How can we as Christians say that all of Jesus' speeches about the impending judgement of "this generation", his immediate coming in his kingdom ("from now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven") & the disciples not being done converting Jewish citizens before Jesus comes, don't mean that Jesus was actually coming back in His flesh, but were metaphors for being the King of Christian hearts during the time of grace for the pagan nations? When looking at just the book of Matthew, it's easy to explain verses like Matt 10:23, 16:28, 24:34, 26:64 IF they are ON THEIR OWN. But so so many similar verses are found throughout the whole NT. And in bulk it does seem like Jesus is saying that doomsday is immediate & his earthly kingdom with him as king in the flesh was instantaneous. Taken together he is always talking about "the coming of the son of man", "the clouds of heaven", "his kingdom", "his angels" & "in the glory of his Father". It's apocalyptic & cosmic preaching, associated with, for example, Daniel 7:13-14. Today & then it's definitely associated with doomsday aka the last day of the last days aka the final judgment & a political and national kingdom in the flesh. Let's play this out by following examples, again looking only at the book of Matthew (I know there are a lot of different interpretations but these are the ones I've heard most often): - 16:26-28 supposedly is about the Transfiguration, which was a vision of Jesus as king in his kingdom — even though in verse 26 the seeing of the Son of Man is linked to coming into the kingdom with judgment, angels, and the Father? Which in turn is directly linked to the end of times, see for example, Daniel 7. - 24:34 "This generation" is actually about the generation which lived during Jesus day & discarded Jesus, which was judged in AD 69? - And 26:64 "From now on, the Son is seated at the right hand of the Father, and you will see him coming to judgment" is supposedly just reflecting Jesus' true nature? - And the converting in Israel won't be finished before Jesus returns - 10:23 – is most likely again about the judgment in the year 70? This just feels like "picking & choosing". The same metaphors are used, the wording is similar & it's all apocalyptic language, plus heavily influenced by Daniel, but every time they are supposed to mean something different?? And it definitely doesn't mean doomsday, a national / political kingdom in the flesh & that it's a failed prophecy? Why are we so sure? Why would Jesus use these heavy metaphors instead of just saying: "this generation/my contemporaries will be judged for rejecting the messiah, after my death I will be spiritual King of hearts & heaven until the end of the last days during which I will come in the flesh to get my people & to judge the whole earths wickedness"? What helps are ideas like: - the "end times" is a term without definition of its length - the church age / the age of grace for the pagan nations, was always handled like a mystery in all of Scripture - Luke 17:20-21 - Jesus himself saying it's neither visible nor an earthly kingdom but of the hearts & spiritual - in Daniel 7 Jesus is not actually coming to earth for his kingdom but ascending to heaven. Possibly showing it is a spiritual kingdom. - nothing Jesus ever said was easy to understand. His own disciples were struggling to get things right. He always talked in parables, allegories & metaphors. - the theory that some Jewish priests had to have converted up to the judgement AD 69. Otherwise the Christian movement wouldn't have been able to expand this fast. And they wouldn't have converted if it was clear that Jesus prophecies were supposed to be immediate & that they failed. (Obviously Paul himself & Acts 6:7, but probably many more, for the number of Christians exploded.) I really don't want to be disrespectful; I want the Bible to be true! It's just really hard to trust, knowing Jesus looks like an apocalyptic preacher whose immediate prophecies failed. P.S. Ugh it was hard to put these raging thoughts to paper. English isn't my mother tongue.

One thing that makes me doubt is contemporary biblical scholarship consensus and academic biblical teachings. Some of their teachings are irreconcilable with faith. Yes, I'm flirting with becoming an evangelical fundamentalist & I would love the Bible to be literally perfect & infallible. But even if one is not an evangelical fundamentalist it should matter if the Bible on the whole is correct. Because Jesus confirmed the Old Testament & by denying this the New Testament and Jesus' gift of eternal life is invalid, too. I know there are also conservative scholars but those are not many and the scholarly consensus is eating them up alive. To dismiss biblical scholar consensus as theories without proof seems too easy and also unfair because it's a science in which loads of hard work was done and many people have brooded over it a long time.

