Testimonies - believe or not?

[Myrkhoos]

5 hours ago, Narrator said:

@Aibao

Part of my "peace-of-mind" comes from knowing the history of religion, where it started, how it evolved, how most (if not all) religions have borrowed from each other, and especially the needs they fulfilled during early and prehistoric eras. Some say the earliest religions were the worship of animal spirits and other natural elements. That fits with the ignorance of those times, when people had no clue what caused natural events like sunshine, rain, plants, thunderstorms and earthquakes. They saw animals behaving in ways that suggested superior understanding of the elements.

 

It reminds me of Clarke's Third Law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Understanding nature was one huge leap in demoting the gods that people were once so certain existed.

 

Move forward several thousand years. Man's brain is super-complex and can invent, re-invent and cook up elaborate systems. Agriculture was one early elaborate system.

 

Story was hugely important to early humans. It was how traditions and beliefs were passed down. They did not have the same sense of history that we do. For them, history was a tool for helping people to cooperate. Intrinsic truth was subject to the needs of the day. They would dance their stories around their nighttime fires, to keep away evil spirits.

Just one observation I need to make. Stories are STILL extremely important to modern humans. Otherwise Hollywood would have been bankrupt decades ago :)). Speaking as a graduate of Screewriting school here

5 hours ago, Narrator said:

 

The Christian religion, like it's main parent (Judaism) borrowed heavily from other religions, just as religions have always done.

 

When you see the evolution of religions, where each element has been introduced, where they are self-contradicting etc, you will understand all religions as just that, the natural process of that evolution. Where religions go wrong is in stating they hold the absolute truth. There is so much evidence, even within their own scriptures, showing how that religion's truth has changed and how interpretation has also evolved according to the desires of the era that is reading from it, just as it has always evolved for the same reasons.

 

There is no purist view that doesn't conflict with itself, let alone all the abortive views that have come along over the centuries.

 

Knowing that all religions have evolved naturally makes them all equally mythical. None has stood out from that evolution. Christianity tells you it came from Judaism, and before that, Adam. Nope. It was not that simple. But they want you to believe it was.

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

9 hours ago, Myrkhoos said:

You have built a strawman of religion here.

This is false.  My entire position here is that science does nothing more than gather the data and report the findings; and that science has in place a failsafe to ensure those findings are as accurate and factual as possible.  Science doesn't care if you trust it or not.  You have intentionally misrepresented my position in an effort to start an argument and derail this thread and I am not going to play along.  Especially given that your entire argument boils down to you don't trust science because you don't understand it.  Have a good day.

 

*edited for clarity. 

[pantheory]

On 1/23/2022 at 12:55 PM, Myrkhoos said:

Science which 99 percent of people have to believe, with little to no ability to understand it? Like, you know, basing your claims on practically unverifiable authority figures? Where have I seen that again?Because, you know, you may say science is testable, but I don't have the time or money to go graduate school in Biology or physics.

 

Howdy Myrkhoos,

 

I am in general agreement with what I believe is the principle of your posting above. But I don't believe that 99 percent of people have to believe in any particular science theory. I think everyone should be agnostic concerning any particular science field or theory unless, or until they've read enough about it, and it also makes sense to them. I also believe one shouldn't take an expert's word or opinion concerning the validity of this or that theory.

 

If it doesn't make sense to you, you don't have to believe it. In logic, the "appeal to authority" (a renowned person in that field) is called a logical fallacy. The topic here is "believe it or not" concerning religion and the testimony of others. I also think one should not believe any science theory either unless it makes sense to them. Agnosticism of any particular science theory is the best choice IMO if you feel you don't know enough about it. 

 

One should definitely trade their belief in religion for the belief in science, IMO, but not necessarily the belief in any particular theory of science unless it makes sense to them.

 

My college field of study was math-science, and there are many mainstream theories in science that I seriously question or believe an alternative theory instead after many decades of study -- but there are also many science theories that I agree are very accurate based upon my own studies, research, and knowledge of them. 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

Here are the arguments I found and could not answer:

 

The NT GOSPELS & Their Author's Names & Dates   
▪︎Jesus Christ's' ministry was from A.D. 27-30.
▪︎Christianity began after the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus. Christ when thousands of Jews became followers of 'The Way' (Jesus). 
▪︎New Testament scholar, F.F. Bruce, gives strong evidence that the New Testament was completed by A.D. 100. 
And most writings of the New Testament were completed twenty to forty years before this. 

▪︎The Gospels are dated traditionally as follows:
- MARK is believed to be the first gospel written around A.D. 60.
- MATTHEW and LUKE follow and are written between A.D. 60-70;
- JOHN is the final gospel, written between A.D. 90-100. 

The Internal Evidence:
▪︎The internal evidence supports these early dates for several reasons. The first three Gospels prophesied the fall of the Jerusalem Temple which occurred in A.D. 70. However, the fulfillment is not mentioned. It is strange that these three Gospels predict this major event but do not record it happening. Why do they not mention such an important prophetic milestone? The most plausible explanation is that it had not yet occurred at the time Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written. 

▪︎In the book of Acts, the Temple plays a central role in the nation of Israel. Luke writes as if the Temple is an important part of Jewish life. He also ends Acts on a strange note: Paul living under house arrest.
It is strange that Luke does not record the death of his two chief characters, Peter and Paul. The most plausible reason for this is that Luke finished writing Acts before Peter and Paul's martyrdom in A.D. 64. A significant point to highlight is that the Gospel of Luke precedes Acts, further supporting the traditional dating of A.D. 60. Furthermore, most scholars agree Mark precedes Luke, making Mark's Gospel even earlier. 

▪︎Finally, the majority of New Testament scholars believe that Paul's epistles are written from A.D. 48-60. Paul's outline of the life of Jesus matches that of the Gospels. 1 Corinthians is one of the least disputed books regarding its dating and Pauline authorship.
In chapter 15, Paul summarizes the gospel and reinforces the premise that this is the same gospel preached by the apostles. Even more compelling is that Paul quotes from Luke's Gospel in 1 Timothy 5:18, showing us that Luke's Gospel was indeed completed in Paul's lifetime. This would move up the time of the completion of Luke's Gospel along with Mark and Matthew. 

This Internal Evidence presents a strong case for the early dating of the Gospels.  

EXTERNAL Evidence  - DATE of Gospels:
▪︎Were the Gospels written by eyewitnesses of the events, or were they not recorded until centuries later? As with the internal evidence, the external evidence also supports a first century date. 

▪︎Fortunately, New Testament scholars have an enormous amount of ancient manuscript evidence. The documentary evidence for the New Testament far surpasses any other work of its time. We have over 5000 manuscripts, and many are dated within a few years of their authors' lives. 

Here are some key documents.
▪︎An important manuscript is the Chester Beatty Papyri. It contains most of the N.T. writings, and is dated around A.D. 250. 

