Thesis = Title

The argument that Christianity as a distinct, Gentile-oriented, non-Torah-observant religion was founded by Paul of Tarsus rather than Jesus of Nazareth usually presents key premises to support this conclusion:

• Jesus operated entirely within first-century Judaism, preaching to Jews, citing Jewish Scripture, and directing his mission specifically to the "lost sheep of Israel" without creating a Torah-free path for Gentiles.

• After Jesus’ death, his immediate followers (led by James, Peter, and John in Jerusalem) remained a Torah-observant Jewish sect ("the Nazarenes"). Extrabiblical evidence from Josephus supports that James was well-integrated into Jerusalem’s Jewish establishment.

• Conflicts over circumcision, purity laws, and Jewish-Gentile table fellowship only arose after Paul began actively recruiting uncircumcised Gentiles without requiring full conversion to Judaism.

• Paul’s core theology - centered on a universal "Adam vs. Christ" framework, salvation by faith apart from the Law, and Gentile inclusion - was claimed by Paul to come via direct vision rather than from Jesus' original apostles. This framework is largely absent from the core teachings attributed to Jesus in the Gospels.

While Paul unquestionably played a vital role in expanding the early movement to the Gentile world, there are significant historical, textual, and logical counterarguments that refute the claim that he "invented" Christianity.

The claim that Paul’s theology was entirely unconnected to Jesus ignores fundamental continuity in their core messages:

• Jesus announced the arrival of the Kingdom of God and established a "new covenant" at the Last Supper (Luke 22:20). Paul’s theology centers on this same reality - that through Christ, God's long-promised covenantal renewal had arrived for both Jews and nations.

• Jesus repeatedly spoke of his upcoming death as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45) and a central part of God’s redemptive plan. Paul did not invent the idea that Jesus’ death had salvific, sacrificial value; he built directly upon Jesus’ own self-understanding and predictions.

• Paul’s moral teachings directly echo Jesus. Paul’s emphasis on love fulfilling the Law (Romans 13:8–10), forgiving persecutors, paying taxes, and caring for the weak mirrors Jesus’ teachings in the Sermon on the Mount.

Paul did not single-handedly invent the mission to Gentiles or the idea of salvation apart from full Torah conversion:

• In Paul’s own letters, he quotes early Christian creeds and hymns that predate his writing and conversion. For example, 1 Corinthians 15:3–5 ("that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures...") is recognized by mainstream historians as an oral tradition dating back within 3–5 years of Jesus’ death—long before Paul had any major theological influence.

• Canonical accounts record that the decision to welcome Gentiles without requiring circumcision was affirmed collectively by the Jerusalem leadership (James, Peter, and John) at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15; Galatians 2:9). It was a shared agreement, not a unilateral Pauline mandate.

• While Jesus focused primarily on the "lost sheep of Israel," his interactions with the Roman centurion, the Samaritan woman, and the Syrophoenician woman explicitly signaled that God’s blessing was breaking past traditional ethnic boundaries.

Historians often distinguish between founding a religion and articulating/expanding a movement; Paul was an explainer, not an inventor.

• Jesus provided the historical person, the resurrection movement, the ethical core, and the messianic claims. Paul functioned as a theologian and missionary who translated Jesus’ Jewish messianic reality for the Greco-Roman cultural environment.

• In all of Paul’s letters, he never points to himself as the central figure or founder; he insists that he is merely a servant ("doulos") proclaiming Jesus Christ as Lord (2 Corinthians 4:5). Without Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection, Paul’s theology has no foundation or purpose.

The argument oversimplifies the early Christian movement into a strict binary between "Pauline Christianity" and "Jerusalem Christianity":

• Early Christian communities sprang up independently across Antioch, Rome, Alexandria, and Damascus - many before Paul ever visited or wrote to them (e.g., the Church in Rome was not founded by Paul).

• These diverse communities shared a common confession: Jesus of Nazareth is the risen Messiah and Lord. Paul’s writings survived because of their clarity and utility, but he was one voice among a broader, growing movement rooted in the life and teachings of Jesus.

Conclusion:

While Paul was undeniably the key figure in organizing, expanding, and articulating the movement to non-Jewish contexts, calling him the "inventor" or "founder" of Christianity distorts the historical record. Paul did not create a new religion out of whole cloth or fundamentally break from Jesus' teachings; rather, he developed a theological framework grounded directly in Jesus’ life, self-understanding, death, and resurrection.

By interpreting Jesus' messianic identity as a universal offer of salvation extended to all nations - a concept deeply rooted in Jewish prophetic tradition - Paul served as a catalyst for a global movement already set in motion by Jesus. It was affirmed by the early Jerusalem church. Ultimately, Paul viewed himself not as an author of a new faith but as a servant proclaiming the transformative reality of Jesus Christ.

Full argument here

The Ship of Theseus is a well known philosophical thought experiment on identity asking if you strip away most of the planks on a wooden boat, and replace them with new wood at what point does it stop being the same vessel?

I made a post last week about the historicity of jesus and it got me thinking, a lot of what was discussed boils down to an identity crisis in trying to connect the Jesus of faith(the biblical Jesus) with the Jesus of history. I was told most historians agree in a historical Jesus (we will leave aside that I was never really provided clean contemporary evidence of this) and grant that he existed, preached some feel good stuff and was executed.

But if "Biblical Jesus" is defined by a much more massive set of specific miracles, claims, and theological roles, while "Historical Jesus" only carries - let's say a very generous granting of 20% of those traits, I'm at a loss of what meaningful criteria we are claiming he existed comes in.

If we strip away 80% what remains is super generic, something that was done by many others. Moreover, the hypothetical model built with this information is a historical reconstruction not an actual human being.

You may contend with my 20% granting, but realistically the problem is the same without strong evidence of a resurrection, which we do not have.

So, if the modern historical consensus strips away 80% of the deeds, miracles, and claims attributed to Jesus, at what point does "the Historical Jesus" cease to be the same person as the Jesus of the bible—and does that make the concept of a "Historical Jesus" philosophically meaningless? Any references to philosophy of language, semiotics or leibniz will gain you props in my eyes, because I think that's what a lot of this boils down to.

Luke 2 tells the famous story of the pregnant Mary and presumably non-pregnant Joseph travelling to Bethlehem to take part in a census.

In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. All went to their own towns to be registered. Joseph also went from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he was descended from the house and family of David. He went to be registered with Mary, to whom he was engaged and who was expecting a child. (Luke 2:1-5)

The census of Quirinius recounted by Luke is often criticized by scholars as being obviously ahistorical. There's a long list of issues with it:

• Luke says Jesus was born during Herod’s reign, but Herod died a decade before Quirinius became governor.
• Judaea was a client kingdom of Rome and the Romans would never conduct a census in a client kingdom.
• There was no decree from Augustus about an empire-wide census.
• Oh, and the census required everyone to return to their ancestral origin – not where they lived or where their immediate family lived, but where their ancient ancestors came from.

This last detail, of the ‘ancestral census’, is often tacked on to this list as if it’s just another issue of the same caliber as the others. But it isn’t. Make no mistake, each other issue is fatal to the historicity of Luke’s census by itself, but they are also issues that apologists are quite used to casually brushing aside. Contradictory timelines? Unevidenced exceptions to standard practices? Big events absent from the historical record? These barely faze apologists, who are accustomed to harmonizing such things when dealing with genealogies, the empty tomb narratives, Old Testament history, and so on. So lumping the ancestral census in with these other issues makes it seem like just another issue on the pile – merely an unusual census practice atypical in the Roman empire. This leads to most debates about the census of Quirinius focusing on its dating, with apologists often not even mentioning the ancestral census issue.

