Do you believe in god?

[Unicorndreams24]

i have recently been thinking a lot about religion and wondering how many believe in god and also what made you come to the decision of believing?

The whole concept of atonement via sacrifice is nonsense.
And atonement for stuff you haven't actually even done! ... what the heck?

This is an instance where my preferred LSV bible lets me down.

Luk 15:7 I "say to you that [more] joy will be in Heaven over one sinner converting, rather than over ninety-nine righteous men who have no need of conversion." (LSV)

The King James version reads better.

Luk 15:7" I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance. " (KJV)

REPENT works better than CONVERT.

Douay-Rheims is even better though, I reckon.

Luk 15:7 " I say to you, that even so there shall be joy in heaven upon one sinner that doth penance, more than upon ninety-nine just who need not penance. "(DRV)

DOTH PENANCE is even better than REPENT

If one is into self flagellation, the DRV might be the one for you.

Christianity doesn’t teach that someone can live cruelly and be “unblemished” simply by calling themselves a Christian. Scripture explicitly rejects that idea: “Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means!” (Romans 6:1–2, NIV)

The heart of the issue here is what repentance actually means. Forgiveness in Christianity is never detached from change. Paul says, “If anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!” (2 Corinthians 5:17, NIV). Grace is meant to transform a person, not excuse ongoing harm.

Jesus models this clearly in his encounter with the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1–11). After showing her mercy and saying, “Then neither do I condemn you,” he immediately adds, “Go now and leave your life of sin.” (NIV). Mercy is real — but so is the call to walk away from the old life.

Jesus is also blunt about people who claim faith without obedience or change (Matthew 7:21–23), and the New Testament is unambiguous: “Faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.” (James 2:17, NIV)

So I would say no — Christianity isn’t “be awful and get a free pass.” It teaches that forgiveness leads to repentance, humility, and a changed life. I hope that helps provide a bit of colour on the unanswered question?

Interesting that everyone else debates and is happy to give their personal opinions but you aren’t - says a lot

Thanks for the question.

I see @ByLovingTraybake has already given an excellent response, with which I’m in full agreement.

instead of the lengthy reply which I was writing, I will just add this link to an article you may find helpful.
It contains the following paragraph

“For the truly converted, then, continuing to live sinfully is not an option. Because our conversion resulted in a completely new nature, our desire is to no longer live in sin. Yes, we still sin, but instead of wallowing in it as we once did, we now hate it and wish to be delivered from it. The idea of “taking advantage” of Christ’s sacrifice on our behalf by continuing to live sinfully is unthinkable. Christians who have no desire to live for Christ, but instead find themselves living lives indistinguishable from those of unbelievers, should examine whether they have ever genuinely received Christ as Savior.”

https://www.gotquestions.org/forgiven-why-not-sin.html

It really does, thank you.

What does it say?

But you are prepared to be “gracious and allow the fruit to grow” despite his manifestly unchristian behaviour. So you will debate up to a point. You have to realise that it looks very much as if you are supporting him. Which I assume you don’t. But that’s how it looks.

I think not jumping to pronounce judgement on anyone is a reasonable position to take.

As for how my reluctance to judge and condemn another person looks, I couldn’t care less.

To me it appears that your values personally align with his. He’s no more a Christian than I am

Speaking for myself, I don't judge on looks, I judge on deeds. And SYL has done plenty of evil ones without repentance.

I think you have misread my post.

@ByLovingTraybake

Quote : "Jesus models this clearly in his encounter with the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1–11). After showing her mercy and saying, “Then neither do I condemn you,” he immediately adds, “Go now and leave your life of sin.” (NIV). Mercy is real — but so is the call to walk away from the old life."

Interesting that you mention the "cast the first stone story. Now, feel free to shoot me down in flames here, but as you likely know, that story if often used to demonstrate that John was a " revised" addition to the gospels. Written after the synoptics to answer questions that folk would likely ask, and of course to add the gnostic aspect.

The story does not appear in Mark Mat and Luke. Likewise, the " the not one iota of the law will change" story does not make it into John, but is in the others.