▪︎The Bodmer Papyri contains most of John, and dates to A.D. 200. Another is the Rylands Papyri that was found in Egypt that contains large fragments of John, and dates to A.D. 130. From this fragment we can conclude that John was completed well before A.D. 130 because, not only did the gospel have to be written, it had to be hand copied and make its way down from Greece to Egypt.
Since the vast majority of scholars agree that John is the last gospel written, we can affirm its first century date along with the other three with greater assurance. 

▪︎A final piece of evidence comes from the Dead Sea Scrolls Cave 7.
Jose Callahan discovered a large fragment of the Gospel of Mark and dated it to have been written in A.D. 50. He also discovered large  fragments of Acts and other epistles and dated them to have been written slightly after A.D. 50.4 

Another line of evidence is the writings of the church fathers.
▪︎CLEMENT of Rome sent a letter to the Corinthian church in A.D. 95. in which he quoted from the Gospels and other portions of the N.T. 

▪︎IGNATIUS, Bishop of Antioch, wrote a letter before his martyrdom in Rome in A.D. 115, quoting all the Gospels and other N.T. letters. 

▪︎POLYCARP wrote to the Philippians in A.D. 120 and quoted from the Gospels and N.T. letters. 

▪︎JUSTIN MARTYR (A.D. 150) quotes John 3. Church fathers of the early second century were familiar with the apostle's writings and quoted them as inspired Scripture. 

▪︎Early dating is important for two reasons. The closer a historical record is to the date of the event, the more likely the record is accurate. Early dating allows for eyewitnesses to still be alive when the Gospels were circulating to attest to their accuracy.
The apostles often appeal to the witness of the hostile 
crowd, pointing to their knowledge of the facts as well (Acts 2:22, 26:26).
Also, the time is too short for legends to develop. Historians agree it takes about two generations, or eighty years, for legendary accounts to establish themselves. 

From the evidence, we can conclude the Gospels were indeed written by the authors they are attributed to.  

Early New Testament Papyrus Manuscripts/ Large Fragments     
▪︎Dead Sea Scrolls, the Full Text of Isaiah 53, c 250 BC.
▪︎Old Testament Greek Septuagint  200 BC.
 
▪︎P52 (John Rylands Fragment) - John 18:31-33; 37-38 c. 96 AD
▪︎P90 (Oxyrhynchus) - John 18:36; 19:7  c. 96 AD
▪︎ P104 (Oxyrhynchus) - Matthew 21:34-37, 43, 45  c. 60-65 AD 

▪︎P46 (Chester Beatty Papyrus) - Romans 5:17-6; 5-14; 8:15-25; 27-35; 10:1-11, 22, 24-33, 35; 16:1-23; 25-27.
Hebrews; 1 & 2; Corinthians; Ephesians; Galatians; Philippians; Colossians; 1 Thessalonians 1:1, 9-10; 2:1-3; 5:5-9, 23-28  c. 50’s-70’s AD  

▪︎P98 (IFAO) - Revelation 1:13; 2:1 c. 90 AD
▪︎P66 (Bodmer Papyrus) - John 1:1-6,11; 6:35; 14:26; fragment of 14:29; 21:9  c. 70’s AD
▪︎P67 Matthew 3:9, 15; 5:20-22; 25-28  c. 60-65 AD 

The First Fully Bound Bible Books/Codices
▪︎Codex Vaticanus: Origin 1st century M.Scripts - first Codex, 280 - 330 AD
▪︎Codex Siniaticus: Origin 1st century M.Scripts - first Codex, 300 - 350 AD
▪︎Codex Alexandrius: Origin 1st century M.Scripts - first Codex, 350 - 400 AD
▪︎Codex Vulgate: Origin 1st century M.Scripts - first Codex, 380 - 400 AD 

JESUS and the Jews were multilingual
▪︎"Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross.
It read: 'JESUS Of NAZARETH, THE KING Of THE JEWS'.
Many of the Jews read this sign, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and the sign was written in Aramaic, Latin and Greek" (John 19:19-20) 

▪︎The Gospels were written in Koine Greek being the World's language in the 1st century
The Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek (Septuagint) c.200 BC for the many Greek speaking Jews
It is well known that first-century Jerusalem was inhabited by Greek speaking Jews who were at least bilingual. And Jesus most likely was trilingual apart from the ability to read minds.
So the original Gospels were written in Koine Greek and sent throughout the World.. 

▪︎Jewish culture was heavily influenced by Hellenistic culture, and Koine Greek was used not only for international communication but also as the first language of many Jews. This development was furthered by the fact that the largest Jewish community in the world lived in Ptolemaic Alexandria. (Wikipedia) 

FINALLY:
▪︎"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!
As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!" (Galatians 1:8-9) 

▪︎Jesus said, "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away" (Matt 24:35)
▪︎God protects His Word the Gospels and warns of antichrists.. 
▪︎The Gospels are evidenced by internal and external historical, archeological & literary facts 
▪︎The Gospels are unchanged and preserved over 2000 years and across all continents
▪︎The Gospels are reliable and transparent with any variations referenced in footnotes
▪︎The Gospels are the same today, as they were in 7th century, as they were in 1st Century
▪︎The Gospels  have 1000 times more manuscripts than the most documented ancient literature by Greco-Roman historian, Suetonius.   

▪︎The Bible translations do have errors, Christians don't claim otherwise.
But Less than 1% of manuscript errors are meaningful and don’t affect the major teachings of the Christian faith.
 

That's nothing compared to other documents. The Gallic Wars of Julius Caesar are found 900 years after the fact but no one doubts them. The writings of Aristotle are found 1400 years after but everyone assumes they are true too. In 30 years time, Mark is still alive. That's more than you can say for most written accounts of history.

Is the fact that it is difficult for me to return to faith and former believers are convinced that Christianity can be a lie is a confirmation:
2 Thessalonians 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

 

 

Here are the biblical contradictions:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html
Here are the answers of the apologists:
http://skepticsannotatedbiblerespons.blogspot.com/2004/10/25-how-long-does-gods-anger-last.html

 

The apologetic responses make perfect sense to me ... shock! I have something with my head, do they really make sense? Maybe I misunderstand something?

  Then it would seem that Christianity is true!??????/?

 

I apologize for the overwhelming amount of information, but I hope everyone understands now what my problem is and that I have a problem that I am not trying to convert anyone, but I have a problem finding the truth.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Aibao,

 

With all due respect, by focusing so tightly on only the gospels, you are seeing only half of the problem of Jesus’ historicity.

 

https://www.allaboutbible.com/christ-the-new-adam/

 

As the above link makes clear, without the old Adam to bring sin into our lives, there was no reason for God to incarnate himself as Jesus and bring a way of removing it from our lives.  In the Bible, Adam and Jesus are inseparable.

 

If you are going to treat Jesus as a real and historical person, then, to be Biblically sound, you must also treat Adam as a real and historical person.  That is Paul’s position on the matter.

