u/No-Fly-9749

Lately, I've been analyzing the academic consensus on certain topics, and I'm surprised that the strongest argument against Christianity as a faith is that it was all merely the disciples' visions—collective visions, each one personalized—and that Paul believed only in a heavenly Jesus. So, what did they invent to gain some advantage? And, feeling more comfortable in their businesses, their lives, or their traditional Jewish religion, they invented things that, according to the consensus, they, as Jews, neither expected nor desired. This makes us wonder, gentlemen, how far can one go in a supposedly serious field? It also strikes me that the Jews who have the most reason to attack Jesus have never gone down this path (for them, he's just another false Messiah and teacher). It also strikes me that some say the Acts of the Apostles isn't historically reliable when, if we analyze it verse by verse in light of history, Luke knows a great deal about what he's talking about. Anyway, what do you all think, community?

Lately, I've been analyzing the academic consensus on certain topics, and I'm surprised that the strongest argument against Christianity as a faith is that it was all merely the disciples' visions—collective visions, each one personalized—and that Paul believed only in a heavenly Jesus. So, what did they invent to gain some advantage? And, feeling more comfortable in their businesses, their lives, or their traditional Jewish religion, they invented things that, according to the consensus, they, as Jews, neither expected nor desired. This makes us wonder, gentlemen, how far can one go in a supposedly serious field? It also strikes me that the Jews who have the most reason to attack Jesus have never gone down this path (for them, he's just another false Messiah and teacher). It also strikes me that some say the Acts of the Apostles isn't historically reliable when, if we analyze it verse by verse in light of history, Luke knows a great deal about what he's talking about. Anyway, what do you all think, community?

Lately, I've been analyzing the academic consensus on certain topics, and I'm surprised that the strongest argument against Christianity as a faith is that it was all merely the disciples' visions—collective visions, each one personalized—and that Paul believed only in a heavenly Jesus. So, what did they invent to gain some advantage? And, feeling more comfortable in their businesses, their lives, or their traditional Jewish religion, they invented things that, according to the consensus, they, as Jews, neither expected nor desired. This makes us wonder, gentlemen, how far can one go in a supposedly serious field? It also strikes me that the Jews who have the most reason to attack Jesus have never gone down this path (for them, he's just another false Messiah and teacher). It also strikes me that some say the Acts of the Apostles isn't historically reliable when, if we analyze it verse by verse in light of history, Luke knows a great deal about what he's talking about. Anyway, what do you all think, community?

Blessings, fellow Christians. While studying the resurrection of Christ, I’ve realized there is a very solid case for it; hypotheses such as hallucinations, theft, or fabrication seem implausible when considering the evidence of persecution and martyrdom. However, what do you consider to be the best evidence for the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ?

Blessings, fellow Christians. While studying the resurrection of Christ, I’ve realized there is a very solid case for it; hypotheses such as hallucinations, theft, or fabrication seem implausible when considering the evidence of persecution and martyrdom. However, what do you consider to be the best evidence for the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ?

Blessings, fellow Christians. While studying the resurrection of Christ, I’ve realized there is a very solid case for it; hypotheses such as hallucinations, theft, or fabrication seem implausible when considering the evidence of persecution and martyrdom. However, what do you consider to be the best evidence for the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ?

Because the Protestants trusted so blindly in the Jewish criteria for the canon and discarded the history of the early Christian canon

What is your opinion on the New Jerusalem Bible? I'm seriously considering getting one to have with my Dios Habla Hoy (God Speaks Today) Bible.

Hello everyone, what do you think of P. Meier's book series, "A Marginal Jew"? And what are your favorite books for studying apologetics, doctrines, and related topics? I think the book "Evidence That Demands a Verdict" is wonderful; what are your thoughts on it as well?

Hello friends and sisters in Christ, in this case I have 3 questions plus 1 personal bonus. I want to read your best arguments and teachings so I can learn too. Here they are:

1- Did Jesus die on a stake or on a cross?

2- What do you think is the closest pronunciation of God's name? (Yahweh, Jehovah, etc.?)

3- What do you consider the strongest and most solid proof of God's existence? (For me, the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD)

Bonus: What do you consider the best Bible translation in your languages?

