they ever set hands on a Child, etc, but, he doesn't. Yet, there are good, truly innocent people who die before their time every second, I had to watch my Mother writhe in agony as she died from Cancer, a truly good, selfless woman, who volunteered with local Children, who loved her Family and whilst she may not have been particularly religious, was as virtuous as anyone on here. I struggle to believe for a second that a Loving, Caring God as so many Christians love to depict him, allows things like that to happen.

That, to me, indicates one of two things, either, he doesn't care enough about Human Life to do something about these evil people, or he doesn't exist, at least, not in the form our Religions say he does. I choose to think the latter, I thought this way before my Mum died, her sad Death merely cemented my belief.

---

Why God allows awful things to happen is perhaps the most difficult issue for me. I don't pretend to know the answer. But probably the best answer I've heard was in a small church in rural north Georgia that had recently lost a family to murder/suicide. The pastor and his wife spoke. They were a young couple. First pastor job I believe.

They said of course they did not know the answer. But their best guess was threefold: One, God determined that freewill and the experiences and learnigns that come with it (even the pain and suffering) are better than an earth where everything is "perfect." Two, good does come out of bad. And, three, most importantly, they said, even the most brutal pain and suffering on earth pales in comparison to wonderful eternity that awaits. We can't truly appreciate good without experiencing bad.

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

"I am a follower of Christ who believes in a higher being that created the universe."-Baylorjacket 4/19/22


Again, I ask the question, what has changed?

Why have you chosen differently than before?

---

Copying & pasting my response as I have already answered this:
"What has changed since then is I continued to pull on that thread, studied the Bible seriously, read numerous books on both sides of the argument, reflected & meditated on it, and eventually deconverted"

I collected the empirical evidence and made the (speaking for myself) most rational decision.

---

But that's what I'm trying to evaluate - your rational decision making process behind whether Jesus was a real historical figure or not. You lean that way, but you are not convinced. Given the overwhelming evidence we have in Paul for all the reasons I won't repeat again, I am curious as to what empirical evidence exists you've critically examined, that pulls you the other way. But you seem to be avoiding this.

---

You seem really stuck on this historical Jesus thing - are you perhaps dealing with doubt yourself? The Historical Jesus potentially being myth has 0%, absolutely nothing, to do with why I de-converted from Christianity. It never even crossed my mind and seemed blasphemous.

Nonetheless, I will do my best to answer your question so we can move on.

It's important to approach the question of whether Jesus was a real historical figure with an open mind and a willingness to critically evaluate the evidence available. Therefore, it's reasonable to approach the question of Jesus' existence with a degree of skepticism and a commitment to carefully evaluate all available evidence, including alternative theories and arguments. This includes taking into account potential biases and limitations in the sources of evidence, and understanding the historical and cultural context in which that evidence was produced.

While the writings of Paul are certainly an important source of information about the early Christian movement, they do not necessarily provide conclusive evidence for the historicity of Jesus. I listed out several criteria when evaluating historical texts earlier. If your goal is to gain knowledge of the early Christian movement, I feel confident Paul gives us one (of many) views into this. There were many, many early sects of Christianity that died out that paint an incredibly different picture of Jesus.

If your goal is to conclude the historicity of Jesus, it is impossible to come to that conclusion based on his writings. Paul did not know Jesus the man, nor does he pretend to. Paul has bias just like anyone else, and his claims are unprovable. Let's take for example his claim that he met the disciples. Scholars have long questioned the historicity of these claims and have suggested that they may have been exaggerated or even fabricated by Paul in order to bolster his own authority and credibility within the early Christian movement. Can we prove this either way? Nope.

Beyond Paul, the gospels are not historically reliable. They were written 3-6 decades after Jesus' supposed death by fluent, Greek, unnamed authors. They have numerous contradicting claims that lowers their credibility as painting an accurate and historically true story.

In summary, we have gospels written by anonymous authors filled with contradicting claims, and we have letters written by a man filled with unprovable claims as there is no corroborating evidence. I feel like me giving a ~70% chance Jesus existed is generous.

---

No, I have no doubt. I'm just interested in yours. I know it has nothing to do with your topic of God's existence, but as I already mentioned several times, I'm addressing something different. But look at it this way: perhaps the evidence to God's existence is through Jesus, and so what we're talking about is of central importance.

Everything you said about the gospels is defeatable, and has been defeated repeatedly on this forum, but let's do that another time. Let's narrow down your problem with Paul. Here's what it has come down to: You attack the credibility and reliability of the gospels because you say it's written by non-witnesses, from stories passed down orally, and that there's no name attached to them. But then I give Paul, who claims direct witness, as well as having direct contact with the disciples themselves, and whose writings we do know came from him. So now, your argument becomes "well, Paul may be lying". You see where this is going?

So, let's establish where you are at with your argument against Paul - essentially, you are saying that Paul is an unreliable source for the historicity of Jesus, because his claims can not be proven, that he may have lied. Is that correct? Wasn't Paul meeting the disciples mentioned in Acts, whose author was the "historian of first rank", and also mentioned by Peter in 2 Peter? If you answer anything, at least answer the first question in this paragraph.

---

Everything I have said has been "defeated", yet any serious scholar will admit the unknown authorship of the gospels and their contradictions. I am not making any claims of validity and truth in their message, simply pointing out the obvious.

Yes, Paul being a fallible human is absolutely 100% something we should consider when analyzing the texts. Paul makes magnificent claims, so I naturally would expect to have magnificent and corroborating evidence to back these claims up.

---

The claim of "unknown authorship" of the gospels has been dealt with extensively in this forum, and yes, it has been defeated as an intellectually dishonest claim. We can go into all that again, but right now I'm narrowing the focus so as to keep these comments from being long essays.

As for Paul, we aren't talking about "magnificent claims" necessarily, we are dealing with the historicity of Jesus. Is it a magnificent claim that Jesus existed and was crucified? These were what you questioned. And you haven't responded to the part where it is mentioned in Acts and in 2 Peter that Paul did meet at least a couple of disciples, thus supporting Paul's claim as being true. So what evidence do you have for Paul lying about the existence of Jesus?

If you are discounting the historicity of Jesus from Paul' writings simply on the grounds that Paul is a fallible human and may "lie", without actual evidence for it, then you have a tremendously weak argument.