 

If you are going to treat the events described in the gospels as real and historical, then, to be biblically sound, you must also treat the events described in Genesis, in the garden of Eden, as real and historical.  That is also Paul’s position on the matter.

 

It’s also a matter of consistency, coherency and logic, Aibao.

 

If you treat the Fall as something allegorical or symbolic, then Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross need only be allegorical or symbolic.  But if you treat what Jesus did on the cross as real and historical and also necessary for our salvation, then you must also treat what Adam did with the forbidden fruit in the same way.  His sin was just as real and historical and the necessary cause of all sin.

 

One demands the other.  One creates the necessity for the other.  They are either both history or neither of them is history.  This is the Biblical position and it is also a properly logical, consistent and coherent position.  Where do you stand?  Do you separate one from the other, treating Adam as mythical, but Jesus as historical?  Or do you do as both scripture and logic demand and treat them both as equally historical?

 

Aibao, if you treat both Adam and Jesus as historical, then you have some very BIG questions to answer.

 

How do you square the Bible’s account of our origins with what science says about our origins?

 

Was the universe made in 6 days or is it 13.72 billion years old?

 

Did God make us from mud and a rib or did we evolve from other organisms?

 

It's your call.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

19 hours ago, Narrator said:

@Aibao

Part of my "peace-of-mind" comes from knowing the history of religion, where it started, how it evolved, how most (if not all) religions have borrowed from each other, and especially the needs they fulfilled during early and prehistoric eras. Some say the earliest religions were the worship of animal spirits and other natural elements. That fits with the ignorance of those times, when people had no clue what caused natural events like sunshine, rain, plants, thunderstorms and earthquakes. They saw animals behaving in ways that suggested superior understanding of the elements.

 

It reminds me of Clarke's Third Law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Understanding nature was one huge leap in demoting the gods that people were once so certain existed.

 

Move forward several thousand years. Man's brain is super-complex and can invent, re-invent and cook up elaborate systems. Agriculture was one early elaborate system.

 

Story was hugely important to early humans. It was how traditions and beliefs were passed down. They did not have the same sense of history that we do. For them, history was a tool for helping people to cooperate. Intrinsic truth was subject to the needs of the day. They would dance their stories around their nighttime fires, to keep away evil spirits.

 

The Christian religion, like it's main parent (Judaism) borrowed heavily from other religions, just as religions have always done.

 

When you see the evolution of religions, where each element has been introduced, where they are self-contradicting etc, you will understand all religions as just that, the natural process of that evolution. Where religions go wrong is in stating they hold the absolute truth. There is so much evidence, even within their own scriptures, showing how that religion's truth has changed and how interpretation has also evolved according to the desires of the era that is reading from it, just as it has always evolved for the same reasons.

 

There is no purist view that doesn't conflict with itself, let alone all the abortive views that have come along over the centuries.

 

Knowing that all religions have evolved naturally makes them all equally mythical. None has stood out from that evolution. Christianity tells you it came from Judaism, and before that, Adam. Nope. It was not that simple. But they want you to believe it was.

 

IMO that is an excelent quick summary of what happened.  Thanks.  A fairly new book that puts it in simple terms is "A LITTLE HISTORY OF RELIGION".

[Narrator]

16 hours ago, Weezer said:

 

IMO that is an excelent quick summary of what happened.  Thanks.  A fairly new book that puts it in simple terms is "A LITTLE HISTORY OF RELIGION".

Thanks Weezer. I'll look that up. Love a good read.

[Lost]

On 1/23/2022 at 5:43 PM, Aibao said:

On the one hand, you have Bart Ehrman, you have skeptical YouTube channels, you have it all. But then you find out somewhere that Bart Ehrman, this eminent biblical scholar, exaggerated in his book and lied or made a mistake, you find another (Christian) scholar who, like an atheist, has arguments with which he can convince just as well. I don't know anything about evolution or biology, so you can tell me everything, I will believe because I have no knowledge in this field and it is impossible to get this knowledge now, when I have to earn money, I have a bad family situation at home, problems with sleep and health, and no I'm interested in neither evolution nor biology ...

 

Hi Aibao !!!

 

I want You to know that You are not the only one with Your doubts.

 

If You wouldn't come to this forum I still would believe that I am the only one person from Poland, who goes through the process of deconversion from Christianity.

 

Other people around me seem to not care that much about what they believe or not believe.

 

I AM shy and introverted by nature and FAITH was something that was helping me for years to have a Hope for the future in extraverted and loud world.

 

In the case of Christianity I accepted that I can't know for 100 % that It's TRUE or not.

 

Sometimes I am triggered by some people' s testimonies and I feel the fear that I might be wrong.

And sometimes I envy that other people believe without doubts and are in peace.

 

Also, I am jelaous of atheists, who know for 100% that there is no God.

 

I call myself sceptic and I live day by day trying to improve my life that for now is broken in many ways, because of past mistakes.

 

When I was a member of Catholic Church for 17 years and than 7 years in Evangelical church I discovered that although there is lots of beauty and Hope in faith I CAN'T live in a conservative environment and make everyone around me convince to live this life, because every human being is different and go through different circumstances in life.

 

But I have to admit that some testimonies and mystical experiences are real triggers and It's difficult to get them out of mind.

 

Aibao, wish You all the BEST in Your journey

 

 

[TABA]

17 hours ago, Lost said:

In the case of Christianity I accepted that I can't know for 100 % that It's TRUE or not.

 

17 hours ago, Lost said:

Also, I am jelaous of atheists, who know for 100% that there is no God.

It’s important to remember that certainty about anything is hard to arrive at.  Even among the atheists here, very few of us would claim to know for 100% that there is no god.   The closest you can get is to satisfy yourself that it is very unlikely.  I can’t be certain that non-Christians don’t go to Hell, but I believe it’s extremely unlikely so I don’t worry about it happening to me.  In much the same way that I can’t be certain a huge plane won’t fall on my house (remember Lockerbie?), but it’s so unlikely that I don’t worry about it.  One of the keys to a successful deconversion and a happy ex-christian life is not reaching certainty, but rather a confidence level that allows us to move on.  

