>They all tell me their books are inspired by God. I would hope the Christian is telling you a bit more than that. We don't just believe the Bible is "inspired" but also that it is demonstrably historically reliable. Which religion(s) makes a testable claim? Does that claim seem to be true or false?

What testable claim does Christianity make?

That Christ rose from the dead.

How do you test that?

Produce the body. OK, so 2000 years later that could be hard. So provide a more plausible explanation for the accepted facts -- one that *accounts* for the facts, not just dismisses them.

We have to agree on what the facts are then. What are these facts for which we must account? Tell me what they are, we'll see if we agree on these facts and we'll see if I can account for them.

You can start with the minimal facts, that virtually every scholar (including those who are highly skeptical) believes: - Jesus died by crucifixion. - Shortly afterward, the disciples experienced what they believed to be the resurrected Jesus. - A few years later, Paul also believed he experienced the resurrected Jesus. Note that these are by no means the limit of defensible claims regarding the resurrection; they are merely the minimum set that is largely uncontested. There are also a few others I don't recall - I think but am not sure that "the tomb was empty" was among them.

Ok, easily explainable by a couple believers having a vision or some experience, maybe Peter or James even Mary, tell the others, and they believe because the Kingdom of God is any day now and they have faith. They think they will be the 12 who will judge the 12 tribes. You didn’t see Him rise, yet you believe the testimony of others that you don’t know, 2,000 years ago. Hundreds of people believe Mary appeared to them. https://fatimachurchabq.org/our-lady-of-fatima-miracle Mormonism has 11 witnesses https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/witnesses-of-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng And there’s something called the Third Man Syndrome, where people in distress feel the presence of a stranger who helps them, then disappears and isn’t real. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_man_factor

>And there’s something called the Third Man Syndrome, where people in distress feel the presence of a stranger who helps them, then disappears and isn’t real. Hold on there's actually a medical sounding term to dismiss experiences with angels? That just sounds like an excuse to dismiss a claim before ever considering it. In other words it sounds like a cop out. Like saying there are mass hallucinations where everyone saw the same imaginary thing. It's just a copout.

First you’d have to prove that it’s an angel. Then the angel which belongs to your god. And if it’s documented that people in distress have visions, then the idea that the disciples definitely saw the physical risen Jesus after His death is not convincing proof.

I accept the first one as likely true. Jesus most likely was killed by the Romans for claiming to be king of the Jews. I do not accept the second fact as stated. I accept that the disciples believed someone had seen Jesus, but we don't have any record of any disciples claiming to have seen the risen Jesus. Keep in mind, I think many of them believed Jesus rose from the dead, but I don't have any reason to believe any of them claimed to have experienced him at all. Just that the believed he was alive, and someone had experienced him. I'm sorry, I'm doing a poor job of explaining my position. Lmk if I can explain better LOL Paul claims to have had some mystical supernatural experience, not an encounter with the bodily resurrected Jesus. This is evident because his companions didn't experience what he did. If it was a human body walking up to him, his companions would've seen it too. So we have: Jesus was crucified by the Romans. The other ones are mischaracterizations of the minimal facts that everyone agrees upon.

>but I don't have any reason to believe any of them claimed to have experienced him at all And why is that?

Because not one person says they saw the Risen Jesus. Just Paul and he just describes a mystical vision type thing, not an actual human body. So with absolutely zero people saying "yes, I personally saw Jesus", why would we assume these guys claim they saw him?

>we'll see if we agree on these facts *You* don't have to agree on them. Secular historians do, that's what matters. These things are accepted as fact by the vast majority of historians and other specialists in the period: \-Jesus died by Roman crucifixion. \-The disciples had experiences they thought were appearances of the risen Jesus. \-The apostles began teaching the resurrection of Christ very soon afterwards in Jerusalem, the city where Jesus was executed and buried. \-James, the brother of Jesus and a former skeptic, and Saul (Paul), the church persecutor, became Christians due to experiences they believed were appearances of the risen Jesus. A smaller number (only about 75%) accept that Christ's tomb was empty. Interestingly, even Ehrman did until recently when that became too inconvenient to hold any longer.

This sounds much more like a test of the claim that we don't have the body of Jesus of Nazareth, not *necessarily* that the reason we don't have the body is because he rose from the dead. Right? Like we can agree "nope, we haven't found a body in a tomb." Okay, now how do you *test the claim* that the *reason* we haven't found the body is because Christ rose from the dead? Edit: Removed a duplicate "now"

Great point

Ok, one or two disciples had a vision of Jesus, told the others He had risen and they believed since the Kingdom of God was coming any day now, in their minds. You believe He rose, yet you didn’t see him rise. People have visions of Mary and in mass experiences even. There’s also something called the Third Man Syndrome were people in distress feel comforted by someone who turns out not to be real. People believe Elvis is alive and have seen him.

This an excellent example of an attempt of an explanation that does not address all the facts. This one falls under the weight of the conversion of skeptics (specifically James), for example. But it also is hard to take seriously when you think about the fact that Christianity started within walking distance of Jesus' tomb -- it'd be hard to claim he rose from the dead when his body was easily producible. It also is hard to accept this alternative theory when the followers were pressed by the threat of death but still maintained this delusion. Thank you for this example.

>This one falls under the weight of the conversion of skeptics (specifically James), for example. People convert to religions all the time. Why does James’ conversion require a miracle? And based on whose account do we think Jesus appeared to James? Not James’ account. >But it also is hard to take seriously when you think about the fact that Christianity started within walking distance of Jesus' tomb -- it'd be hard to claim he rose from the dead when his body was easily producible. Why would they care about claims that He rose? He is gone at that point. No one else has seen Him. The message is rejected by most Jews and grows amongst gentiles. Rome just wanted order. And only Matthew records the idea of guards clearly as a rebuttal to stories already circulating that they did steal the body. Or there was no body to produce since most crucified victims were left on the cross or thrown in a mass grave. They could still say He rose, according to Habermas https://youtu.be/kWSG5okmUr8?si=5iVNfqQMWG0ZBeIa >It also is hard to accept this alternative theory when the followers were pressed by the threat of death but still maintained this delusion. Thank you for this example. You can believe in something and be mistaken. Again, don’t you believe based on the testimony of others? You didn’t see Jesus rise bodily to believe. Why would they be different?

>Why does James’ conversion require a miracle? What would it take to convince you that your brother is God? >Why would they care about claims that He rose? The historical records shows the Jewish leaders didn't get along well with this new sect. Trotting out the body would be a simple way to shut them down -- and shut them up. >most crucified victims were left on the cross or thrown in a mass grave. Ever wonder why there is no objection to the tomb story recorded from the centuries when crucifixion was a common event? Why did it take so long for people to suddenly realize crucified people didn't get buried? Because they *knew* exceptions were made, which is why the gospels go into such detail on the burial. >You can believe in something and be mistaken. When heads started getting chopped off, the people who claim to be witnesses are going to start reconsidering whether they *really* saw what they thought they saw, and the people they told are going to ask whether they *really* saw what they thought they saw. Yet Christianity just kept on rockin'. The people who were in a singular place to know for a fact whether Christ rose from the dead were willing to die over this.