I recently started studying Jehovah's Witnesses and their publications to see why they believe what they believe, and I've realized something: they are a virulently anti-Christian group (and especially extremely anti-Catholic). They see themselves as the true Christians, but above all, it disturbs me that there isn't a single criticism of Judaism or Islam; everything is against other Christian denominations. That aspect of the organization intrigues me...

I recently started studying Jehovah's Witnesses and their publications to see why they believe what they believe, and I've realized something: they are a virulently anti-Christian group (and especially extremely anti-Catholic). They see themselves as the true Christians, but above all, it disturbs me that there isn't a single criticism of Judaism or Islam; everything is against other Christian denominations. That aspect of the organization intrigues me...

I've been investigating the supernatural in everyday life, starting with the pastor who regained his voice after quoting Psalm 103, and continuing with the exorcisms of Doe and Michel. In my personal experience, I've witnessed exorcisms, acts of witchcraft, and possessions by entities that claim to come from below and have an aversion to crosses and Christ. I'm from Cuba, and here Santería and witchcraft are commonplace. I had a dream that led me to believe in God. Before, I was an atheist and in the army. There was a guy who was possessed by ghosts, as they say here, and he could take on up to four guys stronger than him. Later, we learned that our base was built on a Native American burial ground. I myself was healed of a wisdom tooth injury; I don't know what happened there. That's not even counting the visions and apparitions of Christ and saints to other people, but I don't have firsthand information about them. What I want to get at is, what explanation could be given to these events for a naturalist or atheist mindset in society, since many people... We are left without answers in the face of these events that defy measurement. What do you think, men of good faith, or has anyone had a similar experience?

I've been investigating the supernatural in everyday life, starting with the pastor who regained his voice after quoting Psalm 103, and continuing with the exorcisms of Doe and Michel. In my personal experience, I've witnessed exorcisms, acts of witchcraft, and possessions by entities that claim to come from below and have an aversion to crosses and Christ. I'm from Cuba, and here Santería and witchcraft are commonplace. I had a dream that led me to believe in God. Before, I was an atheist and in the army. There was a guy who was possessed by ghosts, as they say here, and he could take on up to four guys stronger than him. Later, we learned that our base was built on a Native American burial ground. I myself was healed of a wisdom tooth injury; I don't know what happened there. That's not even counting the visions and apparitions of Christ and saints to other people, but I don't have firsthand information about them. What I want to get at is, what explanation could be given to these events for a naturalist or atheist mindset in society, since many people... We are left without answers in the face of these events that defy measurement. What do you think, men of good faith, or has anyone had a similar experience?

Hello Christian friends, I wanted to ask about Biblical Studies, Biblical Science, or Higher Academic Criticism. What can we learn from it, both the good and the bad? I've heard that sensationalist articles tend to be written about it to gain prestige in academia, or that the studies are based on biased assumptions. But I don't know much about it. I've read a few articles, for example, about the historicity of some biblical events, but I'd like to hear from people who know more, so I'm all ears.

Hello Christian friends, I wanted to ask about Biblical Studies, Biblical Science, or Higher Academic Criticism. What can we learn from it, both the good and the bad? I've heard that sensationalist articles tend to be written about it to gain prestige in academia, or that the studies are based on biased assumptions. But I don't know much about it. I've read a few articles, for example, about the historicity of some biblical events, but I'd like to hear from people who know more, so I'm all ears.

What do you say to someone who says that Jesus never existed? (I know the evidence in favor, but there are always some like Richard Carrier who think otherwise; his arguments seem very strange to me, and many use this to say that Jesus didn't exist and is a myth like Mithras).

What do you say to someone who says that Jesus never existed? (I know the evidence in favor, but there are always some like Richard Carrier who think otherwise; his arguments seem very strange to me, and many use this to say that Jesus didn't exist and is a myth like Mithras).

Does Matthew 23:35, when speaking from Abel to Zechariah, indicate that the Hebrew canon was closed, or was Jesus reasoning with the Pharisees according to their canon, just as he did with the Sadducees by quoting Exodus to prove his point? I've heard comments on this; it's a topic that interests me greatly.

Does Matthew 23:35, when speaking from Abel to Zechariah, indicate that the Hebrew canon was closed, or was Jesus reasoning with the Pharisees according to their canon, just as he did with the Sadducees by quoting Exodus to prove his point? I've heard comments on this; it's a topic that interests me greatly.