Someone should develop an extension that lets me filter all frog image posts, ai is advanced enough. That'd clean up like 90% of the spam on most boards.
There really isn't much to care about.
Any God you arrive to via logic is an inert, untouchable, abstract, husk of a God that does nothing, prescribes nothing, proscribes nothing. It created the universe and then went inactive.
Imagine if you will, that I prove via deduction that there is a psychic gestalt that is universal to humanity. This gestalt does not influence human behavior in anyway, does not change our understanding of man, is not interactable nor modifiable, and essentially just exists to resolve some obscure philosophical problem about the existence of consciousness. Would you care?
Ofc I would care. When God is proven as a sustainer of the world constantly causing everything, It means he is all powerful and I better do some research and infer if He is the God of Bible or not, especially NT, which is widely considered reliable, the reason is told here a thousand times, its historical narrative style, archeological findings, the sheer number of manuscripts corroborating with each other etc. I personally posted tens of these evidences but again nobody cares.
Maybe I should accept that even if God is real and He is bible’s God, again nobody cares, no one gives a damn if they are going to hell or not.
Anon go look up religious OCD, it's an actual diagnosis. It's also known as scrupulosity.
Don't be afraid to get help.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Yeah you can categorize every feeling into a moronic pseudo scientific term. You can call fear OCD, you can call love BPD etc. you have to be an npc to not be called crazy nowadays.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Anon you're spending all your free time talking about religion with strangers online. Your family worry about you. Please get some help.
Arguments for God's existence are usually going to appeal to the smallest number of any population: the logical and impartial. You're not doing anything wrong, just know that most people's disbelief stems from not logical problems but emotional ones. Usually, these people have had a bad time at life and then conclude that life is evil at its core. Unless you can address this, you will be shooting out arguments until you're blue in the face. That's why developing IRL relationships with people is the best way to evangelize to them, because they can better tell whether you're full of it or not by the example of your life.
You’re probably right, I might have assumed that every one is like a soulless impartial rationalist like I probably am.
I mean was, since i am christian now. Idk
2 months ago
Anonymous
And that takes a lot if time and im socially awkward.
There it is. Nine times out of ten, behind a philosophically respectable argument for something like a "prime mover," "necessary being" etc., there is a fool who wants to convince you that the prime mover told Abraham to cut his son's penis, that he appeared to Israel at Mt. Sinai in a thundercloud and made a covenant with them, and so on. This is stupid.
Look anon its really simple, you read philosophical arguments proving God then when your are convinced of the existence of Him as a necessary being, you want to analyse if he is or he is not the God of the Bible and you do that by determining the historical authenticity of the gospels, which if you investigate, will find plenty of historical authenticity.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Jesus did not fulfill all of the prophecies
2 months ago
Anonymous
>the historical authenticity of the gospels
Like when they lie about the census that never happened?
2 months ago
Anonymous
Like the second coming that never happened?
2 months ago
Anonymous
God is supposed to be a perfect being, but you only have to take one look at the God of the Bible to see that he's limited, changeable, heavily anthrophormorphized, and cruel. The only way people identify him with philosophical ideas of "God" is by going in the opposite direction of what you're saying; they start by believing in Yahweh and ascribe the greatest possible attributes to him, so they end up connecting him with philosophical abstractions that don't fit well at all.
2 months ago
Anonymous
He‘s beyond our perception of good and evil because he’s infinitely wise and what might seems cruel to us will be for the better of us in the future, or for the human race. Also him being the cause of the universe does not mean he is supposed to act in a certain way.
Also you’re making a good point, God is not all mercy, next to his infinite mercy there lies his infinite anger and you must be scared the shit out of him.
That’s why you need to choose his mercy even out of fear.
2 months ago
Anonymous
> you want to analyse if he is or he is not the God of the Bible
Well that sure wasn't Aristotle's conclusion when he came up with the argument. He concluded that there were multiple unmoved movers.
So why should I even bother with the bible when the guy who invented the argument didn't either?
2 months ago
Anonymous
Because not always was he right, also i didn’t use unmoved mover, I used avicenna’s totality argument.
2 months ago
Anonymous
The jargon you're using is how people talk about the unmoved mover argument. It's basically the same thing. I don't really care that Avicenna's argument is technically a separate one, it's literally just a variant of Artistole's. And Aristotle believed in many primary causes.
So again, why should I immediately decide there's just one, and that that one is the one in the bible, when Aristotle didn't?
2 months ago
Anonymous
I need to go to Church i’ll answer you later
2 months ago
Anonymous
2 months ago
Anonymous
Mind providing a quotation, or source from Physics where he says there's only one? Because On the Heavens and Physics were written at about the same time.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Why not Islam then?
2 months ago
Anonymous
Islam is historiographically in very very weak position, it makes truth claim about Jesus‘s death which happened 600 years before whereas the four godpels were written in the interval of 30-80 years, on eye witness accounts of twelve apostles and others. They have another strength they are independent, and don’t have contradictions, thats very important.
So basically from a historiographical point of view which is the correct approach the gospels are way more reliable than Quran.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>They have another strength they are independent
No they aren't, a few are obviously copies of ech other
and don’t have contradictions, thats very important.
Also false; they have contraddictions on where and when they met jesus after the resurrection and what he told them
2 months ago
Anonymous
They aren’t copies of each other if they were they would not focus on different aspects, and thats not the consensus anyways, they used same sources most likely.
And no there arent any comtradiction on where Jesus appeared after resurrection.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>they used same sources most likely.
So not independent; mark was used in making luke and matthew > And no there arent any comtradiction on where Jesus appeared after resurrection.
Denying it won't chage that jesus reappears in different places and tells them different things
Ofc I would care. When God is proven as a sustainer of the world constantly causing everything, It means he is all powerful and I better do some research and infer if He is the God of Bible or not, especially NT, which is widely considered reliable, the reason is told here a thousand times, its historical narrative style, archeological findings, the sheer number of manuscripts corroborating with each other etc. I personally posted tens of these evidences but again nobody cares.
Maybe I should accept that even if God is real and He is bible’s God, again nobody cares, no one gives a damn if they are going to hell or not.
>When God is proven as a sustainer of the world constantly causing everything,
That's not what being the uncaused cause is. He just caused one thing. That led to everything else. > It means he is all powerful and I better do some research and infer if He is the God of Bible or not,
No. There is no reason for you to come into that conclusion.
Uncaused cause therefore 3=1 and this unleavened bread is actually Human-God flesh is basically a non sequitur. But tbh, so is trying to use the uncaused cause argument to prove ANY concrete god. Be it the God of the Muslims, Sikhs, israelites or any other monotheistic religious movement.
