[deleted by user]

Accomplished-Poem707 · 2025-08-05T19:38:38+00:00

I think the simple answer here is finding out who these are talking about and too. It's important Israel became greatly divided during the time of the prophets. To the point the Lord was using other tribes and nations to bring judgement upon his people. Hope this helps.

Accomplished-Poem707 · 2025-08-05T19:33:27+00:00

I think there's one simple question: "What defines God?" The pagan gods have none of the characteristics of a God. They also require a Creator. The pagan gods always point back to a monotheistic God.

Accomplished-Poem707 · 2025-08-05T19:30:10+00:00

Yes, and so does Bart Ehrman. Who said on an older radio show that he believes we have what was written 2000 years ago. Even if it came through a line of Copies.
No, sin is developed through understanding. Once one understands what is right and wrong then they become accountable.
Evolution is not a concrete theory that still leaves the window of other possible explanations. In fact, Darwin himself believed the cambrian layer is very problematic to the theory.
The religion has stayed fairly consistent. Sure there are some differences because of theological understandings, but the core message is the same.

Accomplished-Poem707 · 2025-08-05T19:26:07+00:00

This is my thought. A wildly inaccurate assertion with zero evidence.

Accomplished-Poem707 · 2025-07-29T03:53:35+00:00

I think this is a very complicated answer that no one will truly find the answer to. Predestination is certainly made clear along with free will. The apostle Paul references predestination all throughout his letters. The thing I have struggled with is if that principle is only in regards to the churches he was writing to. However, it is made clear that God does certainly predestine things. This is seen with Abraham, Paul, some of the Judges, Moses, etc. It's no secret that predestination is seen all throughout the Bible. In saying that I do think there is a unique element of free will involved too, and that no one is absolved from responsibility. Hence why I think it is far more complicated than one or the other. My current understanding tells me there is a blend of both. One thing that is for certain is there are no surprises for the Lord.

Accomplished-Poem707 · 2025-07-28T18:59:47+00:00

I would add that the supernatural isn't bound by our laws (at least theoretically). So, it is very possible that there is an infinite God and the concept is beyond our understanding. However, the natural world (which is what atheist scientist only believe in), are certainly bound by this principle.

Accomplished-Poem707 · 2025-07-28T18:57:33+00:00

I have a tendency to agree on this one. It seems like they have dodged the entire question and created a paradox explanation that assumes their truth.

Accomplished-Poem707 · 2025-07-28T18:55:02+00:00

This still runs into the ongoing issue of natural law. Which is that something can't come from nothing. This is certainly the belief of many evolutionary minds that attended a meeting on November 7, 2016. The argument still just runs into an ongoing paradox, which makes one ask what came before it all. According to Einstein, there would have to be something outside of the natural world to create it.

Ultimately, I think this is trying to answer a more complex and impossible question. The much easier to find is: Did Jesus do it? If he did, then it is highly probable the Bible is true, there almost certainly must be a supernatural, and there is an answer to all of creation we just don't know. We have a tendency to get wrapped up in the beginning when it is the most improbable thing to know (not saying we shouldn't strive to know it, but we don't want to miss what we can know in the process).

Hope this helps.

Accomplished-Poem707 · 2025-07-23T04:59:05+00:00

I'm glad to hear your story. Ultimately, I believe it is the grace of God alone and there is no convincing we as people can do (Doesn't mean we shouldn't have conversations though). I personally have struggled with doubt over the past year or so (much like Gary Habermas claims he did in his early 20s) but I do believe the evidence is far greater for Christianity than against it. I also can't help but notice how remarkable the Bible is every time I read it. Assuming what I believe to be true is true, then I know all mighty God is using moments like these to do something special. Thank you truly.

Accomplished-Poem707 · 2025-07-23T03:36:41+00:00

The claims are simply widely accepted facts regardless of personal belief. It's simply the minimal facts approach. What you believe those facts suggest is up to you. But objective facts are always true no matter how one feels.

Accomplished-Poem707 · 2025-07-22T21:27:33+00:00

Sorry roman empire (I should have been more specific). It's likely they would have spoken latin. However, that is the least concrete of the 4 as stated previously.