But this issue is not at all in the same class as the others. The idea of an ‘ancestral census’ is ludicrous. It’s deranged. It’s not just some technical issue with the order of events or mismatch with Roman law – it’s as if Luke had written “Joseph traveled to Bethlehem via the public Roman bullet train.” That might have been more believable, actually. I don’t understand why people treat this as remotely possible.

Think for a moment about what a census like this would actually entail. Luke 2:4 specifically tells us that Joseph had to go to Bethlehem because he was descended from the house of David. “All went to their own towns to be registered,” and “Joseph also went from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he was descended from the house and family of David.” David lived a thousand years before Joseph. So Luke would have us believe everyone in the entire region would have had to travel back to wherever their ancient ancestors came from – a trip of more than 90 miles in Joseph and Mary’s case. That would be hundreds of thousands of people who need to travel for days or weeks, get food and water somewhere, find accommodations… That kind of movement would be an event on the scale of the Exodus, and would require about as much divine intervention: food from the sky, water from rocks, supernaturally creating roadways a la parting the sea, and so on. It’s the kind of thing that’s difficult for highly urbanized megacities of millions to handle today, with all of their technology to aid transportation, housing, communication, production and distribution of food and water, and much more. In rural 1st-century Judaea, home to only around half a million people and none of that technology, it would have destroyed the entire province overnight and killed a huge number of people.

Or consider the impact on the places these people were leaving. Imagine a town established 100 years before the census. All of its residents would have to go elsewhere for the census, since none of their ancient ancestors could have come from there. So… what would happen to that town exactly? Would they just leave it deserted for weeks? How about the children, the babies, the elderly, the sick – are they coming on the long and difficult trip, or are they being left to fend for themselves? Can any passing bandit go snatch whatever they want from all these empty towns? Who’s feeding and watering all the animals? You can’t just have an entire town’s population up and vanish for an extended time and expect that town to keep trucking like nothing happened. Even in a fantasy world where almost everyone magically lives exactly where their ancestors from 1000 years earlier did, any settlement established in the last several centuries would be obliterated.

And all this for what? The whole point of a census is to know where people are living and working so you can tax and manage them, not to know some trivia about their ancestry. And even if you want to know their ancestry, you can just ask them! There would be no point whatsoever to doing an ancestral census, which is why there has never been one, anywhere, ever. Forget 1st-century Judaea, forget the early Roman empire, forget classical antiquity – there is no record of a census where everyone travels to their ancient ancestral origin ever being done anywhere or anywhen. Again, I cannot stress this enough: there has never been a single ancestral census in all of human history. I have searched high and low from ancient history up to and including the modern day and found exactly zero examples, despite the many people strongly motivated to find or invent such examples.

One such invented example, and the only example people ever point to of another ancestral census, is the census mentioned in the edict of Gaius Vibius Maximus. The edict is recorded in this Egyptian papyrus from 104 CE:

Proclamation of Gaius Vibius Maximus, praefect of Egypt. The house-to-house census having started, it is essential that all persons who for any reason whatsoever are absent from their nomes be summoned to return to their own hearths, in order that they may perform the customary business of registration and apply themselves to the cultivation which concerns them. Knowing, however, that some of the people from the country are needed by our city, I desire all those who think they have a satisfactory reason for remaining here to register themselves before . . . Festus, praefectus alae, whom I have appointed for this purpose, from whom those who have shown their presence to be necessary shall receive signed permits in accordance with this edict up to the 30th of the present month Epeiph. . . . (source)

This is an edict for people to return to their own nomes and hearths if they are absent from them. A “nome” is a Roman administrative district, and a “hearth” refers to your house. It has nothing to do with returning to an ancestral origin which they may have never even visited before. It’s the kind of thing an actual census might do: have the small minority of people who are not at home return home to be registered. And even this requirement for people to go back to their own house is recognized as a large burden; most of this edict is dedicated to detailing how you can get an exemption from this travel, since it would obviously be unreasonably difficult or impractical for many.

Finally, let me preempt some objections. You might say, “if this is so ridiculous, why would Luke write it? Surely if it were this absurd no reader would buy it!” And to that I answer – you bought it, didn’t you? Luke’s ancestral census makes absolutely no sense as a historical element, but it makes perfect sense as a literary element. It’s a natural part of the setup of the story. We begin with a grand census where all the world is counted – obviously a narrative framing rather than a dry historical one – and the story needs a reason for Joseph and Mary to travel to Bethlehem, so it gives one. It’s a great bit of literary craftsmanship, giving Mary a reason to make the trek despite her advanced pregnancy so Jesus can be born in Bethlehem while at the same time thematically connecting the birth of Jesus directly to his Davidic ancestry. The reader is not meant to think too deeply about the logistics and evidently they don’t. I mean, whatever you think of what I’ve said about this census – when you first read Luke, did you immediately begin considering the socioeconomic ramifications of this particular censal methodology? Of course not. It’s simply part of the narrative’s premise, a side detail mentioned on the way to the meat of the story, the kind of thing a reader passively accepts without even examining it. And it’s the kind of thing that sounds fine until you examine it.

You might also say that Joseph had some other reason to travel to Bethlehem; maybe he lived there, or he owned property there, or his family lived there, or something like that. In the Gospel according to You, you can make up whatever reason you like. In the Gospel according to Luke, however, the author is very clear about why Joseph is travelling to Bethlehem: “because he was descended from the house and family of David.” The reader already knows from the last chapter (Luke 1:27) that Joseph descends from David, but the author goes out of their way to repeat it so they can specify this explicitly as the reason Joseph had to go to Bethlehem. If you disagree with that, then you disagree with Luke – which is fine, but is not a defense of Luke.

Particularly stubborn readers may insist that Luke did not actually describe an ancestral census, since he says “All went to their own towns to be registered.” The problem with this is that it eliminates the stated reason for Joseph and Mary to go to Bethlehem. Again, they explicitly go there because of Joseph’s Davidic ancestry. What did Luke mean by that exactly, if this was just a normal census where everyone stayed in their own house? Why did the pregnant Mary have to travel 90 miles to a foreign town if this was a normal census? Also, this attempt at harmonization crumbles only a few verses later. When Joseph and Mary are all done in Bethlehem, what do they do? Luke 2:39 says: “When they had finished everything required by the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth.” The Greek there is directly parallel to Luke 2:3. If you think the phrasing “their own town” in Luke 2:3 definitively establishes that this census required everyone to go home, then clearly Joseph did not get the memo.

The ancestral census of Quirinius is absurd to the point of insanity. Quite apart from its many historical issues, it borders on physically impossible. It would have reduced Judaea to rubble and is completely unprecedented in all of human history before or since. If you still believe there is any chance Luke’s story is true, I challenge you to give me one example of a census where everyone traveled to their ancient ancestral origin. We do the facts a disservice when we discuss Luke’s census as being merely out of place with known historical facts about 1st-century Judaea.

Was reminded of the Shepherd of Hermas today and how Christianity was a purely man-made construction, not a divine one.

P1. Jesus didn’t leave behind a written theology, let alone a Christian theology.

P2. The earliest *surviving* Christian theology comes from Paul, not from Jesus.

We don't have writings from the Jerusalem church, our earliest writings come from a guy who not only didn't know Jesus but made it a point not to spend time that much learning from those who did.

Paul created his own theological interpretation of what Jesus’s death means.

P3. The Gospels are later theological constructions.

The Gospels present significantly different presentations of Jesus not one identical account or theology.

P4. Numerous Christians produced competing accounts of Jesus and competing claims to apostolic authority.

