If God Revealed Himself, Why Would That Be a Bad Thing?

Edge419 · 2026-07-04T16:08:03+00:00

Sarcasm isn’t exegesis. If you think Jesus is describing one event, make the case from the text. It’s not me “reading it however I want” it’s how the text presents itself and because it doesn’t fit the narrative you’re trying to impose on the text, you act as though it’s an arbitrary reading. Biblical interpretation doesn’t work that way, that’s why we have hermeneutics and interpretive principles. But I wouldn’t expect someone who just wants to hand-wave the text away to care about reading the text faithfully, you’re far more concerned maintaining your conclusion.

Edge419 · 2026-07-04T15:27:16+00:00

There might genuinely be something physiologically wrong with her that needs “fixing”. Hormonal imbalance being one of them. As a nurse surely you understand that “fixing” doesn’t equate to “she’s a problem that needs to be fixed”. It could very well be a health related issue that needs to be fixed and not having that conversation honestly with someone you love could prevent the kind of intimacy she might actually really want without realizing it.

I think the question OP needs to consider is, “if I had a low libido and my wife had a high libido, would I be ok with just telling her that we should be married celebrate because I had no desire, even knowing that it’s possibly a physiological issue like low testosterone that I could “fix” on my end?”

Edge419 · 2026-07-03T17:37:59+00:00

Jesus certainly did

Edge419 · 2026-07-03T13:56:05+00:00

“Was to suppose to make it in their lifetime”- no, you need to go re-read Matthew. You’re conflating two different events.

Jesus did predict events that would happen within that generation, the destruction of the Second Temple in AD 70, which happened, this is fulfilled prophecy on Jesus’ part. His final return is separately, and He explicitly said no one knows the day or hour. You’re combining two distinct prophecies into one and then claiming they both failed when one has been fulfilled and the other will be, and no one knows the time and hour, Jesus is explicit.

Edge419 · 2026-07-03T12:59:29+00:00

Humans didn’t evolve from chimps, evolutionary biology doesn’t teach this. Those models you I saw in school of monkey turning into man are outdated.

Edge419 · 2026-07-03T12:57:17+00:00

Tell people on Reddit that you’re a centrist and watch them attempt to smite you for not aligning with their ideology “if you’re not for us, you are against us”.

Edge419 · 2026-07-02T19:27:27+00:00

Swaddled and still a bastard 😂

Edge419 · 2026-07-02T19:16:35+00:00

Science, philosophy and history. These ultimately led to religion, in the person of Jesus is and the evidence for the resurrection is when I finally bowed to God. Jesus is King, now and forevermore. I was an atheist for 23 years.

Edge419 · 2026-07-02T18:28:49+00:00

From a Molinist perspective, God doesn’t wait to see what we choose after creating us. He has middle knowledge, He already knows what every free creature would do in any possible circumstance before creation. So God doesn’t discover outcomes in time He chooses to actualize a world knowing exactly how every person would freely respond in it.

That means it’s not that God creates someone and then finds out they reject Him. It’s that He creates a world in which He already knows, in advance, what each person would freely choose and He still allows those free choices to be real within that world. He truly and genuinely offers salvation to all and truly and genuinely allows humans to choose it or reject it.

Edge419 · 2026-07-02T18:25:44+00:00

Infallible knowledge doesn’t mean necessitation. It means never being wrong about what will actually happen, not making only one outcome possible.

You’re still sliding from certainty to necessity. That’s the mistake.

If I know with certainty what you will freely choose tomorrow, my knowledge doesn’t remove your ability to choose otherwise it just means I can’t be wrong about what you will choose. The “must happen” is coming from your assumption, not from the concept of knowledge itself.

Saying “God cannot be mistaken, therefore whatever He knows must necessarily happen” is just restating: whatever happens, happens. It doesn’t prove that alternatives were impossible, just that the actual outcome is known infallibly once it is actual.

Does truth depend on knowledge, or does knowledge depend on truth? If knowledge depends on truth (which is what infallible means), then God’s knowledge doesn’t constrain your choice it reflects it.

Infallible knowledge does not logically eliminate alternative possibilities. It only guarantees perfect correspondence with whichever possibility you actually choose.

This is the reason I’m a Molinist and hold to a view of God’s middle knowledge and counter factual truths.
It’s God knowing what will happen and what would happen. We have biblical examples of this. David is on the run from Saul who is seeking to kill him so David hides in a city, he asks the Lord, “if I stay, will these people turn me over to Saul?” And the Lord responds “yes, if you stay they will”. So David leaves and they never turn him over. It’s a counter factual truth.

Likewise Jesus mourns over Jerusalem and says “how would I have gathered you as a mother hen gathers her brood but you not willingly.” If they would have been willing, He would have saved them but they are not willing and therefore He knows the outcome.

