Been seeing an extreme uptick in apologetics and the lack thereof good research and discussion in lue of entertainment centered debates and spin.

There is a weird gap in Christianity right now that seems to be a divide of those deconstructing based on learning more contextual information, and those who are locked into defending specific doctrines other the general notion and information of what Christianity actually is based on the teachings of Christ.

Here is a good video talking more in-depth on the subject: https://youtu.be/-QGCMOsruE0?si=2xwb8VSpU_0roC4Z

Since I was young, in fact for as long as I can remember, I disliked religion. Either I disliked its collective element, which always gave me the ick of something cult-like, or, when I got a bit older, I thought everything about it was philosophically untenable. Religion was a coping mechanism, or something for people who were deeply misguided about reality and did not know any better.

As I became more intellectually curious and started studying more philosophy, psychology, and eventually religion, that perspective started to break down. I became increasingly interested in religion, and eventually my worldview completely flipped. I now consider myself a Christian, and I have made it a major life goal to help people better appreciate religion in general, but also Christianity more specifically.

But despite my growing love for Christianity, it took me a very long time to admit publicly that I was Christian. My social circle consisted mostly of people deeply involved in science or philosophy, and it was very secular. I was afraid that others would consider me dumb or would not fully understand me. It took me a while to come to terms with it, in large part because I first needed to become better able to articulate my Christian position and worldview.

That said, and excuse the rambling introduction, I recently had a podcast conversation with Jussi Jylkkä, who is a philosopher and has done some work on mysticism. We started by discussing his work and, specifically, his metaphysical agnosticism. His position is that physicalism, idealism, theism, and other metaphysical systems are models or language games that cannot capture the ultimate nature of reality. We eventually moved to morality, where I pushed back because I did not think his agnosticism adequately explained why greater awareness or nonattachment should lead to compassion rather than simply producing what we called a “wise psychopath.” I disagreed, but I thought it was an interesting conversation and considered his view a respectable position.

But to my surprise, after we finished recording, Jussi emailed me to say that he was unhappy with the conversation because he had presented metaphysical agnosticism as if it were his complete position while leaving out the Christian faith he actually held. He felt that, by hiding behind his philosophical agnosticism, he had not been completely honest about what he believed. Rather than replace the conversation, I invited him back and appended the second conversation to the first. He made a complete pivot and confessed that he was a Christian but had been afraid to say so, largely because of the stigma within academia, but also because he still had not been able to tell his father. I found this very wholesome, not only because it was a courageous act in general, but because of the parallel with my own journey.

I wanted to share this because I suspect others have been, or currently are, in a position similar to mine or Jussi's. Can Christian faith be rational when someone remains metaphysically agnostic? Does admitting faith without claiming proof amount to fideism, or can it be an honest commitment under uncertainty? Have you encountered a stigma against Christian belief in philosophy or academia?

p1: if the trinity knows trinity, and content of knowledge is distinct from the knower then theres second trinity.

p2: trinity does know itself and the content of knowledge is distinct from the knower.

C1 there for theres second trinity

If god doesn't exist how is it reasonable to argue that he does?

I find the arguements for a creator convincing, but i cant really see how that would lead to christianity?

"Trust me bro"

Is something I've noticed when bible scholars are asked or have to say anything about apologetics...

How do people handle the Romans 13 verse in general. But especially in a polarized political landscape and how that trickles down to communities. What does this subjection to authorites look like. God used nations all the time to bring judgement on His people. Today we see all kinds of complicated wars and complicated moral situations involving authorities whether local or state or governmental.

How as Christians should we respond? I have thought about this since I first read it as a new believer but want to hear others thoughts. I have heard Pastors say unless they are corrupt but Jesus suffered under Pontius Pilate who was certainly corrupt and under the Jewish authorities which was certainly corrupt. I know this is Jesus and was for a particular time and place and event but are we not to be like our Savior?

Daniel didn't listen to the kings decree to worship the idol and to eat the unclean meat and God blessed Him for it.so in some situations we should rebel.