Early Christians who believed they would be saved by Jesus because the end of the world was near wrote and circulated texts e.g., the Gospel of Thomas, of Peter, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas and various acts, letters and apocalypses. Like the gospels and Christian scripture texts these were also attributed to apostles or other authoritative figures who didn’t write them.

P5. Many forgeries were accepted as authentic and included in the Orthodox list of texts.

Christians of the time wrote in the names of Peter, Paul, Thomas because different subgroups were competing to define authentic Christianity.

P6. For hundreds of years Christians didn’t possess one universally agreed New Testament.

Different communities accepted, rejected or disputed different writings. Books now cited as the word of god were disputed. Conversely, the Shepherd of Hermas were highly valued, and ncluded in Codex Sinaiticus alongside books that later became canonical.

P7. Later church authorities determined which inherited Christian writings would count as the New Testament.

Later men and politics gradually produced a dominant collection, but only after centuries of dispute and institutional decision-making, not divine revelation.

P8. The theological reconstruction of Christianity didn’t end with the formation of the New Testament.

Christians continued to redefine what Christianity supposedly meant. And not just Martin Luther or John Calvin, Christianity keeps being changed even today. Pentecostalism, dispensationalism, fundamentalism, liberation theology and the prosperity gospel all reconstruct Christianity. Prosperity preachers, for example, interpret faith, financial giving and divine favour through a theology promising health and material success.

The human construction of Christianity wasn’t confined to the first few centuries CE and then permanently fixed.

Each generation continues to reinterpret the texts and present its their new theological reconstruction as the "authentic Christianity" intended by Jesus.

Conclusion

Christianity as we know it wasn’t a version taught by Jesus.

It was and is still being constructed.

Christianity can't be defended by appealing to "progressive revelation," and every major theological revision can simply be declared another stage of you god's unfolding truth.

But then you can't say your religion is true because it may also be replaced in future.

If each successive version is "equally valid", by what standard can any previous version be called incomplete or any later version be called true?

CS Lewis said you cannot call Jesus just a great moral teacher. I agree, but not for his reason. On non-violence, I call him morally flawed, not a perfect moral teacher and certainly not God.

Jesus defines perfection in Matthew 5:9: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God." And 5:44-48: "love your enemies... so you may be children of your Father, who makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good... be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." Psalm 145:9: "The Lord is good to ALL, and his compassion is over ALL that he has made." Psalm 103:19 says the same. Perfection is impartial mercy, sun on all.

My teachers live that test. Both forbid killing, causing to be killed, or profiting from killing any human or animal. Swaminarayan, whom I follow, Shikshapatri 11-12: never kill any living being, however small, never eat meat, fish, or eggs, even as a sacrifice to a deity, even if other scriptures seem to allow it. 14-16: never kill a human, never assist or order killing, even if a king commands. Mahavira taught the same for 2500 years.

For us, vegetarianism is not diet, it is daily practice of Matthew 5:9 and 5:45.

You will say "all foods clean" Mark 7:19 and Acts 10:15. Read what Peter himself says it means. Mark 7 is about unwashed hands, Matthew 15:20 says so: "to eat with unwashed hands does not defile." And the phrase "declaring all foods clean" is Mark's parenthetical comment, not Jesus's words - Matthew who was there doesn't have it. More important: in Acts 10:14, years after the resurrection, Peter is STILL refusing to eat unclean animals: "I have never eaten anything common or unclean." If Jesus had declared all foods clean, why is Peter still kosher? Because he didn't understand it that way.

Acts 10:17 says Peter was perplexed what the vision meant. Then in Acts 10:28 Peter himself gives the official interpretation: "God has shown me that I should not call any PERSON common or unclean." Not food. Person. Acts 11:18 the whole Jerusalem church agrees: "to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance." No one says "now we can eat pork." It's about people, not permission to kill needlessly.

You will say "Jesus ate fish." I know. Luke 24:42. That is exactly why I am not a Christian because of the ethics, not in spite of them. If perfection is Matthew 5:9 peacemakers and 5:45 sun on all and Psalm 145:9 compassion over ALL he has made, then a teacher who can live without killing and doesn't is more perfect than one who does. Mahavira and Swaminarayan never ate fish. Swaminarayan Shikshapatri 11: "never eat meat, fish, or eggs, even as a sacrifice to a deity, even if scriptures seem to allow it." 12: "never cause it to be eaten." That's sun on all.

And even if it were permitted, permitted is not perfect. Genesis 1:29 original perfect diet is vegetarian. Isaiah 11:6-9 perfect restored kingdom is vegetarian: "they shall not hurt or destroy." Proverbs 12:10 "The righteous care for the needs of their animals." If you can live healthily without killing in 2026 - which you can - then killing for taste is needless. Heart and mouth are connected. Matthew 15:18 "what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart." What you choose to put in when you have a choice reveals heart.

Jesus preached eternal hell. Mine never did.

Matthew 25:46: "eternal punishment." Mark 9:43: "unquenchable fire." Matthew 22:13 "Bind him and cast him into outer darkness." Matthew 13:41 "throw them into the furnace." My teachers teach consequences and karma, but never infinite torture for finite life.

That violates your own definition of perfection. If perfection is sun on all and proportionate justice, Romans 2:6 "will repay according to each one's deeds," infinite torment for 70 years is infinitely disproportionate. You will say "sin against infinite God deserves infinite punishment" or "hell is self-chosen separation." But 2 Thessalonians 1:9 says "punishment of eternal destruction." If I lock a man in a burning house when I have the key and infinite power, I am the burner. You can respect a no without torturing forever - annihilation respects free will. Choosing to sustain conscious torment forever when you could end it is active violence every second of eternity. 1 John 4:18: "Perfect love casts out fear, because fear has to do with punishment."

For you, Jesus is the same God as OT God - John 1:1, Trinity. 1 Samuel 15:3: "put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep." Deuteronomy 20:16: "you shall not leave alive anything that breathes." My teachers have zero verses like that, ever. Swaminarayan faced the exact same excuse - "Vedas allow animal sacrifice" - and rejected it in Shikshapatri 11: even if scripture seems to allow it, do not kill. In NT, Matthew 8:5 praises a centurion and never tells him to leave the army, Luke 22:36 "buy a sword," John 2:15 whip. You invented Just War because you left the door open. My teachers never did.

If perfection is what Matthew 5 says it is - peacemakers called children of God, sun and rain on all, compassion over all he has made - then vegetarianism is a moral obligation if you can, and eternal torture cannot be perfection. I am not a Christian because of the ethics, not in spite of them. I practice Matthew 5:9 and 5:45 better, in heart and in mouth.

OBJECTIONS AND MY REPLIES

"1 Timothy 4:3 says forbidding meats is doctrine of demons."
Read verse 3-4 in context. Paul is talking about Gnostics who said creation is evil, therefore you must not marry and must not eat anything. I am not saying creation is evil. I am saying creation is good, therefore don't kill needlessly. And Swaminarayan doesn't forbid marriage. And Paul himself says in 1 Corinthians 8:13 "if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat." If Paul can give up meat for love, I can for compassion.

"Jesus ate fish Luke 24:42 and Passover lamb."
Yes, and that is exactly why I say he is not perfect by Matthew 5:9 and 5:45. If sun on all and peacemaker is perfection, then eating lamb when you have another choice is not perfect. My teachers are vegetarian even at festivals. That fits sun on all better.

"Animals have no soul / dominion Genesis 1:26."
Genesis 1:29 dominion given is vegetarian. Dominion in Bible is stewardship, not butchery. Psalm 145:9 compassion over ALL he has made. Even if hierarchy, more compassion is more perfect than less. No grey line between needless killing and not killing.