Why ? Well because they are directly related, and the "first stone" story explains the questions raised by the "one iota" bit.

We know Mark was written before 70CE, Mat and Luke after. Because of the destruction of the Temple. John was even later. Around 90 CE.

A student between the two dates would likely ask about the not one iota thing. " But if Jesus was not here to change the law, why do you want to change it? "

And just by coincidence, the book of John is written, and it has a story that answers that question. And it answers it by changing the conditions of Mosaic law. " Ahh, you see, the law still stands, BUT... only people without sin can carry it out".

It was a clever trick the early preachers used. And it is one of these things that are obvious to non believers who read the Bible. And of course Atheists, who maybe spent decades studying the bible in their Christian days.

We see the same in Mormonism too. Joseph Smith was well known for getting his "seeing stones" out again whenever he wanted to change something.

And when one thinks about it, the whole book of John is about " lets rewrite it ". These other books are sort of ok, but we need a lot more.

Thought experiment. I have done this. Empty your head of all Christianity. Imagine you are my DD if you like. 13 years old, never been exposed to Christianity. Now read Mark, in one go. Is there a religion in there ? As a standalone book ? Would it convert you, or my DD to a religion that is brand new, that you have never heard of ? Nah. And yes, it's based on Judaism that you might know.

So, Matt and Luke are written as a padded out Mark. But even these 3 are not enough. They are not explicit on son of god etc. Ahh, now we get John. That should do the trick to recruit 2nd century folk to our new Church.

Joseph Smith rewrote his book to allow polygamy. Initially for selfish reasons, but boy oh boy, that change boosted recruitment.

:-)

@LeaningOnTheEverlastingArms

To quote a part of an article you quoted:

“For the truly converted, then, continuing to live sinfully is not an option. Because our conversion resulted in a completely new nature, our desire is to no longer live in sin. Yes, we still sin, but instead of wallowing in it as we once did, we now hate it and wish to be delivered from it. The idea of “taking advantage” of Christ’s sacrifice on our behalf by continuing to live sinfully is unthinkable. Christians who have no desire to live for Christ, but instead find themselves living lives indistinguishable from those of unbelievers, should examine whether they have ever genuinely received Christ as Savior.”

This bit : "The idea of “taking advantage” of Christ’s sacrifice on our behalf .."

This has not been explained at all. It is taken as a given by Christians, yet it makes no logical sense. For one, he came back to life, so what sacrifice ? And also... why ? Why does some fella being executed thousands of years ago do this ? What is the mechanism, where is it explained how it works. Who made the rule that this is how it works, and where is this rule written down ?.

And this part : "Christians who have no desire to live for Christ, but instead find themselves living lives indistinguishable from those of unbelievers,..."

Yeah....hmm

You see the issue with this line surely ? Are unbelievers just bad, incapable of doing anything " Christian like " ?

Anecdote. A good friend of mine was born a Catholic. His late mum was very devout, living father still is. They even got an anniversary congratulations letter from the Vatican. Very devout indeed. But my friend, he says there is no God. Respects his parents and religion of course, but personally to him, he says it's all rubbish.

But he volunteers at the Sally Army. Helping on their homeless program. He is part of the sally army team in an Australian city, permanent part time ( about 30 hours a week), helping homeless folk get what they need, organising donated stuff, doing the meals, counselling, The full monty. Unpaid.

Is he " living lives indistinguishable from those of unbelievers?", even though he is literarily working, for free, with the sally army ? He is doing the same work, he just happens not to believe in any God.

Does this believing in God, or Jesus, really make such a massive difference as to how people should be thought of ?

Thanks for your post. It was interesting to read but I sensed perhaps a number of different claims are being run together here, so I have tried to separate them to answer each point.