When you read Numbers 25 and then view the middle east through that lens….. the actions of the middle east don’t feel as extreme. I definitely do not agree with the extremes of the middle east culture, but I am also shocked and dismayed at the extremes of what are written in Numbers 25. Yet God said…. > 4 ……. “Take all the leaders of the people and execute[b] them in broad daylight before the LORD so that his burning anger may turn away > from Israel.” > > 7 …….Aaron the priest, saw this, he got up from the assembly, took a > spear in his hand, 8 followed the Israelite man into the tent,[c] and > drove it through both the Israelite man and the woman—through her > belly. > > 11 …….Aaron the priest, has turned back my wrath from the Israelites > because he was zealous among them with my zeal,[d] so that I did not > destroy the Israelites in my zeal.* > > 17 “Attack the Midianites and strike them dead. 18 For they attacked > you with the treachery that they used against you in the Peor > incident. How do I as a Christian, defend this to a nonbeliever (or someone who questions Christianity). “This” being the fact that the God I serve, directed this….condoned this….. and rewarded this.

Colossians 3:22-25 (NIV) states: > 22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. 23 Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, 24 since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. 25 Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for their wrongs, and there is no favoritism. Atheists on a certain Internet forum used this as an argument that the Bible condones slavery. What is a Christian counterargument to this statement?

In a [debate](https://youtu.be/fSYwCaFkYno) between [John Lennox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lennox) and [Peter Atkins](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Atkins) on the topic *"Can science explain everything?"*, at minute [44:47](https://youtu.be/fSYwCaFkYno?t=2687) John Lennox claims: > Lennox: "And the major reason why I believe that Christianity is true is because--and here comes science again as a base--because **Christianity is testable**." > > Atkins: "Oh nonsense. How can it be tested?" > > Lennox: "Well, Peter, let me face that head-on. Christ said that if a person considered the evidence and came to believe that he was God incarnate who was dying on a cross to give forgiveness and bring peace with God, well we can test that! I've tested it! And I've seen hundreds of people test it. I mean, take an example. I was lecturing at Harvard a while ago to a couple of thousands of people, and when I'd finished, a young Chinese student stood up and he said 'look at me!'. So we we looked at him. And I said why should we look at you? And he was absolutely beaming. He said 'you should look at me because six months ago I came to a lecture you gave at Penn State University. I was at the end. My life was in a complete mess. And something you said triggered a search. And I started to read the New Testament for myself and I became a Christian. And just look at me now.' Now ladies and gentlemen, I've seen that happen not once, not twice, dozens of times. And when you see addiction to drugs transformed at the foot of the table, when you see broken relationships mended, and you ask people what happened to you, and they say variously 'I became a Christian', 'I had an encounter with Christ', you begin to put two and two together and make four! **And I wouldn't sit here for a nanosecond if I didn't believe these promises that Jesus made actually can be fulfilled in a person's life today**. **And that's immensely important to me, the testability of Christian relationship with God**." He makes similar claims in a short 5 min long video titled [Is Christianity testable? | John Lennox at Texas A&M](https://youtu.be/MA9vqWkfrVc) . What is the biblical basis for John Lennox's view? Is this a common view? --- EDIT: for those interested in a philosophical counterpart to this question, consider visiting [Is Christianity testable? Philosophy Stack Exchange](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/105659/66156)