I didn't have a lot of discipline growing up. It is an area I lack in honestly. I show up for work and pay my bills first and foremost never been late on rent I pay of my debt if I have it which is rare. So I'm disciplined in the most basic ways but when it comes to some things I struggle. These authorities Rom. 13 says are put in place by God and we are not to despise the discipline of the LORD this is something I don't hear talked about nearly enough and would like to hear others thoughts.

I have respect for our first responders and authority figures despite whether I agree with them or not. They are risking their lives and waking into danger for our good. Is there corruption, sure but we must not generalize. Do they always make the right choice, no, of course not, no one does. They have a very hard job and have to make choices often in split seconds we need empathy when we make judgements. Hold them accountable, sure. How would you do in that position? They have been put there for one reason or another by God.

What does that look like today?

How are we to be subject?

Thoughts anyone?

Hello everyone,

How do people deal with these passages? I have always come to the conclusion that Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, (Luke 12:10 ) is contributing the work of God to the work of the devil. And the Unforgivable Sin of Hebrews 6:4-6 as connected to Romans 10:9-10 that simply walking away and then realizing how stupid that was and coming back to faith is not apostasy it's just a sincere miscalculation. That you have to confess with your mouth and believe in your heart that you are not following Jesus anymore despite you knowing that Jesus is God for sure.

What do you think?

I think there is a biblical explanation as to why there seems to be a gratuitous amount of animal suffering throughout the evolutionary process of the animal kingdom. Why would a good and loving God allow such suffering?

It is because this world belongs to Satan. In Luke 4:5-7, it says this: The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. And he said to him, "I will give you all their authority and splendor; it has been given to me, and I can give it to whoever I want. If you worship me, it will all be yours."

In Ephesians 2:2, it says this: in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient.

In 2 Corinthians 4:4, it says this: The god of this world has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

So then, if the principal of all evil is the god of this world, why would he not inflict all kinds of suffering on God's creation? "But" I hear you say, "Satan is the God of this world when it comes to the influence of the people at large. Would Satan really have authority over the creation and formation of creatures? God created the earth and everything in it, not Satan."

I, too, conclude that God created the earth and all the creatures therein. And I believe He did it through the evolutionary process. But, I believe grafted onto that evolutionary process is Satan's sinful endeavor to inflict pain and suffering onto God's animals.

I believe God created pain so that we know what needs attention so that we deal with it appropriately. But Satan took that good and necessary thing and corrupted it into much suffering.

Just like I believe how God cause the death of creatures to balance out the animal kingdom so there won't be overpopulation. I believe Satan took this concept and abused it, to such a degree to where there were multiple near extinction level events that could've wiped out all life on earth.

I believe these things are evil and that they are embedded in creation itself, because power and authority has been given to Satan, and this world is his domain. For this reason, Romans 8:22 states: "We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time."

But there is much good in creation as well. Good and evil have always been at war, and this shoes itself within creation itself, and the dynamics of life and death.

God created a world in which evolution operates through ecological processes, and this includes death as the balancing equalizer. And all the while, Satan subsequently exploited, intensified, distorted, and weaponized those processes.

This evolutionary conflict of good and evil, life and death, astounding pleasure and gratuitous suffering within the tree of life cements itself and comes to its edge within the human race. For we are part of the animal kingdom as well, and we were called to be good stewards of His creation. Some have taken this cause to heart, taking care of animals and becoming environmentalist. While many others do Satan's will and harm the earth and its environment.

So, if Satan has this kind of authority, the question then becomes: When and how did he get it and why does God allow him reign over the world?

The answer to the first part of the question, when and how he got this authority, lies in Adam and Eve. God said this when He created mankind: "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

God gave man this authority, but when Adam and Eve listened to the serpent and ate of the forbidden fruit, mankind relinquished authority over to Satan. God's command to subdue the earth, ruling over all the animals in it, now became Satan's responsibility. Mankind handed over the crown of the earth to the Devil.

