This was posted 1 year 2 months 23 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

[eBook] Theological and Biblical Bundle (+1 Audiobook) Free (Was US$86) @ Logos

1171
[eBook] Theological and Biblical Bundle (+1 Audiobook) Free (Was US$86) @ Logos
Go to Deal
angelcrc7 on 30/08/2023 - 08:18 logos.com (1241 clicks)
Last edited 03/09/2023 - 18:49 by 1 other user

[eBook] Theological and Biblical Bundle (+1 Audiobook) - Free Limited Time - August 2023 - Last Days (Was US$86) @ Logos

Only login or register a totally free account at Logos.com (or faithlife.com) in first place, here:
https://www.logos.com/signin?returnUrl=%2F

1)
Find It Fast in the Bible: A Quick Topical Reference | Logos Bible Software (Was US$15) [eBook]
by Ron Rhodes - Publisher: Harvest House Publishers, 2016
https://www.logos.com/product/127823/find-it-fast-in-the-bib…
Ron Rhodes, president of Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries, is heard regularly on nationwide radio and is the author of Bite-Size Bible Answers, Bite-Size Bible Definitions, Commonly Misunderstood Bible Verses and 5-Minute Apologetics for Today. He holds ThM and ThD degrees from Dallas Theological Seminary and teaches there and at several other seminaries.
Overview: Make the Most Out of Your Time in God's Word. Do you want to know more about a specific concept in Scripture without having to dig through multiple books? Find It Fast in the Bible is an innovative reference guide that makes it easy to discover what the Bible teaches. Look up the topic you're interested in and discover a list of corresponding Scripture verses. With this user-friendly format, you can find what you're looking for in seconds, such as…
EXPIRED!

———- EXPIRED:

2)
Ten Indictments Against the Modern Church (audiobook) | Logos Bible Software (Was US$15) [audiobook]
by Paul Washer - Publisher: One Audiobooks, 2021
https://www.logos.com/product/198125/ten-indictments-against…
Paul Washer is an evangelist and teacher that was a missionary in Peru for ten years, during which time he founded the HeartCry Missionary Society to support Peruvian church planters. Paul now serves as one of the laborers with the HeartCry Missionary Society.
Overview: The modern church is in need revival. But as author Paul Washer contends, “we cannot simply do what is right in our own eyes and then expect the Holy Spirit to come down and bless our labors.” Truth be told, the devil has little need to oppose the church’s prayer for revival unless God’s people are seeking to live lives and order congregations according to God’s Word. This book examines ten areas where churches have neglected clear biblical direction and need to prayerfully seek reformation.
EXPIRED!

3)
Letters of John (NIV Application Commentary | NIVAC) | Logos Bible Software (Was US$27) [eBook]
by Gary M. Burge - Publisher: Zondervan, 1996
https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/791858 (shared by mambods)
Gary M. Burge (PhD, University of Aberdeen) is dean of the faculty and professor of New Testament at Calvin Theological Seminary. He previously taught for twenty-five years at Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinois. Among his many published books are The New Testament in Seven Sentences, Theology Questions Everyone Asks (with coeditor David Lauber), A Week in the Life of a Roman Centurion, Mapping Your Academic Career, The New Testament in Antiquity (coauthored with Gene Green), and the award-winning Whose Land? Whose Promise? What Christians Are Not Being Told About Israel and the Palestinians.
Overview: The letters of John speak words of encouragement and reproach to the grave concerns of the early church, yet reveal a God who not only loves his people, but wants them to experience life abundantly. Gary M. Burge’s commentary on the letters of John focuses on understanding the significance of John’s letters when he wrote them, and conveys the power they still have today.
EXPIRED!

4)
Gregory of Nazianzus: Three Poems | Logos Bible Software (Was US$16) [eBook]
by Gregory of Nazianzus - Publisher: Catholic University of America, 1987
https://www.logos.com/product/53629/gregory-of-nazianzus-thr…
Gregory of Nazianzus (c. 329 – January 25 389 or 390) (also known as Gregory the Theologian or Gregory Nazianzen) was a 4th-century Archbishop of Constantinople. He is widely considered the most accomplished rhetorical stylist of the patristic age. As a classically trained speaker and philosopher he infused Hellenism into the early church, establishing the paradigm of Byzantine theologians and church officials.
Overview: Raised in a multi-generational Christian family, Gregory of Nazianzus was also well-educated, well-traveled, and tutored in almost every discipline of the Greek arts, philosophies, sciences, and literatures. Among his studies must have included Homer, Hesiod, Apollonius of Rhodes, Thucydides, Plutarch, Herodotus, Lucian, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle—the list goes on. The numerous poems written by Gregory had a profound influence over Byzantine hymnology, although, beyond that, they largely provide a treasure trove of autobiographical and historical data. The poem Concerning His Own Life is the earliest known Christian autobiography, and probably had a direct influence on Augustine’s Confessions.
EXPIRED!

5)
El Reino de Dios: El Bien Supremo | Logos Bible Software (Spanish) (Was US$13) [eBook]
by Herman Bavinck - Publisher: Monte Alto Editorial, 2021
https://www.logos.com/product/241241/el-reino-de-dios-el-bie…
Herman Bavinck (1854–1921), was a Dutch Reformed theologian who contributed to the resurgence of Reformed theology. Bavinck studied at Kampen Theological Seminary and the University of Leiden and graduated in 1880. He taught at both Kampen Theological Seminary and Free University and was a contemporary of Abraham Kuyper and B. B. Warfield, both of whom he knew well.
Reseña: Dios ama a su Iglesia. A tal punto Dios ama a su pueblo, que envió a su Hijo a vivir, morir y resucitar por su novia. Y no sólo eso, sino que también envió a su Espíritu Santo para aplicar todas las bendiciones del pacto que se encuentran en el libro del pacto, la Biblia. Es el Espíritu Santo, aquel que infaliblemente inspiró las Santas Escrituras, quien aplica a lo más profundo de nuestro corazón la realidad del pacto de gracia. Ese pacto expresa la potente y dulce voz del Dios trino que dice: «Yo soy vuestro Dios, y ustedes son mi pueblo». En base a ese determinado tipo de relación, los creyentes pueden decir, «Dios, y solamente Dios, es el bien supremo del hombre». *Tomado del prólogo por Israel Guerrero.
EXPIRED!

Peace, health and success in life and eternity!
angelcrc7

:)

Books & Magazines Audiobook Commentary eBook Theology

Related Stores

Logos Bible Study Platform
Logos Bible Study Platform

closed Comments

          • [Deactivated] on 30/08/2023 - 10:36
            -1

            @M00Cow:

            Money & institutional reputation are their gods

            Totally. I remember being dragged to church during a meetup with relatives I only meet once a once a year. This was around the time the George Pell case was going on. Priest made some sort of round about speech about how this case has affected their 'donations' lecturing people to 'give generously' before passing around the collection box. At the end he made another speech about prying that this case does 'not to affect people's faith'. Not once did he mention the victims. Never in my life has an individual triggered my gag reflexes with words. No wonder the only people in that church were old farts at death's door who think attending is their automatic ticket to heaven and don't care about the bs surrounding the institution.

