Questions about the bible !

[alexxcjRO]

trofimus :"I was not repeating it to "make it true" but to show you that this has no weight"

What about all this that i have written before the questions ?
You ignored the rest.

"Let’s see what historians do:
Historians try to establish to the best of their ability what probably happened in the past.
What kinds of evidence do scholars look for when trying to establish probabilities in the past?
Well, the best kind of evidence, of course, consists of contemporary accounts; people who were close to the time of the events themselves, a reliable source that goes back to the time period itself.
There are only two sources of information for past events:
1. Stories that actually happened based on, ultimately, eyewitness accounts.
2 Stories that have been made up.

To determine which things are the things that happened,
1. You want contemporary accounts, that are close to the time of the events themselves.
2. You want these accounts to be independent of one another , that are not collaborated, you want accounts that corroborate one another; accounts that are consistent in what they have to say about the subject.
3. You want sources that are not biased toward the subject matter. You want accounts that are disinterested. You want lots of them, you want them independent from one another, yet you want them to be consistent with one another.


You have the same problems for all of the sources and all of our Gospels.
These are not historically reliable accounts. The authors were not eye witnesses; they’re Greek-speaking Christians living 35 to 65 years after the events they narrate. The accounts that they narrate are based on oral traditions that have been in circulation for decades. Year after year Christians trying to convert others told them stories to convince them(biased toward the subject matter and not disinterested) that Jesus was raised from the dead. These writers are telling stories, then, that Christians have been telling all these years. Many stories were invented, and most of the stories were changed. For that reason, these accounts are not as useful as we would like them to be for historical purposes. They’re not contemporary, they’re not disinterested, and they’re not consistent."


Can you answer these questions :

Q: Do we have multiple independent reliable sources that are not collaborated, consistent in what they have to say about the subject, that are not biased towards the subject, that are disinterested; relating to Jesus resurrection?

Q: Could some zealous jews that saw that their Messiah Jesus died on the cross like some weak mere mortal, because of cognitive dissonance said to themselves: Jesus can’t be dead , and they start telling stories about Jesus being resurrected?(The third-day belief could be a byproduct of this engagement with Jewish scriptures, with some likely scriptural candidates being Hosea 6:2, a Jewish sacred third-day tradition, and Psalms 16:10)
(Traditions expressed in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, widely recognized amongst scholars on both sides of the aisle to represent the earliest known Christian beliefs and traditions, in existence well before any of the gospels were written:

“For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.”)

Q: Is not the mother after a young man’s death, most likely to visit his grave?(It does not matter if your in the first century or this century)
Q: Is there any historical proof that of Luke, Mark, John, Matthew being killed for their belief, except the New Testament historical documents?
Q: Can historians prove historically that God(Yahweh) raise Jesus from the dead?
Q: Can we say that the historical proof of something written in the New Testament is the historical documents of the New Testament?
Q:Can the story of Ghilgameș that tries to become immortal with help of his grandfather Uta-napiștim be considered proven historically by the historical Old Babylonian and Akkadian tablets?
Q: Can the story of the twelve appostols and the Jesus’s resurrection be a combo of real events and elements of legend , symbols?
Q: If you admit Noah’s global flood and the story of Adam and Eve(the Eden garden, the talking snake, making them from dirt) not to be a true event, a symbol, some kind of metaphor, why can’t you make the leap and admit that Jesus resurrection can be the symbol?

 

[wwjd_kilden]

Q: Can the story of the twelve appostols and the Jesus’s resurrection be a combo of real events and elements of legend , symbols?

Would you risk certain persecution, torture and death for a made- up story?

 

[trofimus]

trofimus :"I was not repeating it to "make it true" but to show you that this has no weight"

What about all this that i have written before the questions ?
You ignored the rest.

"Let’s see what historians do:
Historians try to establish to the best of their ability what probably happened in the past.
What kinds of evidence do scholars look for when trying to establish probabilities in the past?
Well, the best kind of evidence, of course, consists of contemporary accounts; people who were close to the time of the events themselves, a reliable source that goes back to the time period itself.
There are only two sources of information for past events:
1. Stories that actually happened based on, ultimately, eyewitness accounts.
2 Stories that have been made up.