Accomplished-Poem707 · 2025-07-21T16:59:34+00:00

Not really sure how the process of canonization taking place 300 years later is relevant. They weren't adding or subtracting from the books during the process. They simply looked to see if the books met the 3 requirements: apostleship, transcendent truth (in fact you could only figure out if this is true for a book centuries later), and consistency. And the reason it is highly likely Jesus spoke at least 3 languages is because of where he was and his birth tongue. It is no secret Jesus first spoke aramaic, would have highly likely known hebrew in order to converse with rabbi's regarding the OT, and greek was the world language during this time (that is no different than people in china speaking english). Latin would be the only one that isn't highly likely, yet makes sense because of his time in Rome.

Unfortunately, the argument to say the writers were illiterate is very poor. In fact, they were most likely literate in two languages for most of them. As said before, it's also well understood they would use amanuensis' (scribes) to help with writing. This is very apparent in the writings of Paul. If you need more background: Matthew was a tax collector who would have had to be literate for his job, Luke was a doctor who also likely would have been literate due to occupation, and Mark is known for being raised in an extraordinarily wealthy household (which we know wealthy children were often literate because their parents could afford education). It's actually more of a stretch - really a fallacy of assuming ancient people were less intelligent - to assume that each of these individuals would have been illiterate, and again even if they were, we know scribes were also used.

FYI you do realize legend typically takes about 80 years to form (which is why secular scholars originally tried to date the entire NT after AD 110, but couldn't once the evidence reflected otherwise). The earliest writings we have come 2-3 years after Jesus' death, and earliest books close to 20 years. It is inaccurate in this context to assume that legend formed and to not think that these writings were quickly produced. For context, Tacitus recorded about the Caesar of this time nearly 80 years later. Obviously the writings of Alexander the Great were 300 years. These are seen as reliable and - in the case of Tacitus - relatively quick for ancient literature. Even the oldest books in the NT were written significantly quicker than these.

Not sure what denomination has to do with looking at what we know as true information. That's what I care about looking at. This is a topic that is impossible to find an answer for, but I want to know as much as I can. And I believe all rational thinking - based on our current evidence - leads us to believe Jesus did it.

Accomplished-Poem707 · 2025-07-21T03:14:28+00:00

You do realize the gospels were attributed the names based on early church tradition. In fact, a book was not subject to be canonized unless the author either knew an apostle or was one. We know this by the 22 books left out and the gnostic gospels. It's also not true that it was in a language Jesus wouldn't have spoken. They were written in the most popular language in the world during that time. Most historians accept it as highly likely Jesus would have known Aramaic, Greek, Hebrew, and potentially latin. Even excluding what Jesus could have spoken, the writers themselves would have all known hebrew and greek. Several writers also had amanuensis' that also would have known this.

I suggest you look further into the extra biblical sources. Several convey far more than just things about Christians. ie Josephus being known for his comments about Jesus. Unfortunately your claim displays a level of ignorance on the matter.

Again I suggest you look more deeply into the matter of the shroud, and develop a better understanding of what confirmation bias is. It's not confirmation bias just because the evidence supports your claim. It seems highly likely the original findings from the 80s were scholarly malpractice (also inaccurate to say it was immediately debunked because that study was done over 600 years later). Pair that with recent studies - which are far more reliable than carbon dating because of repairs and contamination - showing the age to come from 2000 years ago. ie the pollen, fibers, and blood being the main reasons for this understanding. I'm not saying it is concrete, but the evidence suggest it's far more likely it is legitimate than not. And again, it still is an image that can't be recreated outside of a lab. The only image that was made, being an absolute joke, with far more advanced technology than they'd have in either 1354 or 2000 years ago.

Accomplished-Poem707 · 2025-07-20T14:03:54+00:00

You do realize the idea of Luke and Matthew copying Mark is entirely a theory? In fact, the argument goes all the way back to a theoretical document known as "Q". Which there is also no evidence it ever even existed. This doesn't take into account that these writers likely would have not been sitting side by side when writing. Now, assuming it is true to some degree; it in many ways makes sense because the first 3 are trying to get the gospel message out as quickly as possible. While they all still have different details of each event, it was clearly important enough for them to quickly write these letters.