Yes there is a reason to come into conclusion. He created the universe and you’re saying transsubstiation is an impossible thing?
2 months ago
Anonymous
Omnipotence is a self-contradictory state.
The uncreated creator is not necessarily omnipotent. It need just set everything in motion.
But I used the trinity ans transubstatiation as an example that you are trying to fork from a purely logical impersonal argument into something much less logical.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Im not, I just want atheist to accept that there is a God.
You can also prove the Gospels are reliable but thats another story.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>I just want atheist to accept that there is a God.
Not him, but why?
2 months ago
Anonymous
Because it’s the first step towards salvation.
2 months ago
Anonymous
I mean that's cool, but I don't think most people who currently believe in God were convinced to tak that position by hearing deductive arguments for the existence of God. It seems like you chose a really poor method.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Why don’t they? They should. Thomas Aquinas is the cornerstone of Christianity and all he did was this
2 months ago
Anonymous
Probably because they don't find the arguments convincing.
How many people do you know who converted because of Aquinas? Most adult converts I know came to Christianity more like this: >feeling lost in life, depressed, aimless >a christian involves them in his/her social circle, invites them to church etc. >fake it till you make it >no longer feeling aimless >jesussavedme.wav
2 months ago
Anonymous
Ok that’s good but initially I think every one must seriously engage with Aquinas and philosophy. Its not even that hard its just reading and a little thinking.
Reason and faith together
2 months ago
Anonymous
Why? The majority of philosophers are atheists, so Aquinas' arguments are not convincing to most people whose literal job is to analyze philosophical arguments.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Bc one needs to back up his believes with reason
2 months ago
Anonymous
Why? And why are you trying to get atheists to back up their beliefs with reasons that aren't convincing to most professional philosophers when they don't believe in the first place?
2 months ago
Anonymous
Because Jesus told me to preach to others.
And because philosopher are not believers is not a surprise, more educated people are more likely to become biased in their own believes and less open to new ideas. I’m preaching to young neets like myself who are not bouned by anything in their beliefs so they are open.
Philosophers are atheist because they want recognition in their job and recognition nowadays is not due to christians.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Nope, you chose a method that is ineffective because of your pride. You want to have arguments and win arguments, you want people to concede that you're smarter than them. If you genuinely wanted to bring people to Christ, you'd volunteer at a homeless shelter or work with drug addicts. You said you're a neet, so you should have plenty of free time to do that.
Yes, the exact same is true of "parallel universes" and other mental mastrubation; we cannot interact with it, therefore it is not of interest to our reality. The number of abstract ideas we can discover is infinite by construction. Therefore we should only keep the ones useful to our reality.
Ofc I would care. When God is proven as a sustainer of the world constantly causing everything, It means he is all powerful and I better do some research and infer if He is the God of Bible or not, especially NT, which is widely considered reliable, the reason is told here a thousand times, its historical narrative style, archeological findings, the sheer number of manuscripts corroborating with each other etc. I personally posted tens of these evidences but again nobody cares.
Maybe I should accept that even if God is real and He is bible’s God, again nobody cares, no one gives a damn if they are going to hell or not.
You can deduce the existence of a supreme being, but you cannot deduce that He influenced the universe or that any human writing was in His name. I say Odin is the supreme being that created the universe. It is equally valid.
With all that in mind, then the two statements "I want to study the nature of the universe" and "I want to study the mind of the Creator" are equivalent and semantics become unimportant.
Nah it was garbage. You did the same thing religtards always do which is declare that everything has a cause then violate that premise by asserting that a israelite in the sky exists without a cause.
Uncaused Cause, Unmoved Mover, the point of the matter is logic demands the presence of such a thing.
And when logic demands it, if it is well structured anf without fallacies, a truth is uncovered, it means it is real.
If you say deductive reasoning is wrong then you have to go to high school again.
Let's call this uncaused cause "the Big Bang" and not ascribe to it any magic-Jew-in-the-sky-with-overt-narcissistic-personality-like qualities and not worship it, shall we?
>Uncaused Cause, Unmoved Mover, the point of the matter is logic demands the presence of such a thing.
Out in the mindless void the daemon bore me,
Past the bright clusters of dimensioned space,
Till neither time nor matter stretched before me,
But only Chaos, without form or place.
Here the vast Lord of All in darkness muttered
Things he had dreamed but could not understand,
While near him shapeless bat-things flopped and fluttered
In idiot vortices that ray-streams fanned.
They danced insanely to the high, thin whining
Of a cracked flute clutched in a monstrous paw,
Whence flow the aimless waves whose chance combining
Gives each frail cosmos its eternal law.
“I am His Messenger,” the daemon said,
As in contempt he struck his Master’s head.
>Uncaused Cause
1. Requires understanding the nature of causes. Which you cannot access.
2. Requires understanding of the nature of Ceteris Paribus. Which you, dumb homosexual, didn't know you didn't know about.
>the point of the matter is logic demands
Godel's incompleteness theorem. Or, frick your formal axiomatic systems.
>when logic demands it >If you say deductive reasoning is wrong then
Universal Turing Machine.
Your logic demands frequently-repeatable shit precisely because it is easier to process first.
Because evolutionary time-constraints on your brain.
Logic would be of no help against complex unique counterintuitive cases that would require each time an individual case-to-case analysis.
Nothing outrules their existence, but your brain would be totally unfit to solve them.
Impossible. Scientists already discovered universe hsd a beginning.
2 months ago
Anonymous
No they didn't
2 months ago
Anonymous
That doesn't prevent the existence of previous causes
2 months ago
Anonymous
No they didn't.
If you are referring to the "Big Bang Theory" then you are misinterpreting thd theory as that theory dosen't say anything about the Universe's beginning. >Misconceptions about the Big Bang: >One of the common misconceptions about the Big Bang model is that it fully explains the origin of the universe. However, the Big Bang model does not describe how energy, time, and space were caused, but rather it describes the emergence of the present universe from an ultra-dense and high-temperature initial state.[139] It is misleading to visualize the Big Bang by comparing its size to everyday objects. When the size of the universe at Big Bang is described, it refers to the size of the observable universe, and not the entire universe.[140]
2 months ago
Anonymous
>the Big Bang model does not describe how energy, time, and space were caused
True it doesn't, at most it makes steady-state theory not really plausible. But iirc it is actually a point where time and space can be said to come into being because going past that they make no sense. Sort of like what Hawking said when he called it analogous to asking what is south of the South Pole
I recommend reading more philosophy, specifically philosophy that doesn't primarily have to do with God. Not because it should make you lose your faith or anything like that, but because it should give you more perspective on philosophical arguments.