            • Protractor on 30/08/2023 - 12:38
              +3

              @[Deactivated]: Whenever I have the 'good fortune' of driving past a church, I see a lot more than just old farts. Gullibility and generational guilt come in all ages.IMO children should not be allowed to enter a church until old enough to vote.
              If god botherers want to control women's bodies to 'protect the young and innocent' then they should protect them properly.All thee way.
              The RC flock never ever called out the pedos.The exception being families of victims , and they were outcast at best for daring to speak out.
              Tax breaks and all tax payer free kicks should be withdrawn from all religions and put back into health and education.Which other body gets free $$ and free influence over govts (of all leanings) ?
              They don't call parishioners a flock for nothing.

              • kamelataturd on 30/08/2023 - 17:42

                @Protractor: nah put it into more covid vaccines. maybe with every 10th booster you can get a free prostate exam. how dare the government not tax people multiple times on the same dollar!

                • Protractor on 30/08/2023 - 17:48
                  +1

                  @kamelataturd: Personally, I'd rather covid morphed into a strain that aided ppl to become 'deliberately brain' or doubled their IQ.
                  Half of the crap humanity that emerged after covid would vanish overnight.
                  We could just have worship licenses, and see how much ppl are prepared to payback the zillions religions have already milked from the taxpayer teat.
                  A new GST
                  God Supporters Tax

          • defecat0r on 30/08/2023 - 10:59
            +1

            @M00Cow: @M00Cow

            Money & institutional reputation are their gods, not the teaching of Jesus.

            One could make the same argument of the most influential man that has ever lived - the founder of Christianity. He LOVED to be revered by man, to be looked up to, the holder of secret knowledge, the one to whom great mysteries have been revealed, His false humility only to be superseded by his boundless capacity to boast of himself. He had the true business acumen - the ability to manipulate and coerce his devout followers to part with their material possessions with a skilled, forked tongue, for "Is it only he who lacks the right to not work for a living?" (1 Corinthians 9:6). These modern Churches you are denouncing are simply modelling their behaviour off the Apostle Paul.

            • EightImmortals on 30/08/2023 - 14:36
              +4

              @defecat0r: lols, noob. When you take 'text' out on context you are left with 'con'. Here is the whole verse for you know, context.

              Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not the result of my work in the Lord? 2 Even though I may not be an apostle to others, surely I am to you! For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.

              3 This is my defense to those who sit in judgment on me. 4 Don’t we have the right to food and drink? 5 Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas[a]? 6 Or is it only I and Barnabas who lack the right to not work for a living?

              7 Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat its grapes? Who tends a flock and does not drink the milk? 8 Do I say this merely on human authority? Doesn’t the Law say the same thing? 9 For it is written in the Law of Moses: “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.”[b] Is it about oxen that God is concerned? 10 Surely he says this for us, doesn’t he? Yes, this was written for us, because whoever plows and threshes should be able to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest. 11 If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you? 12 If others have this right of support from you, shouldn’t we have it all the more?

              But we did not use this right. On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ.

              13 Don’t you know that those who serve in the temple get their food from the temple, and that those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? 14 In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.

              15 But I have not used any of these rights. And I am not writing this in the hope that you will do such things for me, for I would rather die than allow anyone to deprive me of this boast. 16 For when I preach the gospel, I cannot boast, since I am compelled to preach. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! 17 If I preach voluntarily, I have a reward; if not voluntarily, I am simply discharging the trust committed to me. 18 What then is my reward? Just this: that in preaching the gospel I may offer it free of charge, and so not make full use of my rights as a preacher of the gospel.

              So agree with whoever called out the modern Church industrial complex but if you are trying to appeal to this text for anything beyond their basic provisions it aint going work. they have ZERO justification for the lives of excess at the expense of their parishioners. So 'the right to food and drink?', sure, why not? The right to million dollar mansions and private jets…probably not.

              • defecat0r on 30/08/2023 - 22:30

                @EightImmortals: What is wrong with taking text out of context?? Paul has done exactly this in the passage you have just cited (verse 9). Yes Paul, I think God cares about the oxen! This is Paul's con - to claim he's the high and mighty chosen one of God who has had secret mysteries revealed only to him, which justifies him taking Deuteronomy 25:4 completely out of context so as to argue that it meant all along that his churches should be giving HIM money! What modern con-artists like Joel Osteen do with the New Testament to justify their grift, Paul did with the Hebrew Scriptures to justify his grift.

                Do you really think that it was merely "basic provisions" being requested by these chaps? No, Paul is collecting bags of cash - Read the first section of 2 Corinthians 9 to see the manipulative, guilt written rhetoric that flows so easily from his pen. Or read Acts chapter 4 to see that people were selling LAND and giving all of the proceeds to these guys, look at the story of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5. The only difference between now and the first century is that technology has supercharged the grift.

                • EightImmortals on 31/08/2023 - 07:16
                  +2

                  @defecat0r: " What is wrong with taking text out of context?"

                  It shows your dishonest intentions.

                  "I think God cares about the oxen"

                  Do you? What else do you 'think' about God?

                  "so as to argue that it meant all along that his churches should be giving HIM money!"

                  Did you read the verse you quoted from? Maybe read it again. You are seeing things that just aren't there? And what was Paul's 'grift'?

                  And if your conjecture that Paul was the ancient equivalent of a televangelist were true then why does the Bible say he actually worked for a living to support himself? (acts 18)

                  "After this, Paul left Athens and went to Corinth. 2 There he met a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had ordered all Jews to leave Rome. Paul went to see them, 3 and because he was a tentmaker as they were, he stayed and worked with them. 4 Every Sabbath he reasoned in the synagogue, trying to persuade Jews and Greeks."
                  He was also a highly trained lawyer.

                  Or from Thesslonains.

                  "For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us; we were not idle when we were with you, we did not eat any one’s bread without paying, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not burden any of you.

                  2 Thessalonians 3:7-8"

                  Doesn't sound like your characterisation to me.

                  "What modern con-artists like Joel Osteen do with the New Testament to justify their grift, Paul did with the Hebrew Scriptures to justify his grift."

                  While I agree with you about modern day televangelists, your attempted disparagement of Paul by this false comparison is completely unproven at this point. And honestly I fail to see your motivation here. It isn't based on the Bible record so maybe you just hate Christianity, or did someone called 'Paul' do you wrong?

                  "Do you really think that it was merely "basic provisions" being requested by these chaps?"

                  Sure, where is your evidence to the contrary?