---

I responded to your question on the historicity of Jesus, and am quite frankly not interested in continuing this debate. It is unprovable and circular, and I even have told you many times I find it more probable than not that he exists. We literally both have the same conclusion (you are just more confident) - do you see how this is a ridiculous argument lol?

I can genuinely say I completely understand your thinking and perspective, as for 2+ decades I would align with your words. Yes, the collective gospels and Paul's words have lost credibility from my perspective which lowers my confidence percentage - but I still agree that the most probable and likely explanation is a literal Jesus existed

---

I don't want to put words in your mouth. Is this appropriate for what you are "believing"?

https://www.gotquestions.org/I-believe-help-my-unbelief.html

Coke Bear said:

---

cms186 said:

---

You say God is perfect, yet Anger is essentially murdering people in your heart, God in the bible is depicted as being angry several times, surely this would make him imperfect, as that makes him a murderer in your eyes, no?

---

"God's the biggest mass-murderer of all time." This is a common phrase issued by some atheists and agnostics.

In Exodus, when God is said to be Angry, these are anthropomorphic terms to used to describe God's actions. God doesn't literally get angry. He does not have emotions. He transcends all creatures.

God's actions in the bible are to discipline His people so that they would not go astray. He set certain rules and asks us to abide by them. As a parent, I have rules for my kids. If they break the rules they are punished.

---

If you believe the Bible is literal and true, God literally drowned the entire planet besides one core family - yes, he is the biggest mass murderer of all time. Regardless if he is justified to drown someone does not make it not murder.

In fact, God's kill count is significantly higher than Satan's in the Bible even if you take away the flood. He is a loving and merciful father, but damn does he enjoy punishing people (especially women and non-Jews)

sombear said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Golem said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

cms186 said:

---

There is no evidence that God, or Allah, or whatever Deity someone chooses to believe in exists, but conversely, there isn't any concrete evidence that proves that said Deity doesn't exist, that is precisely why it is called Faith.

I'm an Agnostic, I don't believe that God in his Christian (or Islamic or whatever) form exists, but I'm certainly not arrogant enough to believe that just because I think something is a certain way, that that automatically means it is true, if I'm wrong, then that sucks for me, but I cant change the way I feel about something just because of that.

---

Which agruments for God have you investigated and why did they fail to convince you?

---

I'm sure there are many arguments for (and against) that I haven't encountered, as an agnostic, I certainly believe that some sort of Higher Power could exist, I don't know, I haven't seen anything to convince me that a God (or not one as Christians believe in) is likely, The amount of Evil that goes on in the World, Rape, Murder, Paedophilia etc. and the way that the World seems to be developing into a small elite of Rich people and corporations designed to milk as much as they can from the common man, I fail to believe that an all powerful, beneficent God would let that happen in a World he created.

---

In your view, what actions/reactions must be allowed in a world for true free will to exist? Can the most evil actions be prohibited by God and free will still exist?

Secondarily, if free will cannot exist in a world of constant divine intervention, would you prefer the life of an automaton?

---

There is no clear delineation about what "must be allowed" I feel that my words speak for themselves, God is said to be Omniscient and Omnipotent, therefore he has the ability to know what someone is thinking/intending and has the power to do something about it, theoretically, he could strike down a Serial Killer before they acted, he could cause a Paedophile to drop dead of a Heart Attack before they ever set hands on a Child, etc, but, he doesn't. Yet, there are good, truly innocent people who die before their time every second, I had to watch my Mother writhe in agony as she died from Cancer, a truly good, selfless woman, who volunteered with local Children, who loved her Family and whilst she may not have been particularly religious, was as virtuous as anyone on here. I struggle to believe for a second that a Loving, Caring God as so many Christians love to depict him, allows things like that to happen.

That, to me, indicates one of two things, either, he doesn't care enough about Human Life to do something about these evil people, or he doesn't exist, at least, not in the form our Religions say he does. I choose to think the latter, I thought this way before my Mum died, her sad Death merely cemented my belief.

---

Why God allows awful things to happen is perhaps the most difficult issue for me. I don't pretend to know the answer. But probably the best answer I've heard was in a small church in rural north Georgia that had recently lost a family to murder/suicide. The pastor and his wife spoke. They were a young couple. First pastor job I believe.

They said of course they did not know the answer. But their best guess was threefold: One, God determined that freewill and the experiences and learnigns that come with it (even the pain and suffering) are better than an earth where everything is "perfect." Two, good does come out of bad. And, three, most importantly, they said, even the most brutal pain and suffering on earth pales in comparison to wonderful eternity that awaits. We can't truly appreciate good without experiencing bad.

---

More pages have been spilled on theodicy that few other subjects. The best answer I have is we live in a fallen, sinful world where evil exists. The resut of the Fall.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

"I am a follower of Christ who believes in a higher being that created the universe."-Baylorjacket 4/19/22


Again, I ask the question, what has changed?

Why have you chosen differently than before?

---

Copying & pasting my response as I have already answered this:
"What has changed since then is I continued to pull on that thread, studied the Bible seriously, read numerous books on both sides of the argument, reflected & meditated on it, and eventually deconverted"

I collected the empirical evidence and made the (speaking for myself) most rational decision.

---

But that's what I'm trying to evaluate - your rational decision making process behind whether Jesus was a real historical figure or not. You lean that way, but you are not convinced. Given the overwhelming evidence we have in Paul for all the reasons I won't repeat again, I am curious as to what empirical evidence exists you've critically examined, that pulls you the other way. But you seem to be avoiding this.

---

You seem really stuck on this historical Jesus thing - are you perhaps dealing with doubt yourself? The Historical Jesus potentially being myth has 0%, absolutely nothing, to do with why I de-converted from Christianity. It never even crossed my mind and seemed blasphemous.

Nonetheless, I will do my best to answer your question so we can move on.

It's important to approach the question of whether Jesus was a real historical figure with an open mind and a willingness to critically evaluate the evidence available. Therefore, it's reasonable to approach the question of Jesus' existence with a degree of skepticism and a commitment to carefully evaluate all available evidence, including alternative theories and arguments. This includes taking into account potential biases and limitations in the sources of evidence, and understanding the historical and cultural context in which that evidence was produced.

While the writings of Paul are certainly an important source of information about the early Christian movement, they do not necessarily provide conclusive evidence for the historicity of Jesus. I listed out several criteria when evaluating historical texts earlier. If your goal is to gain knowledge of the early Christian movement, I feel confident Paul gives us one (of many) views into this. There were many, many early sects of Christianity that died out that paint an incredibly different picture of Jesus.