I was a bit like you once. Before I went to university to study philosophy, I thought that there were all these ironclad philosophical arguments that you can't really argue against (not arguments about God, just arguments in general). But once I started studying philosophy, I realized that with most deductive arguments, there really isn't any agreement about whether they actually work. And what's more, there's often a near even split between people who think the argument obviously works and those who think that it obviously doesn't. If you can't deal with that, philosophy isn't for you.
Ok but that’s why I posted it, to see people finding fallacies with the points and sharing it but nobody did it, I would be happy to update my beliefs if my arguments were rigidly refuted by philosophers better than me.
>if my arguments were rigidly refuted
You and the people engaging with your arguments would probably disagree on whether they were rigidly refuted or not.
Look, most of these instances of "I invented a new argument for the existence of God" are just slight variations of arguments that have been around for centuries, if not millennia. Most people don't actually care if you believe in God and have no motivation to turn you into an atheist. People who find these old arguments interesting have access to better resources about them than talking to some random guy on IQfy.
Oh so you decided to proof your argument through the well thought out debates on IQfy.
>if my arguments were rigidly refuted
You and the people engaging with your arguments would probably disagree on whether they were rigidly refuted or not.
Look, most of these instances of "I invented a new argument for the existence of God" are just slight variations of arguments that have been around for centuries, if not millennia. Most people don't actually care if you believe in God and have no motivation to turn you into an atheist. People who find these old arguments interesting have access to better resources about them than talking to some random guy on IQfy.
I recommend reading more philosophy, specifically philosophy that doesn't primarily have to do with God. Not because it should make you lose your faith or anything like that, but because it should give you more perspective on philosophical arguments.
I was a bit like you once. Before I went to university to study philosophy, I thought that there were all these ironclad philosophical arguments that you can't really argue against (not arguments about God, just arguments in general). But once I started studying philosophy, I realized that with most deductive arguments, there really isn't any agreement about whether they actually work. And what's more, there's often a near even split between people who think the argument obviously works and those who think that it obviously doesn't. If you can't deal with that, philosophy isn't for you.
As this anon points out, these kind of logical proofs are all over philosophy, but just because they are well put together is not considered air tight. People know about Aquinas and many do not find his arguments (which rely on all sorts of assumptions about how creation works) convincing. As an aside, If you look into other branches of Christianity besides Catholicism, many find his ideas on God heretical. I personally do not find the unmoved mover a good match for the God of the bible.
Philosophically he’s proven.
I made some premises, search “avicenna” in the archive.
If you accept all the premises as truth, then the conclusion is absolutely true.
He doesn't. The Dark Principle does that. God is the Good Principle and His work is causing some good, even if minor, to come out of the death of the child. The mystery He says is beyond our present understanding is why He allows The Dark Principle. My sense it has something to do with free will, which seems very important to the Good Principle. Were there no Dark Principle, man would not be able to choose his actions and say no to the Good Principle. God could have made robots but for some reason held back.
>4. Whatever is possible has a cause.
Well I don't accept that premise. If you defend it, please explain what you mean by "a cause." I think I'll disagree even under the broadest definition, but I have to understand what you mean to understand why you think this premise is true.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>contingence argument, except I'm too stupid to know necessity implies possibility
Christians are getting stupider and stupider by the day.
Okay. Weaknesses of this argument are that it's relying on one logic - what you can and cannot derive depends on the logic you're using - and that the words it uses >existence, possibility >being in itself - what does it mean? >members
are themselves not rigorously defined. Additionally, if define God to be a "necessary being", what have you achieved, other than that there's (at least one) being that is necessary? How's that related to what we call "God", an omnipotent, omniscient, immortal being, creator and conscious agent?
Let A and B be two assertions, which can be either true or false. If A is necessary for B, then the truth of B implies the truth of A. This is what "necessity" means in the context of classical logic.
Yeah, it would be more plausible to say the necessarily existing cause of everything is whatever is the most fundamental physical level of reality, like the quantum fields+spacetime or something.
Op here, because it cannot be anything else, another anon said the most fundamental physical reality, that is still a member of the totality of all possible things, that’s what I meant that the necessary existent cannot be internal to the totality, and „fundamental physical reality“ is inside the totality, so except for God as beyond and above the totality, you cannot assume anything else.
Sure it might not be the triune God, but what do we know. It might as well be thar, we must be impartial as possible.
The reason why I bet my money on the triune God is because Investigated the authenticity of the gospels and I found a lot of convincing evidences, yes I might be wrong but my personal judgement says otherwise.
If you‘re interested in why I found the gospels to be true I can make another post. Or a blog.
2 months ago
Anonymous
"If A is necessary for B, then the truth of B implies the truth of A."
So to see if I understood, B would be the totality of possible things, for example? This is what I don't get it. Also, why would A be a being with classical attributes of God (creator of the universe, transcending space and time, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and omnibenevolent)?
2 months ago
Anonymous
Because space is the boundaries of the totality, every where where the universe extends there is space and motion, motion is possible by temporality which is time so these are the boundaries, God would have to be external to these in order to be external to the totality.
Motion is in everywhere so the unmoved mover which is God has to be everywhere to decree or make motion possible.
God is the creator of this totality so he has the means to destroy it, so he is all powerful
His omnibenovalence I believe is because he preferred that there be something instead of nothing, while he could have not preferred, so his creation is the ultimate unparalleled act of benovalence above and beyond.
But what i don't understand, is that even if you prove that a God exists, the character of the Bible, would still not be true, since it's just an exclusive literary character, and you would have to prove that being has those biblical characteristics.
NT has a historical narrative style and the Census which they mention that anons here still think is fake tuned out to be real after all, as well as a language confusions where Jesus went out of Jericho or into Jericho which turned out to make sense because you could come out lf Jericho and go inside Jericho somewhere else, there are archeological findings that hint at the authenticity of the Gospels, the pool in which Jesus healed the blind was found in Jerusalem, the box of the bones of Caiaphas the Judge who prosecuted Jesus was found too, evidently we know that Pontius Pilot was real and was in Jerusalem at the time.
There is also the sheer number of original language biblical manuscript and when someone says the translation have corrupted the Bible you can point it to them.
Gospels are clearly historical narratives, with exquisite attention to details, that corroborate well with each other.