First, on John 8: Christians are generally aware that the account of the woman caught in adultery has a complex manuscript history. That is not a problem for Christian belief, because no doctrine depends on this passage. Remove it entirely and nothing essential changes. Mercy joined to repentance is already explicit and repeated across Mark, Matthew, and Luke (e.g. Mark 1:15; Mark 2:5–10; Matthew 7:21–23; Luke 19:8–9). So perhaps that was my weakness in choosing a passage that someone could pounce on to see it as an interpolation; I don’t personally regard the woman-caught-in-adultery passage as a later theological interpolation: while its placement varies in early manuscripts, the Greek style is internally consistent and the episode coheres closely with Jesus’ teaching and behaviour elsewhere, which is why many scholars judge it to be an authentic Jesus tradition even if its transmission history is complex. John is my favourite gospel to read in Greek so I’ve gone through that quite a few times.

Second, the claim that this story “changes the conditions of Mosaic law” I would submit misunderstands what Jesus is doing. Jesus doesn’t introduce a new legal rule that only sinless people may enforce the Law. He exposes the hypocritical and selective use of the Law, exactly as the Hebrew prophets repeatedly do (Isaiah 1; Amos 5). That prophetic critique does not depend on John 8 and stands independently of it. He’s acting in a similar way.

Third, the idea that Matthew’s “not one iota” saying creates a theological problem later solved by John does not fit the timeline of the Bible. Paul is already publicly addressing the relationship between the Law, sin, grace, and fulfilment decades before John’s Gospel is written (Romans 3:31; Romans 10:4). This debate is early, widespread, and settled long before any alleged narrative “fix.” John’s gospel isn’t needed to “fix” anything if Paul has long stated the same.

Fourth, John does not claim to rewrite or replace the Synoptics. He explicitly states that he is selective in what he records (John 20:30–31). Selection is not revision, and later theological records do not imply later invention. It would be strange for each of the records of Jesus’ life to read identically — identical Gospel accounts would suggest coordination or collusion, not authenticity — real testimony shows convergence without uniformity. If police interviewed four witnesses and received word-for-word identical accounts, that would raise far more suspicion than differences of emphasis and detail.

Fifth, the claim that Mark contains no meaningful theology does not survive the text itself. Mark opens by calling Jesus “the Son of God” (Mark 1:1), depicts him forgiving sins, exercising authority over nature and Sabbath, and culminates in the confession at the cross (15:39). That is already a radical theological claim within first-century Judaism.

Comparisons to Joseph Smith also fail on historical grounds. Smith revised texts under his own control to justify later personal practices. By contrast, the New Testament consists of multiple independent writings, produced in different places, circulating widely across diverse and often hostile communities long before any central authority existed that could revise them wholesale.

It is also worth noting that the Dead Sea Scrolls give us insight into how sacred texts were treated in the Jewish world Christianity emerged from. Copies of Old Testament books preserved at Qumran, centuries earlier than our medieval manuscripts, show a remarkable stability of transmission, even while containing minor variants. That background makes the idea of casual theological “rewriting” a poor fit for the textual culture of the period.

I would therefore say the New Testament, especially John’s gospel, does not show a late attempt to fix Jesus or invent Christianity. It shows a consistent claim, expressed from different angles and contexts — the Law stands, humanity fails it, Christ fulfils it, and forgiveness calls people not to continue as before, but to repentance and a changed life. The beauty of the gospel is its simplicity ultimately. I did appreciate hearing your thoughts on this — I am no theologian so sometimes my points, whilst sincerely held, may be expressed clumsily and give rise to more questions!

@ByLovingTraybake

If ok I will phrase quote you for brevity.

Let me start here. Quote : "Fourth, John does not claim to rewrite or replace the Synoptics. He explicitly states that he is selective in what he records (John 20:30–31). "

Here is John 20:30-31: " Many indeed, therefore, other signs Jesus also did before His disciples that are not written in this scroll; and these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing, you may have life in His Name." (LSV)

That does not say what you claim. He does not say "this in addition to". He says he done other things that are not written here. No reference to the other books at all. But "these have been written" , as in the things in this book have been written here. That's my reading of that. And as I look through different bible versions, I see nothing that says my interpretation is wrong.

This is a constant thing I find with Bible talk. Believers quote a verse number, then claim it says nothing that a non believer reader just does not see.