Let me start by quoting a [question](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/111993/104300) and top [answer](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/112012/104300) from a different site: > **Is Alzheimer’s disease evidence for the non-existence of the soul?** > > As Alzheimer's disease kills off neurons, a person's personality and cognitive abilities gradually fade away. Doesn't this suggest that the self or "soul" is simply an emergent property of the brain's physical structure and function, rather than some immaterial essence or spirit that exists independently of the body? > > The classical notion of the soul as an immaterial, eternal essence that exists independently of the physical body is challenged by the way Alzheimer's systematically dismantles a person's mental faculties and sense of identity over time. As the disease destroys neurons and neural connections, the patient's personality, memories, and very "self" seem to disintegrate, suggesting that these aspects of the human experience are products of the brain's physical structure and function, rather than some non-physical soul. > Alzheimer's disease (and other brain disorders with some observable > physical effect along with psychology and neuroscience generally) does > seem to make the existence of an immaterial soul much less plausible > and less useful or necessary for explaining anything. > > Science tells us that: > > - Different parts of the brain correspond to different neural functions. > - Physical changes in the brain affects your memories, your emotions, your ability to reason, etc. > - People consistently behave in certain ways given certain environments and stimuli (which isn't direct evidence against a soul, > but does support the claim that we're merely the result of our biology > and environment). > - Etc. > > But the existence of a soul is ultimately unfalsifiable, so someone > can accept all of that and still hold that there's an immaterial soul > by saying roughly either of the following: > > - The soul sort-of mirrors the brain, with some unclear connection between the two (which seems to render the soul completely unnecessary > as a hypothesis) > - There's some separate part of your being that is your soul (but we have no reason to think such a part exists, we don't know what that > part would do, and we already know parts of your physical brain > affects memories and emotions and your reasoning ability, so does the > soul exclude all of that?) > > Also, if one accepts evolution and common descent, the human-only soul > is also a lot less plausible, given the unclear line between humans > and other apes. [Related > answer](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/110085/does-it-matter-if-certain-professions-have-a-lower-rate-of-theism-and-if-so-wh/110089#110089) . **What arguments do Christian apologists use to defend the soul's existence against the materialist challenge posed by Alzheimer's disease?**

I’ve been considering the problem of divine hiddenness and the problem of evil, and I’ve have come up with a sort of war strategy explanation. We know that intellectual belief in God doesn’t necessarily make a person good, or “save” them. In fact, The bible makes it clear that demons, and the devil, intellectually believe in God; but they are in rebellion against God: making them enemies of God. This brings me to the problem of evil, where many people argue that if God were good: he would act differently. Implying that if God exists, he is not good (or he is weak) and that morally inclined humans know better than God. Implicit in the problem of evil is this form of rebellious misotheism and/or hubris where you believe that you know better than God. If God were to reveal himself to a person while they hold on to hubris, and/or misotheistic beliefs: he would likely create a rebellious human enemy, not a faithful believer. Taking this into consideration, we shouldn’t be surprised when God doesn’t reveal himself to people who reference philosophical issues like the problem of evil; I’m sure there are exceptions, but it seems to me that someone would have to show a willingness to drop any tendencies of hubris and/or misotheistic beliefs before they expect any sort of revelation from God.