                  "Paul is collecting bags of cash - Read the first section of 2 Corinthians 9 "

                  Again with the out of context nonsense. How about you read the whole narrative instead. In summary 2cor8 " Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. 14 At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. The goal is equality, 15 as it is written: “The one who gathered much did not have too much, and the one who gathered little did not have too little.”[b]"

                  Yes he was collecting bags of money. It wasn't for hookers and blow it was for the poor, mainly in Jerusalem. Here is a treatise on the subject, you probably wont be interested as it doesn't support your imaginings. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/review/the-offe…

                  Or read Acts chapter 4

                  OK, here it is.

                  "32All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need."

                  Again, no mansions or Lambos.

                  You know, if you had just gone a rant about the abuses of megachurches and televangelists I'd be right there with you. But your attempts to try and connect that lot with the apostles, especially Paul is just flat out wrong and as I said a minute ago, you need to explain your motivation in trying to make that connection. Are you simply trying to do the Bible in? Good luck, people have been trying to do that for nearly 2000 years. Taking bits out of context and playing the eisegesis game aint going to cut it any more. Ironically you are doing the exact same thing your hated televegalists are doing, twisting the scriptures to suit your own purpose.

                  • defecat0r on 31/08/2023 - 10:36
                    -1

                    @EightImmortals: Ok, to begin with, I agree with you that taking text out of context shows your dishonest intentions. I do NOT believe I have done that here, yet I think this passage clearly demonstrates that Paul has. I would encourage you to read it again if you're not seeing it. Paul is plucking this passage in Deuteronomy 25:4 - "Do not muzzle an ex while it is treading out the grain" completely out of context as a proof text to draw his "harvest" analogy so as to argue that "spiritual leaders" should "have the right to not work for a living" and "reap a material harvest from you". His words not mine. I don't disagree that it's a good idea to support your leaders, but does the context of Deuteronomy 25:4 support this conclusion? Has God "written this for us"? Clearly not - this is simply Paul carelessly using the Hebrew Scriptures to give God-backed authority to his argument, safe in the knowledge that the Gentiles to whom he is writing will be incapable of adequately fact-checking his claims regarding the Scriptures.

                    You said:

                    "Taking bits out of context and playing the eisegesis game aint going to cut it any more"

                    This is somewhat ironic as this methodology fundamentally undergirds the epistemology of New Testament authors, including Paul. This "eisegesis game" is at the very core of New Testament theology and is the only way to make the life and deeds of Jesus fit with the "Old" Testament. You don't need to read more than the very first page of the New Testament to find the first of many examples.

                    Look, to be frank with you, I've had fun with these couple of responses here, and I've been a little flippant with my assertion that Paul was a grifter only in it for the money. I don't actually think that money was the prime motivator for this man. In reading the letters of Paul, reading the white-washed version of his head-butting with other apostles, his constant need to be right, his constant boasting, I think this all builds a picture of the true nature of the man. In my estimation, Paul has likely come from a background in which he has never been taken seriously by his peers. He's got the "youngest child" syndrome, always got something to prove, yet never given the respect he thinks he is entitled. His unfulfilling, frustrated life is completely changed when his conversion to the faith of the people he persecuted gives him everything he ever wanted - people who will hang off his every word, who when exposed to him in short doses do not see him for what he is, but instead see him as a great figure - the special chosen servant of God.

                    In short, Paul craves the respect of men. For Paul the grift is merely a means to an end. In his letters, Paul constantly refers to collecting cash from his different churches and bringing it back to the "saints" in Jerusalem. So you've got this cash flowing in, Paul is showing up in Jerusalem saying "hey, I've got these ideas about Jesus and his teachings and our theology, endorse my views and the cash flow will continue".

                    I do think that Paul was highly effective in his grift, well versed in using manipulative rhetoric (my sole purpose in pointing to 2 Cor 9) to aid in his "collections", but his primary vice in my opinion is for what he never received from his father, from Gamaliel (if his claims are to be believed) or his (alleged) Pharisee peers - Paul lusts for the adoration of men.

                    • LuckyLuke on 01/09/2023 - 07:23
                      +1

                      @defecat0r: Who are you? Why would you lie so blatantly?

                      Does this sound like someone who went around trying to please people:

                      "Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I was stoned. Three times I was shipwrecked. Once I spent a whole night and a day adrift at sea. 26 I have traveled on many long journeys. I have faced danger from rivers and from robbers. I have faced danger from my own people, the Jews, as well as from the Gentiles. I have faced danger in the cities, in the deserts, and on the seas. And I have faced danger from men who claim to be believers but are not.[a] 27 I have worked hard and long, enduring many sleepless nights. I have been hungry and thirsty and have often gone without food. I have shivered in the cold, without enough clothing to keep me warm."

                      https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Corinthians+1…

                      Be warned. God is just and will judge us for every word we say.

                      • SlickMick on 01/09/2023 - 08:04

                        @LuckyLuke: Another person who's been hurt and is now on a rampage.

                        • LuckyLuke on 01/09/2023 - 09:37

                          @SlickMick: Lol - I am not hurt - it has nothing to do with me - I am just shocked at the temerity and saddened by your ignorance.

                          On a rampage? I love you enough that I want you to know that the day will come when you die and face the day of judgment (for everyone - me included). Even mistakes of ignorance will not be overlooked because God is just. Genuinely ask God to reveal himself to you and you will see. If you don't ask then he won't - He doesn't force His will on anyone.

                          • SlickMick on 01/09/2023 - 11:03

                            @LuckyLuke: wow, I was answering your question and referring to @defecat0r, but okay.

                            What you say isn't actually correct BTW. God very much goes out of His way to reveal Himself to people. I don't think I know a single person who found God by searching, it has always been that He found us.
                            It's true that asking is good advice, but if you actually know how to reach God why don't you just say it? I'm guessing you only have religion??

                            • LuckyLuke on 01/09/2023 - 15:01

                              @SlickMick: @SlickMick: Well that wasn't entirely clear and maybe I was being a bit sensitive but please be careful with your tone.

                              Are you saying that I am not a Christian (by saying that I only have religion)? I feel sorry for you if you feel it is your job to judge everyone.

                              I also believe that God reveals it, but are you suggesting that everyone just waits around until God magically gets around to telling them that He has been there the whole time? Lol - I would suggest you check yourself before you start pointing out other people's weaknesses (which I certainly have).

                              I take my thinking from Matt 11:28.

                      • defecat0r on 01/09/2023 - 09:15

                        @LuckyLuke: How does it make you feel to read these words? How do you think his audience took it? "Wow, what a great man, he suffered so much for us, so selfless. He suffered it all to minister to our Churches - beatings and risking death, thirsty and cold, just to bring us a message that is not to be found anywhere in the Hebrew Scriptures but that God personally delivered to this great man by personal revelation. No wonder he's the chosen one of God!"