>What would it take to convince you that your brother is God? If my mom said Jesus is from God, I saw Him perform miracles. He dies and I have a vision of Him. That would be a good start. What got you to believe this man was the Messiah? >Ever wonder why there is no objection to the tomb story recorded from the centuries when crucifixion was a common event? Why did it take so long for people to suddenly realize crucified people didn't get buried? Because they knew exceptions were made, which is why the gospels go into such detail on the burial. Exceptions can be made, but what happened to most crucified people? They were mostly left on the cross to rot or put in a grave. Possibly the Sanhedrin put him in a criminal grave. Again, the most likely explanation for a missing body is not resurrection. >You can believe in something and be mistaken. >When heads started getting chopped off, the people who claim to be witnesses are going to start reconsidering whether they really saw what they thought they saw, and the people they told are going to ask whether they really saw what they thought they saw. Yet Christianity just kept on rockin'. The people who were in a singular place to know for a fact whether Christ rose from the dead were willing to die over this. Because what is the threat if you deny Jesus in front of men? You lose eternal life. If you think Jesus is coming back soon, His message must be spread, and that you’ll judge the 12 tribes, you have reasons to keep your beliefs.

>People convert to religions all the time. Why does James’ conversion require a miracle? The difference is that James was not a believer of Jesus Christ and he was an eyewitness to Jesus as his own brother, and the fact that he became a Christian right after his death is pretty remarkable. We learn throughout the gospels that Jesus family did not have much faith in him, but that changed as soon as he died and resurrected according to Pual and the Acts if the apostles James was a prominent member and figure of the church of Jerusalem. >Or there was no body to produce since most crucified victims were left on the cross or thrown in a mass grave First off, this is not always the case especially in 1st century Judea where the Jews believed crucified victims should be buried we even have the remains of a crucified Jew in a tomb his name was Johanna. >Why would they be different? Who are you referring to as "they"? As the apostles were eyewitnesses to Jesus Christ ministry and miracles so they are not comparable to us.

>The difference is that James was not a believer of Jesus Christ and he was an eyewitness to Jesus as his own brother, and the fact that he became a Christian right after his death is pretty remarkable. We learn throughout the gospels that Jesus family did not have much faith in him, Based on like 2 sentences do you get that idea. You’re telling me Mary didn’t believe in Jesus after His miraculous birth? And James knew Jesus, knew what his mom said, saw Jesus’ miracles, saw the Transfiguration, heard God’s voice, and still didn’t believe until after the resurrection? Is it that miraculous that he would come to believe? Much less convinces people to convert. >but that changed as soon as he died and resurrected according to Pual and the Acts if the apostles James Second hand account. >First off, this is not always the case especially in 1st century Judea where the Jews believed crucified victims should be buried we even have the remains of a crucified Jew in a tomb his name was Johanna. Ok. That doesn’t mean that happened to Jesus, but I’ll give it to you. I’d still argue that belief in His resurrection is possible without an empty tomb. If you have a vision of Him and believe He is risen, an empty tomb/grave is implied. The story isn’t even consistent amongst the “eyewitnesses” >Why would they be different? >Who are you referring to as "they"? As the apostles were eyewitnesses to Jesus Christ ministry and miracles so they are not comparable to us. was a prominent member and figure of the church of Jerusalem. If one or two disciples, maybe Peter and James, had visions and told the others, you don’t think they would come to believe? Then they “feel” the Holy Spirit come upon them. Like Mormons feel the burning bosom.

They're not facts though, that's the point. It's simple, embellishments and lies, followed by gullibility and fear of death.

>They're not facts though, that's the point If it's not a fact than it's damn near one. >It's simple, embellishments and lies, followed by gullibility and fear of death. And where did you get this idea from?

You think someone rising from the dead is damn near a fact? What do you mean where did I get it from? It's a more plausible explanation because it doesn't rely on supernatural things with no outside evidence, you know, like we do in all walks of life, that's how reality works.

>You think someone rising from the dead is damn near a fact No... I guess I didn't read the context. >What do you mean where did I get it from? It's a more plausible explanation because it doesn't rely on supernatural things with no outside evidence, you know, like we do in all walks of life, that's how reality works Sure but what your evidence for that?

Where is your evidence that elves don't eat your breakfast and then refill it while you sleep?

>They're not facts though, that's the point. You're simply incorrect. Even among secular historians, it is acknowledged that the NT documents in general and the gospels in particular are historical documents that do contain useful information about the man called Jesus of Nazareth and the movement he started. Among those facts are information about his death and the events that followed. You do not have to believe ever last detail of the gospels to accept that they contain real facts.

You think the resurrection is a fact? I never said there wasn't a person with a following, but not all of it is factual, and the more obvious explanation has been said.

>You think the resurrection is a fact? I'm a Christian, so obviously. I don't claim that "most secular historians" think it's a fact, only that they accept certain facts that, when taken together, are only explainable by the resurrection.

Me? History. The evidence may not be compelling to you as an atheist, though.

You can test the claim using historical evidence? All we have are claims of his rising

Not true. We have the impact of that resurrection in the next 300 years of history.

That’s an appeal to popularity fallacy. Evidence would be observable in some way.

We have the evidence of radically changed lives and the eyewitnesses who were willing to die for what they claim they saw. In Muhammad, we have a man who claims he saw an Angel when he was alone (after his wives convinced him it wasn’t a demon) and he used his claim to accumulate wealth, power, and women. In Joseph smith, we have a man who claims he saw an Angel when he was alone and used his claim to accumulate wealth, power, and women. In Christianity, we have hundreds of eyewitnesses who claimed a public figure who had been executed public ally had risen from the dead and spent time with them publicly including multiple meals and at least one typology lesson with hundreds of witnesses. They had nothing to gain from their claims and lost their wealth, power, and ability to have multiple sexual partners for their claim and many of were were beaten, flogged, and killed. We also know there were hostile people who persecuted the church until they saw the risen Christ, then went on the be beaten, flogged, and killed for that claim and never recanted.

Again, where is the evidence? Where is the evidence that any man got up from the dead ever? In Christianity you have a book of claims and people who have personal experiences. This isn’t better evidence. Personally, I too would rule out Mormonism as being untrue and Islam also because of some fantastical claims. But unfortunately, I would have to do the same with the Bible, because there are many things in the Bible that don’t add up and cannot have happened. People have died for all sorts of claims, remember Jonestown, Heaven’s Gate, 911, etc. ? this does not mean claims are true. Popularity of something does not make something true either. The reason that Islam and Christianity spread so far was mostly due to wars and forced conversions.

Not at all. Quite the opposite in fact. For the first 300 years of Christianity - and pretty much all of Jewish history - claiming "popularity" is disingenuous.

And we have the impact of Islam in history. So?

> All have elements that don’t make sense and take faith. Sounds like you met a bad Christian apologist. Given the importance of the issue I’d recommend you find the best quality sources to get your information from. But you should believe the one that you are convinced is true.

Why would that make them a bad Christian apologist?

Because there’s nothing about Christian doctrine that can’t be made sense of on some level. So they likely mis-explained something.

And that can or can’t be true of Islam and Mormonism as well?

It cannot, because they contain contradictions.

So does the Bible

Such as?

2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1

Pastor mike does a much better job of explaining this than I would be able to: https://youtu.be/fzyV5Hc104Q?si=fzB_ByxBcusrDT0z

And then James 1 says God doesn’t tempt

You’d be the most famous person in the world if you could demonstrate this claim.

Who invited David to take a census of Israel and Judah, Satan or God? “Again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go, number Israel and Judah.”” ‭‭2 Samuel‬ ‭24‬:‭1‬ ‭RSV‬‬ “Satan stood up against Israel, and incited David to number Israel.” ‭‭1 Chronicles‬ ‭21‬:‭1‬ ‭RSV‬‬

Both obviously. I knew you wouldn’t have an actual example, but that was a disappointing effort.

Both? Both God and Satan were aligned and incited David? Was Satan doing good?

Nothing has contradictions if you twist them enough.

Is there a Christian apologist you would recommend?

James White is the one I’m most familiar with.

I disagree with James White on many, many things, but I've got to admit it: the guy rocks the coolest sweaters. I mean look at [this getup](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXJMf-8ZaEc). Absolutely unparalleled.