On April 8, 2021, during a debate between [Matt Dillahunty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Dillahunty) and Catholic Apologist [Trent Horn](https://www.trenthorn.com/) titled [Is belief in the Resurrection reasonable? Trent Horn Vs Matt Dillahunty Debate](https://youtu.be/7V6UNSvHVDM) , hosted by [Pints With Aquinas](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClh4JeqYB1QN6f1h_bzmEng) , Matt Dillahunty said: [20:56](https://youtu.be/7V6UNSvHVDM?t=1256) : > It's important for people to recognize **there is a difference between verification and falsification**. Verification is the concept that we should produce the thing. If we were to say that all intelligent beings are on planet earth, verification you could run around "hey, there's an intelligent being on earth, there's one on earth and there's one on earth, there's one on earth", but verifying it exhaustively could be completely impractical because you would have to search every planet at all times in order to determine in fact that all intelligent beings are on planet earth. But falsification is a separate issue. Falsification is whether or not it is theoretically able to be shown to be false. And so, whole we may never be able to verify that all intelligent beings are in fact on planet earth, we could at least in theory falsify it because if we produced an intelligent being that wasn't on earth, that would falsify the claim. Now that would show that the claim is wrong. **But if we have a claim that is unverifiable, unfalsifiable, it is essentially untestable**. **And my foundation is that if you have an untestable claim, it'd better be mundane, trivial and consistent with the facts of reality before you should ever risk believing that it is in fact the case**. **Well, we can't really believe, or we can't argue that it's rational to believe something that we can't test at all**. So we do the best we can when it comes to history, **and so when we take a look at history all we have are reports**. Somebody said they saw this, somebody said they knew this person, somebody said this other thing. That's all well and good when we're trying to put together the best understanding of history we can. **But we shouldn't be proclaiming it as truth, and we shouldn't be necessarily saying that this particular version of history is particularly reasonable**. As history tends to be written by the victors. **So history is always suspect**. And there are two quotes from David Hume that are the cornerstone how and why I go about determining if something is or should be considered reasonable ... [Matt then proceeds to quote/paraphrase David Hume on why miracle claims are unreasonable to be believed on insufficient evidence.] [24:56](https://youtu.be/7V6UNSvHVDM?t=1496) > **So if a claim isn't falsifiable and there's no way to show it's wrong, we can't reasonably accept that it's correct**. **And if we're left with no physical evidence about the existence of Jesus, or the interactions of Jesus, or his death and resurrection, what we are left with is ... testimony**. Now, I'm not willing to dig in on whether or not the gospels were written by eyewitnesses. I don't think they were, I don't think that most reasonable scholars aren't going to say these are witnesses but it doesn't matter to me because even if they were all eyewitnesses, **we already know that eyewitness testimony is unreliable under the best circumstances**. In this case we don't know whose testimony, eyewitness second or third hand, and we can't investigate it at all. **All the things they say happened don't have corroborating evidence. They don't have supporting physical evidence. We don't have any way to question them about their reliability. We don't have any way to talk to them to determine**, you know, **are these stories accurate**, you know, **do they overlap**. [...] [27:29](https://youtu.be/7V6UNSvHVDM?t=1649) > [...] I have a hard time going through some of these things and saying "yes, that's being reported as this has actually happened". **So what evidence do we have? Copies of copies of translations of copies from unknown sources that may have been but probably weren't eyewitnesses, and if they had been eyewitnesses it wouldn't be sufficient to confirm that someone actually rose from the dead**. What sort of evidence would we expect for a claim that someone rose from the dead? Depends on the time frame. Sure, back in 1st century Judea, probably not a lot! You don't have a way to test for sure that somebody's dead. You don't have like x-rays, you don't have DNA. Well, the question is: if this story is true, then Jesus was divine, and God exists. **And what sort of evidence could a God provide? God could provide the best evidence possible such that there would be no reasonable debate to be had at all** [...] [49:32](https://youtu.be/7V6UNSvHVDM?t=2972) : > And I'm not here for interesting. I'm here to find out what's reasonable. And here is the crux of it, which we can have this discussion afterwards because I don't have any follow-up questions after this. And that is this: **you are willing to accept that an extraordinary miraculous event occurred based only on testimony, and I'm not. That's it! That is the foundational difference between our epistemology. I will not accept that the physical understanding of the universe was suspended for an individual based only on testimonial accounts. It is unreasonable. That is how you get conned. That is how magicians fool you [...]** How do Christians rebut Matt Dillahunty's objection that the resurrection of Jesus is unverifiable, unfalsifiable, untestable, lacking supporting physical evidence beyond mere reports, and therefore unreasonable to believe? ___ **Note**: my question is about Jesus' resurrection, not about Jesus' existence. One could concede that Jesus existed and still be skeptical of his resurrection and other related supernatural claims. For Dillahunty's position on the existence of Jesus, see [Did Jesus Exist? | David - Oklahoma City, OK | Atheist Experience 21.25](https://youtu.be/apS_679ru50) . Here is the transcript of an excerpt from the video in case it gets taken down: > Caller: *Well, what do you believe? Do you believe he actually existed in history or not?* > > Matt: *I think it's very likely that there was a historical figure that the stories are tied to, but we don't know much at all about him and there may actually have been a number of different people molded into one after the fact. I don't ... I have no idea*. > > Jen: *I'm unconvinced that there was a single individual on which the stories are based.* > > Matt: *And even if we were convinced that there was a single individual. I don't know how we would know anything about that person specifically because if you, if you go through for example the gospel stories and ... there is no way to verify anything right down to, you know, the name or the date or anything.*

Are there denominations that emphasize apologetic sermons?