                        Manipulative narcissists know how their words affect others. Humble bragging can be effective and has been effective now for 2000 years as believers today are looking up to this great, wise, selfless figure.

                        All I can encourage you to do is read your Bible. Keep reading it and I trust you will see Paul for who he really is. Stop trusting in mere humans, who have but a breath in their nostrils. Why hold them in esteem? (Is 2:22)

                        Be warned. God is just and will judge us for every word we say.

                        Why should I heed this warning? If a Muslim warns you about the terrors of Islam hell, how much does that affect you? Not at all right, because you don't believe it exists?

                        • LuckyLuke on 01/09/2023 - 10:02
                          +1

                          @defecat0r: You don't have to follow my warning. It is a beautiful thing that we live in a country that people can make their own choices.

                          If you have not yet put your trust in Jesus as your Lord, it is very hard to understand why Christians (like myself) are so convinced. It is because when you trust Jesus, something unexplainable happens. At the same time that you put your trust in Him, He reveals Himself to you. Every Christian can speak of how God related Himself to them on a personal level. It is not about the church you belong to or even about Paul - when you let Jesus' message into your heart it changes a person. It is a mystery but very real, if you try it, you will see.

                          I don't blame you and I don't hate you. I spent the time writing this response because I want you to know the joy that I feel each and every day knowing Jesus.

                          Have a look at Delafe testimonies on YouTube.

                          • defecat0r on 01/09/2023 - 10:20

                            @LuckyLuke: Thank you for the kind reply in the face of what I will admit must come across as the height of obnoxiousness.

                            I will check out delafe testimonies later tonight.

                            How has God revealed himself to you? Can you be sure it's not you mind playing tricks on you? I am reminded of this clip - "spiritual witnesses":
                            https://youtu.be/UJMSU8Qj6Go?si=xyLcINbfNvizP68L

                            • LuckyLuke on 01/09/2023 - 11:41
                              +1

                              @defecat0r: Great question! (And I will watch your video)

                              I asked a similar question about spiritual visions on a Buddhist forum. To my understanding, Buddha had a spiritual vision and then, convinced of what he saw, was adamant that he understood everything (ie. 'enlightened') - but how do we know that what he saw was the truth - just because it is spiritual does not mean that it is the truth. It would be a great way for an evil spiritual force to deceive people.

                              The question (as I understand it) is to ask 'who can speak with authority on these things? Who can speak the truth? Is it ever knowable?'. It is definitely not me. What I understand is so small that I might as well know nothing. In fact, I think it is the greatest foolishness for someone with a finite mind to even pretend like we do. We are blind to things happening around us, wandering around in this world, trying to work out what is going on. Despite all of our advances in science and knowledge, I don't think we have solved anything - in fact, we may have made it worse. We live longer but not happier. Everything we try doesn't bring world peace, we take from the poor to make ourselves rich. The problems are too big, everything turns to crap. And the worst thing is that most people don't think there is a problem with the way we live and even if they do, they don't want to change.

                              At this point I can understand why people turn to Atheism or Buddhism or something like this - it is really confusing! We can try to just ignore everything and achieve some sort of zen state where we don't really care anymore - but we have to ask ourselves whether this is just another fancy form of self hypnosis.

                              When I look at Jesus, I ask myself 'what if what he said was true'. Then I see someone who acted with authority and spoke with authority. He was a random person from a remote village (not born to any authority) but his short life changed the entire world forever. He only ever acted in love and for that, they killed him. How could I find someone better to serve than Him? We shame him by calling ourselves Christians but acting so terribly.

                              I don't really even understand my path to faith. It wasn't through supernatural visions, but more a process of understanding that despite all my efforts to do good, I was never going to get to Heaven. I accepted my need of saving and put my trust in my saviour. It was the best thing I ever did and I don't regret it for a second.

                              There is more I can say, but I will leave it there.

                              • defecat0r on 01/09/2023 - 18:49

                                @LuckyLuke: I'm faced far too often with people that are adamant they cannot be wrong about controversial issues, so I appreciate your intellectual humility regarding what we can "know". I think the world would be a better place if more people could recognize their fallibility and lower their confidence just a scosche.

                                There are a bunch of questions I'd like to ask, but I'll attempt to show some restraint! You mentioned that Jesus' origins were from obscurity yet he went on to change the world. Is it possible for someone to change the world yet the foundation of their claims not be true?

                                I watched the latest video on Delafe Testimonies, a woman that has faced a lot of violence in Sierra Leone gives her testimony of the way Jesus has looked out for her. She gives a number of examples, here are three that stood out to me:
                                1. She always walked a certain way to school, but this particular day she decided to go a different way. What do you know, she came across some money on the street that was of need in her family. I'm left asking the question - If Jesus looking out for her is the best explanation for this event, what is the second best explanation?
                                2. She is trapped in an upper floor of a burning buildings, with murderous armed rebels outside. She prays to a picture of Jesus and then the rebels begin fighting between themselves. I ask again - if the best explanation is that this is fulfillment of Isaiah 49:26 - "I will make your oppressors eat their own flesh, and they shall be drunk with their own blood", what is the next best explanation?
                                3. Another time, a rebel is shooting at her and her brother, but "the bullet could not touch her". If Jesus protecting her with a physical sphere of divine protection is the best explanation, what's the second best natural explanation?

                                This is the way I think when I hear testimonies like this.

                                One last question, and you might know where I am going with this - suppose I am very well versed with the Quran and can identify multiple areas of "tension" that I would put down to true errors, blatant dishonesty and true contradiction. Now sure, I could always be wrong, but I have seen so many examples that now I am quite sure of my verdict regarding this text. Muslims have answers to all of my objections mind you, I see that they are lowering the bar so low as to explain anything away in order to dismiss these problems due to their commitment to their faith. Now suppose a Muslim tells me that they have had spiritual encounters that they can only attribute to the work of Allah in their life, suppose many Muslims share similar stories. Should I forget all the issues I see in the text and convert to Islam? What should I do in this situation?

                                • LuckyLuke on 01/09/2023 - 21:41
                                  +1

                                  @defecat0r: Ok, lots to try and answer. And again, this is only my understanding. Feel free to disagree!

                                  I love talking to Muslims. They also have a genuine desire to know and serve God. Many of them are better than the people they have as leaders - but maybe that is true of every organisation. Encourage your Muslim friends to listen to Christian Prince on YouTube - he knows the Quran and the Hadiths better than anyone I know. He has islamic governments making complaints about him because he proves what he says.

                                  Ok, onto the second issue. If you were to think of this like a court case, you would need to establish the claim to be tested and examine the evidence (which would usually involve listening to the witnesses).

                                  The thing about Jesus is that if he did not die and rise again, then the whole thing falls apart. Jesus would have just died and he would not have kept his word (that is, he predicted that he would die and rise again). So the claim to be proven is whether there is enough evidence to be satisfied that Jesus did die and rise again.