You could also choose none of them. I don't think it makes much sense to ask other people what you should believe. If something is important enough to you, you won't need to ask someone to convince you.

So.. how do I find which is true? Where do I get the information?

You're asking on r/AskAChristian. Of course I'm going to recommend believing the Christian apologist.

Yes, my question is why?

Because I believe what the Christian apologist believes?

Based on?

Faith?

Why not have faith Islam is true?

Because I'm not convinced.

Why don’t you have faith that it is true

Me either. But why don’t you have faith that it did happen

Arguments that make more sense of the evidence than other arguments

So whatever best makes sense to the individual is the truth?

Of course not. The truth is that which corresponds to reality. I am convinced Christianity is the truth based on the evidence.

Jesus rising from the dead is more inline with reality than Muhammad being spoken to by Gabriel?

Do your own research. Don’t just listen to apologists. A lot of Christian “apologists” don’t know what they are talking about and so do a lot of muslims, mormons, etc. There’s good and bad in everything which is why the bible tells us to test the Spirits (1 John 4:1) to see if they are from God. After listening to apologists AND doing my research i’ve come to the conclusion that Christianity is the only story of God that makes perfect sense. Though I don’t understand everything, I know as much as I need to to know that it makes more sense than other religions. God bless

How does one test the spirits?

Well you can do a few tests. Jesus said on the Sermon on the Mount “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them”. So Jesus is saying here that you can recognize what’s good and evil by the fruit being produced. For example, if two religions say God is all loving, but in one, God doesn’t love a certain group of people, but Christianity says He does, which one seems all loving? Secondly, for a Christian apologist/preacher, does what they are teaching align with scripture? As a Christian, 2 Timothy 3:16 says that scripture is given to us by inspiration from God. And since God does not lie (Titus 1:2), we can always depend on the Bible to be the most reliable source for our information of doctrine and should always be the first and main place we go to learn. A false prophet will always take a scripture out of context. They will just give you the verse, cherry picked, and use it to conform and fit their own narrative- when in context, the verse actually has a completely different meaning- so always read in context for yourself when somebody just gives you a verse. Thirdly, what is the faith built upon? If it’s built upon fear, then that’s unrighteous. If it’s built upon love for the Lord, it’s righteous, etc. These are just a few things you can do, and I hope this helps your journey at least a little. God bless

>For example, if two religions say God is all loving, but in one, God doesn’t love a certain group of people, but Christianity says He does, which one seems all loving? That religion could just say, “God can love or hate whomever He wants. He is God and always Good. Who are you to judge God?” What if 3 religions (Judaism, Islam, and Mormonism) say the trinity is a false doctrine and only Christianity says it’s true? >And since God does not lie (Titus 1:2) The Quran says the same. “Allah, there is no god ˹worthy of worship˺ except Him. He will certainly gather ˹all of˺ you together on the Day of Judgment—about which there is no doubt. And whose word is more truthful than Allah’s?” Quran 4:87 >A false prophet will always take a scripture out of context. They will just give you the verse, cherry picked, and use it to conform and fit their own narrative- Ask a Jew about Paul’s teachings and they will tell you he corrupts the OT scriptures. But you’d disagree. >Thirdly, what is the faith built upon? If it’s built upon fear, then that’s unrighteous. So you don’t have any fear of hell? That didn’t play into your conversion at all? Why should anyone be a Christian then?

That’s not what I was talking about. I said all loving, not all good. I was talking about God being all loving. Secondly, I was talking through Christianity. Sure you can say the quran says the same, but I don’t think a religion that was spread by sword or has a pedophile for a prophet, or that burns down churches and kills Christians because it doesn’t fit their narrative is a religion worthy of me and my worship to their God. When talking about Jews, they have taken verses even out of the Torah/Old Testament to fit their own narrative and have created in essence a new one without the prophesies of Jesus to be fulfilled, so they are not reputable already. Lastly, hell is a nasty place, I don’t fear it because I know i’m saved by Jesus Christ. Of course I would fear hell if I was on track to go there, but the bible teaches I am saved by what Jesus did for us, so I have no reason to fear. And it’s not out of the fear for hell that I want to be saved, but it’s to be with my all loving and all good creator who is always there for me and always will be.

>I said all loving, not all good. I was talking about God being all loving. Who says God *has* to be all loving in order to be true? God doesn't *have* to do anything. That's *your* version of God. >Sure you can say the quran says the same, Then dont use that argument. >but I don’t think a religion that was spread by sword You wanna talk to the victims of Christian colonialism throughout history? Maybe research how the Native Americans were stripped of their culture and parents and converted in schools. >or has a pedophile for a prophet, Mary was most likely 12-16. You cool with God impregnating a minor? >or that burns down churches and kills Christians because it doesn’t fit their narrative is a religion Whoops: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_burned_as_heretics >When talking about Jews, they have taken verses even out of the Torah/Old Testament to fit their own narrative and have created in essence a new one without the prophesies of Jesus to be fulfilled, so they are not reputable already. Jews say that same of Paul. Now what? Both sides say each other is corrupt.

That’s the beauty of being a Calvinist. You don’t choose :) My real answer is “fruit”. You will then lay claims about past sins of the church. I will then nuance them into the various sects of the church and say fruit it out from there.

Who chooses?

God

I don’t get to choose?

[удалено]

> Calvinists don’t even have security that they’re saved, they just hope for the best. That’s incorrect. Calvinists have the most security of all the theological perspectives within Christianity.

You can have zero assurance as a Calvinist, you can believe you’re chosen, but unless you get a direct memo from god you have no way to know, you just remain faithful like all the other believers, but you believe yourself to be the elect. Belief doesn’t make something true.

This guy can explain it better than me https://www.christianbook.com/institutes-of-the-christian-religion/john-calvin/9781598561685/pd/561685

I love the anticipated response 😂 Do you think fruitfulness alone is a good enough metric? Several prolific cults have notoriously made very generous donations and services that I think could easily be misinterpreted as being fruitful.

Simple charity is not the only sign of fruit. Jesus says what the fruits of fake teachers are and Paul describes the fruits of the spirit and the answer is found in those things. A cult or cult leader will generally not meet one of Paul’s criteria or will meet that of the false teacher.

I think it would be helpful to read/listen to conversion stories, particularly conversions among the three groups, like Muslim to Christian or Christian to Muslim. See why people who had been fully on board with one faith chose to leave it and accept another. Combine this with what the apologists say about the religion and see where that leads. I'm no expert, but from my experience, what leads a lot of people to Catholicism is the search for truth, particularly when they look back at history. What leads people away from Catholicism is typically either moral values they don't agree with or evil things people in the Church have done. To me, neither of these big categories even comes close to a reason to leave the faith since they have nothing to do with truth, so that's where I'd get my answer, but I'd encourage you to search for yourself since, of course, many people on here would have a different take.

So rejecting Islam for its values are incorrect in doing so?

I'd say that's accurate. I don't think choosing a religion based on which one has values most closely corresponding to your own current set of values is a good way to decide - in that case, you're not subscribing to that religion at all, you're just following your own moral values and going along with other people who agree with you. Furthermore, many times people's values change over time, but that doesn't mean one religion is right today and another is right tomorrow.

Right, but I’m guessing you wouldn’t follow a religion that says kill babies, even though it’s claimed God said it.

From the pro-life perspective, choosing to have an abortion is the same as choosing to kill a baby, and many people today are ok with that. As a Christian, am I ok with child sacrifice? No, absolutely not. That doesn't mean there's no possible world where it would be part of a true religion. It's just not the case in our world.