Note: I'm interested in the Christian perspective on the question [*Can God's existence be established through reason and publicly accessible evidence?*](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/107660/66156) that I recently asked on Philosophy Stack Exchange. Feel free to read that question and the answers that people have posted for a broader context. --- I am curious to understand the perspectives within the Christian community regarding the use of reason and publicly available evidence to establish the existence of God in general, and the existence of the Christian God specifically. Are there prevailing viewpoints or consensus among Christians on this matter? **What I already know** I'm aware that at least some Christians frequently cite passages like [Romans 1:18-25](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1%3A18-25&version=NKJV) and [Psalm 19:1-3](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+19%3A1-3&version=NKJV) as Biblical expressions of [teleological arguments](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/) for God's existence. This category of arguments has evolved in more contemporary discussions, adopting a renewed shape, notably through an emphasis on the intricate fine-tuning of the fundamental constants in the universe (see [fine-tuned universe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument#Fine-tuned_universe)) , and an emphasis on the extraordinary complexity and specified information found in living organisms (see [intelligent design movement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_movement)) . I'm also aware of the existence of disciplines such as [natural theology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_theology) and [apologetics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics) , which in one way or another attempt to argue for the rationality of the belief in the existence of God and posit that there is sufficient evidence in the natural world to confidently conclude that God must exist. **What I do not know** One aspect that intrigues me, and about which I seek more clarity, pertains to the widespread acceptance or not among Christians of concepts such as natural theology, apologetics, intelligent design, and philosophical/scientific arguments for God's existence that hinge on reason and evidence. Do a majority of Christians align with these disciplines and share the perspective that the existence of God can be established solely through the use of reason and publicly available evidence, in a manner that any reasonable person should be able to study and verify? If there are available statistics on this matter, I would greatly appreciate them, although it's not strictly required to answer this question. As a point of reference, in the realm of philosophy, there are statistics available such as the following: #### God: theism or atheism? |Option|2009|2020|Change|Swing| |-|-:|-:|-:|-:| Accept or lean towards: theism|14.61%|12.5%|-2.11|-1.76| |Accept or lean towards: atheism|72.82%|74.23%|1.41|1.76| |Accept a combination of views|2.47%|0.31%|-2.16| |Accept an alternative view|0.86%|2.78%| 1.92| |The question is too unclear to answer|1.72%|2.01%| 0.29| |There is no fact of the matter|0.54%|0.31%|-0.23| |Insufficiently familiar with the issue|0%|0.15%| 0.15| | |Agnostic/undecided|5.48%|6.94%| 1.46| | |Skipped|0.97%|0.31%| -0.66| | |Other|0.54%|0.46%| -0.08| | N (2020) = 648 N (2009) = 931 (Source: [2020 PhilPapers Survey](https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/longitudinal)) --- **A case for consideration: Blaise Pascal** Blaise Pascal serves as an illustration of a Christian who contends that the existence of God cannot be conclusively established through reason alone. While his perspective is just one instance, it raises the possibility that others may share a similar viewpoint. > Pascal maintains that we are incapable of knowing whether God exists or not, yet we must “wager” one way or the other. Reason cannot settle which way we should incline, but a consideration of the relevant outcomes supposedly can. Here is the first key passage: > >> “God is, or He is not.” But to which side shall we incline? **Reason can decide nothing here**. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up… Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose… But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is… If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. > > (Source: [Pascal's Wager - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/)) --- **Another view for consideration: Reformed Epistemology** Reformed Epistemology is another viewpoint that exemplifies the rejection of evidence and intellectual arguments as necessary requirements for justifying belief in God. > Reformed epistemology is a thesis about the rationality of religious belief. **A central claim made by the reformed epistemologist is that religious belief can be rational without any appeal to evidence or argument**. There are, broadly speaking, two ways that reformed epistemologists support this claim. The first is to argue that there is no way to successfully formulate the charge that religious belief is in some way epistemically defective if it is lacking support by evidence or argument. The second way is to offer a description of what it means for a belief to be rational, and to suggest ways that religious beliefs might in fact be meeting these requirements. This has led reformed epistemologists to explore topics such as when a belief-forming mechanism confers warrant, the rationality of engaging in belief forming practices, and when we have an epistemic duty to revise our beliefs. As such, reformed epistemology offers an alternative to evidentialism (the view that religious belief must be supported by evidence in order to be rational) and fideism (the view that religious belief is not rational, but that we have non-epistemic reasons for believing). > > Reformed epistemology was first clearly articulated in a collection of papers called Faith and Rationality edited by Alvin Plantinga and Nicholas Wolterstorff in 1983. However, the view owes a debt to many other thinkers. > > (Source: [Reformed Epistemology - Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy](https://iep.utm.edu/ref-epis))