                                  One of the most popular books on this is by Lee Strobel called the Case for Christ, but there are many others. On YouTube, look out for William Lane Craig. He is crazy smart and easy to listen to.

                                  Then there are the witnesses. Even a normal story where something strange happens cannot be proven 'scientifically' because it can't be repeated. If we were to follow this type of test in a courtroom then you wouldn't be able to prove anything and every guilty person would walk free. Everything can be explained in other ways, but it becomes harder to argue this way when you have a lot of people witnessing the same thing or having similar encounters but completely unrelated to each other. In ancient cultures it was accepted that if there was at least 2 witnesses to an event, then it would be 'proven'. Jesus did everything out in the open, in front of big crowds, so it is not just a matter of trusting one person's word for it. (As an interesting aside - Muhammad was always alone when he claimed to have a revelation).

                                  Onto your last issue, this again is difficult. I agree that just because you have an experience doesn't prove anything. I have a mate at work who thinks he achieved a 'god like' state through transcendental meditation. He plans to go on drugs (mushrooms or something) in the future so that he can keep feeling that way. I don't think my experience is the same as his experience - can I prove it? No, but I enjoy the process of trying to understand.

                                  I don't know if any of this makes sense. Hopefully I have given you enough to explain how I think about it.

                                  • defecat0r on 02/09/2023 - 00:43

                                    @LuckyLuke: I hear Frank Turek make this argument often - "If Jesus rose from the dead then Christianity is true". I agree with you it really is that simple, and all tensions in the NT can be dismissed if this can be established. In a courtroom, we're not looking for "proof" per se, but merely "beyond reasonable doubt". A man rising from the dead is a big claim, is the evidence beyond reasonable doubt? In a court room, ideally we can interrogate the witnesses. They can be probed for inconsistencies. They can be separated and interviewed individually to see if their stories align.

                                    Can we do that with the New Testament? The authorship of the four canonical Gospels is highly controversial to say the least. The witnesses were never separated, instead they all knew one another intimately. They had decades to consolidate false memories, to come to agreement on a rough sequence of events, wise words spoken and deeds done before writing their accounts. These witnesses copied from one another, often word for word.

                                    The older I get, the less faith I have in my fellow human beings - people so easily deceive one another and themselves. Stories grow and are embellished over time while the truth is ignored or lost. Witnesses hear the embellishment but through peer pressure don't speak up and the untruth grows still further unchecked. If they do speak up they are often ignored. I think we have all seen this happen at some point in our lives.

                                    Lee Strobel is actually a good example here (I'm actually quite familiar with both Lee Strobel and WLC, and have read Case for Christ). Suppose I were to describe Lee Strobel's story as that of a staunch atheist investigative reporter that set out on a mission to disprove Christ, interviewing various scholars, experts and authors, and upon investigating the evidence, the science, and the claims of Christianity had no choice but to convert. Most people that know who Lee Strobel is would not bat an eye at that description.

                                    The problem is, that story is not true. There are two stories here that have been befuddled together. The truth is out there, but Lee does very little to correct this favourable misconception.
                                    Lee confesses that as an "atheist" he believed that "the idea of an all-loving, all-powerful, all-knowing Creator of the Universe was just absurd, wasn’t worth even my time to consider". This is not an atheist in my books. He had problems with alcohol, and with his relationship with his wife, but when she converted to Christianity he saw a highly positive change in her. This change, in time, led him to go to church and read apologetics material (books unknown, he won't say what). Desperate for a change in his life, for reconciliation with his wife - seek and you will find, he now had motive to find reasons for belief. Then 10 years later after many years as a teaching Pastor he BEGAN his investigation for Case for Christ. "Christian Pastor investigates the claims of Christianity and finds them convincing" just doesn't have the same ring to it. This is the reality, but I think would surprise the majority of those familiar with the story.

                                    This is how human beings operate, and many MANY of us have far less scruples even than this. I see people in the first century as no different to people today - no less prone to deceive or be deceived, to embellish or exaggerate, no smarter, or more rational or less capable of being led to false beliefs. I wouldn't believe a resurrection claim today with similar evidence, so why lower the bar for this first century claim just because belief in this claim is asserted to have so much more at stake?

                                    That's the way I see things! Thanks for explaining things from your point of view, cheers Luke.

                                    • gto21 on 02/09/2023 - 07:45

                                      @defecat0r: In a few decades or today, if someone were to inquire whether 9/11 occurred my response would remain affirmative, as the event remains relatively recent. I believe that the Gospels and Acts were composed before 70 AD. Some scholars, with a critical and liberal perspective, tend to date them later due to the prophetic content.

                                      While it's known that people might have inconsistencies in recalling events, major ones are typically well-remembered, like the sinking of the Titanic. It's possible they can have minor inconsistencies, but most will say the Titanic sank.

                                      One could argue that the disciples might have had wishful thinking or self-deception, but this reasoning is less applicable to figures like Paul and James.

                                      Even among some agnostic and atheist scholars, the crucifixion remains one of the most widely accepted historical facts, with some acknowledging that the disciples genuinely believed in the resurrection. They often explain this by suggesting the possibility of visions, although figures like Paul and James are seen as less likely to have experienced such self-deception.

                                      The decision to be an atheist or theist often hinges on subjective factors. Personal experiences can play a role. Sometimes you can sense that someone has a hatred for religion. Maybe that person had a bad experience with religious people. For many theists as well, the primary reasons for belief can be subjective.

                                      You wrote a lot from memory, and I think I covered most of what you said.

                                      • defecat0r on 02/09/2023 - 09:54

                                        @gto21: I don't think an early dating of the Gospels would change a whole lot on my view, but I'll point out what you already know - that a dating this early goes against the majority of NT scholarship, most of these experts being Christians.

                                        Are the events of 9/11 the same kind of event as a resurrection? Do the details of 9/11 have the capacity to have grown over time? Do we know the exact day, date and time of 9/11? Is there incontrovertible physical evidence of 9/11? Isn't it incredible that even with modern technology there is still so much uncertainty surrounding many aspects of 9/11 even though the evidence is so vastly superior to Jesus' resurrection? I do not believe a passenger jet flew into the Pentagon, do you? Imagine if your salvation relied on believing the official 9/11 narrative!

                                        One could argue that the disciples might have had wishful thinking or self-deception, but this reasoning is less applicable to figures like Paul and James.

                                        How so? People fall victim to wishful thinking and self-deception every day, why not these two? We don't know too much about James the brother of Jesus, but we know more of Paul than anyone else from this time. He is a complicated character and I would put money on Paul being very securely on the spectrum, capable of both having a "real" experience that he attributed to an appearance of Jesus, and also capable of deceiving himself still further.