If you’ve studied history you would know how strong 4 independent sources that corroborate with each other and don’t have contradiction yet emphasise on different accept are in validity.
For me denying the authenticity of the Gospels is like denying Holocaust, because in holocaust too you have to assume collective lying to deny it, to deny that corroboration between personal accounts of two independent people is historically worthless which is bizarre.
So the reason why I believe Jesus resurrected is that the gospels are so reliable.
>schizobabble
I'll cut it short; no census requiring you to go to your ancestor's town happened; it was invented to make jesus fit the prophecies about the messiah
>Scholars point out that there was no single census of the entire Roman Empire under Augustus and the Romans did not directly tax client kingdoms; further, no Roman census required that people travel from their own homes to those of their ancestors. A census of Judaea would not have affected Joseph and his family, who lived in Galilee under a different ruler; the revolt of Judas of Galilee suggests that Rome's direct taxation of Judaea was new at the time.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>It should be remembered that back in 27 B.C.E. Augustus was given complete and absolute allegiance by the Senate and people of Rome. Would there not have been a renewal of their loyalty to Augustus in the Jubilee year?
This is just pure speculation
>If so, we could well have a reference to an Empire-wide registration of loyalty to the emperor. Josephus mentioned that Augustus demanded an oath of allegiance about twelve or fifteen months before the death of Herod.
To whom did he ask this? Herod? All the citizens?
> This event would fit nicely with a decree going out from Augustus in 3 B.C.E. that all were to give an oath of allegiance to him at some designated time during the year. Obviously, the recording of oaths (where people ascribed their names) was a type of registration. That is what Luke said the census was. It was an enrollment of people.
2 months ago
Anonymous
No, read all of it.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Anon whoever wrote that article is insane; somehow tge romans cared about a nobody that was apparently a claimant to the throne of israel directly opposed to their puppet kings and they also wanted a speacial signing of allegiance from this random guy and his wife because....?
It makes no sense
2 months ago
Anonymous
I havent read all of it yet wait.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Its very much possible bc even when Jesus was 2 years old the news of him being the messiah was all around Jerusalem, so it makes sense that either the followers themselves encouraged the parents to sign the Oath to keep out of trouble or the concern of Joseph himself to protect Jesus.
It is certainly possible.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Baseless speculation; who thought that jesus was the messiah exactly at this time? Also they incouraged them to go to this place for zero reasons.
2 months ago
Anonymous
You have no idea boy.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Not an argument
2 months ago
Anonymous
I dont have to educate you on everything.
Ok haven’t you heard about the star of bethlehem? People knew he was the messiah and when he was born they gathered around and gave them gifts.
This group of people were called the wise men or the magi who studied the stars and saw the signs in the sky and knew the baby born was Jesus.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Ok haven’t you heard about the star of bethlehem?
Oh you are just trolling; sorry for taking you seriously
2 months ago
Anonymous
> Once the chronology of the period is properly understood it can be seen that the oath would have been required about twelve to fifteen months before the death of Herod. Anyone reading the narrative of Josephus without pre-conceived opinions would have to put it somewhere in that range of time. This oath would have been given during the governorship of Saturninus, and that is the exact period when Tertullian said the registration of Judaea was conducted. Coupled with this is the fact that Luke called this “census” the first registration. It could mean that he was distinguishing this “census” from the second (and ordinary) census of Quirinius which took place in C.E. 6/7, or that this was the first registration of its kind that ever took place. The latter reason has the best credentials.
The truth is, the “oath” mentioned by Josephus and the “census” of Luke are no doubt one and the same. All fits perfectly if the registration was ordered by Augustus in the summer of 3 B.C.E. to be completed by autumn of 2 B.C.E. during the year in which he was acclaimed the Pater Patriae. We will see that this was the first time that Augustus ever ordered all in the Empire to show such loyalty.
I find this pretty convincing ngl
2 months ago
Anonymous
The census happening and being an oath( which is speculation) doesn't mean that joseph was asked to go to his ancestral home. It's very flimsy "evidence" at best
2 months ago
Anonymous
Just like I said there were lots of people who knew the messiah is going to be born out of mary and joseph.
2 months ago
Anonymous
And these totally real people that saw a magic star definetly told joseph he needes to go to this place for a census/oath taking because.....uh just do it ok?
It seems a lot more reasonable the census was just used to justify jesus being born were the prophecies said the messiah would be; unless these misterious astrologers told joseph to go there to actively fullfill this prophecy; which hinges on any of this being real.
2 months ago
Anonymous
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/18/did-historical-jesus-exist-the-traditional-evidence-doesnt-hold-up/
Same to you, read this.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Some have suspected that both Joseph and Mary were descendants of David, and were legitimate claimants to the throne of Israel (had such a throne existed).
Who? Who suspected this? >It could easily be seen why Mary, as well as Joseph, was expected to sign the oath of loyalty to Augustus.
Huh? Who thought and knew that two random peasants were actually descendants of a king? Why would the romans care at all about their line?
>All “royal claimants” would have especially been singled out to give the oath of allegiance.
Why would the romans support claimants against their current protectorate government?
>This would even have involved Mary. It was possible in israeli circles for female descendants of David to have the rights of primogeniture and kingship for their offspring (cf. Antiquities, XVIII. 124 and also Acts 16:1–3 where the principle of legal maternal descent is shown).
Huh?
>Luke tells us that the reason why both Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem was because he was reckoned as belonging to the house of David. While everyone else went “into his own city” (Luke 2:3) no doubt in their own local neighborhoods, those of royal Judaic lineage because of political implications had to register in Bethlehem.
This is ridiculous; what political implications? Joseph was a literal who carpenther; who wrote this?
In fact it doesn’t even need jesus for Joseph to go to bethlehem in 2 BC, you have to place yourself in the mentality of the israelites then, joseph was considered by israelites who were messianic “superstitious” people as the descendant of David, and David is like the most important lineage and no doubt there were many claimants so it is very well possible that he was encouraged to go. Or to show off his ancestry.
Why do you have a problem with this.
I think your main problem with the gospels is the resurrection and resurrection you think just does not happen ok?
>Why do you have a problem with this.
Because you made all of this up. The point is the supposed historical autenticity of the gospels; this census doesn't fit because they didn't work like that and now you are supposing there is this group of people that actually told joseph to do this but how is this historical? It's just someting you believe
Someone should develop an extension that lets me filter all frog image posts, ai is advanced enough. That'd clean up like 90% of the spam on most boards.
someone else should do something for you
tell me how you're an absolute monkey without actually ooking
There really isn't much to care about.