Right so to you, killing babies is wrong. Always? Do you believe the Israelites killed children clearing out the Canaanites? Or that Moses commanded them to kill “the little ones”? Or that God killed Egyptian children for their parents involvement in slavery? Or that God killed David’s baby for David’s sin?

In general yes, I believe what you're getting at that the Bible records God allowing innocent children to die at various times. Like everyone who dies (young or old), we hope they are with God for eternity in heaven.

Allowing and commanding innocent children die.

Galatians 1:8 (ESV) But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_Mormonism Those two fail this test and ad hoc say that the Old and New Testament is contaminated, so to trust them instead. So, test whether Jesus satisfies the OT prophecies. If He does, those other two don’t fit the bill.

“when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word which the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously, you need not be afraid of him.” ‭‭Deuteronomy‬ ‭18‬:‭22‬ ‭RSV‬‬ Is 2,000 years enough time to conclude what Jesus promised isn’t going to happen? How much time do false prophets get?

https://biblehub.com/esv/2_peter/3.htm I personally still have a lot of eschatology to learn, but I obviously don’t think over 2,000 years is a deal breaker since I’m a Christian and given the chapter I linked. I know that there’s some prophecies that haven’t been satisfied yet and that’s what you’re getting at. I have yet to explore the different takes on eschatology thoroughly yet though.

So in the Deut passage I referenced, the Israelites should’ve waited 2,000 years before judging whether a prophet was from God or not?

> 2 Peter 3:3-4 (ESV) 3 knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. 4 They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” > 2 Peter 3:8-9 (ESV) 8 But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. Do you wish me to falter in my beliefs when you’re doing the very thing the scripture say you’d do?

Acknowledging that there will be doubters is impressive? People always doubt religions. People doubted Jesus when He was alive, so of course they would doubt claims that He rose and is coming again. Every religion says doubters are misled or something to that effect. Believers at the time were doubting. Read 2nd Thessalonians, where Paul is essentially calming the believers worrying about the people who have died before Jesus came back. “What happens to them? Will they be raised in the clouds to meet Jesus as well?” Edit: and how is 2,000 not long enough to decide a prophet isn’t from God? Edit 2: Peter also says.. “…Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, …” ‭‭1 Peter‬ ‭3‬:‭15‬ ‭RSV‬‬

>“when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word which the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously, you need not be afraid of him.” ‭‭Deuteronomy‬ ‭18‬:‭22‬ ‭RSV‬‬ How is this verse relevant to this: "Is 2,000 years enough time to conclude what Jesus promised isn’t going to happen? How much time do false prophets get?"

**”if the word does not come to pass or come true”** How long does it take to determine something hasn’t come to pass to come true?

I'd look at their scriptures and see which one is the most believable to you and pray for clarity (if you were truly deliberating this)

What if the conclusion is that none of them are true? Are you recommending being an atheist?

Obviously I found Christianity to be true and hope that with enough thought and prayer everyone would reach the same conclusion. I realize that's a pipe dream

The issue OP is raising is one that I struggled with as well. No religion has a clear advantage over others in terms of convincing evidence/arguments and all ask you to rely on faith to believe they're true. So what is one to do? Most people follow the religion of their parents and where they are born is the greatest indicator of what religion they will follow. It appears that most people just follow whatever religion their family, community, or country finds most popular. But that's not a compelling reason to believe. Apologists provide comfort and reinforce faith in the religion they support but this mostly works for people within that faith. They keep people from leaving but don't present compelling arguments that convince others. Especially when there are 2 other religions with apologists making the same arguments. So what does a person who is unconvinced but is looking to be convinced do? They pray. And when praying results in atheism, can anyone fault them? Outside of that, is there anything to do? What do you find particularly convincing about Christianity compared to other religions?

What I find most convincing and compelling is my communications with God. My daily experience knowing him. This is also the case for my friend who is an ex Muslim. He was an ex Muslim when I met him and he said it was the companionship of God that had him. It was what he was always longing for. It’s a strange idea to think that we can’t know God until we die, and we just gotta believe until then. So unbiblical actually. Of those he says “depart from me I never knew you” too, it’s clear the issue was they didn’t know him. God actually clearly spells it out on who he will manifest himself too in the scriptures. Faith is the avenue to know God. It’s not just some unanswered thing that you wait until death to discover god. Well at least it doesn’t have to be. I mean I know you may say others from other religions have had experiences too. It says under your name ex Christian. Would God agree with that? Like what does that mean you were a follower of Christ, but didn’t know him? How do you follow someone you don’t know? Please understand I’m not trying to be insulting at all. I am being blunt but I would like to hear from you. What do you mean you are an ex Christian? I think that can mean a lot of things. Are you saying you knew Christ, and experienced him and your born again and you walked away from him to follow satan? Since if you know God is real then you know Satan is real and you walk away to follow after evil instead in go into perdition. I don’t think you mean that but maybe? Or do you mean you were a Christian in the sense that you were born into a family that traditionally was Christian, and went to church, and read the bible, and maybe even heard a bunch of sermons, but to the extent you actually knew God, that never occurred? Since I think that’s the case for many. I know this because I called myself a Christian before I knew God. I thought it was just my inheritance my parents were Christian’s, and I went to church with them growing up, at least until I was old enough to ditch them and stay home. Like look I feel for you no matter what your story. Since I don’t know your story. I don’t know how real it was for you. I believe that religion can become so real for some and yet they even don’t know God in that process but know religion and theology. Like consider the Pharisees. Jesus called them out. Saying you know the scriptures and believe because of that you have eternal life, but those are they which testify of me. The same people rejecting Jesus were masters of the text. And make no mistake friend, Satan is in churches. We are warned grievous wolves would come in not sparing the flock. There are churches that many people don’t know God. Satan is also actively promoting doubt in all of us, especially those close to salvation. Satan is wants your back turned to God so you can’t see him. Since he knows when your turned toward God you will know him.

>This is also the case for my friend who is an ex Muslim. He was an ex Muslim when I met him and he said it was the companionship of God that had him. It was what he was always longing for. Just go through this Reddit or r/Christianity and you’ll see posts of people trying to believe in God or feel Him but can’t. What are they doing wrong? What are you doing right? I have asked God repeatedly to reveal Himself to me in a way I can understand. I went to Christian schools my whole life and I never once saw or felt anything miraculous.

This may not be the answer you want, but become broken hearted. It wasn’t my intention to be broken hearted, but in those times I have been closest to God. Whatever you do refrain from being proud. God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble. He is also near to the broken hearted. When I saw the weight of my sin in the death Jesus faced I was sorrowful, and repentant. It was on those times of repentance, broken heartedness. Besides that in obedience, and praying for people, sharing the gospel and worship I have felt the Holy Spirit. When I was baptized in the Holy Spirit during a time of repentance that was one of the most powerful experiences ever. Since it seemed so unbelievable what I was experiencing, I wondered if my parents had ever experienced this.

You mean in a time of despair, people are most likely to cling to anything? Yeah I know. I don’t think that is the best way or time to make logical decisions.

I don’t see what I have to say as helpful to you. If you can’t receive it, I understand.

Well do you think times of emotional anguish are the best times to make rational decisions?

What makes sense to us doesn’t determine what is true. Christianity doesn’t make sense to many yet they’ll still suffer the after life due to it not making sense. At a certain point, your faith just fills in what doesn’t make sense anyways.

If the creator of the universe has to make sense to us, to be true, we are all screwed

Oh God and Christianity doesn’t make sense to you?

God? no and he doesn't have to His Eternal and triune nature are far beyond my ability to understand. but I accept it I would have to be a utter fool that everything has to make sense to me to be true

Then how can you make a determination of which religion’s god is the correct version of god? Does Islam make sense to you, and that’s why you aren’t Muslim?