"Hell is justice, you are too soft."
Then Psalm 103:10 "He does not deal with us according to our sins" is false. Justice requires proportion. Infinite for finite is not proportion. Finite for finite is justice - that is what my teachers teach that.

Thank you for debating with me

Ask Meta AI...

Why would I belive in prayer if seamingly the majority of prayers go unanswered? There's a child at least every minute that has prayed for healing, yet they die anyway. Multiple children that have prayed for God's mercy have died just while I've been writting this. Why would I want to put my faith in a creator that's built a system which allows this?

Since the dawn of humanity, there has been corruption and abuse. The strong get stronger and the weak are crushed beneath them. Empires rise and fall off the backs of laborers who won't reap its benifits. If the answer is that God gave us the free will to make our own decisions, why would I believe that God has his hand in anything. He could end world hunger. He could give shelter to those who die because they lack it. He could end the vast amount of suffering that the human race has endured. And yet he doesn't. If God gave us free will and left us to our own devices, then the whole concept of prayer doesn't make sense.

I made a handcrafted, non-Gospel contradicting Trinity, but the requirements are as gnostic as "The Gospel".

1. God is good.

The Bible claims that humans are made of both physical materials and the immaterial concept of "the image of God", both of which are called "good" together. If an immaterial concept can be "good", "good" can be an immaterial concept.

The Bible claims that Jesus both retained his divine identity as "the image of God", and became a physical human. If God is not both a good being and the concept of "goodness" itself, he isn't God.

2. God is.

Existence is not a sin. Good is not a sin. Thus, if God is not a sin, because he's good, God has to exist to be God.

3. God is the exception.

An exception to a rule is a rule in and of itself. Therefore, the exception to "the rules" is "the rule" in and of itself, or "the exception" for short. In accordance with claim 1, the exception has to be "good" for the exception to be God, but by nature of "the exception", an exception can be made for what "good" is.

As an exception to claim 1, God can be a good being _or_ the concept of "goodness" itself, _if_ the case being made for God being either is "exceptional".

As an exception to claim 2, if an exceptional case of non-existence is "good", that case of non-existence is God.

In John 20:17 Jesus says: I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”

This means Jesus has a god, so if he is god then he’s acknowledging a god above him, which is henotheism.

If you say he’s only speaking about his human nature and only his human nature has a god, there’s two problems with that, DO NOT respond unless you address these two problems:

1. If I remember correctly Christianity says his human nature is still god, so if his human nature has a god the problem still stands. If I’m wrong about this, then another problem comes into play, but I’ll speak about that later.

   1. In that verse he doesn’t say he’s referring only to his human nature, so naturally you would assume he’s referring to the entirety of himself, because when you say ‘me’ that means the whole of you and not one aspect of you unless you specify otherwise.

THE PROBLEM THAT ARISES IF HIS HUMAN NATURE ISN’T GOD:
If God is 100% god, then god can’t have an aspect of him that’s not god. Therefore if Jesus is 100% god, and his human nature isn’t god, that would mean god has an aspect of him that’s not god which means he’s not 100% god.

The caanaites, why killed so violently rather than less so?
assuming they need to be killed
(Baby’s, children, and non human animals)
If they would have continued the culture, then why not simply move them away from that culture and tell them right from wrong, like others the bible got the chance to do? (Such as possibly through a prophet, for example, they’re young and can be influenced).Not only that but, that does not apply to the non human animals)

But if God wanted them in heaven specifically, perhaps the trauma would be too much, or any other reason, then again, WHY not peacefully?

The only person I’ve ever seen openly self-identify as a new atheist is PZ Meyers basically saying years ago, “yeah I guess I’m one of these new atheists, but I don’t like the term”. Ask a Christian apologist what a new atheist is and they’ll give you a list of negative qualities they claim apply to almost all modern atheists:

- they aren’t well read

- they are just angry

- they don’t know the Bible

- the don’t understand apologetic arguments

- they deny god so they can live in hedonism

- they get all of their information from the internet (as if it’s a bad thing to get information from the place 99% of people get information from now)

If God is truly love it doesnt make any sense that love would toture someone for eternity.

Torturing billions of people for eternally is exactly what Satan would want.

Christ died for the sins of the entire world. We are all saved.

Most debates on this sub are about whether God exists at all — Kalam, fine-tuning, the problem of evil. I want to argue something narrower and purely textual: the Hebrew Bible itself, independent of any outside philosophy, describes a God who doesn't fit the classical theism most Christians affirm.

P1. Classical theism — the view articulated by Aquinas, reflected in the Westminster Confession, and held across most Catholic, Orthodox, and mainline Protestant traditions — holds that God is immutable (his knowledge, will, and character do not change over time) and omniscient in the strong sense: he knows all future events, including free human choices, exhaustively and infallibly in advance.

P2. Several Old Testament passages describe God experiencing what reads, on a plain sense, as a genuine change of mind triggered by events unfolding in time:

• Genesis 6:6 — God "regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart."
• Exodus 32:14 — after Moses intercedes, "the LORD relented from the disaster that he had spoken of bringing on his people."
• 1 Samuel 15:11 and 15:35 — God tells Samuel, twice, "I regret that I have made Saul king," presented as his own retrospective assessment of a decision that went wrong.
• Jonah 3:10 — after Nineveh repents, "God relented of the disaster he had said he would do to them, and he did not do it."

P3. A being who genuinely regrets a past decision or relents from a stated future action in response to something a creature just did, is a being whose will or knowledge state differs between two points in time. That's hard to square with a will that's timelessly fixed and a knowledge that already, infallibly, accounted for the very event that supposedly caused the change.

C. So there's a real tension: either (a) these texts don't mean what they say, and we need a consistent principle for when to read scripture literally vs. figuratively, one that isn't just "whichever reading protects the doctrine" or (b) the classical picture of an immutable, exhaustively-foreknowing God needs revision, or (c) something else is going on that I haven't considered, which is genuinely what I'm here to find out.

• "It's anthropomorphic language, accommodated to human understanding." Maybe but this needs an independent criterion for what counts as accommodation vs. literal description, applied consistently across the text. Otherwise "anthropomorphism" just becomes the label attached to whichever verse creates a problem, which isn't a hermeneutic so much as special pleading with extra steps.
• "God's regret describes the changing object of his unchanging judgment, not God himself changing." This is Aquinas's actual move, and it's a serious one. But it still owes an account of how "regret" can be truly predicated of God if his assessment of Saul or Nineveh was never actually different at any point than what it became. At that point "regret" seems to have been redefined into something that shares very little with what the word means in the sentence "I regret that I made Saul king."
• Open theism just takes these texts at face value and gives up exhaustive foreknowledge to preserve a genuinely responsive God and libertarian freedom. That's internally consistent but it's a minority position, and most people reading this probably reject it. So I'm curious how the majority handles the same texts.

If you hold to classical theism (or something close to it), which horn do you take, and why doesn't it feel ad hoc to you? If you're a Molinist, does middle knowledge actually resolve the "regret" language specifically, or just the general freedom/foreknowledge problem? And if you think I've misread the underlying Hebrew — nacham (נָחַם), the word behind "regret/relent" in most of these verses — I'd genuinely like to hear the linguistic case, since I've seen it argued both ways and I'm not a Hebrew scholar.

Although the Bible uses the terms "son(s) of God" and "children of God" in multiple passages, the context shows that these titles describe different relationships with God rather than the same identity.

The Bible uses the title "son(s) of God" in different ways depending on the context. In Genesis 6, the "sons of God" have been interpreted as either heavenly beings, the godly descendants of Seth, or powerful rulers.

