u/Willing-Escape-3986, u/glasswings363

The man born blind (B1) in John 9 demonstrated considerably more faith in Jesus than the man who had been disabled (D1) for 38 years in John 5.

Comparing the two men

Criterion	D1	B1
Asked Jesus for healing	No	No
Obeyed Jesus' instruction	Yes (5:9)	Yes (9:7)
Initially knew Jesus' identity	No (5:13)	No (9:12)
Identified Jesus publicly	Yes (5:15)	Yes (9:11)
Defended Jesus before religious authorities	Not recorded	Yes (9:25–33)
Recognized Jesus as being from God	Not recorded	Yes (9:33)
Explicitly professed faith in Jesus	Not recorded	Yes (9:38)
Worshiped Jesus	Not recorded	Yes (9:38)

The man disabled for 38 years (John 5) Jesus healed him and later warned him: John 5: >14 See, you are well! Sin no more, that nothing worse may happen to you.

Jesus healed D1. Immediately afterward, >15 The man went away and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had healed him.

Some interpret this as betraying Jesus to the religious authorities.

On the other hand, the man born blind (John 9) His understanding of Jesus developed progressively.

Initially, he identified his healer as the man called Jesus (9:11).

Later, he called Jesus a prophet (9:17).

When the Pharisees challenged him, he courageously defended Jesus: If this man were not from God, he could do nothing (9:33).

Finally, when Jesus revealed himself, the man responded: “Lord, I believe,” and he worshiped him (9:38).

His progression was remarkable: from knowing Jesus merely as a man to believing in him and worshiping him.

I would assign 9/10 to the proposition: B1 demonstrated greater faith in Jesus than D1. The evidence is strong because John explicitly recorded B1's confession, defense of Jesus, and worship, whereas he recorded none of these for D1.

u/baseball_fanatic0887, u/stackee, u/jogoso2014

Micah 5: >2 You, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days.

Seven centuries later, Mt 2: >1 Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem, 2 saying, “Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.” 3 When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him; 4 and assembling all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born. 5 They told him, “In Bethlehem of Judea, for so it is written by the prophet:

The chief priests consulted Micah 5:

>6 “‘And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel.’”

Skeptics would say: Since everybody knew about Micah's prophecy, how do we know that Matthew didn't just make up the story of Jesus being born in Bethlehem to fit the prophecy?

That is a legitimate historical objection. We cannot establish that Jesus was born in Bethlehem merely because Matthew says so, since Matthew knew Micah 5:2 and explicitly cited it in Matthew 2:6.

Lk 2: >1 In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. 2This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria. 3And all went to be registered, each to his own town. 4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the town of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, 5to be registered with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child. 6And while they were there, the time came for her to give birth. 7 And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.

Luke also mentioned Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Skeptics can also say Luke collaborated with Matthew, even though the two stories' contexts were quite different. I think Matthew and Luke probably reported their different birth stories independently. In fact, Matthew 1 and Luke 3 give two different genealogies of Jesus.

This skepticism wasn't new. Jn 7: >40 When they heard these words, some of the people said, “This really is the Prophet.” 41 Others said, “This is the Christ.” But some said, “Is the Christ to come from Galilee? 42 Has not the Scripture said that the Christ comes from the offspring of David, and comes from Bethlehem, the village where David was?”

This scene took place during the Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkoth) in Jerusalem. Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, and the crowd was divided over his identity. The objection raised in v. 42 is a scriptural argument against Jesus being the Messiah:

The Messiah must be a descendant of David (2 Samuel 7:12-13; Isaiah 11:1; Jeremiah 23:5).

The Messiah must come from Bethlehem, David's hometown (Micah 5:2; also 1 Samuel 16:1).

The crowd reasoned that Jesus was a Galilean (from Nazareth). Galilee was not Bethlehem. Therefore, he couldn't be the Messiah.

The Bethlehem prophecy was widely known, but Jesus's origin was a real point of contention in Jn 7. People debated it even back then. People publicly knew Jesus as a Galilean. The Bethlehem tradition could have been invented to address that objection.

Skeptics have the right to disbelieve such a possible self-fulfilling prophecy. I was a skeptic. I was bombarded by Christians trying to convince me during my bachelor's years at university. I finally came to believe during my Master's studies.

How did I deal with this?

I treat the Bethlehem issue as just one piece of evidence and weigh it using Bayesian probability. The broader question is this: Was Jesus the Messiah?