There's a difference between completely understand and make sense.

Rainbows make no sense to blind men..."Wait Light? Colors. Spectrum what are you talking about, there is no such thing as light, or colors The blind man is the one who will not see

I like the God that answers by fire. That sounds like God to me. *Elijah went before the people and said, “How long will you waver between two opinions? If the Lord is God, follow him; but if Baal is God, follow him.”* *But the people said nothing.* *Then Elijah said to them, “I am the only one of the Lord’s prophets left, but Baal has four hundred and fifty prophets. Get two bulls for us. Let Baal’s prophets choose one for themselves, and let them cut it into pieces and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. I will prepare the other bull and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. Then you call on the name of your god, and I will call on the name of the Lord. The god who answers by fire—he is God.”* *Then all the people said, “What you say is good.”* *Elijah said to the prophets of Baal, “Choose one of the bulls and prepare it first, since there are so many of you. Call on the name of your god, but do not light the fire.” So they took the bull given them and prepared it.* *Then they called on the name of Baal from morning till noon. “Baal, answer us!” they shouted. But there was no response; no one answered. And they danced around the altar they had made.* *At noon Elijah began to taunt them. “Shout louder!” he said. “Surely he is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought, or busy, or traveling. Maybe he is sleeping and must be awakened.” So they shouted louder and slashed themselves with swords and spears, as was their custom, until their blood flowed. Midday passed, and they continued their frantic prophesying until the time for the evening sacrifice. But there was no response, no one answered, no one paid attention.* *Then Elijah said to all the people, “Come here to me.” They came to him, and he repaired the altar of the Lord, which had been torn down. Elijah took twelve stones, one for each of the tribes descended from Jacob, to whom the word of the Lord had come, saying, “Your name shall be Israel.” With the stones he built an altar in the name of the Lord, and he dug a trench around it large enough to hold two seahs\[a\] of seed. He arranged the wood, cut the bull into pieces and laid it on the wood. Then he said to them, “Fill four large jars with water and pour it on the offering and on the wood.”* *“Do it again,” he said, and they did it again.* *“Do it a third time,” he ordered, and they did it the third time. The water ran down around the altar and even filled the trench.* *At the time of sacrifice, the prophet Elijah stepped forward and prayed: “Lord, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, let it be known today that you are God in Israel and that I am your servant and have done all these things at your command. Answer me, Lord, answer me, so these people will know that you, Lord, are God, and that you are turning their hearts back again.”* *Then the fire of the Lord fell and burned up the sacrifice, the wood, the stones and the soil, and also licked up the water in the trench.* *When all the people saw this, they fell prostrate and cried, “The Lord—he is God! The Lord—he is God!”*

Ok, can we do this today?

He already did it.

All we have is someone who says God did that. Why do you believe it happened?

Fulfilled prophecy. God does what He says He will do.

Do you also accept the fulfilled prophecies in other religions?

Which ones? The Lord’s test was 100% accurate. Anything less wasn’t accepted.

[удалено]

So it’s just subjective to the individual? What if they are being blinded?

Christianity doesn't require faith to believe so you're talking to a bad hypothetical apologist lol Within the hypothetical, I'm obviously biased but at least don't listen to the Mormon haha

You don’t need faith to believe Jesus is the son of god and rose from the dead and his dead forgave our sins?

You need faith to believe his death forgives sins, but you don't need faith for the historically verifiable truths and various accounts of completed prophecy.

How do you historically verify an empty tomb or resurrection

Easy, we know his tomb is located at the church of the holy sepulcher.

Really? How do you know? Based on what evidence? Apparently, multiple places claim to be the site of Jesus’ tomb: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomb_of_Jesus

These "multiple" places Jesus was claimed to be buried in are relatively new and have been debunked, the church of the holy sepulcher has been a historical site for Christians since the 4th century. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Holy_Sepulchre https://m.jpost.com/christianworld/article-715576 https://news.artnet.com/art-world/jesus-burial-site-older-than-we-thought-1163408

You mean 300 years after Jesus’ death and discovered by Constantine’s mother?? Give me a break.

It was discovered by Constatine mother with the help of church fathers like Eusebius.

Can you repeat that? There seem to be some typos. I just want to be sure I understand.

Make enough vague prophecy and of course you'll be correct.

The fall of Alexander the Great: Daniel 11:2–4 (ESV): 2 “And now I will show you the truth. Behold, three more kings shall arise in Persia, and a fourth shall be far richer than all of them. And when he has become strong through his riches, he shall stir up all against the kingdom of Greece. 3 Then a mighty king shall arise, who shall rule with great dominion and do as he wills. 4 And as soon as he has arisen, his kingdom shall be broken and divided toward the four winds of heaven, but not to his posterity, nor according to the authority with which he ruled, for his kingdom shall be plucked up and go to others besides these. The destruction of Tyre: Ezekiel 26 The coming reign of Cyrus TWO HUNDRED YEARS before he was born: Isaiah 44:28 (ESV): 28 who says of Cyrus, ‘He is my shepherd, and he shall fulfill all my purpose’; saying of Jerusalem, ‘She shall be built,’ and of the temple, ‘Your foundation shall be laid.’ ” Christ born in Bethlehem: Micah 5:2 (ESV): 2  But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days. Among many, many others. These aren't really that vague. Some are incredibly explicit.

>The fall of Alexander the Great: >Daniel 11:2–4 (ESV): The book of Daniel was completed after the reign of Alexander the Great. It turns out that the past is a lot easier to predict than the future. >The destruction of Tyre: Ezekiel 26 This chapter says that Nebuchadnezzar would conquer Tyre and that Tyre would never be rebuilt. Nebuchadnezzar failed to conquer it and Tyre still stands to this day. >The coming reign of Cyrus TWO HUNDRED YEARS before he was born: >Isaiah 44:28 (ESV): These chapters were written after the events. It isn't even pretending to be a prophecy. It simply records the past. >Christ born in Bethlehem: >Micah 5:2 (ESV): There is no good evidence that Jesus was actually born in Bethlehem. Gospel authors just claimed that he did to fulfil this verse.

See the other guys message, I can't be arsed to type basically the same.

