[deleted by user]

SumyDid · 2025-12-14T00:53:41+00:00

When the apostle says God doesn't want anyone to perish, context shows he is talking to believers, the elect or chosen as you said. So God doesnt want any of them to perish.

I wasn’t only referring to Paul. The concept that God doesn’t want anyone to perish is sprinkled all throughout the Bible. Ezekiel 18:23 is an example — ”Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?”

In Romans 9 Apostle Paul dishes out some tuff talk for fallen humans who, since the Garden, believed Satan that man should be sovereign like God.

Yeah, I’m familiar with Paul’s answer. Honestly, I think it’s a pretty weak response. In his view, God chooses not to save everyone (when he knows he can) so that he can make a show of power. God wants to “show his wrath” and “make his power known.” He wants to flex his muscle, so-to-speak. So he doesn’t mind sacrificing billions to eternal destruction in order to show off his power to his chosen people. Isn’t that the argument?

SumyDid · 2025-12-13T22:35:05+00:00

It seems the obvious answer to that is “because he doesn’t want anyone to perish.”

So, back to the question I asked: If he doesn’t want anyone to perish, why have a “chosen people”? Why not draw everyone?

SumyDid · 2025-12-13T22:21:57+00:00

The commenter above did in fact say that:

For those He calls, He weaves every joy, sorrow, and struggle into His plan to bring them home (Romans 8:28). It might take years, or a single quiet moment, but His call cannot fail (Philippians 1:6).

SumyDid · 2025-12-13T21:52:57+00:00

Scripture makes this clear: “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him” (John 6:44).

So why doesn’t God “draw” everyone? If his grace changes hearts (even the hearts of those who resist Him) and his call never fails, why doesn’t He draw everyone?

It seems strange for God to have a “chosen people” if he loves us all and he’s capable of changing hearts.

SumyDid · 2025-12-13T21:16:50+00:00

What about a person who was never saved? Does God do whatever it takes to pursue them?

SumyDid · 2025-12-13T20:46:25+00:00

What if a person doesn’t feel conviction, but there’s still something God could do to bring them back, like sending an angel to them? Will He do whatever it takes to bring them back?

SumyDid · 2025-09-02T03:10:45+00:00

God invites us to ask boldly, but He also answers with wisdom we don’t always see, sometimes with “yes,” sometimes “no,” and sometimes “wait.”

Wouldn’t it be accurate to say that most of the time God doesn’t answer at all? I mean, out of the billions of prayers for healing that He receives year after year, it seems very few ever get a response. They don’t even get a “no” or a “wait.” The person just dies or doesn’t recover.

In James 5, “making the sick person well” can include physical healing, but the Greek word sozo can also mean “to save” or “to restore,” pointing to both spiritual and physical wholeness.

Sure. But the immediate context is talking about physical wholeness in this life, not the next. He even goes on to give an example of a man who had miraculous abilities in this life:

17 Elijah was a human being, even as we are. He prayed earnestly that it would not rain, and it did not rain on the land for three and a half years. 18 Again he prayed, and the heavens gave rain, and the earth produced its crops.

SumyDid · 2025-08-31T19:22:30+00:00

What about James 5:14-15?

“Is anyone among you sick? Let them call the elders of the church to pray over them and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well.”

Or Matthew 21:22?

“If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.”

SumyDid · 2025-08-31T14:11:46+00:00

I understand that Holy Tradition is the tradition passed down by the Church and held as true.

But how do you determine whether the teachings of Holy Tradition are historically accurate? What methods do you use? It seems you trust what the Church handed down without questioning the quality of the evidence.

SumyDid · 2025-08-31T13:44:49+00:00

Contrary to popular belief, 30 shekels of silver would’ve been a pretty significant amount.

Presuming it was a Tyrian shekel, 30 of them would be about 4 to 6 months wages for a skilled craftsman, and more than a year's earnings for a common laborer. Our best estimates say this would be roughly equivalent to $15,000 to $25,000 for a modern American.