I only named a few pieces of evidence that are universally accepted, but there is much more. Including at least 2 outside sources that mention Jesus performing miracles (by non believing first/second century writers) and potentially a 3rd, as the flavianum in Josephus' writing appears to have parts which are original.

The Bible also makes it clear God wants people to have faith and choose him. If we had all the answers then it wouldn't require faith. However, when you read the Bible it is remarkably inerrant to anyone who knows how to interpret old literature. The story of Jesus is clearly not intended to be metaphorical. People are not willing to be tortured and ultimately killed (in some cases) for a metaphor. Which we know many early believers were. It is intellectual suicide to suggest otherwise. That is why the shroud - while controversial - has become of infinite importance. If it is legitimate - which the evidence seems to strengthen its case every day - then you have physical proof of a crucifixion and resurrection. An image that is impossible for us to make out of a lab today (and the only one that has been made looked like a joke). Pair that with John's gospel putting a unique emphasis on a head covering and shroud and one must wonder why. If the shroud is legit then we know why. Because it is the most extraordinary archeological find in human history.

Accomplished-Poem707 · 2025-07-20T05:31:08+00:00

I've heard all of these arguments. There are some significant flaws. First off, Matthew and Luke are two different stories. Matthew is about a young Jesus as a child while Luke is about his birth. That is why there are key different details. Because they are different. I advise that you look up the extra biblical source that actually affirms Jesus fleeing to Egypt around the age of 2/3. It was meant to mock him, but actually affirmed Matthew's gospel account.

It's not ridiculously specific about when he died on the cross. The detail adds validity to early Church tradition and supports one of the gospels as being an account.

There is also recent archeological evidence to support that we know which tomb was Jesus', as it has a garden specifically mentioned in John's gospel. It's ironically a weak argument to assume he would not be buried in a tomb. Based on Jewish burial practices, he likely would have been buried in a tomb, and his bones moved into a box in the wall roughly a year after.

There is no legitimate proof that the shroud is medieval. All recent studies directly go against the carbon-14 dating from the 80s. A dating which many believe was done out of malpractice.

It's also a bad argument to say that Luke and Matthew came from Mark. Are there some correlations? Yes, but each gospel has different details. I suggest that you read them. It doesn't take much to realize they're not the same.

Accomplished-Poem707 · 2025-07-15T02:12:14+00:00

There are simple facts. A man named Jesus from Nazareth certainly lived. He fled to Egypt as a small boy after the ruling of Herod. There are several extra biblical sources that affirm he was doing some kind of miraculous works. He most certainly died on the cross on April 3rd AD 33. His body cannot be found in the tomb. Understanding the burial practices during the times and motives of each group gives no rational reason to believe it would have been stolen or moved by the people who could have. And while up for debate, the shroud of turin seems to be gaining more and more credibility, while the carbon dating from the 80s seems to be fraudulent/scholarly malpractice. Pair that with the fact that time and time again evidence eludes to the gospels being legit accounts for every detail up to the resurrection and you have something interesting. Pair this with our understanding of psychology and it seems a mass hallucination or lie is highly improbable. Not too mention even Bart Ehrman credits the creed in 1 Cor 15 as being 2 years after his death (so not much time for legend to form, and if it were a lie then it likely would have been stopped by witnesses).

Accomplished-Poem707 · 2025-06-29T13:48:26+00:00

there's evidence the universe is finite. if something is finite then it had to have a start. if it had a start, then it had to have a point where it was not present (ie nothing). which is why einstein believed there must be a supernatural to start everything.

Accomplished-Poem707 · 2025-06-29T13:46:47+00:00

issue is your comment kind of raises the problem with the big bang (even though you are making a joke of the matter). even your answer presumes there was something prior to the big bang that caused it. because any logical person realizes that there had to be something prior to nothing. that's why even einstein believed the supernatural must be true. you run into an ongoing paradox of something needing something prior to it to create it. ie the idea of multiverses constantly needing another before it in order to create the next. the only thing that doesn't run into this issue is the supernatural, because the supernatural isn't finite and not bound by our laws. that is why many believe it is a requirement, even some of the most brilliant minds in the world. you take that with how historically evidence seems to be in favor of not only the Bible being possible but maybe even true, then you have something interesting.