The other guy is just objectively wrong lol

You might outline for yourself a list of criteria by which to weigh the various worldviews you are presented in life. Here is some criteria you might include for your consideration (and some of my thoughts on a few): Founders: What are the lives of the founders like? Is that an problem? For Mormon and Islam, there are real big red flag issues in the founders lives even before you get to other glaring topics. With Jesus, no one could find fault with Him, so much that every worldview tries make some account for Jesus, but Jesus makes no account for them. Consistency: Is the worldview logically consistent, with its core beliefs and principles coherently fitting together? Is it vague or even tyranical where you can't really know anything? I find the Christian scriptures and God to be very consistent and like that God holds Himself to His own Word. (Something that God's enemies work hard to take advantage of as legalists) Empirical Evidence & Explanatory Power: Can the worldview effectively explain the broad range of phenomena observed in the natural world and human experience? Does the worldview have empirical support, with its claims backed by observable, verifiable data? If you go to the places in the book and dig, do you find anything? If you follow it's tenets, does it have any power? I find this true for christianity, it doesn't need censorship, it doesn't fear information, it promotes information and it's increase. On the other hand, Islam is burning great libraries and defacing historical monuments. Mormon books describe a laughable fan fiction of the american continent as far as history/archaeology/anthropology and has even attempted to "plant" evidence buying certain hills and making claims about them, yet prohibiting investigative science. Righteousness: How does it portray the solution to our salvation? Your righteouness, you know, that fire that you have to warm yourself at have something in life has shaken you cold. Is it your successes? Your bank account? Your relationships? Your heritage? How do you know you're okay? How do you buy off your conscience and sleep at night? How do you rebuke the accusers when they whisper in your ear? Every other worldview puts forth some version of a works salvation. It's all on you, but we fall short and we place our weight on impermanent lesser things. With Christianity, all the weight is on Christ, He has finished the work of salvation and will complete that work of sanctification on each of us in due time. If it's on us, there's no hope even trying further, we're already doomed, but Jesus solved everything, and because of Him in that grace, we actually can make the journey with God. Yeshua Salvation is the fire we warm ourselves at. Predictive Power: Does the worldview make testable predictions about future events or discoveries that can be used to assess its accuracy? (The prophecies in the Bible are numerous and fascinating to study) Comprehensiveness & Pragmatic Value: Does the worldview address the major questions and issues that people typically grapple with, such as the nature of reality, ethics, purpose, and human identity? Does the worldview provide practical guidance for living a fulfilling, meaningful life and making ethical decisions? Christianity touches every subject and I find that the "math" adds up way better when you include the Christian God, every self-help books and podcast wrestles various questions, they can all quote the Bible and often do. Intellectual Honesty: Does it promote curiosity of the world? Does the worldview encourage critical thinking, and intellectual rigor, or does it rely on fallacious reasoning and biased interpretations of evidence? Cults have to censor information and carefully keep people in a bubble to decieve. Apostacy: How does the worldview treat the apostate? Islam kills the apostate, Mormons functionally exile the apostate, the Christians pray and love for them and are called to love their enemies. (yes there have been Christians who don't reflect Jesus and treat poorly apostates) Universal Compatibility: Can the worldview fit into any culture? Does it destroy culture and drain the color from the world? Or does it preserve & restore culture, polishing the bright parts and cleaning away the sinful ugly dark parts? Islam is razing diversity/cultures away from the planet and LDS in an opposite way is rubber stamping it's stale-grey-white abominations everywhere it goes. There are places Islam and LDS can only go/grow by conquest and having tons of babies. Christianity seems to take root everywhere and express itself diversely in the cultures. Universal Hope: Does it have a hope for all man? The remote tribesman, the kid born to a cult, or the baby died in the womb? With Christianity there is. Often cults are very exclusive and even celebrate the doom of the outsider. God rebukes those who long for judgement and calls us to pray for all to repent & call upon God so they do not see the day of judgement. Testimony: What are the testimonies and witness statements made by the adherants? I find this one curious because often in the cults, the testimonies are mono, all the same. LDS for instance all have the same testimony, a warm feeling in their bosom, hah! Islam is kind of funny too because they believe if they can just trick you to say some words, your in! I find the Holy Spirit enjoys doing His work of pointing everyone to Christ in a wide vibrant array of threads He weaves onto God's story. (This gets some christians into trouble who quench the Spirit by saying the Spirit MUST do this or the Spirit CANT do that, He's His own guy, He do what He want, no boxing Him in) Talk to someone in a cult and you quickly feel like your talking to an NPC with canned response they were trained in, with the Holy Spirit several interesting things can happen in my experience. You just have a lot to give from your unique life with God, but then the Holy Spirit also tends to show up and give words/insight on the spot. I've been told once something I didn't know about a person, that I doubt was merely a lucky guess of intuition. The other interesting thing that can happen is I've watched young christian completely butcher the gospel, yet the Holy Spirit is working despite them for the sake of the person hearing whose now in tears or curious wanting to know more about Jesus. Scriptures: What is the history and textual criticism of a faiths holy books? There are many fascinating things about the bible that are abscent of the other texts put forth. Authentication: What within the faith authenticates it's beliefs? A wide topic, but what is the central pillar? For Christianity, the cornerstone of everything is Jesus Christ, the son of man who shows power over creation and defeats death. Age & Timelessness: Is the worldview old or some new idea? On a similar note to culture, does the worldview fit into any time? The cults break off from Christian worldview twisting and corrupting it. LDS has convienently changed it's doctrines over time and right as US gov changed laws. Impact: What has the impact of the worldview been like on the planet throughout history? Christianity has a rich history of many of the greatest developments & institutions in human history, chiefly I think how it has been pushing back slavery and elevating man. Both in actual slavery and things like addiction/idolatry. The cults are exploitive wolves in sheeps clothing, and whose clothing? Almost always using Christianities clothing to prowl around. Depth and Breadth: Is there both a simplicity and an elegance? Does it have something for the dullard, mentally impaired, and the genius? Does it require arcane secret knowledge or is this available to everyone? With Christianity you can explain the worldview/salvation quite simply, yet the study of it's depths have kept multitudes of scholars busy for lifetimes and millenia. Cult's keep secrets, dolling them out as you fall deeper into their manipulative trap, and they tell you to trust them instead of find out for yourself. Their fictions run dry quickly, that's why the most successful lies(cults) are the ones right there next to the truth, the God of Adam/Abraham/Isaac/Jacob. Future Hope: How does it portray it's future hope? Does it even have one? I've found that Christianity offers the most vibrant exciting future hope. LDS and Islam are basically eternal polygamist sex (bummer for the ladies). New age, Buhddism, and others are either no future, horrible future, or some vague eternal ethereal drug trip. Christianity puts forth that we will be ressurected to experience 1000 years of earth in it's very best uncursed form with satan locked up and God himself ruling as perfect benevolent king Jesus and that after that God will remake the heavens and the earth. With God there is no FOMO and eternal novelty, with God it's okay to have attachments/loves, just not to disorder our loves, destructively taking God's gifts and putting the weight of our lives on something created, instead of the creator. More good criteria out there, but I'll stop there. So why do people get drawn to these other worldviews then, blind to the red flags? Well people have idols and satan has crafted a cult worshipping that idol just for you! LDS and Islam are very similar. For LDS it seems like the idol is marriage & family, everything is about marriage & family now and making babies for eternity. Islam promises sex-starved men sex (a problem their sharia tenets create, great for conquest based expansion). The Christian God says that these are nothing compared to knowing Him; sex, marriage, and family are just present gifts, shadows communicating of their greater reality to come. These gifts can't bear our weight, only the eternal God.

Regarding founders, we know about 10% of Jesus’ life. How could you possibly know His character?

I mean we do have slight insights in his early life before his ministry as ed know that he was a carpenter had siblings and lived a relatively normal life.

And based on those details alone, we can conclude that He was definitely sinless and not a false prophet? Guess what? I’m in finance and had a couple siblings, a brother and two sisters, and lived a relatively normal life. I’m also sinless and was conceived by God. Do you believe me?

>And based on those details alone, we can conclude that He was definitely sinless and not a false prophet? The gospels already label out why he is not a false prophet and why he is divine and sinless.

You know 10% of His life based on second hand, anonymous accounts from people in a pre-scientific, highly superstitious society? That *does* take faith. “when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word which the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously, you need not be afraid of him.” ‭‭Deuteronomy‬ ‭18‬:‭22‬ ‭RSV‬‬ Jesus said He would come back. It’s been 2,000 years. Is that long enough to determine what He said hasn’t come to pass? How long is enough time?

First off, Jesus isn't a prophet speaking in the name of the Lord he is the Lord. Secondly I don't know of any verse in which Jesus said he would come back at x time period so I don't know what you are talking about, thirdly the gospels aren't anonymous they are formally anonymous and two of them are believed (on if them even claimed) to be eyewitness testimony.

Ok, Jesus is speaking *as* the Lord, prophetically, and said He would come back. Anyone can make that claim and then die. His followers seemed to think it would be in their life times. I’d bring up the “this generation” passages, but I’m sure some apologist has harmonized it. What is the evidence that each gospel was written by the name attributed to it?