Do not decide whether Jesus was the Messiah based on a single disputed prophecy. Examine the cumulative evidence, including evidence for and against the proposition, and update your subjective probabilities accordingly. Christians claim Jesus fulfilled many other prophecies. Consider them also and update your Bayesian probability one step at a time. It took me 4 years to calibrate my Bayesian model.

u/Azer_pubes33, u/onahilltopfarting, u/Phily808

Col 3: >12 Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, 13 bearing with one another

"Bearing" means tolerating one another's weaknesses, imperfections, and irritating behavior. It does not necessarily imply that anyone has sinned.

>and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other;

This becomes necessary when someone has a legitimate grievance against another.

>as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive.

Why this order: bearing, forgiving?

Bearing is needed more frequently than forgiveness. Christians differ in personality, temperament, habits, and opinions. Not every irritation is a sin that requires forgiveness. Much of Christian fellowship requires simply putting up with one another.

Bearing can prevent grievances from developing. A patient Christian does not turn every minor offense into a dispute. Bearing allows us to overlook imperfections rather than demand apologies for everything.

Forgiving goes beyond bearing. When a grievance or sin exists, merely tolerating the offender is insufficient. Paul calls us to forgive, following Christ's example.

>14 And above all these put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony.

In any case, love.

u/Wildbiscon, u/MilesBeyond250, u/EverOnAndUpward

Ga 3:

>28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

The central theological dispute is not whether men and women have equal value before God. Both positions affirm that. The question is whether Scripture assigns men and women different authority and leadership roles.

1T 2:

>12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.

Summary Table:

Issue	Egalitarianism	Complementarianism
Men and women	Equal dignity and authority	Equal dignity, distinct roles ✓
Church leadership	Women may serve as pastors and elders ✓	Pastoral or elder offices reserved for qualified men
Marriage	Mutual submission and shared leadership	Husband has a distinct headship responsibility ✓
Galatians 3:28	Supports equality in Christ, with implications for roles	Establishes equal standing in salvation, not identical roles ✓
1 Timothy 2:12	Often interpreted as addressing a specific situation ✓	Often interpreted as a general restriction on women's teaching authority

Ticks mark my positions.

1Ch 4: >1 The sons of Judah: Perez, Hezron, Carmi, Hur, and Shobal. 2 Reaiah the son of Shobal fathered Jahath, and Jahath fathered Ahumai and Lahad. These were the clans of the Zorathites. 3 These were the sons of Etam: Jezreel, Ishma, and Idbash; and the name of their sister was Hazzelelponi, 4 and Penuel fathered Gedor, and Ezer fathered Hushah. These were the sons of Hur, the firstborn of Ephrathah, the father of Bethlehem. 5 Ashhur, the father of Tekoa, had two wives, Helah and Naarah; 6 Naarah bore him Ahuzzam, Hepher, Temeni, and Haahashtari. These were the sons of Naarah. 7 The sons of Helah: Zereth, Izhar, and Ethnan. 8 Koz fathered Anub, Zobebah, and the clans of Aharhel, the son of Harum. 9 Jabez was more honorable than his brothers;

The author interrupted the genealogy to tell us that Jabez was more honorable than his brothers but didn't give any detail.

>and his mother called his name Jabez, saying, “Because I bore him in pain.”

In that culture, people often believed a name shaped a person's character or destiny, so being called "Pain" was a heavy label. In Hong Kong, we have a proverb: 唔怕生壞命，最怕改壞名: Fear not being born with a bad fate, but fear most being given a bad name.

These observations established a contrast between the painful circumstances associated with his birth and the honor he subsequently attained.

>10 Jabez called upon the God of Israel, saying, “Oh that you would bless me and enlarge my border, and that your hand might be with me, and that you would keep me from harm so that it might not bring me pain!”

Jabez had faith in God despite the bad name. He overcame the negative name his mother gave him with positive faith in God.

>And God granted what he asked.

Jabez's prayer was answered. His name became an example of bold, faith-filled prayer in the face of circumstances.

u/Certain-Support-9090, u/New-Reputation681, u/likefenton

RcV, Mt 16: >18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this brock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

Notes: > The Lord’s building of His church began on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4, 41-42). Yet the Lord’s prophecy here still has not been fulfilled, even up to the twentieth century. The Lord is not building His church in Christendom, which is composed of the apostate Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant denominations. This prophecy is being fulfilled through the Lord’s recovery, in which the building of the genuine church is being accomplished.

Bold added.