[Aibao]

Someone asked how the sermons led to my deconversion. Simply - during the sermon I often heard what great love and grace God had shown us, the pastor later explained to me (because I had a feeling of guilt for everything, even for my life almost) that I have the right to enjoy my life, have a hobby - everything is from God, and my job should be only gratefulness about these matters. But the next Sunday I suddenly heard the opposite: dedicate yourself to God, do not make idols, Christ in the first place, how much are you willing to sacrifice for Christ and for other people in His name, following Him, sacrifices, etc ... it all set me up at a strange contradictory point. In addition, the question behind every endeavor or choice I made was: what did God say? And I still had the feeling that my decisions were not God's will, even if my pastor and my church friends had a different opinion, I had more and more tormenting thoughts for every negative thought in my head and guilt for almost everything ... in addition, at home I started listening to Paul Washer's sermons - and it completely smashed me, shook me and I realized that I was still doing too little for God and how much He requires of me and I couldn't live like that, I was getting tired ... (yes , some believers would probably say that this means that I have never been a true Christian since I did not like the Christian life)

[Aibao]

Weezer - unfortunately I cannot benefit from therapy, although I would like to, because I do not know English well enough to be able to speak freely. Guess how I communicate here? Oh yeah ... Google Translate does a good job

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, Aibao said:

Oh yeah ... Google Translate does a good job

Z pewnością tak. Myślałem, że dorastałeś mówiąc po angielsku.

[Aibao]

walterpthefirst 

On 1/25/2022 at 12:12 AM, walterpthefirst said:

Here are the arguments I found and could not answer:

 

The NT GOSPELS & Their Author's Names & Dates   
▪︎Jesus Christ's' ministry was from A.D. 27-30.
▪︎Christianity began after the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus. Christ when thousands of Jews became followers of 'The Way' (Jesus). 
▪︎New Testament scholar, F.F. Bruce, gives strong evidence that the New Testament was completed by A.D. 100. 
And most writings of the New Testament were completed twenty to forty years before this. 

▪︎The Gospels are dated traditionally as follows:
- MARK is believed to be the first gospel written around A.D. 60.
- MATTHEW and LUKE follow and are written between A.D. 60-70;
- JOHN is the final gospel, written between A.D. 90-100. 

The Internal Evidence:
▪︎The internal evidence supports these early dates for several reasons. The first three Gospels prophesied the fall of the Jerusalem Temple which occurred in A.D. 70. However, the fulfillment is not mentioned. It is strange that these three Gospels predict this major event but do not record it happening. Why do they not mention such an important prophetic milestone? The most plausible explanation is that it had not yet occurred at the time Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written. 

▪︎In the book of Acts, the Temple plays a central role in the nation of Israel. Luke writes as if the Temple is an important part of Jewish life. He also ends Acts on a strange note: Paul living under house arrest.
It is strange that Luke does not record the death of his two chief characters, Peter and Paul. The most plausible reason for this is that Luke finished writing Acts before Peter and Paul's martyrdom in A.D. 64. A significant point to highlight is that the Gospel of Luke precedes Acts, further supporting the traditional dating of A.D. 60. Furthermore, most scholars agree Mark precedes Luke, making Mark's Gospel even earlier. 

▪︎Finally, the majority of New Testament scholars believe that Paul's epistles are written from A.D. 48-60. Paul's outline of the life of Jesus matches that of the Gospels. 1 Corinthians is one of the least disputed books regarding its dating and Pauline authorship.
In chapter 15, Paul summarizes the gospel and reinforces the premise that this is the same gospel preached by the apostles. Even more compelling is that Paul quotes from Luke's Gospel in 1 Timothy 5:18, showing us that Luke's Gospel was indeed completed in Paul's lifetime. This would move up the time of the completion of Luke's Gospel along with Mark and Matthew. 

This Internal Evidence presents a strong case for the early dating of the Gospels.  

EXTERNAL Evidence  - DATE of Gospels:
▪︎Were the Gospels written by eyewitnesses of the events, or were they not recorded until centuries later? As with the internal evidence, the external evidence also supports a first century date. 

▪︎Fortunately, New Testament scholars have an enormous amount of ancient manuscript evidence. The documentary evidence for the New Testament far surpasses any other work of its time. We have over 5000 manuscripts, and many are dated within a few years of their authors' lives. 

Here are some key documents.
▪︎An important manuscript is the Chester Beatty Papyri. It contains most of the N.T. writings, and is dated around A.D. 250. 

▪︎The Bodmer Papyri contains most of John, and dates to A.D. 200. Another is the Rylands Papyri that was found in Egypt that contains large fragments of John, and dates to A.D. 130. From this fragment we can conclude that John was completed well before A.D. 130 because, not only did the gospel have to be written, it had to be hand copied and make its way down from Greece to Egypt.
Since the vast majority of scholars agree that John is the last gospel written, we can affirm its first century date along with the other three with greater assurance. 

▪︎A final piece of evidence comes from the Dead Sea Scrolls Cave 7.
Jose Callahan discovered a large fragment of the Gospel of Mark and dated it to have been written in A.D. 50. He also discovered large  fragments of Acts and other epistles and dated them to have been written slightly after A.D. 50.4 

Another line of evidence is the writings of the church fathers.
▪︎CLEMENT of Rome sent a letter to the Corinthian church in A.D. 95. in which he quoted from the Gospels and other portions of the N.T. 

▪︎IGNATIUS, Bishop of Antioch, wrote a letter before his martyrdom in Rome in A.D. 115, quoting all the Gospels and other N.T. letters. 

▪︎POLYCARP wrote to the Philippians in A.D. 120 and quoted from the Gospels and N.T. letters. 

▪︎JUSTIN MARTYR (A.D. 150) quotes John 3. Church fathers of the early second century were familiar with the apostle's writings and quoted them as inspired Scripture. 

▪︎Early dating is important for two reasons. The closer a historical record is to the date of the event, the more likely the record is accurate. Early dating allows for eyewitnesses to still be alive when the Gospels were circulating to attest to their accuracy.
The apostles often appeal to the witness of the hostile 
crowd, pointing to their knowledge of the facts as well (Acts 2:22, 26:26).
Also, the time is too short for legends to develop. Historians agree it takes about two generations, or eighty years, for legendary accounts to establish themselves. 

From the evidence, we can conclude the Gospels were indeed written by the authors they are attributed to.  

Early New Testament Papyrus Manuscripts/ Large Fragments     
▪︎Dead Sea Scrolls, the Full Text of Isaiah 53, c 250 BC.
▪︎Old Testament Greek Septuagint  200 BC.
 