                                        Even among some agnostic and atheist scholars, the crucifixion remains one of the most widely accepted historical facts

                                        The crucifixion is a mundane claim, the resurrection is the big claim. Does the fact that the first can be said to almost certainly have happened give extra credibility to the second? If I tell you that I own a flying car, then prove to you beyond doubt that I own a car, will you be more likely to believe the big claim?

                                        The decision to be an atheist or theist often hinges on subjective factors. Personal experiences can play a role. Sometimes you can sense that someone has a hatred for religion.

                                        I agree with this for the most part - I think that most people reach their beliefs for subjective (emotional) reasons. I also suspect that it is all too easy to dismiss valid criticisms from others by appealing to an apparent "hatred for the truth that I believe", it is easy and therefore tempting to do.

                                        Cheers!

                                        • gto21 on 02/09/2023 - 10:15

                                          @defecat0r: That's why I sent another message regarding the pre-Pauline creeds, relying on the dating provided by some atheists and critical scholars. I understand that early dating may not significantly impact your views, as it seems you've already made up your mind. However, I believe sharing this information might benefit someone else who reads it. I'm not attempting to persuade you, as I suspect that even if I were to prove you wrong, you might still maintain that it doesn't alter your view.

                                    • gto21 on 02/09/2023 - 09:18

                                      @defecat0r: I'd like to present the perspectives of atheist and critical historians on the pre-Pauline creeds. According to Gerd Ludemann, the creeds date back to "the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus, not later than three years," which would be around 30 to 33 CE. Michael Goulder suggests they originated "a couple of years after the crucifixion," and Thomas Sheehan places them in the years 32 to 34 C.E.

                                      So, even according to some atheist and critical historians, we find that the argument of decades of false memory is not supported.

                                      • defecat0r on 02/09/2023 - 14:25

                                        @gto21: You are skeptical that I'll change my mind given these arguments, and I think you are right to be. It really is sad how infrequently people seem to be capable of changing their minds. Why can't we have deep, lengthy discussions about these matters that result in belief revision more frequently than we see? I think Jonathan Haidt hits the nail on the head when he says "intuitions come first, strategic reasoning comes second." We believe for emotional reasons, then set out to justify what we already believe.
                                        Do you think the same would be true the other way around? If I were to show you numerous examples of NT authors being dishonest with the Hebrew Scriptures - intentionally mistranslating the text, quote mining, ignoring context, exaggeration and embellishment in the gospels, nonsensical prophecies, contradictions between OT and NT theology - how likely would you be to change your mind? About as likely as me, right? It's unfortunate.

                                        So, even according to some atheist and critical historians, we find that the argument of decades of false memory is not supported.

                                        We can agree that there is vastly more content to be found in the Gospels than in the two creeds, right? I see no problem with early creedal development for the very basics: Jesus dies unexpectedly on a cross. His disciples have had their world turned upside down. They have fled, they're in fear for their lives, they're trying to make sense of this - "we knew him so well, he was the Messiah, we can't possibly be wrong, this must have happened for a reason!". Peter - guilt ridden for his betrayal, feeling decimated, sleep deprived, has a post bereavement delusion - an entirely natural occurrence. Mary hears of it and returning to her documented hysteria, encounters something similar. The disciples feed off one another, more people "see" Jesus. Now they are scouring the scriptures, understanding that if this was meant to happen all along, they will find it prophesied in Scripture. Seek and you will find - they look for what is not there and find it, in Psalm 22, in Isaiah 53, etc etc.

                                        This all happens very early, in the first few years. Early creeds develop, but what content do we find in them?
                                        1 Cor 15:
                                        1. Died for sins according to the Scriptures (this is a statement of faith, they went looking to prove this from Scripture, yet this Scripture does not exist)
                                        2. he was buried and raised on the third day according to the Scriptures (once again, this Scripture does not exist.)
                                        3. he appeared to Peter
                                        4. Then to the Twelve
                                        5. Then to 500 at the same time
                                        6. Then James and all the apostles
                                        7. Then to Paul
                                        What does this creed NOT say:
                                        1. That Jesus was buried in a tomb
                                        2. The manner in which these appearances took place. That comes MUCH later in the Gospels. For all we know, the appearance to the 500 could have been "in the clouds", or in the same way Jesus "appears" to thousands of Pentecostals every Sunday.

                                        No need to cover the Philippians 2 creed, there's not a lot of meat there. My point is simply that there's not a lot in these creeds that should raise our confidence about these claims in any significant way simply because they are early.

                                        Sorry for writing so much, I'm REALLY trying to be brief, I could say a LOT more about this as I'm sure you can understand. Cheers.

                                        • gto21 on 02/09/2023 - 15:21

                                          @defecat0r: You know what's intriguing? I've observed individuals reading Isaiah 53 to Muslims and other groups without disclosing its origin in the Old Testament. They inquired about the identity of the person described, and the response was "Jesus." Only after this do they reveal that it comes from the Old Testament. What's even more remarkable is that all they did was read the text, without any commentary. Maybe you don't believe it, but I've seen it happen with my own eyes.

                                          • defecat0r on 02/09/2023 - 17:46

                                            @gto21: Magic tricks can seem incredible - we can't possibly conceive how an illusion is performed, but when we see behind the curtain and learn how the trick is done the "magic" vanishes. I agree that on its surface, reading Isaiah 53 sounds like Jesus. It does not surprise me in the least to hear of that response from Muslims in reaction to reading this text "blind". I've seen the same thing from missionaries speaking to Jews on the streets of Jerusalem.

                                            This is going to be difficult for me to communicate and I expect you'll see this as crazy given how different our perspectives are on this, but I think if we could travel back in time and see the origins and development of Christianity we would be "seeing behind the curtain" and the "magic" in this phenomenon would disappear.

                                            My view is this: Jesus disciples expected Jesus to fulfil all of the things their Scriptures said the Messiah would do, however, Jesus died unexpectedly on the cross. No-one saw it coming, Jesus did not predict it. His disciples could not conceive they were wrong, so they scoured the Scriptures employing a different hermeneutic, one that enabled them to disregard the Scripture that spoke of what the Messiah was to do but Jesus did not, and enabled them to find Jesus in passages that had some commonality with events unfolding around them. This is eisegesis. Jesus suffered, the servant in Isaiah 53 suffered - "this must be speaking of Jesus". Now Isaiah 53 IS a messianic prophecy and describes the purpose for the suffering of the servant - this is now a template that is used to construct the role of Jesus on earth, the purpose of his life and the purpose of his death. It's no wonder that out of context, Muslims/Jews perceive it to be speaking of Jesus - Jesus has been designed to fit this narrative.

                                            What I think would be truly amazing, is if Isaiah 53 fit for Jesus when read in context, and did not specifically require one to read the passage out of context.

                                            • gto21 on 02/09/2023 - 20:08

                                              @defecat0r: You mentioned Isaiah 53, and that's the only context I received from you. Please provide additional chapters if you need more context.