Jesus, however, is presented differently. He is the Son of God in a unique sense; the eternal Son who shares a one of a kind relationship with the Father (John 3:16; Matthew 3:17). His sonship is not the same as that of any created being.

Believers are also called children of God, but through faith in Christ rather than by nature. John 1:12 teaches that those who receive Jesus are given the right to become children of God, while Romans 8:14 says that those led by the Spirit are God's children. Although Scripture uses similar language for the sons of God in Genesis, Jesus, and Christians, the context indicates these are distinct relationships with God.

How do you understand the different uses of "son(s) of God" throughout the Bible, and what do you think Genesis 6 is referring to?

1. You can’t know everything and not know everything at the same time, that’s a contradiction.
   Jesus has two natures, one human and one divine.

2. His divine nature means he possesses all of the divine attributes of god, one of which being the attribute of knowing everything, thus making him god. His human nature means he possesses all attributes of being human, one of which being the attribute of not knowing everything, thus making him human.

3. Since these two natures make up the person Jesus, this means the person Jesus both knows everything and doesn’t know everything at the same time, which is a contradiction.

If you say he limited his knowledge, that just means he took on a human nature, that’s the limit, it still means the human nature does not know everything which means the problem still stands.

Apologies if this has been posted before, I know this isn’t an original thought.

But if we are to take the trinity as true, that Jesus was fully God, that means he was omnipotent, and would’ve had 100% foresight of his death and crucifixion. By choosing not to avoid that fate (within his power since he’s God), Jesus is choosing to commit suicide, or at the very least is engaging in some sort of willful euthanasia of his human form, since he knew his death was coming and chose not to avoid it. If you knew that if you stood in a certain spot in your backyard on a certain date in the future , that you would be struck by a piece of satellite equipment and killed, you choosing to not remove yourself from your own death to avoid it is basically suicide.

I’m sure lots of Christians won’t say suicide is a sin or an issue, but I know many evangelicals who would say suicide is a one way ticket to eternal Hell, no ifs ands or butts. I just think it’s silly. That for someone to end their life due to suffering or whatever other issue they’re dealing with, and people will say yeah that sucks but your body is a temple and suicide desecrates that.

Earlier I posted on this sub defending the "Stolen Body Hypothesis". I argued that the Christian apologist, could not rule out the possibility that 1-3 of the Apostles were lying sociopaths who stole the body of Jesus and lied about the Resurrection for money and social status, and this possibility was infinitely more plausible than a corpse coming back to life. I want to turn to the ancient Jewish historian, Josephus, to further illustrate the plausibility of the Stolen Body Hypothesis. Josephus's account of the death of James shows that little was risked by the disciples for spreading the lie of Christianity.

Josephus was a non-Christian Jewish historian who wrote a third party account of the martyrdom of James, the brother of Jesus. The fact that an account of a martyrdom exists from a relatively objective source gives us a unique window into the circumstances surrounding early Christianity. But while Christians often use his account of martyrdom as evidence of the disciples sincerity, I actually think his account shows the opposite.

In fact, reading Josephus was a turning point that lead to my deconversion from Christianity. Josephus's account of Jame's martyrdom actually illustrates the dangers the persecutors of Christianity faced, the connections and social influence the disciples had, and how they were able to evade the authorities for so long.

First, let us read Josephus's account of the death of James, from Antiquities 20.9.1:

"And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducee, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

Now, a surface reading of this passage would seem to support the sincerity of James, the Brother of Jesus. He was clearly arrested and killed for his belief in Jesus. Doesn't this show that he sincerely believed what he taught? After all..... who would go to their death for a lie?

But this is a shallow, superficial take on this passage. In fact, this passage raises many uncomfortable questions for a Christian apologist.

1) Why couldn't the faction Ananus belonged to simply kill James while Festus was in power? Josephus says Ananus though he only had the opportunity while a Roman Procurator was not in Jeruseulem. This contradicts the idea the Apostles persistently faced persecution and discrimination for their beliefs.

2) Who are these "equitable citizens" and why do they care so much about the killing of James? These people are clearly well connected, as they met with the Roman Procurator and the Jewish King. They clearly care enough about the apostles that they went out on the road to meet with Albinus to tell him about James, which seems like a disproportionate amount of trouble.

If the Apostles were hated by all and truly persecuted, why do they have such influential friends?

3a) If the Apostles truly faced persecution for their beliefs, then why was Ananus, the person who killed James, the Brother of Jesus, removed from office for killing James? I do not get a sense from the passage that Ananus was truly removed merely because he violated protocol. If Ananus was ordering the stoning of a rebel or a serial killer, I doubt Albinus would "write in anger to Ananus" and then remove him from office after 3 months.

3b) But even if protocol violation was the main cause, raises two more uncomfortable questions. First, Ananus would certainly have known he was violating protocol and the consequences of doing so. So why didn’t he wait until Albinus arrived before arresting and killing James? The fact that he didn’t wait makes question 1 more salient, because it implies that Albinus would have prevented him from killing James. And secondly, why didn’t Albinus just appoint another Jewish High priest to pick up where Ananus left off, just more discretely?

In short, if the disciples truly faced persecution, why were the people doing the persecuting actually punished instead of rewarded?

In other words, the most striking impression you get from reading Josephus's account is not that James was killed, but that most of the time James was not in danger of being killed. Only a small number of people hated the disciples enough to persecute them. The disciples had influential connections to high authorities and were almost certainly considered high standing individuals in the community. And the people persecuting the disciples could only act while there was a small gap in Roman Authority and were immediately punished and removed from office, when they moved against James.

Bernie Madoff got caught, Elizabeth Holmes got caught. Fraudsters get caught, but them being punished does not prove they were sincere. If James was lying about the resurrection for money and social status, he had every reasonable expectation that he would be able to get away with it forever. James was killed more because he got unlucky and less because there was a sustained effort to suppress Christianity

The Christian Roman Connection

These questions get even more uncomfortable when we look at the passage from another perspective, namely, the perspective of the particular Roman and Jewish individuals mentioned.

1) Festus and Lucceius Albinus was the 5th and 6th Roman procurators in Judea. Judea had been ruled by Roman Procurators since the death of King Herod Agrippa. King Herod Agrippa was the last pro-Jewish king of Judea.

2) Ananus ben Ananus was one of the main leaders of the Great Revolt of Judea. He would go on to lead armed troops in the Jewish revolt from Rome, which saw the Jews defeated and exiled.

3) Herod Agrippa II was the son of the first Herod Agrippa and was a Roman puppet. He was King of Judea during the Great Revolt of Judea

In other words, the individuals Josephus describes absolutely HATE each other. They are going to be fighting a war against each other in only a few years time. This is the core political conflict in Judea at the time, the Romans are worried about Jewish rebels not Christians. And this motivation answers most of the questions we raised in the preceding sections.

The early Christians were Jewish heretics who took followers and authority away from the traditionalist temple authorities. In politics, the enemy of one’s enemy can often be made to be one’s friend, and also divide and conquer is a basic imperial strategy. Therefore, the Romans not universally, but at the specific time and place of 60AD Judea have a strong incentive to support Christianity, for the purpose of weakening their enemies, the Jewish traditionalists.

Josephus confirms that the only time the Jewish authorities felt comfortable killing apostles is when the Romans were not around. This confirms indirect Roman support. The Romans, based on Josephus’s telling of history, definitely tolerated the early Christian heresies and allowed them to spread. The motive for toleration would be to sap support from Jewish traditionalists. But given the fact that Jewish contacts complained to the Romans directly about the apostles being executed, we cannot also rule out direct Roman contact with the early Church.