▪︎P52 (John Rylands Fragment) - John 18:31-33; 37-38 c. 96 AD
▪︎P90 (Oxyrhynchus) - John 18:36; 19:7  c. 96 AD
▪︎ P104 (Oxyrhynchus) - Matthew 21:34-37, 43, 45  c. 60-65 AD 

▪︎P46 (Chester Beatty Papyrus) - Romans 5:17-6; 5-14; 8:15-25; 27-35; 10:1-11, 22, 24-33, 35; 16:1-23; 25-27.
Hebrews; 1 & 2; Corinthians; Ephesians; Galatians; Philippians; Colossians; 1 Thessalonians 1:1, 9-10; 2:1-3; 5:5-9, 23-28  c. 50’s-70’s AD  

▪︎P98 (IFAO) - Revelation 1:13; 2:1 c. 90 AD
▪︎P66 (Bodmer Papyrus) - John 1:1-6,11; 6:35; 14:26; fragment of 14:29; 21:9  c. 70’s AD
▪︎P67 Matthew 3:9, 15; 5:20-22; 25-28  c. 60-65 AD 

The First Fully Bound Bible Books/Codices
▪︎Codex Vaticanus: Origin 1st century M.Scripts - first Codex, 280 - 330 AD
▪︎Codex Siniaticus: Origin 1st century M.Scripts - first Codex, 300 - 350 AD
▪︎Codex Alexandrius: Origin 1st century M.Scripts - first Codex, 350 - 400 AD
▪︎Codex Vulgate: Origin 1st century M.Scripts - first Codex, 380 - 400 AD 

JESUS and the Jews were multilingual
▪︎"Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross.
It read: 'JESUS Of NAZARETH, THE KING Of THE JEWS'.
Many of the Jews read this sign, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and the sign was written in Aramaic, Latin and Greek" (John 19:19-20) 

▪︎The Gospels were written in Koine Greek being the World's language in the 1st century
The Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek (Septuagint) c.200 BC for the many Greek speaking Jews
It is well known that first-century Jerusalem was inhabited by Greek speaking Jews who were at least bilingual. And Jesus most likely was trilingual apart from the ability to read minds.
So the original Gospels were written in Koine Greek and sent throughout the World.. 

▪︎Jewish culture was heavily influenced by Hellenistic culture, and Koine Greek was used not only for international communication but also as the first language of many Jews. This development was furthered by the fact that the largest Jewish community in the world lived in Ptolemaic Alexandria. (Wikipedia) 

FINALLY:
▪︎"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!
As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!" (Galatians 1:8-9) 

▪︎Jesus said, "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away" (Matt 24:35)
▪︎God protects His Word the Gospels and warns of antichrists.. 
▪︎The Gospels are evidenced by internal and external historical, archeological & literary facts 
▪︎The Gospels are unchanged and preserved over 2000 years and across all continents
▪︎The Gospels are reliable and transparent with any variations referenced in footnotes
▪︎The Gospels are the same today, as they were in 7th century, as they were in 1st Century
▪︎The Gospels  have 1000 times more manuscripts than the most documented ancient literature by Greco-Roman historian, Suetonius.   

▪︎The Bible translations do have errors, Christians don't claim otherwise.
But Less than 1% of manuscript errors are meaningful and don’t affect the major teachings of the Christian faith.
 

That's nothing compared to other documents. The Gallic Wars of Julius Caesar are found 900 years after the fact but no one doubts them. The writings of Aristotle are found 1400 years after but everyone assumes they are true too. In 30 years time, Mark is still alive. That's more than you can say for most written accounts of history.

Is the fact that it is difficult for me to return to faith and former believers are convinced that Christianity can be a lie is a confirmation:
2 Thessalonians 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

 

 

Here are the biblical contradictions:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html
Here are the answers of the apologists:
http://skepticsannotatedbiblerespons.blogspot.com/2004/10/25-how-long-does-gods-anger-last.html

 

The apologetic responses make perfect sense to me ... shock! I have something with my head, do they really make sense? Maybe I misunderstand something?

  Then it would seem that Christianity is true!??????/?

 

I apologize for the overwhelming amount of information, but I hope everyone understands now what my problem is and that I have a problem that I am not trying to convert anyone, but I have a problem finding the truth.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Aibao,

 

With all due respect, by focusing so tightly on only the gospels, you are seeing only half of the problem of Jesus’ historicity.

 

https://www.allaboutbible.com/christ-the-new-adam/

 

As the above link makes clear, without the old Adam to bring sin into our lives, there was no reason for God to incarnate himself as Jesus and bring a way of removing it from our lives.  In the Bible, Adam and Jesus are inseparable.

 

If you are going to treat Jesus as a real and historical person, then, to be Biblically sound, you must also treat Adam as a real and historical person.  That is Paul’s position on the matter.

 

If you are going to treat the events described in the gospels as real and historical, then, to be biblically sound, you must also treat the events described in Genesis, in the garden of Eden, as real and historical.  That is also Paul’s position on the matter.

 

It’s also a matter of consistency, coherency and logic, Aibao.

 

If you treat the Fall as something allegorical or symbolic, then Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross need only be allegorical or symbolic.  But if you treat what Jesus did on the cross as real and historical and also necessary for our salvation, then you must also treat what Adam did with the forbidden fruit in the same way.  His sin was just as real and historical and the necessary cause of all sin.

 

One demands the other.  One creates the necessity for the other.  They are either both history or neither of them is history.  This is the Biblical position and it is also a properly logical, consistent and coherent position.  Where do you stand?  Do you separate one from the other, treating Adam as mythical, but Jesus as historical?  Or do you do as both scripture and logic demand and treat them both as equally historical?

 

Aibao, if you treat both Adam and Jesus as historical, then you have some very BIG questions to answer.

 

How do you square the Bible’s account of our origins with what science says about our origins?

 

Was the universe made in 6 days or is it 13.72 billion years old?

 

Did God make us from mud and a rib or did we evolve from other organisms?

 

It's your call.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

Thank you, your statement opened my eyes, but unfortunately only for a moment, because I have doubts after reading a certain brochure, I don't know if it is available in English, although it is clearly stated on the back that the original is from the USA, the title in my native language is "W odpowiedzi na teorię ewolucji".  In English it will probably be: "In Response to the Theory of Evolution" There, I found issues that undermine the theory of evolution, which would disprove the Bible and Christianity at least partially. / here's what I noted:

 