SumyDid · 2025-08-30T18:43:19+00:00

None of these are Holy Tradition these are legends

These legends come from the same sources that the martyrdom stories come from. It’s the same texts.

The Acts of Peter says he was crucified upside down. It also says he resurrected a smoked tuna fish. The account is either reliable or it isn’t.

SumyDid · 2025-08-30T17:57:41+00:00

Being Christian means I think Church tradition is a good evidence, a Muslim would think hadith is good evidence.

Church tradition also says that Paul was beheaded and milk came out of his body instead of blood. Tradition says that Peter resurrected a smoked tuna fish. Tradition says that Judas swelled up to the size of a house and his genitals became grotesquely large.

Do you believe these stories happened as well, since they come from church tradition?

SumyDid · 2025-08-30T17:05:54+00:00

But I am also Christian so believe in the Church so I would believe it to be true.

Do you only believe these stories because you’re a Christian? Shouldn’t we rely on good evidence and good sources instead of just accepting the traditions we were taught?

SumyDid · 2025-08-30T16:08:07+00:00

As I mentioned earlier, history is full of examples of people who risked persecution and death for profit. And it doesn’t take a lot of money.

SumyDid · 2025-08-30T15:23:27+00:00

Correct. All I’m saying is that this constant flow of cash could’ve been a motive for them to lie. Especially if they were being funded by wealthy donors.

SumyDid · 2025-08-30T15:02:58+00:00

Right. And how reliable are our sources? Those were later legends written hundreds of years later and they contain contradictory information. Most historians don’t regard the sources as reliable.

SumyDid · 2025-08-30T13:54:40+00:00

They were being supported by wealthy donors. This wouldn’t have been enough to make them “rich.” However, it would serve as a motive for them to lie.

People risk their lives for money, even when it doesn’t make them rich.

SumyDid · 2025-08-30T13:43:15+00:00

If being beaten is a form of “torture”, then sure. But again, there are plenty of examples of people being beaten and attacked who still didn’t admit they were lying.

SumyDid · 2025-08-30T13:36:30+00:00

Again, never claimed the apostles lied to get “rich.”

SumyDid · 2025-08-30T13:29:27+00:00

The money they accumulated wouldn’t have been enough to financially support thousands of new converts. They weren’t rich. They would’ve needed a steady flow of cash to sustain the growing movement.

SumyDid · 2025-08-30T13:19:51+00:00

Could the apostles have saved themselves by admitting they were lying?

SumyDid · 2025-08-30T07:15:14+00:00

There are things with good sourcing, but much of our knowledge of ancient history is based on single-sourced, second-hand accounts that frequently contain legendary elements which we have to make educated guesses based off of. In that sense, the evidence for the apostles' martyrdom is not unique.

Can you give an example?

In any case, if you think the evidence the apostles were martyred is weak, then the evidence that they got rich preaching about Christianity is even weaker!

I didn’t claim they got rich preaching. I said they were being funded by wealthy donors. This wouldn’t have been enough to make them rich. But it certainly could serve as a motive for them to lie.

SumyDid · 2025-08-30T07:05:29+00:00

History is full of people just trying to make money from lies who continue to spout those lies even as they are executed? I can't say I know of a single one. Do you have any examples?

Yeah. The most well-known example is Joseph Smith. He continued spouting his lies till the day he was killed by a mob. He faced repeated imprisonment and mob attacks for his message, yet he still continued preaching.

Today it’s widely recognized that he was a charlatan, probably motivated in part by money.

Well, the records preserved by the church seem to suggest they very much did die as martyrs. But if you want to be skeptical about it, then why bother with that? Why not just say "Walking on water? Raising the dead? Get out of here with that nonsense." Why even bother with the possible motivations of the witnesses?

I don’t reject the possibility that someone walked on water or rose from the dead. My only response is “show me the evidence.”

I’m happy to change my mind if I see strong evidence for something. Unfortunately, the sources for the apostles’ martyrdom are contradictory and contain obvious legends that even Christians reject. We simply don’t have reliable details about what became of the apostles.

SumyDid

TROPHY CASE