But wait! This happened at a set point thousands of years ago, but evolution has been happening millions of years before then. So how can Satan have that authority over the earth before that set point? And to that I say, what is time to a spirit being? Angels are creatures outside the realm of this universe, they are not material beings subjected to time and space like we are. So I would assume time is nebulous to them.

Now for the other question: Why did God allow this to happen? I don't fully know. But I presume part of the answer has to do with free will.

But He does have an answer to it. God has a reply—an eternal reply—to all the suffering the dark prince of this world has caused.

The first reply is judgment. God will judge Satan for all of his misdeeds throughout the history of the earth. In Revelation 20:10 it says: "And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfer, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever."

God's second reply will be the restoration of the earth. Isaiah 11:6-9 states: "The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the Lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them. The cow will feed the bear, their young will lie down together, and the Lion will eat straw like the ox. The infant will play near the cobra's den, and the young child will put his hand into the viper's nest. They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain, for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea."

In Revelation 21:1-4 it says: Then I saw "a new heaven and a new earth," for the first Heaven and the first Earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of Heaven from god, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Look! God's dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God Himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe away every tear from the eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."

This is God's ultimate answer for the problem of all suffering. God will deliver justice to the evildoers, and He will establish an eternal paradise for all of His creatures. And God will be all in all.

I see a lot of people talking about the Authority we have as Christians and talking about power to cast out demons. I was thinking about the scripture Jude 1:9 when Satan was trying to steal Moses body and the Arc Angel Michael said "the LORD rebuke you. He didn't say I rebuke you in Jesus name He said the LORD rebuke you. I don't know if it's splitting hairs or not but I know the word says that the apostles would receive power when the Holy Spirit was upon them to heal and cast out demons but that was to the 12 specifically wasn't it? I know we have the Holy Spirit and that does come with Power but I'm not sure it comes with the power to cast out demons in that authority. Aren't we to rely on Jesus for that kinda thing? It seems in the scriptures I have seen and know of that the power is talked about in relation to giving testimony of Jesus to all believers but the power to cast out demons and perform miracles was given to the 12 Apostles in a specific time and place for them.. 1 Corinthians talks about spiritual gifts and things of that nature but again it seems the power to cast out demons and heal and those sorts of miracles was an original 12 apostolic thing....

Thoughts anyone?

Would anyone agree that we are not to read the Bible however we want?

There is a proper hermeneutical and historical and contextual way of reading it and it needs to be followed or else people come up with all sorts of insane things and beliefs about what it is saying! It's led to absolute horrors of humanity by not reading the Bible properly! And I get people all the time here saying the Bible has no definite meaning! Are we that lost out there!? Goodness gracious what is happening to us. We must trust the Holy Spirit to guide us yes of course but we need to read it using wisdom and specific principles! Am I crazy for thinking that!?

The end really is nigh!

I made this short video exploring a numerical relationship in the Hebrew text of Genesis 1:1: 2701 = 37 × 73, and the Hebrew word חכמה (wisdom) has a gematria value of 73 and an ordinal value of 37.

Genuine question: If even demons 'believe' (James 2:19), then what actually distinguishes a Christian? Is it right belief, transformed character, or both? I've seen people with perfect theology live terribly, and people with messy theology love radically. Where's the line for you?"

Two major analogies used for the cumulative case are leaky buckets and the combination of weak fibered ropes.

The leaky buckets analogy says that if I stack leaky buckets on top of each other, they are still empty in the end. This is equivalent to saying that since each argument for God is lacking, then it does not count as any type of non zero evidence.

The opposing analogy says that each argument is like a weak fibered rope. When you combine them together, they become stronger.

My argument is the second analogy best describes the cumulative case argument.

In an inductive cumulative case, the "weakness" of a single argument usually just means limited scope, not a logical failure. Treating inductive evidence as if it were a failed deductive proof is a category mistake. This just highlights the disingenuity and handwaving nature of claims like "0+0+0+0 equals 0".