- the theory of evolution cannot be confirmed in laboratories
-some scientists believe that the time that has elapsed since the beginning of the universe was not long enough to allow evolution
- changes in, for example, the color of the birch moth are microevolutionary changes, not Darwinian macroevolution
- mathematicians believe that life could not become so complex in 5 billion years that it would be impossible even in 100 billion years
- the big bang theory says that the world was created from nothing that is in line with the Book of Genesis, where God creates the world out of nothing, but some researchers do not like it because it is associated with the Bible and the biblical god
- the chances for molecules, simple chemical compounds, to assemble themselves into proteins in an appropriate manner are statistically impossible
- contemporary scientists have questioned the Miller-Urey experiment, which proved that life can form itself by a natural process
- More and more scientists are disillusioned with Darwin's theory of evolution and see its flaws
- changes to the beaks in the Galapagos finches and changes by selective breeding seem to prove the theory of evolution, but in fact they are not, because it is a macroevolution, the beak was changed by drought through the gene pool, which, however, was already present in the DNA before all this happened - the finches' beaks did not evolve, although the beaks became larger during the drought, after the drought they returned to their former size, so the alleged evolutionary change has withdrawn
- palaeontologists acknowledge that the fossil record does not support Darwin's theory of evolution, because the fossil record does not show the gradual development of simple life forms into increasingly complex forms, in fact the types of animals appear suddenly in the fossil record and thus lack a link to their ancestor, the types of animals remain the same throughout their existence on earth, do not gradually evolve into new types as predicted by Darwin
- the Cambrian explosion in fact does not confirm evolution, because the fossils simultaneously show the appearance of numerous types of animals with huge variations
- Some finds with gradual from ape to human have turned out to be fakes and there are missing links in the process, paleoanthropologist Richard Leakey said that nothing was found that could be considered a transitional species to humans and that there was more evidence of sudden the appearance of man rather than a gradual process of evolution
- Stephen J. Gould of the Harvard Paleontology Department wrote that there are very few transitional forms in the fossil record and these transitions are too abrupt. an intermittent equilibrium whereby evolution occurs during periods of sudden change followed by long periods of little or no change and, paradoxically, by adopting this theory, scholars come closer to the biblical perspective of creation because fossils indicate the sudden appearance of all basic categories of organisms
- Darwin himself had doubts about the correctness of his own theory
- Albert Szent Gyorgi, Nobel Laureate in Medicine, stated that the probability of improving your life through random mutations is zero
- Darwin admitted that not a single species change to another has been recorded, so we cannot prove that any species changed
- continuous transition sequences showing evolution without any missing link do not exist at all or are rare
- Arthur L. Schawlow, who won the Nobel Prize in Physics, admitted that scientific research is an act of praise to God, showing the wonders of creation according to Psalm 19
- the presence of vestigial organs such as the appendix does not mean that humans evolved from lower forms, it turned out that the appendix plays an important role in the immune system, so it is not a remnant of some ancestor
- similarities in the structure of the skeletons of reptiles, birds and mammals do not prove a common ancestor, but show deliberate efforts by some designer
- scientists are unable to construct an evolutionary family tree on the basis of DNA, e.g. when constructing a rabbit family tree, both groups of researchers presented completely different results, and identical species of fruit flies have DNA similar in only 25%
- the similarity between the emrions does not prove a common ancestor, Heackle's arguments have long been refuted

 

 

maybe there is someone who knows the counter-arguments to all of this? is there any biologist here? someone who has studied evolution? 

[Aibao]

On 1/25/2022 at 4:27 AM, Weezer said:

 

IMO that is an excelent quick summary of what happened.  Thanks.  A fairly new book that puts it in simple terms is "A LITTLE HISTORY OF RELIGION".

I just bought this book  and luckily it is also published in my language

[TheRedneckProfessor]

@Aibao, consider this:

 

A group of spotted river newts lives in a highland forest.  The spots on their skin provides perfect camouflage, allowing them to blend in against the backdrop of sandy pebbles in the riverbed.  But their community grows too large for the environment to sustain them all.

 

So, a group of them swim down the river, over the rapids and down the mountainside until they reach a grassy plain in the lowlands.  Here, there is plenty of food for them.  Unfortunately, though, the spots on their skin which afforded them such a great advantage in the highlands, now stand out conspicuously in the tall grass that lines the bottom and banks of the river.  This makes them easy prey for ospreys and kestrels and other predators. 

 

However, a few of the newts have spots that are slightly elongated, making them more difficult to see, especially for birds of prey.  These newts with slightly longer spots are more likely to live long enough to breed, than their small spotted compatriots.  Because they are more likely to breed, their genes for slightly elongated spots is also more likely to be passed down to the next generation. 

 

Thus, the next generation is more likely to survive and reproduce, which passes the elongated spot gene on to the succeeding generations.  The newts in each generation with the longest spots are the ones most likely to survive and pass their genes on.  This means that, over time, what started out as elongated spots becomes more like stripes instead.  After many generations, the gene that originally coded for spots has either been switched off in favor of a gene that codes for stripes, or it has mutated into a gene that codes for stripes.

 

Either way, our original spotted river newts have now evolved into striped river newts, closely related to, but entirely distinct from, their cousins in the highland forest.

 

This is all evolution is.

 

This is how evolution works and this is what Darwin was describing in The Origin of Species.  Evolution is not something that happened millions of years ago and then stopped.  Rather, it is a constant and continuous process that is happening even now.  It is also not some evil force or trick of malignant spirits intent on deceiving that faithful and overthrowing the Almighty.  It is simply a process wherein the individuals best adapted to their environment will be the ones who survive.  No agenda, no intent of any kind.

 

Please do not be scared of evolution.  After all, it is how we all got here.

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

Hello Aibao.  

 

When it comes to matters of biology and evolution, I recommend that you put your questions to the RedneckProfessor.

 

He is a scientist and far better qualified to answer you than I am.

 

However, I will respond to this part of your post.

 

- the big bang theory says that the world was created from nothing that is in line with the Book of Genesis, where God creates the world out of nothing, but some researchers do not like it because it is associated with the Bible and the biblical god

 

 

No, I'm sorry, but the Big Bang theory does not say that the universe was created from nothing, in line with Genesis.  That is a piece of disinformation propagated by certain Christian apologists who don't understand the science properly.

 

This Wikipedia page gives a non-technical overview.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

The first paragraph contains an immediate refutation of the Christian apologetic argument you mentioned.

 

The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model explaining the existence of the observable universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution.  The model describes how the universe expanded from an initial state of high density and temperature, and offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of observed phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, and large-scale structure.

 

The highlighted part is the key to understanding the Big Bang theory properly.  The theory begins, not with the universe coming from nothing, but from when the universe was in a hot and dense state.  Whatever happened before then is not addressed by the theory.  So, you were not being given the correct facts by whichever Christian said that the Big Bang described the universe coming from nothing, as in the book of Genesis.

 

Once again Aibao, this is not correct -  it is a piece of disinformation and Christian propaganda.  Please disregard it.

 

 

If you want a deeper understanding of this argument, please follow the link.

 

https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/82597-the-failed-cosmology-of-william-lane-craig/#comments

 

Here I have written a lengthy explanation of how and why cosmology does not agree with Genesis 1 : 1.

 

Or, here is a brief synopsis.

 

1.  Christians claim that that this theory from 1970 proves that the universe came from nothing.

2. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspa.1970.0021

3. But in 1998 it was discovered that the universe possessed a cosmological constant with a positive value.

4. This theory only applies if the universe has a cosmological constant with a negative or zero value.

5.  So, the theory cannot be used to say anything about our universe - it does not apply.

6.  But Christians still misunderstand this and continue to believe that science proves the universe came from nothing.

7.  But science does not do that.

 

Currently, no scientist knows if the universe had an absolute beginning or not.  

 

This link is helpful in understanding where we are in understanding the Big Bang.

 

https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/relativity-space-astronomy-and-cosmology/history-of-the-universe/

 

If you scroll down to the graphic, please read it from left to right.  You will notice Aibao, that anything to the left of the start of the hot Big Bang is qualified with a question mark.  This agrees with what is written on the Wikipedia page.  Our current best model starts with the hot Big Bang, where the universe is in a hot and dense state.