If your goal is to conclude the historicity of Jesus, it is impossible to come to that conclusion based on his writings. Paul did not know Jesus the man, nor does he pretend to. Paul has bias just like anyone else, and his claims are unprovable. Let's take for example his claim that he met the disciples. Scholars have long questioned the historicity of these claims and have suggested that they may have been exaggerated or even fabricated by Paul in order to bolster his own authority and credibility within the early Christian movement. Can we prove this either way? Nope.

Beyond Paul, the gospels are not historically reliable. They were written 3-6 decades after Jesus' supposed death by fluent, Greek, unnamed authors. They have numerous contradicting claims that lowers their credibility as painting an accurate and historically true story.

In summary, we have gospels written by anonymous authors filled with contradicting claims, and we have letters written by a man filled with unprovable claims as there is no corroborating evidence. I feel like me giving a ~70% chance Jesus existed is generous.

---

No, I have no doubt. I'm just interested in yours. I know it has nothing to do with your topic of God's existence, but as I already mentioned several times, I'm addressing something different. But look at it this way: perhaps the evidence to God's existence is through Jesus, and so what we're talking about is of central importance.

Everything you said about the gospels is defeatable, and has been defeated repeatedly on this forum, but let's do that another time. Let's narrow down your problem with Paul. Here's what it has come down to: You attack the credibility and reliability of the gospels because you say it's written by non-witnesses, from stories passed down orally, and that there's no name attached to them. But then I give Paul, who claims direct witness, as well as having direct contact with the disciples themselves, and whose writings we do know came from him. So now, your argument becomes "well, Paul may be lying". You see where this is going?

So, let's establish where you are at with your argument against Paul - essentially, you are saying that Paul is an unreliable source for the historicity of Jesus, because his claims can not be proven, that he may have lied. Is that correct? Wasn't Paul meeting the disciples mentioned in Acts, whose author was the "historian of first rank", and also mentioned by Peter in 2 Peter? If you answer anything, at least answer the first question in this paragraph.

---

Everything I have said has been "defeated", yet any serious scholar will admit the unknown authorship of the gospels and their contradictions. I am not making any claims of validity and truth in their message, simply pointing out the obvious.

Yes, Paul being a fallible human is absolutely 100% something we should consider when analyzing the texts. Paul makes magnificent claims, so I naturally would expect to have magnificent and corroborating evidence to back these claims up.

---

The claim of "unknown authorship" of the gospels has been dealt with extensively in this forum, and yes, it has been defeated as an intellectually dishonest claim. We can go into all that again, but right now I'm narrowing the focus so as to keep these comments from being long essays.

As for Paul, we aren't talking about "magnificent claims" necessarily, we are dealing with the historicity of Jesus. Is it a magnificent claim that Jesus existed and was crucified? These were what you questioned. And you haven't responded to the part where it is mentioned in Acts and in 2 Peter that Paul did meet at least a couple of disciples, thus supporting Paul's claim as being true. So what evidence do you have for Paul lying about the existence of Jesus?

If you are discounting the historicity of Jesus from Paul' writings simply on the grounds that Paul is a fallible human and may "lie", without actual evidence for it, then you have a tremendously weak argument.

---

I responded to your question on the historicity of Jesus, and am quite frankly not interested in continuing this debate. It is unprovable and circular, and I even have told you many times I find it more probable than not that he exists. We literally both have the same conclusion (you are just more confident) - do you see how this is a ridiculous argument lol?

I can genuinely say I completely understand your thinking and perspective, as for 2+ decades I would align with your words. Yes, the collective gospels and Paul's words have lost credibility from my perspective which lowers my confidence percentage - but I still agree that the most probable and likely explanation is a literal Jesus existed

---

I don't want to put words in your mouth. Is this appropriate for what you are "believing"?

https://www.gotquestions.org/I-believe-help-my-unbelief.html

---

Thank you for the response - do you mind quoting what you're referring to? I do not think faith is a good mechanism for determining the truth and validity of anything

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

"I am a follower of Christ who believes in a higher being that created the universe."-Baylorjacket 4/19/22


Again, I ask the question, what has changed?

Why have you chosen differently than before?

---

Copying & pasting my response as I have already answered this:
"What has changed since then is I continued to pull on that thread, studied the Bible seriously, read numerous books on both sides of the argument, reflected & meditated on it, and eventually deconverted"

I collected the empirical evidence and made the (speaking for myself) most rational decision.

---

But that's what I'm trying to evaluate - your rational decision making process behind whether Jesus was a real historical figure or not. You lean that way, but you are not convinced. Given the overwhelming evidence we have in Paul for all the reasons I won't repeat again, I am curious as to what empirical evidence exists you've critically examined, that pulls you the other way. But you seem to be avoiding this.

---

You seem really stuck on this historical Jesus thing - are you perhaps dealing with doubt yourself? The Historical Jesus potentially being myth has 0%, absolutely nothing, to do with why I de-converted from Christianity. It never even crossed my mind and seemed blasphemous.

Nonetheless, I will do my best to answer your question so we can move on.

It's important to approach the question of whether Jesus was a real historical figure with an open mind and a willingness to critically evaluate the evidence available. Therefore, it's reasonable to approach the question of Jesus' existence with a degree of skepticism and a commitment to carefully evaluate all available evidence, including alternative theories and arguments. This includes taking into account potential biases and limitations in the sources of evidence, and understanding the historical and cultural context in which that evidence was produced.

While the writings of Paul are certainly an important source of information about the early Christian movement, they do not necessarily provide conclusive evidence for the historicity of Jesus. I listed out several criteria when evaluating historical texts earlier. If your goal is to gain knowledge of the early Christian movement, I feel confident Paul gives us one (of many) views into this. There were many, many early sects of Christianity that died out that paint an incredibly different picture of Jesus.

If your goal is to conclude the historicity of Jesus, it is impossible to come to that conclusion based on his writings. Paul did not know Jesus the man, nor does he pretend to. Paul has bias just like anyone else, and his claims are unprovable. Let's take for example his claim that he met the disciples. Scholars have long questioned the historicity of these claims and have suggested that they may have been exaggerated or even fabricated by Paul in order to bolster his own authority and credibility within the early Christian movement. Can we prove this either way? Nope.