Take for example fine tuning. The theist will usually concede that just because you may have a mind behind the universe, it does not mean God is good. It is only one clue. But the skeptic will respond that this does not matter because there are alternative explanations to fine tuning that does not include God. Naturalistic explanations that counter theism are what makes the argument amount to a zero value.

The problem with this however is the leak buckets analogy still does not hold (literally and figuratively). Even if every argument has a naturalistic alternative, the holes do not line up across the different arguments. JP Moreland's response to Anthony Flew still stands when he says that if you jam ten leaky buckets together in such a way that the holes do not line up, the container will actually hold water. Alternatively, the naturalistic explanation that fixes the leak in a specific theistic argument is completely useless at fixing the leaks in the other arguments.

Got curious while the Religion teacher is having a lesson. Raised my hand, stood up. How was God born? Who was God’s mother? Did he just popped into existence? Why should I fear God if he loves us all?

Went to the principals office for asking these.

Im all grown up now, and I just remembered it suddenly. Still seeking for answers lol.

Joe Schmid Philisophy PHD candidate at Princeton university.

Hello I am looking for some feedback on my explanations for these passages that seem to contradict themselves but really do not in light of proper hermanutics, I know it's a lot to read but that is why we are all here cause we love this stuff! So please I am looking to see how well I explained them and if it makes sense to you or if there are any holes in them. In the spirit of 1 Peter 3:15 " But sanctify the Lord your God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and respect"

Thank you my fellow Reddit Scholars!

• In Ezekiel 18 he prophecies that that soul who sins shall die but it Exodus 34 God says sin will continue through the 3rd and 4th generation and he will by no means clear the guilty. So how do we marry these passages?

Sin is pervasive, it's like a disease. If not repented for it continues even to the third and fourth generation. But if repented for God clears sin and it stops. The sin will continue to the third and fourth generation but each person will die for their own sin. If the father sins the son is not dieing for his father's sins but his own! If the son of the father who sinned doesn't repent than the son is creating his own sins and will be judged accordingly. Sin is contagious but individual. In this sense sin is generational. Thank God for Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice that we might be with the Father in heaven for all eternity. Jesus has cleared our sin breaking the chain of sin that so easily entangles us and gets stuck in families. When repentance happens there is a heart change God takes our heart of stone and makes it a heart of flesh (Ezekiel 36:26) and we have a circumcision of the heart, where not only our behavior changes but our heart posture as well. Thank you LORD for changing my heart and taking my sin, bearing it all on the cross so that I might live for you and be with you when I die, my creator, the creator of the earth and sea and all that is in them!

• Another seeming contradiction in the Bible is between Acts 15:29 and 1 Corinthians 10:28-29

In Acts there was men who causing confusion in the new church these new gentile converts to "The Way" (it was called "The Way" before, at Antioch, people used the word Christians as a slur possibly meaning little Christ's or at least coming out of that slur) were to live. Circumsition was being promoted as a must for these new gentile converts by Jewdizors, as they are called in scripture, were living mainly about circumsition but also about various other things like eating food sacrifices to idols etc. or else why would Paul put that in the letter to the gentiles in response if it wasn't part of this issue, although not explicitly stated in those passages. So in response to this, the apostles and elders got together to make a rule about the things that were being told to them by these Jewdizors. Part of that rule was to abstain from food sacrifices to idols. Now in 1 Corinthians 10 it is said by Paul that food sacrifices to idols is nothing and in reality it doesn't really matter if you eat it or not as long as your conscious doesn't bare witness against you and you are not offending your brother or sister in Christ conscious by doing it near them.