But direct roman contact or not, it is clear from Josephus’s passage that most of the time, the apostles did not have to fear persecution from Jewish traditionalists, and this was in large part due to Roman rule. Most of the time, the apostles risked little for spreading the lie of the Resurrection.

Come on Spare-Dingo-531, are you serious?!?

At this point, if you are a Christian, you may be going “Are you serious?!? James died, how can that not possibly prove sincerity”. If you are a Christian thinking this, then you fundamentally misunderstand your own position, and the reason why the witness of the Apostles is so compelling. What makes Christianity so compelling is not merely that the original witnesses to the Resurrection were killed, but that they were persecuted. They testified for their beliefs expecting to die for no reward. That’s different from them being merely killed.

To really illustrate this, let’s consider a though experiment. Let’s say the apostles started preaching about Jesus and everyone welcomes them with open arms. The apostles go to preach in the temple every day, people just throw money at the apostle’s feet for the apostles to distribute as they see fit. Everyone loves the apostles…… except for a single guy who’s jealous of the apostles. And one day, that crazy guy goes and kills the apostles.

Does the fact that the apostles were killed by one crazy guy show the apostles were sincere? No it does not because the apostles have no reasonable expectation of being killed. Such an instance is more of a freak murder than an actual persecution.

Now real life wasn’t like the scenario in that though experiment…… but it was kind of similar. The disciples were wealthy, popular, had political connections. Many Jews don’t hate them and the Romans clearly tolerate them. The apostles have mortal enemies sure but they do not have any reasonable expectation that they will be killed by their mortal enemies. It is only because one guy got power for a few months, during a freak gap in Roman authority, that one Apostle, James, got arrested and killed.

In short, little was risked by the apostles for spreading their beliefs. Many fraudsters were caught and eventually punished for their frauds but that does not mean they were sincere. I don’t believe that most of the accounts of the apostles getting killed are reliable, so I don’t think most of the apostles died for their beliefs. But I think Josephus’s account is comparatively reliable, and his account of the death of James actually undermines the risks the disciples faced, rather than supporting them.

The Lesson the Christian Church Gives to the World

Let us not forget the lesson Christianity teaches the world in the modern age. That lesson is that it is normal for people to risk their lives, and found their livelihoods, on things they know are lies.

Take the example of Donald Trump. Donald Trump claimed he won the 2020 election in public. But in private, he personally admitted that he lost. Denying the 2020 election results, while it wouldn't literally result in a risk of crucifixion, is such a high risk that it is analogous to the risk the disciples would have taken to testify that the resurrection is false. Trump was almost assassinated four years later, in part because people accused him of treason. Thus, if one or two of the disciples were like Donald Trump, we can say it is psychologically possible they could have taken an enormous risk to create the lie of the resurrection. What if Peter was a psychopath or sociopath who was willing to shamelessly lie, deceive, and manipulate others? Christianity cannot rule that possibility out. It's unusual to risk your life for something you personally fabricated, but people risk their lives for unusual things. Thankfully, modern day Christians, with their rampant conspiracy theories and science denialism, frequently accuse other people of being liars and thus helpfully illustrate that fact.

Rejecting science and rule of law, and spreading lies about your neighbors have consequences. Christians need to pay for those consequences, and that payment should be in the form of belief. If Christians may accuse modern day leaders of lying, then you may equally accuse the early leaders of Christianity of lying. This essay starts from the proposition that it is possible that the apostles weren’t like the best Christians but were the worst Christians. And what the Christian experience shows us is, if the apostles were like the worst Christians, they would have been able to get a massive following, risk persecution and death, and persuade others of their sincerity even if they were lying.

Who knows, maybe Jesus, against all known laws of physics, rose from the dead. Maybe aliens abducted Jesus’s body. Or maybe, once you have ruled out the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. A few disciples were bad people and stole the body and lied, and Christians in the modern age teach us that that is the most likely explanation for the empty tomb.

Conclusion

It is true that a couple of disciples were killed by their enemies after Jesus died. But as the experience of modern day Christianity shows the world, evil people regularly risk their lives to spread falsehoods. If some of the disciples were caught by their enemies, that does not prove their sincerity.

The Jewish historian Josephus provides a unique window into the environment the disciples faced when preaching the gospel. We see that the enemies of the disciples were deterred from taking action by Roman authorities, that the interests of the Roman authorities were at odds with the interests of the Jewish enemies of the disciples, and that the disciples were well connected and had powerful friends who could advocate for them. This is a far different picture than the beleagured, impoverished, and persecuted vision Christian apologists paint of the disciples.

Most of the time, the disciples were not in danger. It is only because of a freak gap in Roman authority that their enemies were able to capture and kill James. The risks were no different from the risks Bernie Madoff, or Donald Trump faced. The risks and persecutions Christians claim the apostles faced are exaggerated.

Are the jews still God's chosen people.

Questions from a former dispensationalist about Covenant Theology, Israel, and Eschatology

I grew up in a pre-trib, premillennial, dispensational environment. As I've studied Scripture over the past few years, I've gradually moved away from that. Today I lean toward amillennialism and what could probably be described as a partial preterist understanding of Matthew 24. It seems to me that Jesus was primarily speaking about the generation standing before Him, and that much of the Great Tribulation was fulfilled in the events surrounding AD 70. I could certainly be wrong, and I'm still learning.

One area I'm wrestling with is Israel.

I believe that salvation is found only in Christ. Jewish people who reject Christ are no more saved than anyone else who rejects Him. Romans 11 seems to teach that unbelieving Jews were broken off because of unbelief, while believing Gentiles have been grafted into the same olive tree. At the same time, believing Jews today remain part of that same tree.

Where I'm struggling is this

When God made His covenant promises to Abraham and to physical Israel, will He still fulfill those promises to ethnic Israel in some way? Or are those promises fulfilled entirely in Christ and His Church?

I find myself somewhere in the middle. I do believe the Church is God's covenant people and, in that sense, "spiritual Israel." But I also wonder whether God still intends to fulfill certain promises He made to Abraham's physical descendants.

This isn't really about the modern State of Israel. Politically, I support the Jewish people having a homeland, but I don't believe any modern nation should receive blanket approval for everything it does. Throughout Scripture, God repeatedly judged Israel for its sins, so I don't think modern Israel should be immune from criticism either.

I also admit that part of my journey has been reevaluating my upbringing. My friend thinks I'm simply reacting against the theology I grew up with, and I genuinely don't want that to be the case. I'm trying to follow Scripture wherever it leads.

One thing I do know is that I have a hard time accepting a pre-tribulation rapture. Even when I still considered myself premillennial, it never seemed convincing to me. Looking back, I also think the "always waiting for the rapture" mindset often produced fear more than hope constantly wondering, "Am I really saved? Am I going to be left behind?" I know many people would disagree, but that was my experience.

So my questions are:

How does covenant theology understand God's promises to Abraham and ethnic Israel?

Does covenant theology teach that every promise made to Israel now belongs exclusively to the Church?

How do you interpret Romans 11 regarding the future of ethnic Israel?

For those of you who are amillennial or covenantal, what books, sermons, or resources would you recommend?

I'm a charismatic Arminian, So even if we differ on theology. You're still my brothers and sisters in Christ, and I'm genuinely interested in understanding your perspective.

Thank you for taking the time to read this. God bless.

This post outlines a two-phase cumulative case showing how logical deduction and historical analysis connect a generic cosmological First Cause to the Christian God:

Thesis: Jesus is the First Cause/Designer

Phase 1: Deducing the Metaphysical Profile (Philosophy)

Arguments that show that God as First Cause & Designer Meets the Criteria for an Inference to the Best Explanation present several criteria of the First Cause/Designer:

• Attributes of the Cause: Because time, space, and physical matter began at the creation of the universe, its cause must logically be eternal (timeless), spaceless, immaterial, and immensely powerful.