                                    • LuckyLuke on 02/09/2023 - 15:47

                                      @defecat0r: I watched your video and don't disbelieve it's assertion. It made me think of artificial flavours in food - can our brains actually tell the difference between the fake and the real? You could ask the question - what is wrong with fake flavours if they make people happy? - but somewhere in my heart, I know that it is a lie. We also don't know what side effects the chemicals have on our health. Do I eat artificial flavours? Yes I do - and I have no excuse. The consequences of my decisions (in ignorance or just laziness) are on my head.

                                      Maybe I am reading this wrong but you may believe that spiritual things are real? But the problem is they all claim the same thing? Or do you think that because of the inconsistencies, it is impossible to tell what is right and wrong?

                                      Onto the case for Christ - I didn't know Lee's background, and I am not going to defend him if he was not being completely honest. It is a difficult situation when something 'good' comes from something 'bad'. Like a person born as a result of a rape. Is the result bad because the process was not good? I think I can accept that a good that comes from bad is still good. I don't anything we do comes without negative side effects - does that make everything bad?

                                      My understanding of the canonical gospels is that only 2 were actually eyewitnesses and they were not written at the same time. Luke certainly wasn't an eye witness - he says in his own words that he set out to collect stories from those who knew Jesus. John was written many years afterwards - and is very different. I think your claim is a little too generic. I have heard that it was common for 'disciples' of a teacher to write down what the teacher said. It may have been that there is some mystery document of quotes that they used to put together the narrative. The gospels were certainly written within the lifetime of people who met Jesus - it wasn't just four people - if it were made up then it would not have got the reputation for being trustworthy as it did. It is also hard to understand why some of the first Christians were prepared to die in support of the same story - even death in the arena.

                                      • defecat0r on 02/09/2023 - 18:14

                                        @LuckyLuke:

                                        Maybe I am reading this wrong but you may believe that spiritual things are real? But the problem is they all claim the same thing? Or do you think that because of the inconsistencies, it is impossible to tell what is right and wrong?

                                        No, I believe that no God or gods exist and believe there is nothing supernatural. I'd be happy to change my mind, but I think epistemology matters and we owe it to ourselves to believe only for good reasons. No my point in linking that video is to say that people of all religions have these experiences - they "know" in their innermost being that they've found the truth yet hold mutually exclusive beliefs - that is to say, this is an unreliable way of coming to knowledge. "God revealing himself" through things we feel, in my opinion, is false attribution of an all too human phenomenon.

                                        Is the result bad because the process was not good?

                                        I don't disagree with your conclusion here, but I think there's a much more important question. Forget good or bad, is it true! I think that's more important.

                                        Onto authorship of the Gospels: Yep, tradition holds that Luke was a companion of Paul, Mark was a companion of Peter, and the Gospels of Matthew and John were authored by the named disciples. Luke knew Paul, Paul knew Peter, Peter knew Mark, Mark and Matthew and Luke knew John. Here's a quote from Christian Historian Dale Ellison "…these people are talking to each other all the time, so they're not truly independent in any way, at all." Beyond that, the fact that so much of Matthew and Luke is copied from Mark is the very reason they're called the "Synoptics." I could bloviate on about this but I'll leave it there.

                                        I think it's easy to understand why some of the first Christians were prepared to die in support of the same story, it's the same reason Christians were willing to die in the 3rd century, or various people of various faiths have been willing to die throughout history - they believed it was true and didn't have to witness the events to hold this confidence.

                                        • gto21 on 02/09/2023 - 20:10

                                          @defecat0r: What is the source for Mark?

                                          • defecat0r on 02/09/2023 - 20:17

                                            @gto21: We can probably never know with any real degree of certainty. Consensus of scholars is that none of the Gospels are written by the authors tradition ascribes, so it's likely not to have been written by Mark the companion of Peter. IIRC there are some reasons to believe it was written in Rome, a very long way from the purported events. I would assume that there was no one source, but that it is an amalgamation of the tradition that arose in the first decades.

                                            • gto21 on 02/09/2023 - 20:28

                                              @defecat0r: Ok, list those traditions and the sources.

                                              Appealing to consensus can sometimes be a fallacy. It is known as the "argumentum ad populum".

                                              The question was, 'What is the source for Mark?' Not, 'Who wrote Mark?' Whether it's a companion of Peter or not, that was not the question.

                                              • defecat0r on 02/09/2023 - 20:55

                                                @gto21: Suppose someone claims that a UFO landed in their backyard last night, and all we have is their testimony of the event. If I don't have a competing explanation to explain what they saw, should I just accept their claims as true because I'm ignorant of a better explanation?

                                                If specific details of the development of a belief that arose close to 2000 years ago are lost to history, if the only history that exists has survived specifically because adherents of this belief copied what they deemed as worth copying, should I simply accept the traditional story because I'm ignorant of a better explanation?

                                                • gto21 on 02/09/2023 - 21:02

                                                  @defecat0r: You mentioned an amalgamation of tradition. I expected a list and its sources. However, you did not mention one source.

                                                  Can you provide the list?

                                                  Or is there no historical evidence for that claim?

                                                  • defecat0r on 02/09/2023 - 21:06

                                                    @gto21: Could I refer you to me previous response? You know as well as I do that almost all we know of the events of this time have been filtered through the hands of the Church. A vast amount has been lost, and almost all we have surviving is history written by the victors. We do not know the sources of Mark, it's a topic that is the focus of work in New Testament scholarship today.

                                                    What conclusion do you reach from this? Should I accept the tradition because I'm ignorant of a better explanation?

                                              • defecat0r on 02/09/2023 - 20:56

                                                @gto21:

                                                Appealing to consensus can sometimes be a fallacy. It is known as the "argumentum ad populum".

                                                This is true. Are you aware of the exception to the rule? When is appealing to consensus not fallacious?

                                                • gto21 on 02/09/2023 - 21:10

                                                  @defecat0r: I'm just asking what the primary source is so that I can have a look at it and ask you more questions.

                                                  • defecat0r on 02/09/2023 - 21:12

                                                    @gto21: Are you being entirely honest right now gto? You asked me "What is the source for Mark?" I'll cut and paste what I said in response to that question:

                                                    I would assume that there was no one source, but that it is an amalgamation of the tradition that arose in the first decades.

                                                    • gto21 on 02/09/2023 - 21:15

                                                      @defecat0r: I don't want to put words in your mouth, but after asking you a few times, is it fair to say that you made a claim with no historical evidence to support it?

                                                      • defecat0r on 02/09/2023 - 21:21

                                                        @gto21: Ok, so to be clear, you were not being entirely honest.

                                                        Again my claim:

                                                        I would assume that there was no one source, but that it is an amalgamation of the tradition that arose in the first decades.