When I ask this question I usually end up getting the response of: > “Well, that was just him giving us free will!” And then I ask why he would give us free will if he knew we would sin and would send us to Hell. Which gets the response of: > “Well, he didn’t want us to be robots! That would just be awful.” Then this goes on and on. What I’m trying to ask is: why did God give us the ability to sin if he would get so mad at us that he would send us to Hell? Why did God make Satan if he knew he would tempt Adam and Eve? Honestly why even make Satan in the first place?

James Fodor released a new video on the Resurrection of Jesus Christ saying that the disciple hallucinated and the hallucinations were part of a shared social process that has been shown among faith and non-faith contexts, Jesus's body was reburied, the disciples were biased to believing His Resurrection and socialisation factors may explain the existence of belief despite counter evidence. From a Christian perspective how would you respond to his claims?

I came across a blog post by a platonist in which he critiqued the traditional Christian understanding of God and evil given God's omnibenevolence and omniscience, saying: > Augustine's claim that evil is not a substance but a privation of good > was designed to absolve God of direct responsibility for evil's > existence. However, this position does not escape the more profound > paradox that God created beings who could lapse into privation and did > so with full foreknowledge of the consequences. The free will defense > only complicates the issue: if God grants free will knowing it will be > misused, the divine act of creation becomes entangled with the > emergence of moral evil. Moreover, if the will can remain oriented > toward the good only through divine grace, then free will itself seems > limited or dependent in a way that undermines its explanatory value. > The paradox intensifies when considering the role of Satan, whose > rebellious agency destabilizes the coherence of monotheistic > sovereignty. If Satan undermines God's purposes, divine omnipotence is > weakened; if Satan acts only with God's permission, then divine > benevolence is compromised. Either interpretation raises problems that > the privation theory cannot reconcile. These tensions reveal a more > profound structural paradox at the heart of Christian theodicy. In a > cosmos created ex nihilo by an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God, > nothing can exist independently of divine will or permission. > Consequently, all conditions that make evil possible, creaturely > freedom, vulnerability, corruptibility, and the existence of tempters > are ultimately grounded in God's creative act. Christian theodicy thus > attempts to balance divine goodness with divine sovereignty, but the > metaphysical architecture of monotheism forces a contradiction: either > God is powerful enough to prevent evil but chooses not to, or God > wills a world in which evil inevitably emerges, making evil indirectly > a by-product of divine creative intention. Augustine's partial > incorporation of Neoplatonic ideas helps articulate evil as a > metaphysical deficiency. Yet, even this philosophical refinement > cannot compensate for a more fundamental issue: Christian theology's > consolidation of causality in a single omnipotent agent ensures that > God remains tied to every aspect of cosmic order and disorder alike. > The result is a system in which the existence of evil perpetually > threatens either the goodness or the sovereignty of the creator, and > the tradition's attempts to resolve this tension never entirely > eliminate its underlying contradictions. > > (Flavius Julianus Mithridaticus, *Evil as Shadow, Heroism as Form: An > Indo-European View of Theodicy*, The New Platonic Academy) To restate his critiques: - God created people with the ability to be evil and knew of the consequences because of his foreknowledge. He created people knowing they would use their free will for evil which makes evil a by-product of his creation. This seems to bring his omnibenevolence into question. If I created a simulation with the parameters allowing for characters in it to be evil then I'm responsible, at least partly, for evil existing in my simulation. - If Satan can thwart God's purposes [such as his desire for everyone to have faith in Him and live according to His moral law (my comment)], then it calls his omnipotence into question. And if Satan only acts with God's permission, then God's benevolence is compromised. If someone is stealing something or hurting someone and I allow it to happen when I have the ability to stop it, then I'm being evil. In Catholicism, being able to prevent or stop something evil and not doing it is the sin of omission. A more accurate allegory with regards to Satan's acts that are permitted by God: I'm standing in the way of an assailant and their victim and when the assailant asks if they can attack their victim, I nod and step aside, allowing the evil to take place. Maybe my allegory is off, but I'm having difficulty seeing his omnibenevolence given this. My allegory somewhat reminded me of the book of Job where Job, who is a holy man has his life and loved ones destroyed after God gives Satan permission and if I'm remembering correctly, God didn't give Job an explanation and instead told him about the world He created. - In a world created by God as understood by Christians, nothing exists apart from God's will or permission. Either God is powerful enough to prevent evil, but chooses not to or God willed a world where evil would inevitably exist, making evil a by-product of his creation. He presents a sound critique of the traditional Christian understanding of God and evil and it completely stumped me so if you have any thoughts, please share them because I don't know how to rebut him. Thank you in advance to anyone who tries to tackle this.