This bit :" ...identical Gospel accounts would suggest coordination or collusion, not authenticity"

Do you mean in the way Mat and Luke appear to copy Mark ? As I said in my post, Mark was written pre 70 CE, Mat and Luke post 70 CE. Not collusion here, copying, padding out for different audiences is definitely suspected. There is a theory that Matt and Luke might have been sat together, working from the same scroll of Mark. A scroll that was written years, if not decades before.

And I notice you conditionalize your post with the word " identical". One would really expect eye witness accounts to be a bit different in details. But John is just way out there different. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are in the copshop. The detective says, " so tell me about this stoning thing you saw decades ago". Matthew, Mark , Luke say... "what stoning thing ".

Up to the start of your post. You say re the stoning story : " because no doctrine depends on this passage. Remove it entirely and nothing essential changes." You used it: to illustrate a point of doctrine. In fact ask anyone to name a few Jesus stories, and that story is likely in the top 5 easily.

Now this bit of your post : "Mercy joined to repentance is already explicit and repeated across Mark, Matthew, and Luke (e.g. Mark 1:15; Mark 2:5–10; Matthew 7:21–23; Luke 19:8–9)."

Having a look at those verses you quoted -

Mar 1:15 and saying, "The time has been fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God has come near, convert and believe in the good news."

Mar 2:5-10: " and Jesus having seen their faith, says to the paralytic, "Child, your sins have been forgiven you." And there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts, "Why does this One thus speak evil words? Who is able to forgive sins except oneGod?" And immediately Jesus, having known in His spirit that they thus reason in themselves, said to them, "Why do you reason these things in your hearts? Which is easier? To say to the paralytic, Your sins are forgiven; or to say, Rise, and take up your pallet, and walk? And that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on the earth to forgive sins(He says to the paralytic)--

Mat 7:21-23- " Not everyone who is saying to Me, Lord, Lord, will come into the kingdom of the heavens, but he who is doing the will of My Father who is in the heavens. Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your Name? And in Your Name cast out demons? And in Your Name done many mighty things? And then I will acknowledge to them, that--I never knew you, depart from Me you who are working lawlessness."

Luk 19:8 -" And Zaccheus having stood, said to the LORD, "Behold, half of my goods, Lord, I give to the poor, and if I took by false accusation anything of anyone, I give back fourfold." And Jesus said to him, "Today salvation came to this house, inasmuch as he also is a son of Abraham;"

All LSV as usual.

And as usual, I see nothing in the above to backup your statement "Mercy joined to repentance is already explicit and repeated "

This is a constant issue, as I said above. Throw a gish gallop of verses and claim they mean something. Fellow believers will reverently nod and agree with a " well said, praise the Lord" . But a non believer who looks up the verses, and head scratching ensues.

Part 2 to follow

:-)

That is one train of Reformation- Christian thought.

@ByLovingTraybake

Part 2.

Sorry about the score through format error above.

This: "Second, the claim that this story “changes the conditions of Mosaic law” I would submit misunderstands what Jesus is doing. Jesus doesn’t introduce a new legal rule that only sinless people may enforce the Law."

The story does add conditions to Mosaic law. And how easy would it have been to say ignore this, ignore that ? Nope, he said he was not here to change the law. Something John did not mention. And Jesus is saying only sinless people can enact the law, in this specific story anyway. IT'S WHAT THE STORY IS ABOUT. Because nobody is without sin according to him.

Another verse list here :" He exposes the hypocritical and selective use of the Law, exactly as the Hebrew prophets repeatedly do (Isaiah 1; Amos 5)."

No idea, eg.

Isa " 1:3 "An ox has known its owner, || And a donkey the crib of its master, || Israel has not known, || My people have not understood."" (LSV"

Amo 5:3 "For thus said Lord YHWH: "The city that is going out one thousand, || Leaves one hundred, || And that which is going out one hundred, || Leaves ten to the house of Israel."" (LSV)

Can't you just clip the specific verse , and explain why it means wrt claim ?

This now.