Beyond Paul, the gospels are not historically reliable. They were written 3-6 decades after Jesus' supposed death by fluent, Greek, unnamed authors. They have numerous contradicting claims that lowers their credibility as painting an accurate and historically true story.

In summary, we have gospels written by anonymous authors filled with contradicting claims, and we have letters written by a man filled with unprovable claims as there is no corroborating evidence. I feel like me giving a ~70% chance Jesus existed is generous.

---

No, I have no doubt. I'm just interested in yours. I know it has nothing to do with your topic of God's existence, but as I already mentioned several times, I'm addressing something different. But look at it this way: perhaps the evidence to God's existence is through Jesus, and so what we're talking about is of central importance.

Everything you said about the gospels is defeatable, and has been defeated repeatedly on this forum, but let's do that another time. Let's narrow down your problem with Paul. Here's what it has come down to: You attack the credibility and reliability of the gospels because you say it's written by non-witnesses, from stories passed down orally, and that there's no name attached to them. But then I give Paul, who claims direct witness, as well as having direct contact with the disciples themselves, and whose writings we do know came from him. So now, your argument becomes "well, Paul may be lying". You see where this is going?

So, let's establish where you are at with your argument against Paul - essentially, you are saying that Paul is an unreliable source for the historicity of Jesus, because his claims can not be proven, that he may have lied. Is that correct? Wasn't Paul meeting the disciples mentioned in Acts, whose author was the "historian of first rank", and also mentioned by Peter in 2 Peter? If you answer anything, at least answer the first question in this paragraph.

---

Everything I have said has been "defeated", yet any serious scholar will admit the unknown authorship of the gospels and their contradictions. I am not making any claims of validity and truth in their message, simply pointing out the obvious.

Yes, Paul being a fallible human is absolutely 100% something we should consider when analyzing the texts. Paul makes magnificent claims, so I naturally would expect to have magnificent and corroborating evidence to back these claims up.

---

The claim of "unknown authorship" of the gospels has been dealt with extensively in this forum, and yes, it has been defeated as an intellectually dishonest claim. We can go into all that again, but right now I'm narrowing the focus so as to keep these comments from being long essays.

As for Paul, we aren't talking about "magnificent claims" necessarily, we are dealing with the historicity of Jesus. Is it a magnificent claim that Jesus existed and was crucified? These were what you questioned. And you haven't responded to the part where it is mentioned in Acts and in 2 Peter that Paul did meet at least a couple of disciples, thus supporting Paul's claim as being true. So what evidence do you have for Paul lying about the existence of Jesus?

If you are discounting the historicity of Jesus from Paul' writings simply on the grounds that Paul is a fallible human and may "lie", without actual evidence for it, then you have a tremendously weak argument.

---

I responded to your question on the historicity of Jesus, and am quite frankly not interested in continuing this debate. It is unprovable and circular, and I even have told you many times I find it more probable than not that he exists. We literally both have the same conclusion (you are just more confident) - do you see how this is a ridiculous argument lol?

I can genuinely say I completely understand your thinking and perspective, as for 2+ decades I would align with your words. Yes, the collective gospels and Paul's words have lost credibility from my perspective which lowers my confidence percentage - but I still agree that the most probable and likely explanation is a literal Jesus existed

---

I don't want to put words in your mouth. Is this appropriate for what you are "believing"?

https://www.gotquestions.org/I-believe-help-my-unbelief.html

---

Thank you for the response - do you mind quoting what you're referring to? I do not think faith is a good mechanism for determining the truth and validity of anything

---

You state " We literally both have the same conclusion (you are just more confident)". I'm asking should "confident" be read as a level or degree of belief? Are you wanting help with your unbelief?

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

cms186 said:

---

You say God is perfect, yet Anger is essentially murdering people in your heart, God in the bible is depicted as being angry several times, surely this would make him imperfect, as that makes him a murderer in your eyes, no?

---

"God's the biggest mass-murderer of all time." This is a common phrase issued by some atheists and agnostics.

In Exodus, when God is said to be Angry, these are anthropomorphic terms to used to describe God's actions. God doesn't literally get angry. He does not have emotions. He transcends all creatures.

God's actions in the bible are to discipline His people so that they would not go astray. He set certain rules and asks us to abide by them. As a parent, I have rules for my kids. If they break the rules they are punished.

---

If you believe the Bible is literal and true, God literally drowned the entire planet besides one core family - yes, he is the biggest mass murderer of all time. Regardless if he is justified to drown someone does not make it not murder.

In fact, God's kill count is significantly higher than Satan's in the Bible even if you take away the flood. He is a loving and merciful father, but damn does he enjoy punishing people (especially women and non-Jews)

---

Where does it say God enjoys punishing people?

It's a ridiculous statement until you show me otherwise.

---

It was hyperbole

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

sombear said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Golem said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

cms186 said:

---

There is no evidence that God, or Allah, or whatever Deity someone chooses to believe in exists, but conversely, there isn't any concrete evidence that proves that said Deity doesn't exist, that is precisely why it is called Faith.

I'm an Agnostic, I don't believe that God in his Christian (or Islamic or whatever) form exists, but I'm certainly not arrogant enough to believe that just because I think something is a certain way, that that automatically means it is true, if I'm wrong, then that sucks for me, but I cant change the way I feel about something just because of that.

---

Which agruments for God have you investigated and why did they fail to convince you?

---

I'm sure there are many arguments for (and against) that I haven't encountered, as an agnostic, I certainly believe that some sort of Higher Power could exist, I don't know, I haven't seen anything to convince me that a God (or not one as Christians believe in) is likely, The amount of Evil that goes on in the World, Rape, Murder, Paedophilia etc. and the way that the World seems to be developing into a small elite of Rich people and corporations designed to milk as much as they can from the common man, I fail to believe that an all powerful, beneficent God would let that happen in a World he created.

---

In your view, what actions/reactions must be allowed in a world for true free will to exist? Can the most evil actions be prohibited by God and free will still exist?

Secondarily, if free will cannot exist in a world of constant divine intervention, would you prefer the life of an automaton?

---

There is no clear delineation about what "must be allowed" I feel that my words speak for themselves, God is said to be Omniscient and Omnipotent, therefore he has the ability to know what someone is thinking/intending and has the power to do something about it, theoretically, he could strike down a Serial Killer before they acted, he could cause a Paedophile to drop dead of a Heart Attack before they ever set hands on a Child, etc, but, he doesn't. Yet, there are good, truly innocent people who die before their time every second, I had to watch my Mother writhe in agony as she died from Cancer, a truly good, selfless woman, who volunteered with local Children, who loved her Family and whilst she may not have been particularly religious, was as virtuous as anyone on here. I struggle to believe for a second that a Loving, Caring God as so many Christians love to depict him, allows things like that to happen.