Does a Christian apologist aiming to uphold the accuracy and reliability of modern Bibles require a strong understanding of textual criticism? Put differently, when making a comprehensive argument supporting the truthfulness of various claims within the Bible—such as the Genesis creation story or the historical account of Jesus's resurrection in the Gospels and Acts—would the Christian apologist need to rely on arguments from textual criticism to substantiate the claim that the content in our contemporary Bibles is indeed accurate and reliable, despite thousands of years of transcription, translation, and potential manipulation since the writing of the original manuscripts? If possible, I would appreciate answers referencing books that have been published at the intersection of Christian apologetics and textual criticism. --- *Food for thought for those who think apologetics is an irrelevant or unnecessary discipline* These are some of my previous questions on this topic. Some of the answers are quite insightful and worth the read: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/99924/61679 https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/100436/61679 https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/100928/61679

Notable examples include: - [Does God Exist? William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens - Full Debate [HD]](https://youtu.be/0tYm41hb48o) - [The God Debate II: Harris vs. Craig](https://youtu.be/yqaHXKLRKzg) - [Does Math Point to God? William Lane Craig + Graham Oppy](https://youtu.be/8WE1y00bwCU) - [Is the Kalam Sound? Graham Oppy vs. Andrew Loke](https://youtu.be/a8NrTv-Durc) - [Are There Any Good Arguments for God? Ed Feser vs Graham Oppy](https://youtu.be/m-80lQOlNOs) - [William Lane Craig and Sean Carroll | "God and Cosmology" | 2014 Greer Heard Forum](https://youtu.be/X0qKZqPy9T8) - [DEBATE: Theism vs Atheism | Jonathan McLatchie vs Alex O’Connor](https://youtu.be/rnIQFI1pYLM) - [DEBATE Matt Dillahunty Vs Cliffe Knechtle | Is Christianity True? | Podcast](https://youtu.be/aAg3H1LU1Yw) - [Is Belief in the Resurrection Unreasonable? Mike Winger vs. Matt Dillahunty](https://youtu.be/Z2FGgkubhZM) - [Is belief in the Resurrection reasonable? Trent Horn Vs Matt Dillahunty Debate](https://youtu.be/7V6UNSvHVDM) Given the well-established practice among (some) Christians of engaging in formal intellectual debates with atheists and skeptics to defend core tenets of the Christian faith, such as the existence of God and the resurrection of Jesus, through philosophical arguments, reason, and evidence (as the examples above illustrate), what is the biblical basis for this? The New Testament enumerates various spiritual gifts and ministries (1 Corinthians 12:4-11, Ephesians 4:11-13, Romans 12:6-8), but I am unaware of any ministry fitting the role of a "professional intellectual debater." --- **Note**: there is some overlap with my previous question *https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/100436/61679* , although the focus here is on the debate aspect, and the scope is broader in terms of what can be defended (resurrection of Jesus, miracles, etc.)