"Third, the idea that Matthew’s “not one iota” saying creates a theological problem later solved by John does not fit the timeline of the Bible. Paul is already publicly addressing the relationship between the Law, sin, grace, and fulfilment decades before John’s Gospel is written (Romans 3:31; Romans 10:4). This debate is early, widespread, and settled long before any alleged narrative “fix.” John’s gospel isn’t needed to “fix” anything if Paul has long stated the same."

So Paul is out there doing his stuff DACADES before John is written. Cool. I made the point about dates.

Rom 3:31 - "Do we then make law useless through faith? Let it not be! Indeed, we establish law." (LSV)

Rom 10:4 "For Christ is an end of law for righteousness to everyone who is believing,"

Yeah, again, the verses you present are not connected to "Paul is already publicly addressing the relationship between the Law, sin, grace, and fulfilment ",

Indeed. that Rom 10:4 does appear to directly contradicting what Jesus himself said, and what was recorded in 3 books. And what a statement.

HEY CHRISTAINS, LAW IS ENDED FOR US.

That certainly explains Trump. I bet if he had actually read the Bible, that would be his Favorite verse.

So Endeth part 2.

I might do more later.

:-)

I’ll try to respond carefully and plainly, because I think at this point we’re talking past each other a bit, rather than disagreeing about a single verse.

On John 20:30–31 first. I’m not claiming John explicitly says “this is an add-on to Matthew, Mark and Luke.” Of course he doesn’t. What he does say is that he is being selective: “Jesus performed many other signs… which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe…” (NIV). That’s a statement about purpose and scope, not about exclusivity. It tells the reader that what they’re reading is not intended to be exhaustive. That’s not a controversial reading — it’s exactly how ancient biographies worked, and it’s why no one expects the Gospels to be identical.

On that point more generally, I honestly don’t see how identical accounts would strengthen authenticity. If four witnesses gave the police the same story, word for word, you’d immediately suspect coordination. What we actually have is substantial overlap on the core facts, with differences of emphasis, structure and detail — exactly what you expect from independent sources writing for different audiences. John isn’t “way out there”; he’s doing theology through narrative rather than repeating material already circulating.

On the woman caught in adultery, I think this is where the misunderstanding really sits. The story does not introduce a new legal principle that “only sinless people may enforce the Law.” If it did, Jewish law would instantly become impossible to practise, and neither Jesus nor the early church ever teach that. There is no Christian doctrine that courts, judges, or witnesses must be sinless.

What Jesus does is expose the misuse of the Law. Under Mosaic law, adultery required both parties to be charged (Leviticus 20:10), required proper witnesses (Deuteronomy 17:6–7), and explicitly condemned selective justice. In John 8, only the woman is produced, the man is absent, and the entire situation is staged as a trap. Jesus doesn’t say the Law is wrong; he forces the accusers to confront the fact that they are invoking it dishonestly. That’s not a change to the Law, it’s a prophetic confrontation.

And that is exactly what the Hebrew prophets do. Not in vague terms, but very explicitly. In Isaiah 1, God says:
“Stop bringing meaningless offerings… Your hands are full of blood. Wash and make yourselves clean… Learn to do right; seek justice, defend the oppressed.” (Isaiah 1:13–17, NIV).
The problem isn’t the Law. It’s that people are claiming moral authority while violating its heart.

Likewise in Amos 5:
“I hate, I despise your religious festivals… But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream.” (Amos 5:21–24, NIV).
Again, the critique is not abolition but hypocrisy. Jesus stands squarely in that tradition. Nothing in John 8 requires a later theological invention to make sense of it.

On “not one jot or tittle”, it’s true that John doesn’t include that saying. But that doesn’t create a problem that John then needs to solve. The relationship between Law, sin, grace and fulfilment is already being discussed openly and publicly decades earlier. Paul is writing Romans in the 50s, not the 90s. When he says, “Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law” (Romans 3:31, NIV), and also that “Christ is the culmination [telos] of the law” (Romans 10:4, NIV), he is not contradicting Jesus. “Telos” doesn’t mean “scrapped” or “ended” in the sense you’re implying; it means goal, completion, fulfilment. That’s exactly what Jesus means when he says he came not to abolish the Law but to fulfil it.