That, to me, indicates one of two things, either, he doesn't care enough about Human Life to do something about these evil people, or he doesn't exist, at least, not in the form our Religions say he does. I choose to think the latter, I thought this way before my Mum died, her sad Death merely cemented my belief.

---

Why God allows awful things to happen is perhaps the most difficult issue for me. I don't pretend to know the answer. But probably the best answer I've heard was in a small church in rural north Georgia that had recently lost a family to murder/suicide. The pastor and his wife spoke. They were a young couple. First pastor job I believe.

They said of course they did not know the answer. But their best guess was threefold: One, God determined that freewill and the experiences and learnigns that come with it (even the pain and suffering) are better than an earth where everything is "perfect." Two, good does come out of bad. And, three, most importantly, they said, even the most brutal pain and suffering on earth pales in comparison to wonderful eternity that awaits. We can't truly appreciate good without experiencing bad.

---

More pages have been spilled on theodicy that few other subjects. The best answer I have is we live in a fallen, sinful world where evil exists. The resut of the Fall.

---

Agree but that does not answer why God doesn't change it or whether God can in the first place. I definitely believe the answer to the latter is yes. The answer to the former is more vexing.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

"I am a follower of Christ who believes in a higher being that created the universe."-Baylorjacket 4/19/22


Again, I ask the question, what has changed?

Why have you chosen differently than before?

---

Copying & pasting my response as I have already answered this:
"What has changed since then is I continued to pull on that thread, studied the Bible seriously, read numerous books on both sides of the argument, reflected & meditated on it, and eventually deconverted"

I collected the empirical evidence and made the (speaking for myself) most rational decision.

---

But that's what I'm trying to evaluate - your rational decision making process behind whether Jesus was a real historical figure or not. You lean that way, but you are not convinced. Given the overwhelming evidence we have in Paul for all the reasons I won't repeat again, I am curious as to what empirical evidence exists you've critically examined, that pulls you the other way. But you seem to be avoiding this.

---

You seem really stuck on this historical Jesus thing - are you perhaps dealing with doubt yourself? The Historical Jesus potentially being myth has 0%, absolutely nothing, to do with why I de-converted from Christianity. It never even crossed my mind and seemed blasphemous.

Nonetheless, I will do my best to answer your question so we can move on.

It's important to approach the question of whether Jesus was a real historical figure with an open mind and a willingness to critically evaluate the evidence available. Therefore, it's reasonable to approach the question of Jesus' existence with a degree of skepticism and a commitment to carefully evaluate all available evidence, including alternative theories and arguments. This includes taking into account potential biases and limitations in the sources of evidence, and understanding the historical and cultural context in which that evidence was produced.

While the writings of Paul are certainly an important source of information about the early Christian movement, they do not necessarily provide conclusive evidence for the historicity of Jesus. I listed out several criteria when evaluating historical texts earlier. If your goal is to gain knowledge of the early Christian movement, I feel confident Paul gives us one (of many) views into this. There were many, many early sects of Christianity that died out that paint an incredibly different picture of Jesus.

If your goal is to conclude the historicity of Jesus, it is impossible to come to that conclusion based on his writings. Paul did not know Jesus the man, nor does he pretend to. Paul has bias just like anyone else, and his claims are unprovable. Let's take for example his claim that he met the disciples. Scholars have long questioned the historicity of these claims and have suggested that they may have been exaggerated or even fabricated by Paul in order to bolster his own authority and credibility within the early Christian movement. Can we prove this either way? Nope.

Beyond Paul, the gospels are not historically reliable. They were written 3-6 decades after Jesus' supposed death by fluent, Greek, unnamed authors. They have numerous contradicting claims that lowers their credibility as painting an accurate and historically true story.

In summary, we have gospels written by anonymous authors filled with contradicting claims, and we have letters written by a man filled with unprovable claims as there is no corroborating evidence. I feel like me giving a ~70% chance Jesus existed is generous.

---

No, I have no doubt. I'm just interested in yours. I know it has nothing to do with your topic of God's existence, but as I already mentioned several times, I'm addressing something different. But look at it this way: perhaps the evidence to God's existence is through Jesus, and so what we're talking about is of central importance.

Everything you said about the gospels is defeatable, and has been defeated repeatedly on this forum, but let's do that another time. Let's narrow down your problem with Paul. Here's what it has come down to: You attack the credibility and reliability of the gospels because you say it's written by non-witnesses, from stories passed down orally, and that there's no name attached to them. But then I give Paul, who claims direct witness, as well as having direct contact with the disciples themselves, and whose writings we do know came from him. So now, your argument becomes "well, Paul may be lying". You see where this is going?

So, let's establish where you are at with your argument against Paul - essentially, you are saying that Paul is an unreliable source for the historicity of Jesus, because his claims can not be proven, that he may have lied. Is that correct? Wasn't Paul meeting the disciples mentioned in Acts, whose author was the "historian of first rank", and also mentioned by Peter in 2 Peter? If you answer anything, at least answer the first question in this paragraph.

---

Everything I have said has been "defeated", yet any serious scholar will admit the unknown authorship of the gospels and their contradictions. I am not making any claims of validity and truth in their message, simply pointing out the obvious.

Yes, Paul being a fallible human is absolutely 100% something we should consider when analyzing the texts. Paul makes magnificent claims, so I naturally would expect to have magnificent and corroborating evidence to back these claims up.

---

The claim of "unknown authorship" of the gospels has been dealt with extensively in this forum, and yes, it has been defeated as an intellectually dishonest claim. We can go into all that again, but right now I'm narrowing the focus so as to keep these comments from being long essays.

As for Paul, we aren't talking about "magnificent claims" necessarily, we are dealing with the historicity of Jesus. Is it a magnificent claim that Jesus existed and was crucified? These were what you questioned. And you haven't responded to the part where it is mentioned in Acts and in 2 Peter that Paul did meet at least a couple of disciples, thus supporting Paul's claim as being true. So what evidence do you have for Paul lying about the existence of Jesus?