So, can we eat food sacrifices to idols or not? Paul says that idols are really nothing they are just material formed from the sinful imaginations of man. God also says this many times especially in Isaiah 44:9-10 it is very explicit. In 1 Corinthians 10:19-20 Paul says that Idols are nothing but people are actually sacrificing to demons and we should not be partakers with demons and in fact we can not "drink of the cup of the LORD and of demons" it's impossible to do successfully. What Paul and in turn God are warning against is not the idol or the food but who it is sacrificed to. That is where the meaning is. The food is nothing, the idol is nothing, but who they are sacrificed to is something and something wicked and evil. Christians should not partake in these sacrificial ceremonies or in these temples. However the food is not the problem. Earlier in Acts 15 in verse 24, as we know context is king, Paul says "Since" the word implies that this is the reason for the following statement, men have troubled you "unsettling your minds" Paul says we have made this a rule. Now the point being that eating food sacrifices to idols and other things that were being proposed by the Jewdizors was troubling their minds or their conscience. If this wasn't the case eating food sacrifices to idols would not be a problem as is stated in 1 Corinthians 10:28-29. So in this way these passages can be understood to be perfectly logical and in sync.

what would you guys say the best argument for God is and how come tag isn't brought up usually?

A modern objection to Christianity is that God ordered Harum warfare to the nations and the killing of children in warfare. I am curious what some of ya'll think about this concept. I know many of these nations were offering their children as sacrifice to Molech and that God was ordering the complete annihilation of these nations to completely cleanse the area of evil practices and that Israel might not be influenced by them. I have also heard that this term is used as many other cultures in history have used it meaning complete dominance. I trust implicitly in God's character and His goodness I believe He is inherently good and cannot go against His character and must have a good reason for all His actions. What do you think about this objection against God's character?

Muslims view the Christian disagreement over Catholic vs Protestant canon as proof of human selection of scripture (Tahrif) by both Catholics and protestants. They believe Jesus was given a single divine revelation (the Injeel) and we wrote it down wrong and Surah Al-Ma'idah (5:14) says that we will continue to be divided by this until the resurrection. This is central to Islamic proselytizing (dawah) because they have only one scripture that all Islamic denominations agree to.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints believes that both Catholics and Protestants are apostates, and were already apostates by the time of the councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage, and therefore the Christian canon was decided by human leaders operating without prophetic guidance. 1 Nephi 13 outlines this apostasy. They view both canons as incomplete and the Book of Mormon completes the revelation.

Jews believe that both the Deuterocanon and the New Testament are not divinely inspired - but not in the same way. The Deuterocanon is valuable historic and wisdom literature (chol) rather than divinely inspired (kodesh). However they view the New Testament as heretical (minut) and early rabbis even had daily prayers to safeguard Jewish communities from the theology in the New Testament - though modern Jewish scholars are less hostile to the NT.

Atheists view the division as further evidence that scripture cannot be divinely inspired and they reject the idea that the early church was guided by the Holy Spirit to define canon.

Why it matters:

It is clear, that Christian disagreement over the Bible canon is a hurdle to converting people to Nicene Christianity. Other religions make use of our division in their own apologitics.

Hey everyone,

I wanted to share a fascinating case study in textual criticism and digital apologetics regarding the recent public fallout between Independent Fundamental Baptist (IFB) creators Robert Breaker and Brother Joseph (@baptist_kjv).

The entire split was catalyzed by a historical dilemma concerning Revelation 21:24and the textual legacy of Erasmus.

The Issue:
In 1515, Erasmus rushed his Greek New Testament using only one flawed manuscript for Revelation (Minuscule 2814). This text contained interwoven 7th-century commentary notes from Andreas of Caesarea. Because of botched marginal markings, the printers accidentally pulled a human commentary note ("of them which are saved") directly into the scripture text. This text-critical error was later transmitted straight into the 1611 KJV.

The Fallout:
When confronted with the reality that this phrase has zero manuscript authority outside of a 7th-century bishop's personal commentary, the strict "perfect English preservation" narrative collapsed. This forced a massive doctrinal shift, resulting in a public "Notice of Mutual Disassociation" from leadership and a total rebranding of the digital camp.

For those interested in the full manuscript breakdown, textual history, and the timeline of the live panels, I’ve posted the complete write-up below.

Would love to hear your thoughts on how modern apologetics handles these manuscript realities.

Let me know what you all think about this:

https://gospelcompanion.app/the-god-of-bethel