So I would say no, John isn’t needed to “fix” anything. The debate is early, widespread, and already theologically coherent long before John’s Gospel is written.

Finally, on the claim that Christians quote verses that “don’t say what they say”: I think the issue isn’t that the verses are being misquoted, but that they’re being read atomistically. Ancient texts don’t communicate meaning one sentence at a time, stripped of context. That method would make almost any historical document collapse under scrutiny.

You don’t have to accept the Christian conclusions, that obviously was not the ask. But framing the Gospels as late rewrites designed to patch obvious theological holes just doesn’t fit the textual, historical, or Jewish context we actually have. I hope I’ve covered off all your points — this is a hard place to have a lengthy discussion where the meaning of queries can be hard to decipher; I’ll admit I had to read some of your points a few times so please let me know if I’ve not understood them fully.

@ByLovingTraybake

Quote : That’s not a controversial reading — it’s exactly how ancient biographies worked, and it’s why no one expects the Gospels to be identical.

Ahh yes. The old " you have to know how to read it in historical context way "argument . Whenever I see that rolled out, I wonder about this timeless all seeing all knowing God who appears to be stuck in the Iron age.

Quote " If four witnesses gave the police the same story, word for word, you’d immediately suspect coordination."

There is that added conditional in there. "word for word". A different version of "identical" you used last time. John is more like the Gospel authors being in the cop shop together. " What happened at the last supper ?". John replies " The Lord stopped a woman from being stoned".

Ironically of course, if John and Revelation were written by the same author, " being stoned" was something very familiar to him, or so it appears"

And no, I am not using an argument from incredulity here. The Synoptics' and John are massively different. You said it yourself, John was written decades after Paul started preaching. So what really are the chances that John was a witness to Jesus at all.

Cops to Paul. " So lets get this straight Paul. you say you saw Jesus stopping a stoning 60 years ago. but you yourself don't look a day over 50. Empty your robes fella, lets check you for shrooms"

Of course, I add age as a jest, but we are talking a long time here. Where were you on VE day ? That is the sort of timescale. The JFK shooting might be closer time wise, but we don't know for sure. We have time ranges, not dates.

Quote : "On “not one jot or tittle”, it’s true that John doesn’t include that saying. But that doesn’t create a problem that John then needs to solve."

It really does. Imagine a villager before John. " We need to execute this sinner under mosaic law, Jesus said Mosaic law is not changed, but Jesus also said we are to forgive. What do we do ?"

John solved that.

And this raises an important point I notice all the time. When I read the Bible as an ex-Christian, I apply " the story so far thinking". Cristians do not really appear to do this. They take the thing as a whole and amalgamate it. They read Mark and also apply John. That is what my whole thought experiment I mentioned was about. Try applying " the story so far".

It's like reading a who done it detective book. Christians say "the butler done it", before the butler character is even introduced.

Quote : “ Rather, we uphold the law” (Romans 3:31, NIV), and also that “Christ is the culmination [telos] of the law” (Romans 10:4, NIV), he is not contradicting Jesus. “Telos” doesn’t mean “scrapped” or “ended” in the sense you’re implying; it means goal, completion, fulfilment. That’s exactly what Jesus means when he says he came not to abolish the Law but to fulfil it.."

Yup. The translation argument. See my comment above about the all knowing God.

The word " end" in Romans 10:4. It's not in Rom 3:31 that you mentioned.

End. Telos. Strongs G5056.

From strongs :

"end
From a primary tello (to set out for a definite point or goal); properly, the point aimed at as a limit, i.e. (by implication) the conclusion of an act or state (termination (literally, figuratively or indefinitely), result (immediate, ultimate or prophetic), purpose); specially, an impost or levy (as paid) -- + continual, custom, end(-ing), finally, uttermost. Compare phoros."

Yes, it means end exactly the same as I think the word end means. Apart from the paid bit, and the prophecy bit. But you know, the translators used the word end. They did not translate it as "paid bills", or " conclusion of prophecy". The translators translated it as "end".