 

We have no knowledge about anything preceding this.

 

So, any Christian who claims that science has proven that the universe came from nothing is... wrong.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

[Wertbag]

11 hours ago, Aibao said:

Maybe there is someone who knows the counter-arguments to all of this? is there any biologist here? someone who has studied evolution? 

So many claims in such a short space, it's a Gish gallop that would take an essay to counter. I don't have the time or interest to dig through such a list. Remember a claim that takes seconds to make can take hours to research.

Saying that there are a few that leapt out, the quotes from evolutionists are commonly misquoted by creationists:

 

https://ncse.ngo/misquoted-scientists-respond

 

Often the quotes used are 50-60 year old ones, prior to genetics and modern research which has strengthened evolution by finding all of its predictions true. 

 

I've heard the claim that somehow the fossil record "does not show the gradual development of simple life forms into increasingly complex forms" but I cannot find any reason for this claim. The famous quote that finding bunnies in the pre-cambrian would disprove evolution still stands. The deeper we dig the more simple the lifeforms are. We don't find modern creatures before dinosaurs for example. 

 

My main reason for not delving deeply into the creation verse evolution side is that it is seldom the reason for atheists to leave religion and Christians can be both evolution believers and abiogenesis believers. So even if you prove evolution to such a person they just change to "Oh it was God's tool to get the variety He wanted" and all of that effort makes no inroads into their religious beliefs. In fact I believe its standard teaching for the billion Catholics that science is correct, its just us learning how He did it. So potentially the majority of Christians are evolutionists. 

 

My question about your deconversion still stands. You mentioned contradictory sermons, but I don't see how any of that links to a disbelief in God? You say "I realized that I was still doing too little for God and how much He requires of me and I couldn't live like that, I was getting tired" but that says you are a believer, just one who wants to do more? Straight up, do you believe in God? 

[TABA]

1 hour ago, Wertbag said:

My question about your deconversion still stands. You mentioned contradictory sermons, but I don't see how any of that links to a disbelief in God? You say "I realized that I was still doing too little for God and how much He requires of me and I couldn't live like that, I was getting tired" but that says you are a believer, just one who wants to do more? Straight up, do you believe in God? 

Good points, @Wertbag.  I would narrow that last question a bit and ask “Do you believe in the god of the Bible?”
 

For many of us, the god of the Bible was easier to debunk than the idea of any god at all existing.  The more detail the Bible provides about El/Yahweh/Jesus, the more contradictory and less believable it becomes, in my opinion. 

[Joshpantera]

On 1/19/2022 at 5:13 PM, Aibao said:

I read about synchronicity, which has already been mentioned here, but I also found the opposite view that synchronicity can prove the existence of God, because He supposedly uses it ....

I am tired of all of this .... I am asking for some good arguments from someone who has a lot of experience, more than me in these matters, because unfortunately, the longer I study religious topics, the more lost and confused I get ....   

I want to ask you how are you doing when you hear these things?

 

I have the book Synchronicity by Kirby Surprise on audible. Have you read the content? I certainly does not point back to and especially does not prove the existence of god. What it does is illustrate to the detail how people who think god is showing them signs and wonders are doing it themselves with their own minds by basically conjuring up very consistent series of coincidence. The whole point is that what they think a god is doing is nothing more than the work of their own minds. 

 

So, the christians trying to usurp the content for their own pet religion is nothing more than the age-old story of christianity itself. No matter how nonsensical, christians have been going around in a sort of brainwashed state trying make things conform to THEIR religion. In the old days they usurped the pagan religions and tried to christianize them. That brought most of our holidays, many of the so-called saints, etc., etc. 

 

They've been at work trying to do that now, too. 

 

They're going off into secular scientific issues trying to claim whatever they see for christianity. We had a guy come on here claiming that the particle - wave duality of light and matter proves jesus. This is in keeping with the trend of brainwashed people feeling the need to try and force everything to conform to their pet religion. They're doing it with new age type metaphysical stuff too, like the law of attraction and synchronicity as you mention.

 

It's the very same thing. If anything becomes popular they will try and look for way of claiming it for christianity. Regardless of the fact that all of things point away from monotheism to pantheism and idealist philosophy, which, is clearly not christianity at all. Brainwashed people aren't thinking straight, for one thing, tend to have cognitive dissonance, for another, and most importantly, are impervious to logic, reason, and the ability to check oneself carefully for contradiction. 

 

Expect to see more and more of this as christianity continues to fail in the polls. And struggles to survive. Once you understand their strategy and mindset none of this will matter very much. It's just people who don't get it at all trying to muscle others around. But there's no bite beyond their bark....

 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

15 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

So, any Christian who claims that science has proven that the universe came from nothing.......is wrong.

 

Is wrong?  Or can't be substantiated? 

[walterpthefirst]

2 hours ago, Weezer said:

Is wrong?  Or can't be substantiated? 

 

Wrong, Weezer.

 

Absolutely, totally and completely wrong.

 

The only branch of the sciences that employs proofs is mathematics.  Not cosmology, astronomy, astrophysics, nor any other branch of the empirical sciences.  Therefore, when Christians claim that science has proved that the universe had an absolute beginning, they are mistaken and wrong.  

 

These links will explain things far better than I can, Weezer.

 

http://ds-wordpress.haverford.edu/psych2015/projects/chapter/scientific-proof/

https://theconversation.com/wheres-the-proof-in-science-there-is-none-30570

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/11/22/scientific-proof-is-a-myth/?sh=34069aaf2fb1

https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/04/19/science-doesnt-prove-anything-and-thats-a-good-thing/

 

So, if a Christian claims that science has proven something, unless they are talking about mathematics, they are as wrong as it's possible to be.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

[Wertbag]

The strawman of the universe from nothing is incredibly common. The Christian starts by asserting the atheist believes the universe came from nothing (ignoring all claims that say otherwise) then points out that the non-held position is ridiculous. Before you can say "hang on, I don't believe that" they go full pigeon on the chess board. 

I've even had Christians say "You must believe this", just forcing that belief even when it's being denied to their face. Its similar to the statement "you believe life came from a rock", never tell someone what they believe. 