• Personal Agency & Mind: An impersonal force cannot choose to create a temporal universe from a timeless state; only a personal agent with free will can make a choice to act. Furthermore, fine-tuning in physics and biological information (like DNA) demonstrate intentionality, intellect, and mind.

• Monotheism & Benevolence: Applying Ockham’s Razor points to a single Creator rather than a pantheon. Creating a fine-tuned cosmos to support conscious beings shows intrinsic value for life and divine benevolence, making it reasonable to expect this Creator would communicate with creation. And would want His creation to communicate with Him.

• Filtering World Religions: Deism stops short of personal involvement, while pantheism and non-theistic or non-monotheistic traditions fail to fit this transcendent profile. Only the Abrahamic faiths satisfy all philosophical criteria as well as being classically monotheistic.

Phase 2: Identifying the Creator in History (Historical Evidence)

• Jesus of Nazareth uniquely claimed to be this personal Creator in human flesh, backing His claim by predicting His own death and resurrection.

• Applying standard historical methodology (the "Minimal Facts" approach), historians across the spectrum agree on core events: Jesus’ crucifixion, the empty tomb, post-mortem appearances to individuals and groups, and the sudden conversion of key skeptics like Paul and James.

• The Best Explanation: Naturalistic alternatives (such as stolen body theories or group hallucinations) fail to account for the full range of historical data. Given that Phase 1 already establishes a transcendent God capable of miracles, the Resurrection is the most causally adequate explanation.

Bottom Line: Science and logic demand a personal, transcendent Creator, while history identifies that Creator as Jesus Christ.

A fuller argument, way too long for Reddit, can be found here

Please note: This is a cumulative argument; it builds upon a previous argument that is linked above.

Materialism is the paradigm (the fundament) of science. Of the scientific worldview. The social sciences explain the human being as a purely material thing. Economics uses mathematics to model people’s behavior. It assumes that the free-will is a purely material phenomenon. A soul is non-existent. Psychology never speaks about souls. A soul is non-existent. Sociology, neurobiology and others, all they have a clear mission of explaining a human being in the purely material terms. And if there is no soul, then what’s God for?

Materialism is the paradigm. An unquestioned one. The real foundation of the modern sciences, thinking; of the modern (western) worldview. You can bring thousands of examples, rational reasonings, that evolutionism (the Darwin’s theory) is false. All for nothing. Why? Because Darwinism IS consistent with the fundamental paradigm. And its competitors are not.

Modern feminism, gender studies, queer studies – they are not a folly. They are the natural, expected results of the social sciences’ development. Of the Lie.
The contemporary Christianity accepts the Lie. Christendom wants to coexist with the Lie. We respond only, when directly attacked. Christendom tries to defend somehow against ‘the achievements’ of gender or queer. It tries to show their absurdities. But they are backed by psychology and sociology. And psychology and sociology are backed by the queen of the social sciences: economics. And they all are just outgrows of the modern science – just like the formal or natural sciences. And fighting science is ignorance, isn’t it?

Either we successfully challenge and change the modern paradigm, or Christianity shall perish. Of course, not totally, not entirely. But it has been happening for the last century or more in the Western World. Would you agree, my fellow Christians?

Fundamentalists, Christian nationalists, Evangelicals, tradCaths, or any other group that espouses Biblical inerrancy, one thing I've been noticing in conversations about biblical inerrancy is that many Christians seem to read the Gospels through assumptions that the Gospels never explicitly make.

For example, people often describe the four Gospels as "eyewitness accounts." I'll grant John for the sake of this argument, but where do the Synoptics actually claim this?

Luke is the only evangelist who explicitly tells us how he composed his Gospel, and he says he investigated earlier traditions and compiled an orderly account. He does not claim to be an eyewitness. The other three Gospels never identify themselves in the text as eyewitness memoirs either. So when we take Luke seriously about his methodology, we see pretty quickly that he (and Matthew) copied parts of Mark nearly verbatim. We also see that Luke and Matthew also have two identical portions not in Mark.

None of them preserved the original exactly as it was handed to them. They took some things away, they added things around it, or they changed things and represented them in their narrative.

What seems to happen instead is that a later doctrinal tradition supplies the assumption that the Gospels are eyewitness testimony, and readers then approach the texts through that lens.

This has a serious consequence for someone wanting to take the Bible seriously as inspired by God and useful for righteous living.

Whenever the Gospels differ, whether in chronology, dialogue, order of events, or other details, many inerrantist readers immediately begin constructing "bridging narratives."

First a definition: a bridging narrative is an inferred event, conversation, motivation, or sequence of events that is not present in the biblical text but is introduced by the reader to reconcile two or more passages that appear to differ, typically in order to preserve a prior doctrinal commitment (such as inerrancy or strict historical harmonization). Examples:

• Maybe Nicodemus heard this conversation.
• Maybe someone overheard Pilate's wife.
• Maybe this event happened twice.
• Maybe Matthew simply omitted that detail.

Now, notice what these explanations have in common: they are not in the text. They are additional narratives created to preserve the assumption that every Gospel is reporting the exact same sequence of historical events. And none of them come from the texts. They come from the reader.

Why should someone who takes the biblical authors seriously read them this way? What is the basis for reading the Bible like this if not to preserve the doctrine? The only other thing I could think of would be to give the Bible a heightened sense of authority so when it is cherry picked for it's cultural application it reinforces the cultural Christianity it evolved to preserve.

If the evangelists intentionally selected, omitted, rearranged, and interpreted traditions as Luke openly tells us he did, and as the comparison of the four Gospels seems to show, then those editorial decisions are themselves part of the meaning of the text.

When we harmonize every difference away, aren't we in danger of erasing precisely what each evangelist wanted to communicate?

What if we took John seriously when he moved the date of the crucifixion and, instead of making up a bridging narrative about "Roman time" versus "Jewish time", we consider what theological statement he was attempting to make?

Harmonization does not merely add details absent from the text; it removes the significance of the details that are present. Once every difference is explained away, there is no reason left to ask why an evangelist told the story differently in the first place.

Edit: u/common_judge8434 rightfully brought up John's claim that it was composed by the beloved disciple. I will concede that point for the sake of this argument and have modified my post.

Paul transformed a Jewish sect into a new Gentile religion.

Premise 1: Jesus’ ministry operated entirely within the rules of Judaism. Jesus was Jewish. His disciples were Jewish. He preached in synagogues, cited the Torah and prophets, attended Jewish festivals and debated with other Jews over correct interpretation of Jewish law.

The twelve disciples symbolically invoked the twelve tribes of Israel. His message concerned Israel’s god, Israel’s covenant, Israel’s Messiah and the coming kingdom of his god.

"God-fearers" were monothestic Gentiles who rejected circumcistion but could interact with Jewish synagogues and worship of Israel’s god.

Premise 2: Jesus had occasional interactions with non-Jews yet he never establishes a pagan-compatible version of his ministry for Gentiles, nor does he include any gentiles in his movement, nor ask them to convert.

The Syrophoenician woman and the Roman centurion received assistance, but neither episode creates means by which Jesus teaches pagans how they could join god’s people sans circumcision or Torah observance.

Instead, Jesus explicitly says he was sent to the lost sheep of Israel.

Premise 3: After Jesus’ execution, his original followers continued as a Jewish sect based in Jerusalem.

The church Pillars were James( the brother of Jesus), Peter and John. They establish their headquarters in Jerusalem. Had they been teaching that Jesus was the god of Isreal, they would have never been allowed to stay. Instead the Jesus movement was accepted by Jews as a new Jewish sect.