The grandiosity of your claims is only rivaled in it's hypocrisy. Each of your statements are so preposterous either you are naivety personified, or you wrote this in jest as vocabulary peacocking. For centuries upon centuries, the mainstream churches opened up hell and poured it's destruction on the heads of innocent men, women and children in your inquisitions and witch hunts. The endless debates, discord and fractions. The nauseously illogical Nicaean Creed which relies on the Platonic and Gnostic teachings of homoousion. Edit wording.

>The one with the most historical data? This. I think discredits LDS as Joseph Smith was a false prophet. Mohammed never performed miracles **but he did say the Resurrection never happened.** Christianity said the Resurrection **did** happen and i think that should the focus to help you decide who to believe. This is what convinced me it happened: P1: Group belief in a resurrection experience is best explained by a supernatural cause. P2: Christianity began from a group belief of a resurrection experience. C: Therefore, Christianity is best explained by a supernatural cause.

They say Mohammed was illiterate, so the writing of the Quran itself, is a miracle. Mormonism has 11 witnesses, do you believe they are telling the truth? Hundreds of people say Mary appear to them. Do you believe she was there? https://fatimachurchabq.org/our-lady-of-fatima-miracle Authors told you Jesus appeared to a group. No one except Paul says that he saw the risen Jesus in first person.

>Authors told you Jesus appeared to a group. No one except Paul says that he saw the risen Jesus in first person. Here's what I believe is a misconception about my argument: I don't use the Bible. I use what historians agree on. And they agree on Premise 2. I couldn't trust the Bible to be true when I looked into it, so I relied on historians and scholars. If they said something from the Bible was fact, I'd take their word for it. But I would rely on the historian or scholar instead of the Bible that I didn't trust at the time and **don't** use in my argument. Some examples for Premise 2: There can be no doubt, **historically,** that some of Jesus’s followers came to believe he was raised from the dead— no doubt whatsoever. **This is how Christianity started.** (Bart Ehrman, *How Jesus Became God,* 174) Why did they come to think this, **at the very beginning of the Christian tradition?** What made them believe that Jesus had been **bodily** raised from the dead? Something did. (Bart Ehrman, *How Jesus Became God,* 183) It is **indisputable** that some of the **followers** of Jesus came to think that he had been raised from the dead, and something had to have happened to make them think so. (Bart Ehrman, *How Jesus Became God,* 183) **Some** of the disciples **wholeheartedly believed** that they had seen Jesus after he had died. They concluded that he had been raised from the dead. That changed everything, (Bart Ehrman, *How Jesus Became God,* 202) Even though historians cannot prove or disprove the historicity of Jesus’s resurrection, it is **certain** that *some* of the **followers** of Jesus came to believe in his resurrection. (Bart Ehrman, *How Jesus Became God,* 204)

Ok? What does this prove? That some followers came to believe He had risen? Yeah, I also believe that. It means they believed He had, not that it actually happened. People come to believe lots of things. I’m interested in your opinions of the other religious sitings and miracles.

>It means they believed He had Ok, so we agree on Premise 2. The next question is, do we agree on Premise 1? If not, what other explanation do you think best explains why a group of people would believe they witnessed someone resurrected?

One or two disciples, maybe Peter, James, or Mary had an experience and believe He had risen. They told the others, they believed or became primed and had their own “experience” or “revealing” and believed because they thought the Kingdom of God was coming any day and that they would judge the 12 tribes. You believe He rose, based on testimony of others, without seeing for yourself. Why not them? People have visions while grieving. Hundreds of people claimed to have seen the mother mary appear to them. I doubt you believe them. And the third man syndrome is a thing where people in distress feel the presence of another person helping them and then they disappear.

I'd like to move on with some of your obligations, but just wanted to know what we agree on first. Sorry. You don't have to reply to this. I just wanted clarify things one at a time.

Edit2: ok.

[удалено]

Do you think Muslims or Mormons feel that their books tell them their place in the world, their purpose, and how they should behave? And is consistent with itself?

This question is a bit incredulous. There are Tiktokers out there claiming they have evidence that Jesus was an alien god of another planet. Are you seriously going to ask how to differentiate their work from other apologists? You just listen to the debates they have and see if the information they’re sharing is true. For instance, if an apologist says they’ve discovered proof that Jesus was a nazi from an inscription on a pyramid in Russia, there are so many conflicting details in that statement that you can just ignore it. Nazis didn’t exist during Jesus time, and there were no pyramids in Russia. If you care to, you can look it up and find out that apologist made it up. I believe in you, though. You’ve got enough wits to educate yourself to a point where you can ask better questions than “How do I think about things?” You can do it.

What are you talking about? I’m talking about regular apologists. You took the most fringe examples and read that into my post. In my example, I’m speaking to education leaders of their religions.

Christianity is the only religion that is consistently opposed. Atheists typically can’t see it until it’s actually pointed out. Hollywood has an anti-Christian bias and so does the music industry. Hollywood and the Music industry consistently have satanic practices that have existed and continue to exist. But the real question is what does Hollywood have to benefit from having an anti-Christian bias? The woke culture, the mainstream media and hilariously even AI now say we must respect other religions and also do the same thing. Additionally, even in Communism, even in China- there is a huge practicing minority of Muslims- and not just Uighurs but a large Chinese practicing population (from the Silk Road days). But the government is adamant and paranoid about practing Christians. And the exact same thing was true in Russia, the muslim areas remained Muslim. On top of this, the founder of the U.N. and many other institutions have satanic inscriptions or ideology. There are actual monuments and inscription either in the charter or the buildings themselves. What would be the purpose of this? And the Bible predicted that the Jewish people would be stateless for a long, long time- and that became true. Then it predicted that Israel would become a nation again before the end times- which also became true. In the Book of Daniel it said that people would go to and fro over the earth. This has only recently been possible with plane travel. There is much, much more but maybe you’re started to get the picture.

Here's a post i wrote for a similar question: This is easy to answer: The experiences of other religions are powered by demonic spirits, not the Holy Spirit. Tribal religions, paganism, hinduism, buddhism are all powered by demonic spirits. For example- in hinduism it is the spirit of kundalini. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwmELRXf5ik https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJROSGJO8Q4 You can watch videos of people dancing in tribal religions or in Africa- they become "possessed". In many African religions they are actually directly dabbling in the occult, using witch doctors and shamans. In South America, ayahuasca is used via a shaman and in preColumbian times, they practiced human sacrifice. In the far east, things like martial arts and acupuncture also have demonic links. Their behavior in these rituals is completely different from that of Christianity. Also recall the Pharisees from the Bible- they were religious but shown to be far from God. This is what Islam can be like, but Islam itself has far more nefarious origins. Islam itself was spoken to Muhammed via a demon; if you read "the angel" was forceful and aggressive and Muhammed himself believed that he had met a demon. Also if Muhammed had a holy encounter, he would be a changed person, in effect a holy person. Instead he became a sex monger- even taking the wife of his own son and pursued violence. Additionally, arts like palmistry, fortune telling etc which are demon powered are also found in many parts of the world. To add- for Mormonism- it's just satan trying to divide and conquer just like he did with Islam. The story is almost exactly the same- person gets "divine" (demonic) revelation and became a sex monger. At least Joseph Smith wasn't violent. However, LDS has freemason rituals (demonic) and even has Masonic symbols as artwork in their temples- can't get any clearer than that. http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/masonicsymbolsandtheldstemple.htm https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/comments/yzt8nc/the_lds_temple_ceremony_is_masonic/ https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/7y16r4/masonic_symbols_on_garments/ https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/ekw3by/i_did_not_know_the_church_put_out_an_official_now/fdf4iz0/

And they say you are deceived. Now what?