[Aibao]

Thank you very much for your answers and I want you to know that although I do not write back to anyone separately, I read and absorb everything, it is all valuable to me and helps me a lot.
Wertbag, I remain agnostic when it comes to God. I wish He would not exist, especially if He is the God that Christians talk about, but I am even more interested in knowing the objective truth, simply the truth. you keep asking about the reasons for my deconversion. Those sermons made me yes, I wanted to try harder for God, but at one point it wore me out, I was fed up with this life. School, high school graduation, and after school dealing with church matters and other people, in addition, I am shy by nature, I have low self-esteem, devoting more and more made me start to wonder what is a God who constantly He requires something from me and wants more and more sacrifices. Then people - and people led me to ultimately not return to church. More precisely, I read something in church brochures how one man prayed on the plane without a ticket and here is a miracle - no one checked it, he managed to fly without a ticket ... it moved me until I found myself in a similar situation, so much that on the train - I was going to the university and I forgot my wallet, so I had neither money nor a ticket with me. I remembered the man in the brochure and began to pray in my head and believe that a miracle would happen to me. The conductor approaches me, and there is no miracle here ... I had to get off the train, I mean it was standing and waiting for my reaction, what will I do now? My friend gave me some money, he said it was not enough, so I got off, I called for my dad, who was at work at night and slept during the day, but he came to pick me up and I didn't make it to the university that day. It made me feel a great disappointment and resentment towards God for the first time, I couldn't cope with it, I didn't mention it to the pastor. I signed out of the church, my membership, but still attended the services. Then it was Christmas time, usually the pastor called me a lot and the others (I didn't speak first and nobody minded), I got a text message to bring this and that for Christmas Eve, and usually I got an invitation. This sms also looked random or something like an option: send the same to everyone. I realized that since I officially left the church I am no longer welcome there.

 

I started to cry, I had a shock for a few days, I started to think that God didn't want me anymore, that this was the end. Then I felt a real pain in my heart, as if someone had torn it away from me. People from the church who usually called and asked about me when they didn't see me - they stopped doing it, I only got messages like: I'm praying for you, nobody asked what happened (and usually it was different), what was going on, nothing, they had simply lost interest in me since I left the church, and I still considered them my friends. It was a shock to me how easily my friendship ended with a simple "hello" when they passed me on the street. After weeks and months, I became so much stronger that instead of sadness and regret, I began to feel disgust and anger - towards them and towards all Christianity. I started my new life as an agnostic, and then I got closer and closer to atheism. I felt better, I became assertive, because I no longer felt guilty for refusing my neighbor, not even help, I was just, sometimes angry, sometimes good and I felt good about it. My sleep improved, my thoughts calmed down, my fears disappeared. A miracle, no? xd After a while I started to blame myself that maybe I was oversensitive, that it wasn't the fault of the church people - and my mother told me that I couldn't blame them. Sometimes I thought about God, and I was not so afraid of hell, because I found that I did not leave voluntarily, it was a series of events that led me to leave the church, hell was not talked about much, so I did not have this fear as other believers, in addition, I thought that since God had allowed me to leave and did not do anything about it to return me, maybe he wants to send me to hell? And with tears in my eyes, I agreed, praying, I said let it be so, if you, God, were there, if it is your hell, I want to go there. stupid what? But that's what I thought then. That's why I had no fear, my heart was broken. Then I learned to respect myself and even love myself, I renewed old friendships with "people of the world".

 

Those people of the world showed me more love than the people in the church. Or maybe it seemed to me then? I do not know. After a few years, my mother started reading about demons. She started telling me that I was obsessed and told me to read various articles. During this time, I also met a Christian from the Internet with whom I was in touch and liked him even though I no longer liked Christianity. He started telling me more about hell, and even that he had a dream what the demons in hell would do to me if I convert again. So I read my mother's articles until I became somewhat obsessed - I started looking for articles myself, my fears returned with double strength, I started praying again, but I didn't want to go back to religion anyway, until I was here. Ever since it all started coming back, my life has turned into a nightmare. In my country, there is no help for people like me, and atheists are still viewed poorly by society. Although this is slowly changing. Even though I don't really care what people think, I know how much my own beliefs influence my life. My beliefs are in ruins, they are frayed and have holes in them and they are insecure. I tried to commit suicide (also because of the difficult situation in the family), I thought - if there is a biblical God with all His principles, testing people on earth and hell, I will not be converted except by death. I was walking to the railroad tracks when my friend called the police. The police drove me to the hospital, then I went home.
 I didn't want to say it all, I preferred to keep it a secret for a while, so as not to alienate anyone here, but well, this is Wertbag for you. Hope you now know everything why I left.

[Aibao]

6 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

I have the book Synchronicity by Kirby Surprise on audible. Have you read the content? I certainly does not point back to and especially does not prove the existence of god. What it does is illustrate to the detail how people who think god is showing them signs and wonders are doing it themselves with their own minds by basically conjuring up very consistent series of coincidence. The whole point is that what they think a god is doing is nothing more than the work of their own minds. 

 

So, the christians trying to usurp the content for their own pet religion is nothing more than the age-old story of christianity itself. No matter how nonsensical, christians have been going around in a sort of brainwashed state trying make things conform to THEIR religion. In the old days they usurped the pagan religions and tried to christianize them. That brought most of our holidays, many of the so-called saints, etc., etc. 

 

They've been at work trying to do that now, too. 

 

They're going off into secular scientific issues trying to claim whatever they see for christianity. We had a guy come on here claiming that the particle - wave duality of light and matter proves jesus. This is in keeping with the trend of brainwashed people feeling the need to try and force everything to conform to their pet religion. They're doing it with new age type metaphysical stuff too, like the law of attraction and synchronicity as you mention.

 

It's the very same thing. If anything becomes popular they will try and look for way of claiming it for christianity. Regardless of the fact that all of things point away from monotheism to pantheism and idealist philosophy, which, is clearly not christianity at all. Brainwashed people aren't thinking straight, for one thing, tend to have cognitive dissonance, for another, and most importantly, are impervious to logic, reason, and the ability to check oneself carefully for contradiction. 

 

Expect to see more and more of this as christianity continues to fail in the polls. And struggles to survive. Once you understand their strategy and mindset none of this will matter very much. It's just people who don't get it at all trying to muscle others around. But there's no bite beyond their bark....

 

thanks for paying attention to this book , I couldn't find it, but finally found it and ordered it. I hope to understand more thanks to it 

[Wertbag]

2 hours ago, Aibao said:

I didn't want to say it all, I preferred to keep it a secret for a while, so as not to alienate anyone here, but well, this is Wertbag for you. Hope you now know everything why I left.

Thank you for sharing, it really helps to understand where you are coming from and you'll find a lot of empathy for your position here. 

We atheists are a very diverse group, other than sharing a disbelief in God all other questions are up in the air. The reasons for deconversion are equally varied and while there are some common themes such as the horror of the bible and gods hiddenness, everyone has a different path to their current world view. 

This forum is one of the few where there is no abuse, no flame and while we do have disagreements it's always civil. 

So as they say there are no bad questions, so feel free to ask whatever is on your mind and we'll help however we can. 

[Joshpantera]

On 1/27/2022 at 2:38 PM, Aibao said:

thanks for paying attention to this book , I couldn't find it, but finally found it and ordered it. I hope to understand more thanks to it 

 

I think it will make much more sense when you read the content. Why don't you do a book review if you like and I'll participate. My friend @midniterider has read the book as well. Maybe he'd like to participate in a book discussion too. 

 

I hope you're feeling very welcome in our little online community!