And this is what it always comes down to. What do specific words mean, in this historical context, from what we know about these iron age men.

And this really is why Christians, in my opinion" can't really win a bible debate. Because we could spend weeks debating a single verse. Scholars can, and do debate single verses for decades, centuries. What does this Codex say, ohh this is not the same as that Codex.

And at the end of the day, after all that, I can just pull up another verse that directly contradicts the one we just dissected.

Quote : " But framing the Gospels as late rewrites designed to patch obvious theological holes just doesn’t fit the textual, historical, or Jewish context we actually have."

I am saying this about one gospel of the 4. Markian priority is established. Then Mat and Luke. Then decades later we get John.

What I am describing is exactly what we would expect to see in the evolution of a story, a myth. From bare bones to complex Gnostic, over at least 30 years, maybe longer.

Yes, framing John as a rewrite to fix issues does work. Indeed, it makes more logical sense than some fella suddenly deciding to write about his mate Jesus, half a century plus after his execution. And his recollection being near totally different than those of his other mates, who wrote their stories just 40 years after walking and talking with the son of God.

Yes, I agree my last paragraph is an argument from incredulity.

:-)

Thanks for your detailed reply. I have to admit, I’m not sure I fully understand all of the points you’re making. It read to me more as a narrative of thoughts than as discrete questions. Perhaps when you have a moment, you could phrase the individual questions you’d like me to respond to? That would help me engage more clearly.

Quote : " Perhaps when you have a moment, you could phrase the individual questions you’d like me to respond to? That would help me engage more clearly."

Cool. I really just have one question, one that I asked a few pages up, and that others have asked.

Where is the rule written that some guy had to die a certain way thousands of year ago to save humans, or a specific set of humans ?

And the follow on of course, who made this rule ?

I offered an extremely brief response to this way up thread - I will reproduce here the salient paragraphs. Of course there’s much more which could be said, but one tries to be as brief as possible in this medium.

The catastrophe that fell upon humanity (and therefore upon all creation) was the result of the first man's dislocation from fellowship with God and the subsequent entry of death into the world.

A Second Man aka the Last Adam was the remedy. God Himself became that Man. He is the solution to the problem of broken fellowship with God and the resulting death which inexorably follows for all of humanity. He achieved this through His life, death, burial, resurrection and ascension.

Through union with Christ the problem of our adamic nature is resolved and we become a "new creation" in Him. People who are no longer "of this world" just as He is not of this world.

This process has not yet reached its full culmination; there is still an open door for anyone who wants to be part of it, freely offered, accessible only by grace through faith.

HTH.

I'm just going to jump back in for a little while because I'm curious about something. 😊

@RedTagAlan You're a 'deconstructed' Christian I believe? I've listened to a few people who have 'deconstructed' and I've noticed their journey in that direction often starts with a singular event, or a single Bible verse that they can't make sense of, then grows from there. Not in a 'what does that word mean' way, but more 'how does God allow that, or why would He do that?' way. I presume there was something that triggered this for you as you were a practising Christian? What was it? Did you not go to your pastor/vicar/priest and talk through whatever it was that was standing in the way of your faith? Did you not ask for explanations and/or guidance?

I sometimes find Bible passages or verses that I do not understand or find discordant or even upsetting. The first thing I do, after looking at various commentaries, is to approach my pastor so we can talk through what is meant and the whole context of what's being said. If I relied solely on my own interpretation I would have wandered far off the beaten track by now and have a lot of erroneous beliefs. I'm not a scholar and so rely on those who have far, far more experience and learning in that area than I do. My church does expositional verse by verse sermons so we go through everything in great detail. We use a consistent hermeneutic throughout. The down side of that is it takes a long time to go through a book! To balance that we also study theology and some other texts written by scholars that are great for starting discussions. Each week I come away from church having learnt something new and often, as these things do, give me even more questions.

I guess I'm curious as to how you got to where you have!

And, where are the rules for this ? Who wrote them ?

This is back to basics I suppose.

:-)