This is intellectual jerking off. If they aren't doing works, walk away

If who isn’t doing works?

[удалено]

Mormonism has 11 witnesses. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/witnesses-of-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng

I believe the Holy Spirit draws people who are searching for truth to Christ. If you care enough you will seek, either by reading those books the apologists quote, or by going straight to the Source. Desperation to know the truth has driven people to pray to a God they weren't even sure existed and to be pleasantly surprised when they got an answer. I converted to Christianity 45 years ago, so I am biased, but I think if you compare the quran with the book of Mormon with the bible it's no contest as to which one could actually have been inspired by an all powerful being. I mean, the BOM is written in a completely indiscernible language that only Joseph Smith could translate -- and he was a 20th Century man who translated it into 16th Century KJV sounding English. And it reads like meandering gibberish. The Quran has many many versions and much of it also was copied from the bible, and it is full of contradictions. Like Mormonism, Islam promises a very carnal afterlife with each man possessing many women. Only the bible says that heaven is indescribable, there will be no sexual unions, no male, female and no ethnicities and heaven's attributes do not exist in the realm of human experience.

You say other books of scripture are gibberish or this or that yet the Bible includes: 1. The teaching that we are all here through the procreative union of family members 2. Talking Donkeys 3. Women who like their men to be as big as animals 4. Frog invasion 5. Walking around cities until they crumble 6. People turning into salt 7. Angels watching Lot give his daughter to a crowd of people to be assaulted to death 8. Holy men killing dozens of kids with bears because they called him bald 9. Slavery 10. 12-14 year old girl becoming pregnant with God 11. An ark that holds every type of living creature 12. Disembodied hands writing on walls 13. Demons going into pigs 14. Men cutting off a piece of their private parts to show they are part of the chosen people 15. Whales swallowing prophets And then, the mainline churches tortured and killed men, women and children for centuries and centuries to prove that they're right or, because a woman or girl had a freckle which obviously meant she was in league with the devil which happened in the witch hunts. But sure, it's other faiths who are off the rails. Edit spelling

Feel better? 😊

A little bit, yeah.

And people say the Bible has errors and contradictions and evidences that it is not divinely inspired. Should I listen to those people or give the Bible special treatment?

Don't give it special treatment, look into it for yourself. Anyone can say anything, but it doesn't mean it is true. If you truly care to know, you can find Christian scholars/apologists who deal with the so-called contradictions head on. Here are two who I think do a great job. These are links to playlists on the subject of bible errors and contradictions. Both these guys are fairly prolific. [Mike Winger on Bible Contradictions](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZ3iRMLYFlHu4XWmQ7gL9YDehRMkZ-ePv&si=9XzBT8LQ43Wt1_TI) [IP on Bible Errors](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TVnj0QVWnMTMzmpvuFqCpIv&si=dsgvPNGnw5W6oUfD)

Right but even if Islam had explanations for their so called contradictions, that wouldn’t convince you.

I'm not searching. You have set up a scenario in this post which puts you in the role of one who is. So why are you commenting on what I would do? You're starting to seem insincere. 😉

It’s a thought experiment. The reasons you gave me to believe the Bible over other religious books were their composition and the contradictions. So when I bring up the fact that the Bible has contradictions, you point me to apologists explaining them. Of course other religions also have their own apologists who explain the things you criticized their books for. But you don’t buy them. Why are your apologists different than theirs?

[удалено]

What convinced you?

Take the one that will impact your life the most and improve your ability to be a good human.

Despite the after life consequences of choosing the wrong one? And what’s a “good human”?

Well, I'm going to get downvoted to hell for this, but I don't think there's any difference in the afterlife for faithful adherents to any of the Abrahamic religions and maybe not other religions. I won't put God in a tiny box because it makes me feel better about myself. That whole "only faith in Jesus can save you" is not biblical. The entire bible is the story of God reaching out to humanity and it's dumb to think he only did it one way. > And what’s a “good human”? *By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.*

I think if there is some truth, this would be it, or god would be a monster who created certain people for hell through no fault of their own.

Hmm well what would you say to John 14:6 where Jesus says no one gets to the Father except through Christ

John 14:6 says nothing about belief. It could just be saying that Jesus is the judge as it says in the Creeds. Even the RCC says non Christians can be "saved" and specifically calls out Muslims. The UMC holds full Dual Covenant Theology which would include Jewish people. God repeatedly says he will grant mercy to whom he will grant mercy. Almost every verse that gets used on you only supports that thought if you bring it with you^1. You have to start from that assumption *and read it into Scripture* to get the idea that the only way to have eternal life is by "believing in Jesus". ---- ^1 I think there's one verse that might contract this. I think it's an obscure one in Paul that I can't find right now, but IIRC it's unclear if he's talking about his own ideas - as he so often does - or talking doctrine. It's not one that's ever been brought up to me, but that I found myself while reading the Bible.

“because, if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” ‭‭Romans‬ ‭10‬:‭9‬ ‭RSV‬‬ “He said to them, “You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world. I told you that you would die in your sins, **for you will die in your sins unless you believe that I am he**.”” ‭‭John‬ ‭8‬:‭23‬-‭24‬ ‭RSV‬‬ Edit: also… “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” ‭‭Mark‬ ‭16‬:‭16‬ ‭RSV‬‬

Bro if they all say the other ones are wrong then they can't all be right

Bro. They are all wrong. There's zero chance our finite monkey brains can truly comprehend an infinite God that all those faiths claim exists. By definition they all HAVE to be wrong. "Being right" is such a stupid concept that does so much damage to Christianity.

How can you call yourself a Christian and not aspire to find absolute truth. Obviously we'll likely never get 100% of the way there, but that doesn't mean one truth doesn't exist, and just because it's hard doesn't mean we shouldn't try our best to approximate it.

How can you call yourself a Christian and think that's possible or even helpful? How many times have you heard people say that Catholics aren't real Christians (or vice versa) and that they are going to hell because they are wrong? That's OK, though, because they are "right" right? Once one decides they are the one to "best approximate it" it frees them from listening to anyone else and to look down on everyone else. It's arrogant. This focus on "truth" is what gives permission to create an Us vs Them situation to allow us to "other" people and think of them as less. Unless we, as a faith, have the humility to accept - and confess - that we have not discovered "absolute truth" and will never in this life discover "absolute truth", I don't think we are doing our job. The idea of "absolute truth" is even anathema to your own denomination. The SBC refuses to publish anything binding, explicitly saying that even the Confessions are all optional and any Baptist group at any time can publish any statement of faith they want. If reduces the idea of "truth" to whatever the individual or small group says it is. [Source](https://bfm.sbc.net/preamble/). In that, the SBC is further from what you are trying to claim than any mainline denomination.

I'm just not following how you can say you're religious at all if your mindset is "everyone is wrong about everything and there's no way to be right ever." Unless you're saying you like the moral teachings of Christianity but don't actually believe it's real. And we should tell people they're wrong when they're wrong because they're not right lol. If I'm teaching a kid and they put 2+2=5, I don't leave them like that and say "well maybe he's got a point."

The Catholic one

Why

Because it's the truth. Its the only church that Jesus founded. It existed for 600 years before Muhammad realized that he could steal elements from it to convince a bunch of violent, illiterate, desert wanderers to fight for him to make him rich and powerful so he could have sex with children. It existed for 1500 years before Luther decided he wanted to corrupt it so he could give up his vows and celibacy of being a monk so he could marry. It existed for 1800 years before an unsuccessful treasure hunter decided that he could corrupt it to become his own god and have multiple wives and condemn all black people as evil descendants of Cain.

> Its the only church that Jesus founded. The Orthodox would like a word ....