If you are discounting the historicity of Jesus from Paul' writings simply on the grounds that Paul is a fallible human and may "lie", without actual evidence for it, then you have a tremendously weak argument.

---

I responded to your question on the historicity of Jesus, and am quite frankly not interested in continuing this debate. It is unprovable and circular, and I even have told you many times I find it more probable than not that he exists. We literally both have the same conclusion (you are just more confident) - do you see how this is a ridiculous argument lol?

I can genuinely say I completely understand your thinking and perspective, as for 2+ decades I would align with your words. Yes, the collective gospels and Paul's words have lost credibility from my perspective which lowers my confidence percentage - but I still agree that the most probable and likely explanation is a literal Jesus existed

---

I don't want to put words in your mouth. Is this appropriate for what you are "believing"?

https://www.gotquestions.org/I-believe-help-my-unbelief.html

---

Thank you for the response - do you mind quoting what you're referring to? I do not think faith is a good mechanism for determining the truth and validity of anything

---

You state " We literally both have the same conclusion (you are just more confident)". I'm asking should "confident" be read as a level or degree of belief? Are you wanting help with your unbelief?

---

Sure - confidence can be your level of belief. No, I am not seeking help for my unbelief in the historicity of Jesus. The topic is interesting but inconsequential to me.

cms186 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

cms186 said:

---

There is no evidence that God, or Allah, or whatever Deity someone chooses to believe in exists, but conversely, there isn't any concrete evidence that proves that said Deity doesn't exist, that is precisely why it is called Faith.

I'm an Agnostic, I don't believe that God in his Christian (or Islamic or whatever) form exists, but I'm certainly not arrogant enough to believe that just because I think something is a certain way, that that automatically means it is true, if I'm wrong, then that sucks for me, but I cant change the way I feel about something just because of that.

---

Which agruments for God have you investigated and why did they fail to convince you?

---

I'm sure there are many arguments for (and against) that I haven't encountered, as an agnostic, I certainly believe that some sort of Higher Power could exist, I don't know, I haven't seen anything to convince me that a God (or not one as Christians believe in) is likely, The amount of Evil that goes on in the World, Rape, Murder, Paedophilia etc. and the way that the World seems to be developing into a small elite of Rich people and corporations designed to milk as much as they can from the common man, I fail to believe that an all powerful, beneficent God would let that happen in a World he created.

---

It is true that a Higher Power could exist. However, for evil to exist, a Higher Power must exist and must necessarily be something similar to what Christians believe in.

BaylorJacket said:

---

If you believe the Bible is literal and true, God literally drowned the entire planet besides one core family - yes, he is the biggest mass murderer of all time. Regardless if he is justified to drown someone does not make it not murder.

---

Is God not allowed to punish?

IF there is a God who created the whole universe ex nihilo and all of life, does he have the authority to end that life when He feels it necessary?

Life has a 100% mortality rate. Who guarantees that it should be a certain length?

Having said that, many scientists agree that the ENTIRE world was not flooded at one time. Most likely the flood was an extremely large region.

BaylorJacket said:

---

In fact, God's kill count is significantly higher than Satan's in the Bible even if you take away the flood. He is a loving and merciful father, but damn does he enjoy punishing people (especially women and non-Jews)

---

God is merciful AND just.

I don't understand your bolded statement.

D. C. Bear said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

cms186 said:

---

There is no evidence that God, or Allah, or whatever Deity someone chooses to believe in exists, but conversely, there isn't any concrete evidence that proves that said Deity doesn't exist, that is precisely why it is called Faith.

I'm an Agnostic, I don't believe that God in his Christian (or Islamic or whatever) form exists, but I'm certainly not arrogant enough to believe that just because I think something is a certain way, that that automatically means it is true, if I'm wrong, then that sucks for me, but I cant change the way I feel about something just because of that.

---

Which agruments for God have you investigated and why did they fail to convince you?

---

I'm sure there are many arguments for (and against) that I haven't encountered, as an agnostic, I certainly believe that some sort of Higher Power could exist, I don't know, I haven't seen anything to convince me that a God (or not one as Christians believe in) is likely, The amount of Evil that goes on in the World, Rape, Murder, Paedophilia etc. and the way that the World seems to be developing into a small elite of Rich people and corporations designed to milk as much as they can from the common man, I fail to believe that an all powerful, beneficent God would let that happen in a World he created.

---

It is true that a Higher Power could exist. However, for evil to exist, a Higher Power must exist and must necessarily be something similar to what Christians believe in.

---

Can you expound on that?

Fun fact:

Evolutionary game theory proves that the reality presented to us being fundamental is 0%. Species ran through revolutionary game theory who see realty as the absolute truth always die off.

What this means is the reality around is us presented to us so that we survive and it's WILDLY different from the actual underlying reality.

An easy way to understand this is imagine playing Grand theft Auto in VR and you're trying to drive a car. Realize that what you're doing in the game is controlled by a joystick, but in reality you're toggling millions of voltages in a computer. You don't want to know about the diodes and the resistors and all the electronics inside there nor all the magnetic fields and voltages plus all the software. You couldn't calculate that on your own.

We are given an interface. Much like a VR headset.

This whole notion that 3D spacetime is all there is and hardcore physicalism is fundamental is total BS. There's no operational meaning beyond Planck scale. Planck is a very shallow data structure as well.

We are most likely parts/agents of pure unbound consciousness at the fundamental level. That consciousness is God. I fully believe that. I also believe Jesus was fully conscious.

We can show axiomatically using mathematical metaphysics and logic that unbound syntax is enough for something like consciousness/perception to self create. There is no such thing as nothingness. If there was absolute nothingness (there isn't) you would still have potential, which is something.

He Hate Me said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

cms186 said:

---

There is no evidence that God, or Allah, or whatever Deity someone chooses to believe in exists, but conversely, there isn't any concrete evidence that proves that said Deity doesn't exist, that is precisely why it is called Faith.

I'm an Agnostic, I don't believe that God in his Christian (or Islamic or whatever) form exists, but I'm certainly not arrogant enough to believe that just because I think something is a certain way, that that automatically means it is true, if I'm wrong, then that sucks for me, but I cant change the way I feel about something just because of that.

---

Which agruments for God have you investigated and why did they fail to convince you?