Any God you arrive to via logic is an inert, untouchable, abstract, husk of a God that does nothing, prescribes nothing, proscribes nothing. It created the universe and then went inactive.
Imagine if you will, that I prove via deduction that there is a psychic gestalt that is universal to humanity. This gestalt does not influence human behavior in anyway, does not change our understanding of man, is not interactable nor modifiable, and essentially just exists to resolve some obscure philosophical problem about the existence of consciousness. Would you care?
yes
Ofc I would care. When God is proven as a sustainer of the world constantly causing everything, It means he is all powerful and I better do some research and infer if He is the God of Bible or not, especially NT, which is widely considered reliable, the reason is told here a thousand times, its historical narrative style, archeological findings, the sheer number of manuscripts corroborating with each other etc. I personally posted tens of these evidences but again nobody cares.
Maybe I should accept that even if God is real and He is bible’s God, again nobody cares, no one gives a damn if they are going to hell or not.
You're suffering from religious OCD. Go see a shrink.
Thats not the meaning of OCD.
Anon go look up religious OCD, it's an actual diagnosis. It's also known as scrupulosity.
Don't be afraid to get help.
Yeah you can categorize every feeling into a moronic pseudo scientific term. You can call fear OCD, you can call love BPD etc. you have to be an npc to not be called crazy nowadays.
Anon you're spending all your free time talking about religion with strangers online. Your family worry about you. Please get some help.
Arguments for God's existence are usually going to appeal to the smallest number of any population: the logical and impartial. You're not doing anything wrong, just know that most people's disbelief stems from not logical problems but emotional ones. Usually, these people have had a bad time at life and then conclude that life is evil at its core. Unless you can address this, you will be shooting out arguments until you're blue in the face. That's why developing IRL relationships with people is the best way to evangelize to them, because they can better tell whether you're full of it or not by the example of your life.
You’re probably right, I might have assumed that every one is like a soulless impartial rationalist like I probably am.
I mean was, since i am christian now. Idk
And that takes a lot if time and im socially awkward.
There it is. Nine times out of ten, behind a philosophically respectable argument for something like a "prime mover," "necessary being" etc., there is a fool who wants to convince you that the prime mover told Abraham to cut his son's penis, that he appeared to Israel at Mt. Sinai in a thundercloud and made a covenant with them, and so on. This is stupid.
Look anon its really simple, you read philosophical arguments proving God then when your are convinced of the existence of Him as a necessary being, you want to analyse if he is or he is not the God of the Bible and you do that by determining the historical authenticity of the gospels, which if you investigate, will find plenty of historical authenticity.
Jesus did not fulfill all of the prophecies
>the historical authenticity of the gospels
Like when they lie about the census that never happened?
Like the second coming that never happened?
God is supposed to be a perfect being, but you only have to take one look at the God of the Bible to see that he's limited, changeable, heavily anthrophormorphized, and cruel. The only way people identify him with philosophical ideas of "God" is by going in the opposite direction of what you're saying; they start by believing in Yahweh and ascribe the greatest possible attributes to him, so they end up connecting him with philosophical abstractions that don't fit well at all.
He‘s beyond our perception of good and evil because he’s infinitely wise and what might seems cruel to us will be for the better of us in the future, or for the human race. Also him being the cause of the universe does not mean he is supposed to act in a certain way.
Also you’re making a good point, God is not all mercy, next to his infinite mercy there lies his infinite anger and you must be scared the shit out of him.
That’s why you need to choose his mercy even out of fear.
> you want to analyse if he is or he is not the God of the Bible
Well that sure wasn't Aristotle's conclusion when he came up with the argument. He concluded that there were multiple unmoved movers.
So why should I even bother with the bible when the guy who invented the argument didn't either?
Because not always was he right, also i didn’t use unmoved mover, I used avicenna’s totality argument.
The jargon you're using is how people talk about the unmoved mover argument. It's basically the same thing. I don't really care that Avicenna's argument is technically a separate one, it's literally just a variant of Artistole's. And Aristotle believed in many primary causes.
So again, why should I immediately decide there's just one, and that that one is the one in the bible, when Aristotle didn't?
I need to go to Church i’ll answer you later
Mind providing a quotation, or source from Physics where he says there's only one? Because On the Heavens and Physics were written at about the same time.
Why not Islam then?
Islam is historiographically in very very weak position, it makes truth claim about Jesus‘s death which happened 600 years before whereas the four godpels were written in the interval of 30-80 years, on eye witness accounts of twelve apostles and others. They have another strength they are independent, and don’t have contradictions, thats very important.
So basically from a historiographical point of view which is the correct approach the gospels are way more reliable than Quran.
>They have another strength they are independent
No they aren't, a few are obviously copies of ech other
and don’t have contradictions, thats very important.
Also false; they have contraddictions on where and when they met jesus after the resurrection and what he told them
They aren’t copies of each other if they were they would not focus on different aspects, and thats not the consensus anyways, they used same sources most likely.
And no there arent any comtradiction on where Jesus appeared after resurrection.
>they used same sources most likely.
So not independent; mark was used in making luke and matthew
> And no there arent any comtradiction on where Jesus appeared after resurrection.
Denying it won't chage that jesus reappears in different places and tells them different things
>atheists now have to concede God exists and act like they are above the arguments they have been screeching out since September 11th 2001
Did you fjust come out of a timewarp from 2008?
Good for you, then.
>When God is proven as a sustainer of the world constantly causing everything,
That's not what being the uncaused cause is. He just caused one thing. That led to everything else.
> It means he is all powerful and I better do some research and infer if He is the God of Bible or not,
No. There is no reason for you to come into that conclusion.
Uncaused cause therefore 3=1 and this unleavened bread is actually Human-God flesh is basically a non sequitur. But tbh, so is trying to use the uncaused cause argument to prove ANY concrete god. Be it the God of the Muslims, Sikhs, israelites or any other monotheistic religious movement.
All deities come with moronic baggage you can't just prove with logic.
In my opinion, this is because all these deities are human creations.
Yes there is a reason to come into conclusion. He created the universe and you’re saying transsubstiation is an impossible thing?
Omnipotence is a self-contradictory state.
The uncreated creator is not necessarily omnipotent. It need just set everything in motion.
But I used the trinity ans transubstatiation as an example that you are trying to fork from a purely logical impersonal argument into something much less logical.
Im not, I just want atheist to accept that there is a God.
You can also prove the Gospels are reliable but thats another story.
>I just want atheist to accept that there is a God.
Not him, but why?