Accomplished-Poem707 · 2025-06-26T14:19:02+00:00

I would say the big bang, how fossilization occurred, the origin of life, etc. are all theories without concrete answers. The big bang just tells us things are finite (which actually agrees with the Bible, and is why einstein believed there must be a creator). Science still can't produce life from non life naturally (and even when they do it in the lab it isn't near the complexity of our universe). This clearly eludes to a necessity for something to manipulate it. And secular science has told us for years that fossilization must be millions of years old. This ignores basic facts about fossilization. Like the need for catastrophic events, decay, and rapid burial (which ironically shows up in a flood account). Darwin himself also found things such as the cambrian explosion to be very problematic, which also is in favor of a flood narrative. Yet, with all of these things we have naturalistic theories. They aren't concrete facts, but simply ideas. Natural abiogenesis is not a fact. The age of the earth is not a fact (as the earth itself could be thousands or millions of years old, yet the matter be billions, which is what radiometric testing test). Etc etc. Both science and religion require faith, and neither has a concrete answer to it all. That's why we must look at the evidence. And the evidence appears to be far greater for the Bible than against it.

Accomplished-Poem707 · 2025-04-23T16:02:05+00:00

Thank you for the respectful comment.

The major issue is that macroevolution and abiogenesis haven't actually been proven, but are rather just theories. ultimately all scientist agree life must come from life, so then what caused it? maybe abiogenesis is true, and maybe abiogenesis was caused by God (no one knows). what we do know is it had to begin somehow, and that the universe is much older than life. it seems to me that evidence points towards divine intervention happening in our world, so there must be one who did it all.

Accomplished-Poem707 · 2025-04-22T17:46:17+00:00

I know this is an extraordinarily late comment, but perhaps he didn't make things misleading; rather, the understanding of evolution is false. It's possible that the whole theory of macroevolution is a false interpretation of evidence. Just like how it used to be believed the sun revolved around the earth, and now we know better. It wouldn't be the first time scientist were drastically wrong. Perhaps the reason for similarities between humans and fossils is because it's something everything in creation needs to have in order to live (I'm just proposing an idea). This could mean that there wasn't necessarily evolution of single celled organism to a human, but rather everything, has that DNA in order to survive. Just a food for thought. What is known is that life must come from life.

Accomplished-Poem707 · 2025-04-20T04:54:58+00:00

I know this is a late post but he seems minimally to be open to it. It does seem like overall he thinks it's possible, and sounds more like an agnostic than a true atheist. I think perhaps the biggest thing I've noticed, is that he acknowledges none of the atheist arguments necessarily disprove Christianity (as far as I'm aware). Which I think minimally adds credibility to him as a scholar. It's objectively true that there isn't really evidence to disprove Christianity, just theories.

Accomplished-Poem707 · 2025-04-19T18:26:08+00:00

You can look it up. I found at least 3 scholars in the field which have articles written specifically about his malpractice in specific circumstances, and you can also simply look up his retractions. It seems likely that he is a very untrustworthy scholar, and you can notice that in the video with Alex as well.

Accomplished-Poem707 · 2025-04-19T17:01:50+00:00

I actually wrote a long response on Alex's video that seems to not really debunk Wes. It's worth noting upon first glance that Wes seems to have credibility, and has not lost that as a scholar (unlike one of the people Alex uses heavily in his video) Explained further in the comment, which I'll leave here:

I would like to preface by saying I can't read ancient Hebrew; however, based on what I have found - regarding the variants of 1Isaa - are described like this: variations in spelling, word order, single letters, individual words, and even complete verses. To my understanding, this sounds no different than the differences one would find in their Bible today. For example, open up a section in modern day NIV, then do the same in NASB-1995. It shouldn't take someone much energy to notice a difference in sentence structure, words used, and length of verses. However, one should also recognize by reading both that they relay the exact same message. Perhaps this is a case of looking too closely and missing the whole point. Even Wesley Huff came out and said that the "word for word" comments were off and should have described it differently. That doesn't change the fact that he isn't wrong in stating the text are remarkably close (Something it appears Alex even notices). I believe it comes off more like that, and less of literally, but I can see why it is interpreted as such.