---

I'm sure there are many arguments for (and against) that I haven't encountered, as an agnostic, I certainly believe that some sort of Higher Power could exist, I don't know, I haven't seen anything to convince me that a God (or not one as Christians believe in) is likely, The amount of Evil that goes on in the World, Rape, Murder, Paedophilia etc. and the way that the World seems to be developing into a small elite of Rich people and corporations designed to milk as much as they can from the common man, I fail to believe that an all powerful, beneficent God would let that happen in a World he created.

---

It is true that a Higher Power could exist. However, for evil to exist, a Higher Power must exist and must necessarily be something similar to what Christians believe in.

---

Can you expound on that?

---

Consider rape and murder. Why are these any more evil than the sun rising or the rain falling? The answer, absent a Higher Power who, similar to the God Christians believe in places a high value on the person being raped or murdered, is that they are not.

sombear said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

sombear said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Golem said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

cms186 said:

---

There is no evidence that God, or Allah, or whatever Deity someone chooses to believe in exists, but conversely, there isn't any concrete evidence that proves that said Deity doesn't exist, that is precisely why it is called Faith.

I'm an Agnostic, I don't believe that God in his Christian (or Islamic or whatever) form exists, but I'm certainly not arrogant enough to believe that just because I think something is a certain way, that that automatically means it is true, if I'm wrong, then that sucks for me, but I cant change the way I feel about something just because of that.

---

Which agruments for God have you investigated and why did they fail to convince you?

---

I'm sure there are many arguments for (and against) that I haven't encountered, as an agnostic, I certainly believe that some sort of Higher Power could exist, I don't know, I haven't seen anything to convince me that a God (or not one as Christians believe in) is likely, The amount of Evil that goes on in the World, Rape, Murder, Paedophilia etc. and the way that the World seems to be developing into a small elite of Rich people and corporations designed to milk as much as they can from the common man, I fail to believe that an all powerful, beneficent God would let that happen in a World he created.

---

In your view, what actions/reactions must be allowed in a world for true free will to exist? Can the most evil actions be prohibited by God and free will still exist?

Secondarily, if free will cannot exist in a world of constant divine intervention, would you prefer the life of an automaton?

---

There is no clear delineation about what "must be allowed" I feel that my words speak for themselves, God is said to be Omniscient and Omnipotent, therefore he has the ability to know what someone is thinking/intending and has the power to do something about it, theoretically, he could strike down a Serial Killer before they acted, he could cause a Paedophile to drop dead of a Heart Attack before they ever set hands on a Child, etc, but, he doesn't. Yet, there are good, truly innocent people who die before their time every second, I had to watch my Mother writhe in agony as she died from Cancer, a truly good, selfless woman, who volunteered with local Children, who loved her Family and whilst she may not have been particularly religious, was as virtuous as anyone on here. I struggle to believe for a second that a Loving, Caring God as so many Christians love to depict him, allows things like that to happen.

That, to me, indicates one of two things, either, he doesn't care enough about Human Life to do something about these evil people, or he doesn't exist, at least, not in the form our Religions say he does. I choose to think the latter, I thought this way before my Mum died, her sad Death merely cemented my belief.

---

Why God allows awful things to happen is perhaps the most difficult issue for me. I don't pretend to know the answer. But probably the best answer I've heard was in a small church in rural north Georgia that had recently lost a family to murder/suicide. The pastor and his wife spoke. They were a young couple. First pastor job I believe.

They said of course they did not know the answer. But their best guess was threefold: One, God determined that freewill and the experiences and learnigns that come with it (even the pain and suffering) are better than an earth where everything is "perfect." Two, good does come out of bad. And, three, most importantly, they said, even the most brutal pain and suffering on earth pales in comparison to wonderful eternity that awaits. We can't truly appreciate good without experiencing bad.

---

More pages have been spilled on theodicy that few other subjects. The best answer I have is we live in a fallen, sinful world where evil exists. The resut of the Fall.

---

Agree but that does not answer why God doesn't change it or whether God can in the first place. I definitely believe the answer to the latter is yes. The answer to the former is more vexing.

---

Fair and another one-billion words ...

Doc Holliday said:

---

Fun fact:

Evolutionary game theory proves that the reality presented to us being fundamental is 0%. Species ran through revolutionary game theory who see realty as the absolute truth always die off.

What this means is the reality around is us presented to us so that we survive and it's WILDLY different from the actual underlying reality.

An easy way to understand this is imagine playing Grand theft Auto in VR and you're trying to drive a car. Realize that what you're doing in the game is controlled by a joystick, but in reality you're toggling millions of voltages in a computer. You don't want to know about the diodes and the resistors and all the electronics inside there nor all the magnetic fields and voltages plus all the software. You couldn't calculate that on your own.

We are given an interface. Much like a VR headset.

This whole notion that 3D spacetime is all there is and hardcore physicalism is fundamental is total BS. There's no operational meaning beyond Planck scale. Planck is a very shallow data structure as well.

We are most likely parts/agents of pure unbound consciousness at the fundamental level. That consciousness is God. I fully believe that. I also believe Jesus was fully conscious.

We can show axiomatically using mathematical metaphysics and logic that unbound syntax is enough for something like consciousness/perception to self create. There is no such thing as nothingness. If there was absolute nothingness (there isn't) you would still have potential, which is something.

---

I am going to have to read that five more times.

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

"I am a follower of Christ who believes in a higher being that created the universe."-Baylorjacket 4/19/22


Again, I ask the question, what has changed?

Why have you chosen differently than before?

---

Copying & pasting my response as I have already answered this:
"What has changed since then is I continued to pull on that thread, studied the Bible seriously, read numerous books on both sides of the argument, reflected & meditated on it, and eventually deconverted"

I collected the empirical evidence and made the (speaking for myself) most rational decision.

---

But that's what I'm trying to evaluate - your rational decision making process behind whether Jesus was a real historical figure or not. You lean that way, but you are not convinced. Given the overwhelming evidence we have in Paul for all the reasons I won't repeat again, I am curious as to what empirical evidence exists you've critically examined, that pulls you the other way. But you seem to be avoiding this.

---

You seem really stuck on this historical Jesus thing - are you perhaps dealing with doubt yourself? The Historical Jesus potentially being myth has 0%, absolutely nothing, to do with why I de-converted from Christianity. It never even crossed my mind and seemed blasphemous.

Nonetheless, I will do my best to answer your question so we can move on.