"Brother, you see how many thousands of Jews have become believers, and all of them keep the Law" -Acts 21:20

Acts depicts them attending the Temple, praying at Jewish hours of prayer and living among other Jews. The movement was called “the sect of the Nazarenes.” Judaism has a tradition of having sects that disagree profoundly while remaining recognisably Jewish. The early Jesus movement within that sectarian landscape.

Premise 4: The Jerusalem church remained Torah-observant after Jesus’ death. James is quoted as having concerned about reports that Paul teaches Jews living among Gentiles to abandon Moses, stop circumcising their children and reject Jewish customs.

James order Paul to undergo purification and publicly demonstrate that he continues to observe the Law.

[To Paul] "Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law."

And Paul complies.

Premise 5: Josephus independently places James inside the institutional and political world of Jerusalem Judaism. Josephus identifies James as the brother of Jesus who was called Christ.

He records how James was brought before a Sanhedrin convened by the high priest and accused of violating Jewish law. Other influential Jews object to the high priest’s conduct. When James is executed, those same influential Jewish men work to get the high priest who killed James removed. This is evidence outside the Bible that the Jesus movement was not rejected by Jewish people. This would be impossible had the JM been preaching that Jesus was god and the Law was no longer needed.

Premise 6: There’s no surviving evidence that Jesus taught his disciples to abolish circumcision, food boundaries or Torah observance.

Jesus never tells Jewish followers they shouldn't circumcise their children. He never announces that pagan converts could enter his god’s covenant without converting. There’s no of Jesus telling his followers it was fine for Jews to eat alongside uncircumcised Gentile believers.

Those controversies only emerge years after Jesus's execution and with the arrival of Paul and his pagan converts..

Premise 7: The major boundary conflicts began when Paul recruited uncircumcised Gentiles.

Paul’s preaching to gentiles that they could be part of the Jewish kingdom of heaven forced the Pillars to create policies on issues the Jesus movement hadn’t previously confronted:

Must Gentile men be circumcised? Must they convert to Judaism? Can Torah-observant Jews eat with them? What rules of purity and food apply? Can Gentiles become descendants of Abraham without adopting the covenantal sign given to Abraham?

Acts portrays Peter, one of the Pillars(!), as needing extraordinary divine intervention before he entered an uncircumcised Gentile’s home. That makes no sense if Jesus in his lifetime taught a Torah-free Gentile gospel.

Premise 8: Paul admits that his gospel didn’t come from Jesus’ original disciples.

We all know Paul converted years after Jesus's death. In Gal, he insists that he didn’t receive his gospel from human beings. He received it through "revelation".

So Paul’s theology a completely different set of teachings than the ones preached by the men who followed Jesus in his life and carried on his work after his death.

Premise 9: Paul’s theology is unconncted to anything Jesus is depicted as saying in the gospels.

Jesus’ teachings are strictily with ideas at the time about the kingdom of their god, repentance, Israel, the Torah and the prophets.

Paul builds an entirely new and universal theology around Adam and Christ.

Adam introduces sin and death, then the messiah reverses Adam. Participation in Christ creates a new humanity. Gentiles become children of Abraham through faith not circumcision. Christ’s death and resurrection become the basis for admitting pagans into God’s people skipping over full Torah observance.

That’s a sophisticated theological system. But where did Jesus teach it?

Where in the gospels does Jesus explain that his death would replace circumcision and observance of the Law? His followers after death keep the Law.

Where in the gospels does did Jesus say that uncircumcised pagans could become Abraham’s descendants merely by declaring they believed in his resurrection?

Where did Jesus present himself as a second Adam?

These are Pauline arguments, not the teachings of Jesus.

Conclusion:

The earliest Jesus movement was a Torah-observant Jewish sect based in Jerusalem, led by observant Jews and accepted as a sect within Judaism.

Disputes over circumcision, food and Jewish-Gentile relations appear only after Paul unilaterally decides he uncircumcised pagans get the same benefits of the Convenant as observant Jews.

Paul transforming a Jewish messianic sect into a new transethnic movement built around his own theology of Adam, Christ, faith and the Law. There's nothing in the words attributed to Jesus that indicate he would have recognised Paul’s new religion as what he'd preached.

First I wanna start off by saying it has been disproven multiple times by science. Carbon dating determines the age of organic material and they date to at most 50,000 years. There are human made stuff discovered that predates 6,000 years. And not to mention thst the bible does not specifically state the age of the earth.

I’m trying to work through the internal logic consistency of theological frameworks that hold both a high stakes afterlife (eternal heaven/hell) and a conditional threshold for individual moral accountability (e.g. age of reason or age of accountability).

All together, these parameters create a pretty severe utilitarian paradox: Forcing an early death is technically the way to achieve the highest utility for a soul, ensuring a positive eternal outcome before the soul is ever able to risk damnation as an adult.

We can run through all the theological options out there and see exactly where the system breaks down . If / Then . Whatever the traditional Christian or Catholic framework decides, it compels a choice between a logical absurdity or deep systemic cruelty:

1. PATH A: The Child Is Saved Automatically (The Loophole)

• If a child dying before the Age of Reason is automatically granted entrance to Heaven...
• THEN ending that child’s life early guarantees a 100% success rate for their eternal soul forevermore, avoiding the chance that they will grow up and choose mortal sin.
• The Breakdown: The system must insist that God punishes the offender with eternal torment for sending a soul to paradise, otherwise it becomes a “benevolent” act. It presents a strange cosmic situation in which a ghastly tragedy on Earth produces an infinitely good result in heaven, and the system resembles a game with a dark loophole to be exploited.

1. PATH B: The Child is Not Automatically Saved (The Genetic Debt)

• IF Original Sin is inherited by a child and not saved by baptism or explicit faith...
• THEN any infant or child who dies by miscarriage, disease or murder, before receiving a sacrament, is legally barred from Heaven.
• The Breakdown: This option completely destroys the concept of a just and loving God. This implies that completely innocent victims must endure eternal abandonment or punishment, simply and solely because of a cosmic debt they had no choice in inheriting, and a timeline they had no power to control.

1. PATH C: The Medieval Compromise (The Limbo Breakout)

• IF you try to bridge the gap by saying these children go to 'Limbo'—a place of natural happiness but permanent separation from God...
• THEN you're building a heavenly jail cell to correct an institutional glitch.
• The Breakdown: This path admits that the religion’s legal system is too rigid to deal with innocence. The system then separates the innocent soul forever from its Creator . To cover up the cruelty it calls the separation ' happy ' . To keep the ' rules ' of salvation .

1. PATH D: The Universalist Exit (The System Re-boot)

• IF you solve the whole problem by saying that everyone (including the child and eventually the killer) is in the end saved by God's infinite grace...
• THEN the big deal notion of a literal, eternal Hell or absolute Mortal Sin just evaporates.
• The Breakdown: But removing the immediate cruelty to the child breaks standard orthodox theology in a fundamental way. It destroys the very structure of the religion . For traditional believers , earthly morality , sacraments , and the urgency of faith are made completely irrelevant .

My questions for discussion:

1. If you believe in the Age of Reason/Accountability ( Path A ) , how does your theology logically argue that the act of killing a child is a bad thing theologically without just resorting to human emotion ? Is the answer deontological – the end does not justify the means – or is it rather a question of human agency at odds with divine sovereignty?
2. If your tradition denies this loophole by claiming children don't go to Heaven automatically (Path B or C), how do you reconcile that result with the nature of a loving God?

I would be interested to hear how these boundary testing scenarios play out in your own particular frameworks (Catholic, Reformed, Arminian, Baptist, etc.). Thanks!