Because it’s the first step towards salvation.
I mean that's cool, but I don't think most people who currently believe in God were convinced to tak that position by hearing deductive arguments for the existence of God. It seems like you chose a really poor method.
Why don’t they? They should. Thomas Aquinas is the cornerstone of Christianity and all he did was this
Probably because they don't find the arguments convincing.
How many people do you know who converted because of Aquinas? Most adult converts I know came to Christianity more like this:
>feeling lost in life, depressed, aimless
>a christian involves them in his/her social circle, invites them to church etc.
>fake it till you make it
>no longer feeling aimless
>jesussavedme.wav
Ok that’s good but initially I think every one must seriously engage with Aquinas and philosophy. Its not even that hard its just reading and a little thinking.
Reason and faith together
Why? The majority of philosophers are atheists, so Aquinas' arguments are not convincing to most people whose literal job is to analyze philosophical arguments.
Bc one needs to back up his believes with reason
Why? And why are you trying to get atheists to back up their beliefs with reasons that aren't convincing to most professional philosophers when they don't believe in the first place?
Because Jesus told me to preach to others.
And because philosopher are not believers is not a surprise, more educated people are more likely to become biased in their own believes and less open to new ideas. I’m preaching to young neets like myself who are not bouned by anything in their beliefs so they are open.
Philosophers are atheist because they want recognition in their job and recognition nowadays is not due to christians.
Nope, you chose a method that is ineffective because of your pride. You want to have arguments and win arguments, you want people to concede that you're smarter than them. If you genuinely wanted to bring people to Christ, you'd volunteer at a homeless shelter or work with drug addicts. You said you're a neet, so you should have plenty of free time to do that.
>open
*gullible
Good enough for me.
That's you making the leap of faith onto israelitesus yourself.
Yes, the exact same is true of "parallel universes" and other mental mastrubation; we cannot interact with it, therefore it is not of interest to our reality. The number of abstract ideas we can discover is infinite by construction. Therefore we should only keep the ones useful to our reality.
You can deduce the existence of a supreme being, but you cannot deduce that He influenced the universe or that any human writing was in His name. I say Odin is the supreme being that created the universe. It is equally valid.
With all that in mind, then the two statements "I want to study the nature of the universe" and "I want to study the mind of the Creator" are equivalent and semantics become unimportant.
God does not exist. period.
rationalism has been debunked for thousands of years
Nah it was garbage. You did the same thing religtards always do which is declare that everything has a cause then violate that premise by asserting that a israelite in the sky exists without a cause.
Uncaused Cause, Unmoved Mover, the point of the matter is logic demands the presence of such a thing.
And when logic demands it, if it is well structured anf without fallacies, a truth is uncovered, it means it is real.
If you say deductive reasoning is wrong then you have to go to high school again.
Let's call this uncaused cause "the Big Bang" and not ascribe to it any magic-Jew-in-the-sky-with-overt-narcissistic-personality-like qualities and not worship it, shall we?
>Uncaused Cause, Unmoved Mover, the point of the matter is logic demands the presence of such a thing.
Out in the mindless void the daemon bore me,
Past the bright clusters of dimensioned space,
Till neither time nor matter stretched before me,
But only Chaos, without form or place.
Here the vast Lord of All in darkness muttered
Things he had dreamed but could not understand,
While near him shapeless bat-things flopped and fluttered
In idiot vortices that ray-streams fanned.
They danced insanely to the high, thin whining
Of a cracked flute clutched in a monstrous paw,
Whence flow the aimless waves whose chance combining
Gives each frail cosmos its eternal law.
“I am His Messenger,” the daemon said,
As in contempt he struck his Master’s head.
>Uncaused Cause
1. Requires understanding the nature of causes. Which you cannot access.
2. Requires understanding of the nature of Ceteris Paribus. Which you, dumb homosexual, didn't know you didn't know about.
>the point of the matter is logic demands
Godel's incompleteness theorem. Or, frick your formal axiomatic systems.
>when logic demands it
>If you say deductive reasoning is wrong then
Universal Turing Machine.
Your logic demands frequently-repeatable shit precisely because it is easier to process first.
Because evolutionary time-constraints on your brain.
Logic would be of no help against complex unique counterintuitive cases that would require each time an individual case-to-case analysis.
Nothing outrules their existence, but your brain would be totally unfit to solve them.
>Godel's incompleteness theorem
What do you mean by that? How'd OP violate it or how does it factor into what OP said?
An infinite causal chain is more logical because then there is no uncaused cause.
Impossible. Scientists already discovered universe hsd a beginning.
No they didn't
That doesn't prevent the existence of previous causes
No they didn't.
If you are referring to the "Big Bang Theory" then you are misinterpreting thd theory as that theory dosen't say anything about the Universe's beginning.
>Misconceptions about the Big Bang:
>One of the common misconceptions about the Big Bang model is that it fully explains the origin of the universe. However, the Big Bang model does not describe how energy, time, and space were caused, but rather it describes the emergence of the present universe from an ultra-dense and high-temperature initial state.[139] It is misleading to visualize the Big Bang by comparing its size to everyday objects. When the size of the universe at Big Bang is described, it refers to the size of the observable universe, and not the entire universe.[140]
>the Big Bang model does not describe how energy, time, and space were caused
True it doesn't, at most it makes steady-state theory not really plausible. But iirc it is actually a point where time and space can be said to come into being because going past that they make no sense. Sort of like what Hawking said when he called it analogous to asking what is south of the South Pole
The problem with ad infinitum past is if the past is infinite then there would be no present.
This doesn't follow except in really autistic ways that equally apply to limited pasts anyway.
That's not how time works
>infinite causal chain is more logical
it can't be traversed to get to the current point, Zeno's paradox of motion situation right here but worse
>deductively proving
So, you posted some worthless word games?
Shut your mouth then if words are worthless.
I recommend reading more philosophy, specifically philosophy that doesn't primarily have to do with God. Not because it should make you lose your faith or anything like that, but because it should give you more perspective on philosophical arguments.
I was a bit like you once. Before I went to university to study philosophy, I thought that there were all these ironclad philosophical arguments that you can't really argue against (not arguments about God, just arguments in general). But once I started studying philosophy, I realized that with most deductive arguments, there really isn't any agreement about whether they actually work. And what's more, there's often a near even split between people who think the argument obviously works and those who think that it obviously doesn't. If you can't deal with that, philosophy isn't for you.
Ok but that’s why I posted it, to see people finding fallacies with the points and sharing it but nobody did it, I would be happy to update my beliefs if my arguments were rigidly refuted by philosophers better than me.