                                                        Assume: "suppose to be the case, without proof."

                                                        If this is not it, would you be so kind as to point me to the claim you take issue with?

                                                        I would like to point out again that you have not addressed my question alongside the UFO analogy.

                                                        • gto21 on 02/09/2023 - 21:29

                                                          @defecat0r: I need to know the source to determine whether I have an issue or not. I'm asking for the primary source for the claim.

                                                          You keep asking if I'm honest. You should be honest; give me the sources or tell me there's no historical evidence to support the claim.

                                                          • defecat0r on 02/09/2023 - 21:36

                                                            @gto21: I'm not concerned with UFOs and don't wish to tangent onto that, I am interested in the reasoning that might be used in that analogy and how it applies to the question you are asking me.

                                                            Perhaps we should wrap up our conversation soon if the dialog is going to digress to this degree, but I'll attempt to answer you one last time, entirely with quotes in which I have already answered the question.

                                                            I have asked for clarification as to which specific claim you wished addressed. You haven't responded with that, so once again I'll assume the claim you take issue with is:

                                                            I would assume that there was no one source, but that it is an amalgamation of the tradition that arose in the first decades.

                                                            You asked what sources these were specifically, to which I replied:

                                                            You know as well as I do that almost all we know of the events of this time have been filtered through the hands of the Church. A vast amount has been lost, and almost all we have surviving is history written by the victors. We do not know the sources of Mark, it's a topic that is the focus of work in New Testament scholarship today.

                                                            I'll hone in on the last sentence from the above, in case you missed it:

                                                            We do not know the sources of Mark, it's a topic that is the focus of work in New Testament scholarship today.

                                                            • gto21 on 02/09/2023 - 21:41

                                                              @defecat0r: You're right. We should end the conversation. I kept asking for evidence over and over again, but no evidence was provided. I don't want to judge you. For now, I will assume it's a claim with zero historical evidence. I will still give you the benefit of the doubt, although you did not prove your case.

                                                              • defecat0r on 02/09/2023 - 21:43

                                                                @gto21: I'll give you the last word on that gto.

                                                                Thanks for the conversation, It's been fun. See you round!

                                                                • LuckyLuke on 03/09/2023 - 07:25
                                                                  +2

                                                                  @defecat0r: For anyone else who is still reading this - if this conversation proves anything - you can see that as much as we might claim to think, it may be more likely that we come to conclusions first and then look for evidence to support it.

                                                                  It would therefore be wise to ask 'just suppose the claims by Jesus were true' (because there is evidence to support it, if you want to believe it).

                                                                  You could also ask 'what if Jesus (and the stories about him) are part of some wider conspiracy over thousands of years'.

                                                                  I will let you, dear reader, make up your own mind.

  • Protractor on 30/08/2023 - 11:21

    Juts watch Monty Python Holy Grail on repeat. More accurate.

    Blessed be the cheese makers—-big ears

    • EightImmortals on 30/08/2023 - 14:43
      +5

      See you can't even get your python references correct.

      • Protractor on 30/08/2023 - 16:25
        +1

        Geez you're so razor sharp.Fancy slapping 2 MP phrases together, non-verbatim. Blasphemous innit?
        I hope Cleese's lawyers go easy on me.

        Cheer up y'oll bugger

        • EightImmortals on 30/08/2023 - 16:27

          No need your posts in this thread have already cheered me up. :)

  • KangaDrew on 30/08/2023 - 13:11
    +2

    Came here for the comments lol 🍿

    Pro-Christian's neg-voters are out in force today!

    • zemphism on 30/08/2023 - 13:52
      +1

      Just today?

      • KangaDrew on 30/08/2023 - 15:18
        +1

        Hmm, unless I missed another theological debate in another thread…? 🤔

        • zemphism on 30/08/2023 - 15:22
          +2

          All day, everyday

    • [Deactivated] on 30/08/2023 - 17:08
      +1

      Hypocrites as usual. So much for 'turn the other cheek'.

      • CommuterPolluter on 30/08/2023 - 20:29

        You’re right that Christians should turn the other cheek when people (in this case you) are insulting them. It doesn’t mean for them to agree with every false claim you make. It means they shouldn’t go tit for tat and insult you back (as some in here have by wrongly insulting your IQ) and should bear your insults patiently. It’s a hard standard to live up to.

        If Christians fail to meet this standard set out by Christ they are indeed hypocrites. Nevertheless I think it is better to hold yourself to a standard, knowing you won’t always meet it, than to hold yourself to no standards at all.

        • [Deactivated] on 30/08/2023 - 21:30

          as some in here have by wrongly insulting your IQ

          You mean the same people who made excuses for priests molesting kids and being shuffled around, by saying "Atheists can molest little boys too" in the same comment thread? No amount of mental gymnastics can paint these bottom feeders in a good light or worth redeeming after that statement, not sure why you're wasting your breath.

    • SlickMick on 01/09/2023 - 08:06

      yeah they're just talking to themselves /s

  • [Deactivated] on 30/08/2023 - 15:05

    I believe in Aliens, they did Big Bang and we all get to live in it.

    • [Deactivated] on 30/08/2023 - 17:52

      Watch the Prometheus movie, its all there.

      Prometheus 00:19:25,679:
      - We call them Engineers.
      - Do you mind telling us what they engineered?
      - They engineered us.

  • zuruhara on 30/08/2023 - 15:49

    Do you need to create an account to get them?

  • GrimCheaper on 30/08/2023 - 15:55
    +1

    Ozbargain comment section always out does itself. All the usual suspects too.

  • Breno785au on 30/08/2023 - 18:55
    +1

    Does Paul Washer address the issue that most, if not all churches are just another cookie cutter program,yet somehow Holy Spirit is in charge?

  • LuckyLuke on 01/09/2023 - 07:36
    +2

    On something more positive - (I may make another post) - if you are a student and have access to your uni's online library - make sure to look up Christian books. Many are available as ebooks for short term loan.

    If I can recommend one in particular. Have a look at Murray J Harris. He is an amazing scholar of Greek. One of his many qualifications is that he was the only person chosen from Aus/NZ to be part of the translation of the NIV Bible. His particular focus was 1 and 2 Corinthians (of which he has written over 1000 pages!) but wrote on other things as well that are very accessible but insightful.

    God bless.

  • Ozsaver88 on 02/09/2023 - 09:40
    -4

    I wish more people come forward and flag it as "Not a freaking deal". It is pure "misinformation" or religious bullshit. We live in a better society because we are not much influenced by these crazy ideologies and religions.

    • LuckyLuke on 02/09/2023 - 18:51

      Here was I thinking that there was only a few of us crazies still commenting on this deal - welcome! I am afraid you are one of us now 😁

  • AugustSalt on 02/09/2023 - 11:03
    +1

    Thanks, perfect timing now that koorong is temporarily closed

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join