If Jesus was merely a man, then God would seem unjust for punishing the innocent Jesus in place of the guilty due to violating the following: 1. Man is to be put to death for his own sin and not for the sin of another (Ez 18:20; Dt 24:16) 2. No man can ransom another or give to God the price of his life (Ps 49:7-9) Moreover, God seems unjust for WANTING to crush the innocent man that is Jesus (Is 53:10; Lk 22:42), regardless of Jesus' willingness to follow the Father's will and lay His life down as a sacrifice. That God could desire and plan to punish/sacrifice an innocent man, His Son no less, for the sins of others would go against His character. The only way I see God being just would be that Jesus is God. Thus, God's plan would not be the unjust sacrifice of an innocent third party but rather the just, noble sacrifice of the self. But if you can show that God is just in sacrificing Jesus even if Jesus isn't God, then please leave an answer down below.

Many Jews claim that if God wanted them to stop observing the Old Law He would have made it more obvious that this was the case, in fact they assume that He would have to give them some kind of deductive knowledge that this was the case because otherwise they would allegedly be left in grave uncertainty as to how to obey God. As you can see, they are not just being skeptics, for example, they might admit that the argument for the resurrection is pretty substantial, but they would refuse to accept it because it is merely inductive, saying maybe it would be a good reason to reject Deism but not Judaism. How do Christian apologists respond to this argument? For example, could they point out that arguably there is progressive revelation even within the Old Covenant?

This will be my first post on the Christianity Exchange. My question involves people who confront me on the basis that they were told by secular causes that certain Koine words like "arsenkoitoi", which historically has referred to a male-male coital relationship and also transliterates to "man-bedder", are now being told that the original meaning is misunderstood to mean things like "pedophile" or "sodomy" but not to same-sex attraction. I see the same attention to the Hebrew word "zakhur", which I've seen translated as "male", but others are trying to tie it to "boy", again to refer to Jewish teachings to prohibit only pedophilia and not homosexuality. Based on the translations I've seen and examples of these words in other texts, the context suggests that the original translations indicate the case that same-sex relations are not allowed. How do I better support the truth about this when people are tugging at doubt to allow for sin?

As far as I know [there are 4 Gospels](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/18703/what-is-a-gospel-and-how-many-gospels-are-there-in-the-catholic-bible) : Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. I am an ex-Christian (currently atheist) who had a debate with a Muslim about a few discrepancies between the Qur'an and the Bible. The Muslims believe that 1. Haman worked for Pharaoh and is building babel tower 2. Mary was a sibling of Aaron 3. Jesus is given "gospel". As a non-Muslim and atheist, I of course think that Muhammad simply made a mistake. Perhaps he didn't get the story right or wasn't consistent with his sources. But of course Muslim apologists will claim that it's a misunderstanding anyway: different Haman, different meaning of sibling, and different gospel. The 3rd point is more interesting though. My Muslim friend pointed out that gospels *already* EXISTED before the Bible was written: - [Mark 1:14](https://biblehub.com/mark/1-14.htm) - [Matthew 4:23](https://biblehub.com/matthew/4-23.htm) - [Luke 8:1](https://biblehub.com/luke/8-1.htm) So it's a bit tricky. In Indonesia the word for "gospel" is "injil". I wonder where that word came from. Muslims seem to think that Jesus got the "gospel" like Muhammad got the Qur'an. But I think that's just not the case. The Gospels we have now, I understand them to be Jesus' late biographies, a bit like Hadith in Islam. However, the fact that the word "gospel" DOES show up in the Gospels themselves is intriguing. **What "gospel" was Jesus preaching because the Gospels as books weren't even written when he was living?** It looks to me that he was a Rabbi who preached typical Judaism stuff that might or might not be reinterpreted by his followers to be something much more than that.

Some people believe the King James Version of the Bible is the only version English-speakers should be using, as it is the only inspired translation. (This is referred to as "KJV-onlyism.") Basically, the KJV-only position is that: - The Bible is God's word - God promises to preserve His word * E.G., [Psalm 12:7 (read this article)](http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/does-the-second-them-in-psalm-127-refer-to-gods-words) - This preservation is accomplished via a perfect translation (one per language) - The KJV is His perfect, preserved translation in the English language - The reason other English Bibles differ from the KJV is because those other Bibles have been tainted by sin and error **What are the main counterarguments to this view?** I am specifically looking for answers which would be convincing to an English-speaking Protestant with a high view of Scripture.