>if my arguments were rigidly refuted
You and the people engaging with your arguments would probably disagree on whether they were rigidly refuted or not.
Look, most of these instances of "I invented a new argument for the existence of God" are just slight variations of arguments that have been around for centuries, if not millennia. Most people don't actually care if you believe in God and have no motivation to turn you into an atheist. People who find these old arguments interesting have access to better resources about them than talking to some random guy on IQfy.
No you didn't
Oh so you decided to proof your argument through the well thought out debates on IQfy.
As this anon points out, these kind of logical proofs are all over philosophy, but just because they are well put together is not considered air tight. People know about Aquinas and many do not find his arguments (which rely on all sorts of assumptions about how creation works) convincing. As an aside, If you look into other branches of Christianity besides Catholicism, many find his ideas on God heretical. I personally do not find the unmoved mover a good match for the God of the bible.
God is unprovable and unfalsifiable. That's why it's called faith and that's why science can never come to terms with it. Check your schizophrenia.
Philosophically he’s proven.
I made some premises, search “avicenna” in the archive.
If you accept all the premises as truth, then the conclusion is absolutely true.
Why does he make kids die in AIDS?
Bc they would grow up to be like you
Why was I exempt?
To be an example of why they had to die
He doesn't. The Dark Principle does that. God is the Good Principle and His work is causing some good, even if minor, to come out of the death of the child. The mystery He says is beyond our present understanding is why He allows The Dark Principle. My sense it has something to do with free will, which seems very important to the Good Principle. Were there no Dark Principle, man would not be able to choose his actions and say no to the Good Principle. God could have made robots but for some reason held back.
nice dualism
>avicenna
Proof that God exists? The archives are down.
#
>4. Whatever is possible has a cause.
Well I don't accept that premise. If you defend it, please explain what you mean by "a cause." I think I'll disagree even under the broadest definition, but I have to understand what you mean to understand why you think this premise is true.
>contingence argument, except I'm too stupid to know necessity implies possibility
Christians are getting stupider and stupider by the day.
Elaborare.
No.
Shut up then
No.
Also
>Elabo *rare*
L
show it
3!
What?
6!
If you did, then hello Dr Anon. I would like to register for your philosophy course.
You will never reach the truth
YWNRTT
>Uncaused cause means god is real
>... and that god has to be my Abrahamitic israelite god from 3 000 years ago
So fricking dishonest lol
Something tells me, you did not even precisely define what you mean by "God".
Necessary being in itself.
#
Okay. Weaknesses of this argument are that it's relying on one logic - what you can and cannot derive depends on the logic you're using - and that the words it uses
>existence, possibility
>being in itself - what does it mean?
>members
are themselves not rigorously defined. Additionally, if define God to be a "necessary being", what have you achieved, other than that there's (at least one) being that is necessary? How's that related to what we call "God", an omnipotent, omniscient, immortal being, creator and conscious agent?
Was it
?
Could you help understand what it means for something to be necessary?
Let A and B be two assertions, which can be either true or false. If A is necessary for B, then the truth of B implies the truth of A. This is what "necessity" means in the context of classical logic.
And why would a necessary existent be God? I don't get it.
God, as in the character from the Bible? Well, that's something I'd also like OP to explain.
No, just as a being that transcends space and time, is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.
Forgot to mention creating the universe
Yeah, it would be more plausible to say the necessarily existing cause of everything is whatever is the most fundamental physical level of reality, like the quantum fields+spacetime or something.
Op here, because it cannot be anything else, another anon said the most fundamental physical reality, that is still a member of the totality of all possible things, that’s what I meant that the necessary existent cannot be internal to the totality, and „fundamental physical reality“ is inside the totality, so except for God as beyond and above the totality, you cannot assume anything else.
Sure it might not be the triune God, but what do we know. It might as well be thar, we must be impartial as possible.
The reason why I bet my money on the triune God is because Investigated the authenticity of the gospels and I found a lot of convincing evidences, yes I might be wrong but my personal judgement says otherwise.
If you‘re interested in why I found the gospels to be true I can make another post. Or a blog.
"If A is necessary for B, then the truth of B implies the truth of A."
So to see if I understood, B would be the totality of possible things, for example? This is what I don't get it. Also, why would A be a being with classical attributes of God (creator of the universe, transcending space and time, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and omnibenevolent)?
Because space is the boundaries of the totality, every where where the universe extends there is space and motion, motion is possible by temporality which is time so these are the boundaries, God would have to be external to these in order to be external to the totality.
Motion is in everywhere so the unmoved mover which is God has to be everywhere to decree or make motion possible.
God is the creator of this totality so he has the means to destroy it, so he is all powerful
His omnibenovalence I believe is because he preferred that there be something instead of nothing, while he could have not preferred, so his creation is the ultimate unparalleled act of benovalence above and beyond.
So if A is necessary for B, A creates B?
Are you OP?
Logical validity is a requirement but insufficient to make an empirical claim.
>Logical validity is a requirement
How do you know that?
Repeating a circular argument doen't prove god, anon
But what i don't understand, is that even if you prove that a God exists, the character of the Bible, would still not be true, since it's just an exclusive literary character, and you would have to prove that being has those biblical characteristics.
NT has a historical narrative style and the Census which they mention that anons here still think is fake tuned out to be real after all, as well as a language confusions where Jesus went out of Jericho or into Jericho which turned out to make sense because you could come out lf Jericho and go inside Jericho somewhere else, there are archeological findings that hint at the authenticity of the Gospels, the pool in which Jesus healed the blind was found in Jerusalem, the box of the bones of Caiaphas the Judge who prosecuted Jesus was found too, evidently we know that Pontius Pilot was real and was in Jerusalem at the time.
There is also the sheer number of original language biblical manuscript and when someone says the translation have corrupted the Bible you can point it to them.
Gospels are clearly historical narratives, with exquisite attention to details, that corroborate well with each other.
If you’ve studied history you would know how strong 4 independent sources that corroborate with each other and don’t have contradiction yet emphasise on different accept are in validity.
For me denying the authenticity of the Gospels is like denying Holocaust, because in holocaust too you have to assume collective lying to deny it, to deny that corroboration between personal accounts of two independent people is historically worthless which is bizarre.
So the reason why I believe Jesus resurrected is that the gospels are so reliable.
>tuned out to be real after all
Yeah; no
Yes, I can show you.
And yet you didn't
https://www.askelm.com/star/star014.htm
Read this.