According to Witness Lee, the Roman Catholic Church is an apostate church, and his so-called Lord's recovery is the only genuine church, while all other denominations are not.

He elaborated in RcV, Rv 3: >8 I know your works; behold, I have put before you an opened door which no one can shut, because you have a little power and have kept My word and have not denied My name.

Notes: > The apostate church has deviated from the Lord’s word and become heretical.

Bold added. Roman Catholic Church is heretical.

>The reformed church, though recovered to the Lord’s word to some extent, has denied the Lord’s name by denominating herself, taking many other names, such as Lutheran, Wesleyan, Anglican, Presbyterian, Baptist, etc.

A church that takes a name other than Christ's commits spiritual fornication. Basically, naming a church is wrong?!

>The recovered church not only has returned in a full way to the Lord’s word but also has abandoned all names other than that of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Lee attached great significance to the superficial names.

>The recovered church belongs to the Lord absolutely, having nothing to do with any denominations (any names). To deviate from the Lord’s word is apostasy, and to denominate the church by taking any name other than the Lord’s is spiritual fornication.

Lee thought denominating a church with a name like Luther, Wesley, Baptist, etc. was spiritual fornication.

>The church, as the pure virgin espoused to Christ (2 Cor. 11:2), should have no name other than her Husband’s. All other names are an abomination in the eyes of God. In the recovered church life there are no teachings of Balaam (2:14), no teachings of the Nicolaitans (2:15), no teachings of Jezebel (2:20), and no mysterious doctrines of Satan (2:24); there is only the pure word of the Lord. The recovered church has no denominations (names); it has only the unique name of the Lord Jesus Christ. The deviation from the word to heresies and the exalting of many names other than that of Christ are the most striking signs of degraded Christianity. The return to the pure word from all heresies and traditions and the exalting of the Lord’s name by abandoning every other name constitute the most inspiring testimony in the recovered church. This is why the church in the Lord’s recovery has the revelation and presence of the Lord and expresses the Lord in a living way, full of light and with the riches of life.

Witness Lee's recovered church is the only genuine church. His logic was naive. He was not first-order logical.

Lee is too subjective and overgeneralized. Well, I take a more balanced approach. I don't mind denominations at all. They have advantages and disadvantages.

Is naming a church as Wesleyan spiritual fornication?

I wouldn't put it that way but I certainly would not like any church named after me.

See also

• Why are there so many denominations within Christianity?
• Is the Local Church non-denominational?
• Spiritual Fornication or Biblical Fidelity? A Response to Witness Lee’s Condemnation of Christian Denominations

Nicky Gumbel's Alpha Course, Session 01, mentions C S Lewis, who says: >Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important.

That's a false dichotomy.

A false Christianity could still be enormously important historically, psychologically, morally, culturally, or politically. False propositions and false belief systems can have very important consequences. A false Christianity could still be enormously important.

Furthermore, what if Christianity is false and Buddhism turns out to be true?

That's another possibility. In fact, there are infinitely many possibilities. The alternatives might include Islam, Hindu traditions, atheistic naturalism, or something nobody currently believes. Lewis's argument establishes only that the Christianity question is high-stakes, not that Christianity is the answer, or that a false Christianity is inconsequential.

A similar Lewis-style argument applies to Islam. Should we then consider Islam?

It is naive to think that Christianity, if false, is of no importance. Even a false Christianity carries eternal significance to those who believe and those who don't.

See also

• Pascal's wager

One possible explanation is this: Children are not directly punished for their fathers' sins. Children may suffer indirect consequences due to their fathers' sins.

Now, let's assume that God does punish children directly for their father's sins. How is that loving?

I don't know. God knows. I have faith that God is loving in the ultimate sense of the word. This world is a testing place for everyone. Another possibility is that God may take innocent people out of this cruel world.

Bottom line: I don't know, but God, in his infinite wisdom, knows. I believe that God is loving in the ultimate sense.

After the death of Saul and Jonathan, 2S 1:

>17 David lamented with this lamentation over Saul and Jonathan his son, 18 and he said it should be taught to the people of Judah; behold, it is written in the Book of Jashar. He said:

David was serious.

>19 “Your glory, O Israel, is slain on your high places!
How the mighty have fallen!
20 Tell it not in Gath,
publish it not in the streets of Ashkelon,
lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice,
lest the daughters of the uncircumcised exult.

David was a poet.

>21 “You mountains of Gilboa,
let there be no dew or rain upon you,
nor fields of offerings!
For there the shield of the mighty was defiled,
the shield of Saul, not anointed with oil.