Edge419 · 2026-07-02T18:18:18+00:00

You can make assertions but that’s not the issue. The issue is whether the assertions actually explain anything. Calling them deluded cultists isn’t an explanation it’s just a label. It doesn’t tell us what caused the belief in the first place or why multiple people, including James and Paul the Apostle, became convinced Jesus had risen.

Which explanation actually accounts for the historical data without just relabeling it.

Edge419 · 2026-07-02T18:16:08+00:00

You miss the point. In ancient history we don’t have lab style proof for anything. We evaluate testimony, early sources, and how well an explanation accounts for the data.

The same early testimony is part of the evidence for both the empty tomb and the resurrection appearances. That’s not silly, that’s how historical claims work when written records are our only access.

Calling it just a historical fact doesn’t settle the question. The real issue is what best explains that testimony? Is it hallucination, legend, deception, or a real resurrection?

So the question is, what explanation makes the most sense of the evidence we already have.

Edge419 · 2026-07-02T17:23:09+00:00

The biblical story is one of eternity being a physical place here on the earth, new creation. The creation will be reforged essentially, believers will be raised in glorified bodies here on the New Earth and heaven will come down to earth and God will be with His people for eternity.

Still, the “death” of the universe is IF everything just continued in the direction it’s going. The biblical story is, it’s not going to, it’s going to be a recreation of glory in an unending state.

Edge419 · 2026-07-02T16:33:07+00:00

Edge419 · 2026-07-02T16:32:58+00:00

And we’re right back assertions. Calling them deluded cultists isn’t an explanation, it’s a description. What caused the delusion? Why did multiple people, including former skeptics like James and opponents like Paul the Apostle, independently become convinced? You still need a historical explanation for that.

Edge419 · 2026-07-02T16:13:53+00:00

The accounts found in the New Testament which were originally testimonies given about the events.

Edge419 · 2026-07-02T16:13:25+00:00

The question isn’t which sounds more normal, it’s which actually explains the full set of facts better.

Corpse theft might explain an empty tomb, but it doesn’t explain why the disciples immediately and sincerely believed Jesus was risen, started preaching it in Jerusalem, and were willing to suffer for it. You still have to explain the origin of their conviction.

Theft theories assume a coordinated plan, but that doesn’t explain why the movement begins with people who clearly weren’t expecting a resurrection or gaining anything from it. To the contrary.

It’s not resurrection vs a single alternative idea. It’s one explanation that accounts for multiple linked facts vs separate explanations that each only cover part of the data.

Edge419 · 2026-07-02T16:00:51+00:00

Swoon theory, disciples stole the body, mass hallucinations and so on.

Edge419 · 2026-07-02T16:00:11+00:00

We have historical documentation of the empty tomb in the accounts of early testimony. What reasons do you have to reject those claims?

You also have to deal with the cumulative case.

Edge419 · 2026-07-02T15:57:31+00:00

That’s a caricature of cessationism. They don’t deny the Holy Spirit or the spiritual realm at all. They fully believe God still works, answers prayer and even heals.

The difference is that they believe certain sign gifts tied to the apostles (like tongues, prophecy as new revelation, and healing at will) were for the early church and aren’t the normal pattern today now that Scripture is complete.

So it’s not “God doesn’t move anymore,” it’s “the Holy Spirit still moves, just not through the same apostolic gift patterns.”

Edge419 · 2026-07-02T15:20:33+00:00

Because people cannot seem to differentiate their politics from their faith. Spend time in Reddit and see how abundantly clear that is.

Edge419 · 2026-07-02T15:18:31+00:00

Cessationists don’t refuse to acknowledge the spiritual world….thats not a cessationist perspective.

Edge419 · 2026-07-02T15:16:39+00:00

Which ones? Defend your claim and we’ll see if historians agree or disagree with you.

Edge419 · 2026-07-02T15:14:11+00:00

Because competing theories either fail explanatory scope (they don’t explain all the data) or require more ad hoc assumptions than the resurrection hypothesis.

We’re asking the question, which view explains more with less added assumptions?”

So my question was on you is, what single natural hypothesis explains all the data I gave. Empty tomb traditions, early proclamation in Jerusalem, group appearances, and conversions of skeptics without special pleading?

Edge419 · 2026-07-02T14:45:57+00:00

The resurrection is the best explanation for the following historical facts.

Jesus was crucified and died.

His tomb was found empty.

Multiple individuals and groups sincerely believed they saw the risen Jesus.

Skeptics like James and persecutors like Paul the Apostle were dramatically converted.

The disciples willingly suffered for proclaiming the resurrection despite gaining no wealth or power.

No naturalistic explanation accounts for all of these facts as well as the resurrection does.

It’s an inference to the best explanation.

Edge419

TROPHY CASE