>schizobabble
I'll cut it short; no census requiring you to go to your ancestor's town happened; it was invented to make jesus fit the prophecies about the messiah
>Scholars point out that there was no single census of the entire Roman Empire under Augustus and the Romans did not directly tax client kingdoms; further, no Roman census required that people travel from their own homes to those of their ancestors. A census of Judaea would not have affected Joseph and his family, who lived in Galilee under a different ruler; the revolt of Judas of Galilee suggests that Rome's direct taxation of Judaea was new at the time.
>It should be remembered that back in 27 B.C.E. Augustus was given complete and absolute allegiance by the Senate and people of Rome. Would there not have been a renewal of their loyalty to Augustus in the Jubilee year?
This is just pure speculation
>If so, we could well have a reference to an Empire-wide registration of loyalty to the emperor. Josephus mentioned that Augustus demanded an oath of allegiance about twelve or fifteen months before the death of Herod.
To whom did he ask this? Herod? All the citizens?
> This event would fit nicely with a decree going out from Augustus in 3 B.C.E. that all were to give an oath of allegiance to him at some designated time during the year. Obviously, the recording of oaths (where people ascribed their names) was a type of registration. That is what Luke said the census was. It was an enrollment of people.
No, read all of it.
Anon whoever wrote that article is insane; somehow tge romans cared about a nobody that was apparently a claimant to the throne of israel directly opposed to their puppet kings and they also wanted a speacial signing of allegiance from this random guy and his wife because....?
It makes no sense
I havent read all of it yet wait.
Its very much possible bc even when Jesus was 2 years old the news of him being the messiah was all around Jerusalem, so it makes sense that either the followers themselves encouraged the parents to sign the Oath to keep out of trouble or the concern of Joseph himself to protect Jesus.
It is certainly possible.
Baseless speculation; who thought that jesus was the messiah exactly at this time? Also they incouraged them to go to this place for zero reasons.
You have no idea boy.
Not an argument
I dont have to educate you on everything.
Ok haven’t you heard about the star of bethlehem? People knew he was the messiah and when he was born they gathered around and gave them gifts.
This group of people were called the wise men or the magi who studied the stars and saw the signs in the sky and knew the baby born was Jesus.
>Ok haven’t you heard about the star of bethlehem?
Oh you are just trolling; sorry for taking you seriously
> Once the chronology of the period is properly understood it can be seen that the oath would have been required about twelve to fifteen months before the death of Herod. Anyone reading the narrative of Josephus without pre-conceived opinions would have to put it somewhere in that range of time. This oath would have been given during the governorship of Saturninus, and that is the exact period when Tertullian said the registration of Judaea was conducted. Coupled with this is the fact that Luke called this “census” the first registration. It could mean that he was distinguishing this “census” from the second (and ordinary) census of Quirinius which took place in C.E. 6/7, or that this was the first registration of its kind that ever took place. The latter reason has the best credentials.
The truth is, the “oath” mentioned by Josephus and the “census” of Luke are no doubt one and the same. All fits perfectly if the registration was ordered by Augustus in the summer of 3 B.C.E. to be completed by autumn of 2 B.C.E. during the year in which he was acclaimed the Pater Patriae. We will see that this was the first time that Augustus ever ordered all in the Empire to show such loyalty.
I find this pretty convincing ngl
The census happening and being an oath( which is speculation) doesn't mean that joseph was asked to go to his ancestral home. It's very flimsy "evidence" at best
Just like I said there were lots of people who knew the messiah is going to be born out of mary and joseph.
And these totally real people that saw a magic star definetly told joseph he needes to go to this place for a census/oath taking because.....uh just do it ok?
It seems a lot more reasonable the census was just used to justify jesus being born were the prophecies said the messiah would be; unless these misterious astrologers told joseph to go there to actively fullfill this prophecy; which hinges on any of this being real.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/18/did-historical-jesus-exist-the-traditional-evidence-doesnt-hold-up/
Same to you, read this.
>Some have suspected that both Joseph and Mary were descendants of David, and were legitimate claimants to the throne of Israel (had such a throne existed).
Who? Who suspected this?
>It could easily be seen why Mary, as well as Joseph, was expected to sign the oath of loyalty to Augustus.
Huh? Who thought and knew that two random peasants were actually descendants of a king? Why would the romans care at all about their line?
>All “royal claimants” would have especially been singled out to give the oath of allegiance.
Why would the romans support claimants against their current protectorate government?
>This would even have involved Mary. It was possible in israeli circles for female descendants of David to have the rights of primogeniture and kingship for their offspring (cf. Antiquities, XVIII. 124 and also Acts 16:1–3 where the principle of legal maternal descent is shown).
Huh?
>Luke tells us that the reason why both Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem was because he was reckoned as belonging to the house of David. While everyone else went “into his own city” (Luke 2:3) no doubt in their own local neighborhoods, those of royal Judaic lineage because of political implications had to register in Bethlehem.
This is ridiculous; what political implications? Joseph was a literal who carpenther; who wrote this?
>4 sources that agree with eachother
Where are those sources and why should they be considered both independent and authoritative?
In fact it doesn’t even need jesus for Joseph to go to bethlehem in 2 BC, you have to place yourself in the mentality of the israelites then, joseph was considered by israelites who were messianic “superstitious” people as the descendant of David, and David is like the most important lineage and no doubt there were many claimants so it is very well possible that he was encouraged to go. Or to show off his ancestry.
Why do you have a problem with this.
I think your main problem with the gospels is the resurrection and resurrection you think just does not happen ok?
>Why do you have a problem with this.
Because you made all of this up. The point is the supposed historical autenticity of the gospels; this census doesn't fit because they didn't work like that and now you are supposing there is this group of people that actually told joseph to do this but how is this historical? It's just someting you believe
It’s logical to think so bc joseph and lots of other people believed he is the descendant of David
The Fermi Paradox proves that God exists
The Fermi paradox proves that no sufficiently advanced civilization is moronic enough to waste resources on a soi-fi larp.
Probably because it was stupid and not worth putting in effort to refute.
I can prove the existence of God, but the proof doesn't fit the character limit so you will just have to have faith and believe me.
that's proof enough
I know he's real. He hasn't killed me yet.
I know he isn't real because he hasn't killed me yet.
Christ is King
So what if he is? I wouldn't bow to any king.
Every knee will bend, those who want not, will have theirs broken by his iron scepter.
You have every reason to and no readon not to, pride will be your demise anon.
How's Nigeria, Tyrone?
My Nigerian brothers in Christ are not to be mocked.