Parts of Mount Gilboa are described as barren today, which is often associated with David's curse in 2 Samuel 1:21. However, this barrenness is not necessarily a literal, permanent fulfillment of the curse, as interpretations vary. Other parts of Gilboa support substantial vegetation, including grasses, wildflowers, shrubs, and forested areas.

https://preview.redd.it/bik40bmbbwsh1.png?width=658&format=png&auto=webp&s=fa874c4b37f2425668d18f0e0321dd59741c87d6

u/ConstructionWhole237

Paul used this metaphor in 2C 2: >14 Thanks be to God, who in Christ always leads us in triumphal procession, and through us spreads the fragrance of the knowledge of him everywhere.

The setting drew on the imagery of a Roman triumph, a ceremonial procession celebrating a military victory. The victorious general (Christ) led the procession, while captives and others followed. Incense accompanied such public ceremonies.

Paul had once opposed Christ. Christ conquered him. Now the former enemy was publicly led about as an instrument proclaiming Christ's victory.

We Christians carry the fragrance to spread the gospel everywhere.

>15 For we are the aroma of Christ to God

The aroma of Christ emanates from a life transformed by the Christ of God. We have this pleasing aroma.

>among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, 16 to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life.

The meanings of "fragrance" and "aroma" overlap and are interchangeable here.

To those being saved, it is the fragrance of life. For those who embrace the gospel, the believer's witness is a sweet, life-giving scent that points to salvation and victory in Christ.

To those perishing, it smells like death. For those who reject the message, the same witness serves as a stark reminder of judgment and impending spiritual death.

>Who is sufficient for these things?

We are with the fragrance of Christ.

>17 For we are not, like so many, peddlers of God’s word, but as men of sincerity, as commissioned by God, in the sight of God we speak in Christ.

We are not commercial manipulators (peddlers) of God's word. We give off Christ's fragrance through sincere speech.

The controlling metaphor in this passage is Christ's fragrance spreading through Christian witness, producing two opposite responses: life to those being saved and death to those who are perishing.

u/LoveToLearn75

Let proposition P1 = Mary, the mother of Jesus, is alive now.

P2 = ¬P1.
Here, ¬ means "not." Proposition P2 is the logical negation (opposite or contrary) of P1; i.e., P1 is not true.

This thread is not about arguing whether P1 or P2 is correct. If you want to debate the evidence, please click this thread. Here, the goal is to measure how confident you are in each proposition.

Assign a weight from 0 to 10 to P1 and P2. The more confident you are that a proposition is true, the higher the weight you should give it.

Your two weights must add up to 10.

For example:

W1 = 7, W2 = 3 means you are fairly confident P1 is true.
W1 = 5, W2 = 5 means you are undecided.
W1 = 1, W2 = 9 means you are strongly convinced P2 is true.

These numbers determine the betting odds. This is not gambling or a lottery. It is a way of putting numbers on the strength of your belief, following the idea of subjective (Bayesian) probability.

So, what weights do you assign to P1 and P2?

Before you decide, consider that this is a real wager.

Are you willing to wager based on your weighting scheme?

Put money where your mouth is.

We are not talking about gambling, but putting money where your mouth is. Does your word have any monetary worth?

Take your time. I would like to emphasize that this type of wagering involves formal probabilities and a scientific approach to rational thinking.

This is how I end all debates and arguing. When I have nothing more to say about P1 argumentatively, Bayesian wagering is my last resort.

An application of this betting en masse is called Prediction Market. During the World Cup 2026, billions of USD exchanged hands.

u/Confident-Virus-1273, u/DB_OG, u/ScoutB

Science is a systematic method for developing usable knowledge about the observable world by constructing explanations and testing them against evidence. More formally, we can characterize science by several features:

1. Empirical evidence: claims ultimately have to confront observations or experiments.
2. Testability: a scientific hypothesis must imply observable consequences that could count for or against it.
3. Reproducibility and scrutiny: evidence and reasoning should be subject to independent checking.
4. Logical inference: scientists use deduction, induction, mathematical equations, statistics, Bayesian inference, and modeling to connect evidence with hypotheses.
5. Fallibility and revision: scientific conclusions are provisional; sufficiently strong contrary evidence may require modifying a hypothesis.

hypothesis -> predictions -> observations

Hard science includes physics, chemistry, biology, etc.
Soft science includes psychology, sociology, economics, etc.