It's important to approach the question of whether Jesus was a real historical figure with an open mind and a willingness to critically evaluate the evidence available. Therefore, it's reasonable to approach the question of Jesus' existence with a degree of skepticism and a commitment to carefully evaluate all available evidence, including alternative theories and arguments. This includes taking into account potential biases and limitations in the sources of evidence, and understanding the historical and cultural context in which that evidence was produced.

While the writings of Paul are certainly an important source of information about the early Christian movement, they do not necessarily provide conclusive evidence for the historicity of Jesus. I listed out several criteria when evaluating historical texts earlier. If your goal is to gain knowledge of the early Christian movement, I feel confident Paul gives us one (of many) views into this. There were many, many early sects of Christianity that died out that paint an incredibly different picture of Jesus.

If your goal is to conclude the historicity of Jesus, it is impossible to come to that conclusion based on his writings. Paul did not know Jesus the man, nor does he pretend to. Paul has bias just like anyone else, and his claims are unprovable. Let's take for example his claim that he met the disciples. Scholars have long questioned the historicity of these claims and have suggested that they may have been exaggerated or even fabricated by Paul in order to bolster his own authority and credibility within the early Christian movement. Can we prove this either way? Nope.

Beyond Paul, the gospels are not historically reliable. They were written 3-6 decades after Jesus' supposed death by fluent, Greek, unnamed authors. They have numerous contradicting claims that lowers their credibility as painting an accurate and historically true story.

In summary, we have gospels written by anonymous authors filled with contradicting claims, and we have letters written by a man filled with unprovable claims as there is no corroborating evidence. I feel like me giving a ~70% chance Jesus existed is generous.

---

No, I have no doubt. I'm just interested in yours. I know it has nothing to do with your topic of God's existence, but as I already mentioned several times, I'm addressing something different. But look at it this way: perhaps the evidence to God's existence is through Jesus, and so what we're talking about is of central importance.

Everything you said about the gospels is defeatable, and has been defeated repeatedly on this forum, but let's do that another time. Let's narrow down your problem with Paul. Here's what it has come down to: You attack the credibility and reliability of the gospels because you say it's written by non-witnesses, from stories passed down orally, and that there's no name attached to them. But then I give Paul, who claims direct witness, as well as having direct contact with the disciples themselves, and whose writings we do know came from him. So now, your argument becomes "well, Paul may be lying". You see where this is going?

So, let's establish where you are at with your argument against Paul - essentially, you are saying that Paul is an unreliable source for the historicity of Jesus, because his claims can not be proven, that he may have lied. Is that correct? Wasn't Paul meeting the disciples mentioned in Acts, whose author was the "historian of first rank", and also mentioned by Peter in 2 Peter? If you answer anything, at least answer the first question in this paragraph.

---

Everything I have said has been "defeated", yet any serious scholar will admit the unknown authorship of the gospels and their contradictions. I am not making any claims of validity and truth in their message, simply pointing out the obvious.

Yes, Paul being a fallible human is absolutely 100% something we should consider when analyzing the texts. Paul makes magnificent claims, so I naturally would expect to have magnificent and corroborating evidence to back these claims up.

---

The claim of "unknown authorship" of the gospels has been dealt with extensively in this forum, and yes, it has been defeated as an intellectually dishonest claim. We can go into all that again, but right now I'm narrowing the focus so as to keep these comments from being long essays.

As for Paul, we aren't talking about "magnificent claims" necessarily, we are dealing with the historicity of Jesus. Is it a magnificent claim that Jesus existed and was crucified? These were what you questioned. And you haven't responded to the part where it is mentioned in Acts and in 2 Peter that Paul did meet at least a couple of disciples, thus supporting Paul's claim as being true. So what evidence do you have for Paul lying about the existence of Jesus?

If you are discounting the historicity of Jesus from Paul' writings simply on the grounds that Paul is a fallible human and may "lie", without actual evidence for it, then you have a tremendously weak argument.

---

I responded to your question on the historicity of Jesus, and am quite frankly not interested in continuing this debate. It is unprovable and circular, and I even have told you many times I find it more probable than not that he exists. We literally both have the same conclusion (you are just more confident) - do you see how this is a ridiculous argument lol?

I can genuinely say I completely understand your thinking and perspective, as for 2+ decades I would align with your words. Yes, the collective gospels and Paul's words have lost credibility from my perspective which lowers my confidence percentage - but I still agree that the most probable and likely explanation is a literal Jesus existed

---

But don't you see this has been a very productive debate? I don't think it's been ridiculous, circular argument at all. We've been able to isolate an important part of where your partial doubt of the historicity of Jesus comes from. That part essentially comes down to you not believing Paul regarding Jesus being an actual, real figure, because Paul is a fallible human and may have lied. This is a tremendously weak argument and places your doubt on shaky foundation, which I'm sure you realize, but may not want to admit. Perhaps that is why you are so uncomfortable with our discussion about this?

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oh, I forgot one more thing: I know I said I wanted to just focus on Paul for now, but I did want to just touch on your point about contradictions in the gospels damaging their reliability - first of all, contradictions do not necessarily disqualify texts as being historical. In fact, it may even authenticate them even more, given that if the same events were described by different human perspectives, one would expect differences and even minor contradictions to exist. In actuality, one should be very suspicious if NO contradictions or differences were to exist. Because that would suggest external manipulation. The Quran is a good example.

Given that, I do understand that if MAJOR contradictions exist, then it would be problematic. Which contradiction do you think is the most important, the most damaging to its reliability and historicity? Can you name just one that we can discuss, for the sake of brevity?

---

There is no contradiction that I can point to and say "this is it, this unravels everything!" - it is the collective contradictions along with (I don't think you'll disagree with this), objective proof that some of the gospels written later used other gospels and even copied many things word for word losing its status as an independent source.

For contradictions though, let's start with a simple one: the genealogy of Jesus.

---

First of all, a source that copies previous sources is how history gets passed down, so I don't see why this is a problem, especially if it is copied word for word as you say, and as long as the primary source is authentic and reliable. And I don't think it "loses its status as an independent source" so as long it gives new information and perspective outside of the parts it copied.

Regarding the "apparent" contradiction of the genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke, it can be resolved by attributing one geneaology to Joseph and the other to Mary. Or, it's possible that Joseph had a biological father (by seed) and a legal father (inheritance laws in Deuteronomy). This is explained in a youtube video called (different geneaologies? bible contradiction #1). Having both geneaologies would prove that either way, biologically or legally, Jesus' line follows to both Abraham (son of God by faith) and Adam (son of God by creation).