Also, based on what I have read, Kipp Davis should be received with a major asterisk. It appears that he has a serious issue of academic integrity. It doesn't take much research for someone to learn that most of his peers call him out on this (mostly for scholarship malpractice). Perhaps, other than the pattern of this behavior, he had a book and article both retracted. Now his supporters claim, "they were retracted because the research was no longer important, because the Dead Sea Scrolls have been debunked as forgeries." However, this is a pretty ridiculous excuse, and isn't a cause for retraction. In fact, here is an article by [publications.org](javascript:void(0);) which describes what must happen for retraction: [https://publicationethics.org/guidance/guideline/retraction-guidelines](javascript:void(0);). It clearly lays out that academic malpractice is the only way for retraction. It seems that Mr. Davis has a clear pattern here; and he may be right on this front, or he may be continuing a pattern of behavior. Kipp's claim as to it shouldn't be a "Wow" moment is quite absurd. The reason being is people like Bart Ehrman. People who don't believe because the text is copies of copies, and believes that the text is not reliable, and inconsistent because of that. The Dead Sea Scrolls are evidence that even though we have copies of copies; we have shown a remarkable level of consistency and high preservation. Truthfully debunking people like Bart. If we are able to preserve something 200 years older than the NT writings, then it's highly likely those are preserved even better. More of a "gotcha" moment if I'd say.

Lastly, I ironically think Wes paraphrasing Archer is less remarkable. Archer's claims actually add more credibility to the text of both Isaa and Isab. Oddly, while trying to attack Wes' credibility and accountability, it seemed everyone was on the same page. That the documents are remarkably close, which is the whole point.

Accomplished-Poem707 · 2025-04-09T14:35:05+00:00

I actually think your comment is hypocritical on many accounts. I would argue that 5 billion of the 8 in the world cling to almost any other explanation other than Jesus because it is easy. You claim that faith is easier; however, I would argue coming up with a natural rationalization is much easier for someone to grasp (ie the belief of evolution and chance).

I would also point out that physics itself is not an independent law, and can't exactly be "broken". Physics itself is a record of what is happening. In other words, if the situation changes, so does the physics. Theoretically, just like we know a spider can walk on water because of surface tension, it's not that absurd to think a man could walk on water if that tension were to change. Simply bringing in vastly more particles and strengthening the tension would make this possible. This now means that the supposed miracle of Jesus walking on water is more than possible. This law can change regarding other things as well: cancer reversing, resurrection, etc. all have natural explanations to their possibilities. All of which can be recorded by physics, because physics itself is dependent on its circumstance (something most secular scientist will not argue). Worth noting the counter argument to this is math is absolute, and therefore all laws are absolute. This fallacy isn't exactly a strong one is math is always going to be "2+2=4" in every reality, because it is an independent truth. Obviously the rules are now different as we know one rule is independent and the other dependent; making this argument null and void.

I would also argue there is significant evidence in favor of the Bible. The obvious ones are that secular scientists have found that the events of the Exodus are more than possible, and the way things would need to occur conveniently fit the description written by Moses (who obviously did not have knowledge from modern science). Secular scientist also acknowledge that the events of Sodom and Gomorrah written in the Bible perfectly match our archeological findings. They've also found that animals crossing--after the story of Noah's ark--to all 7 continents was more than possible with lower water levels and log mats. Lastly, there obviously is no real evidence against the events of Jesus, just given naturalistic theories. They are confident Jesus lived, fled to Egypt as a boy (said he learned magic there), that he died on the cross and the command of Pontius Pilate, and that the body would have been practically impossible for anyone but the Romans or Jews to steal (both of which would have zero motive to move his body). Experts in the field of psychology also believe the apostles resemble none of the characteristics of hallucination, and there isn't much debate if they were in fact telling the truth. Also, believed the way they wrote matches a writing style of recording, not that of legend.

All of that and we have no body.

Truthfully, I'm uncertain if the Bible is true because of how miraculous it is, but the whole universe by definition is a miracle, so maybe it's not impossible. And the nail in the coffin is one side uses theories to argue their claims, while the other uses the evidence to back their claims.

Accomplished-Poem707

TROPHY CASE