In any case, for anything to be called a science (or scientific), it must employ mathematical equations.

The following are not science by my definition: Eddy's Christian Science, Hubbard's Scientology, Morris' Creation Science.

u/Wonderful-Safety223, u/domdotski

1C 14: >For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit.

Strong's Greek: 1100. γλῶσσα (glóssa) — 50 Occurrences

G1100-tongue appeared 16 times in this chapter.

>4 The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself,

A singular person spoke in a singular tongue.

>but the one who prophesies builds up the church. 5 Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy.

A bunch of people spoke in tongues, plural.

>The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be built up.

A singular person spoke in tongues plural. He spoke in multiple tongues.

>14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful.

This was the only instance in the Bible where praying in a tongue was explicitly mentioned. It was a private prayer language, a personal gift from the Holy Spirit for building oneself up in faith (v 4).

u/GlassInevitable8800: Do I just continue to practice and pray that it comes and have faith that it is authentic?

If you have peace in your conscience, then I think it's okay.

u/schahriarsyndrome

Initially, Saul was a hero. He was humble. God chose him to be the first king of God's people. 1Sa 10:

>1 Then Samuel took a flask of olive oil and poured it on Saul’s head and kissed him, saying, “Has not the Lord anointed you ruler over his inheritance? ... 15 Saul’s uncle said, “Tell me what Samuel said to you.”

Saul was cool. Not many can contain such huge news from God.

He was decisive and courageous in his first military engagement (1Sa 11). He showed incredible leadership skills and was fit to be the king.

Later, however, things changed for Saul. He disobeyed God. 1Sa 13: >13“You have done a foolish thing,” Samuel said. “You have not kept the command the Lord your God gave you; if you had, he would have established your kingdom over Israel for all time. 14 But now your kingdom will not endure; the Lord has sought out a man after his own heart and appointed him ruler of his people, because you have not kept the Lord’s command.”

This was the beginning of Saul's downfall. After this, he made one mistake after another. 1Sa 15: >17 Samuel said, “Though you are little in your own eyes, are you not the head of the tribes of Israel? The Lord anointed you king over Israel. 18 And the Lord sent you on a mission and said, ‘Go, devote to destruction the sinners, the Amalekites, and fight against them until they are consumed.’ 19 Why then did you not obey the voice of the Lord?

God told Saul to exterminate the Amalekites, but he didn't.

The Gideonites feared God. They made a covenant with Joshua. Joshua swore in the name of the Lord (Jos 9:18) not to destroy them but Saul didn't honor the oath (2Sa 21:1).

Saul's tragic flaw was pride. He disobeyed God and refused to accept David, God's anointed second king. He clung to his power until the bitter end. I view Saul as a tragic hero and a foil for David's character.

u/loloboutit

Rv 21: >4 He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.

No pain in heaven.

If a person can go to heaven and not feel any sort of pain for their past loved ones, their children included, as if it were a nightmare, are they really the same person without that depth of emotion?

Good question.

Notice that God wipes away the tears. The image is not necessarily that God erases the memories or destroys the emotional capacities that produced the tears. The old pain sensation is replaced by a resurrection equivalent of this sensation. There will not be any more suffering (sensation). In the new creation, we will have real bodies and real sensations, but pain as suffering will be gone. Pain belongs to “the former things” that have passed away.

Christian resurrection requires personal continuity. Paul did not describe God as replacing you with a psychologically different creature. He used the analogy of a seed:

1Co 15: >42 So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. 43 It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.

In the present world, we experience weakness, pain, and suffering; with the resurrected body, we experience power. There is transformation, but also continuity. I die, and I am raised. My relationships, experiences, moral development, joys, griefs, and loves are part of the person I am. If God simply erases every painful memory or removes my capacity to care about those memories, I have lost part of myself. I'd be in a bit of an identity crisis.

God doesn't erase the memories that are important for you, but your perception of them will change. E.g., you can remember someone you loved who died decades ago. At one time the memory may have produced almost unbearable grief. Years later, you may remember the same person with profound love but without the same agony. The resurrection could involve something greater: not forgetting our history, but finally seeing it within God's completed purposes.

What about your loved ones who are suffering in hell?

See this. In any case, we will have a better understanding of the concept of hell in heaven.

The mystery is not whether we will still be ourselves. Christian resurrection depends upon that. The mystery is how the same person would not mourn for his past experiences. Revelation promises that this will happen; it doesn't tell us the precise psychological mechanism by which God accomplishes it.