To determine which things are the things that happened,
1. You want contemporary accounts, that are close to the time of the events themselves.
2. You want these accounts to be independent of one another , that are not collaborated, you want accounts that corroborate one another; accounts that are consistent in what they have to say about the subject.
3. You want sources that are not biased toward the subject matter. You want accounts that are disinterested. You want lots of them, you want them independent from one another, yet you want them to be consistent with one another.


You have the same problems for all of the sources and all of our Gospels.
These are not historically reliable accounts. The authors were not eye witnesses; they’re Greek-speaking Christians living 35 to 65 years after the events they narrate. The accounts that they narrate are based on oral traditions that have been in circulation for decades. Year after year Christians trying to convert others told them stories to convince them(biased toward the subject matter and not disinterested) that Jesus was raised from the dead. These writers are telling stories, then, that Christians have been telling all these years. Many stories were invented, and most of the stories were changed. For that reason, these accounts are not as useful as we would like them to be for historical purposes. They’re not contemporary, they’re not disinterested, and they’re not consistent."


Can you answer these questions :

Q: Do we have multiple independent reliable sources that are not collaborated, consistent in what they have to say about the subject, that are not biased towards the subject, that are disinterested; relating to Jesus resurrection?

Q: Could some zealous jews that saw that their Messiah Jesus died on the cross like some weak mere mortal, because of cognitive dissonance said to themselves: Jesus can’t be dead , and they start telling stories about Jesus being resurrected?(The third-day belief could be a byproduct of this engagement with Jewish scriptures, with some likely scriptural candidates being Hosea 6:2, a Jewish sacred third-day tradition, and Psalms 16:10)
(Traditions expressed in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, widely recognized amongst scholars on both sides of the aisle to represent the earliest known Christian beliefs and traditions, in existence well before any of the gospels were written:

“For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.”)

Q: Is not the mother after a young man’s death, most likely to visit his grave?(It does not matter if your in the first century or this century)
Q: Is there any historical proof that of Luke, Mark, John, Matthew being killed for their belief, except the New Testament historical documents?
Q: Can historians prove historically that God(Yahweh) raise Jesus from the dead?
Q: Can we say that the historical proof of something written in the New Testament is the historical documents of the New Testament?
Q:Can the story of Ghilgameș that tries to become immortal with help of his grandfather Uta-napiștim be considered proven historically by the historical Old Babylonian and Akkadian tablets?
Q: Can the story of the twelve appostols and the Jesus’s resurrection be a combo of real events and elements of legend , symbols?
Q: If you admit Noah’s global flood and the story of Adam and Eve(the Eden garden, the talking snake, making them from dirt) not to be a true event, a symbol, some kind of metaphor, why can’t you make the leap and admit that Jesus resurrection can be the symbol?

If you will post long posts, I will always ignore much of it, because I dont want to spend hour responding. Quantity is not quality.
So if you want something to be really addressed, post only it, not joined with other 20 questions.

----

"Biased sources"
- well, there is a little problem. Who was eye-witness of the ressurrection is immediatelly biased, because he naturally becomes a Christian.

----

Gospel of Mark was written by Mark who was a disciple of Peter.
Gospel of John was written by the apostle John.
Gospel of Luke was written by Luke, who was also a historian and a co-traveller with the apostle Paul
Gospel of Matthew was written by the apostle Matthew.
Letters of Paul were written by the apostle Paul.

Most of the New Testament was finished when most of eye witnesses were still alived. So no time for any kind of legend.

----

There was also an oral tradition the same as there is the oral tradition of what happned during the communism. But there are still living people from that era. The same situation was during the New Testament writing.

People could forget if the place was called this name or this name, if there were two donkeys or one, but really, do you expect that they forgot if Christ was ressurrected or not?

-------

Q: Is not the mother after a young man’s death, most likely to visit his grave?(It does not matter if your in the first century or this century)
I dont see what this is about or what is this supposed to lead to.

Q: Is there any historical proof that of Luke, Mark, John, Matthew being killed for their belief, except the New Testament historical documents?
There is no mention of their deaths in the New Testament. All of the mentions are outside of it.

Q: Can historians prove historically that God(Yahweh) raise Jesus from the dead?
They can prove that the tomb was empty and that the ressurrection is the best explanation of what happened.
The rest is related to who Jesus was and what he was teaching about himself.
If he did rise from the dead, then what he taught about God etc. is true.

Q: Can we say that the historical proof of something written in the New Testament is the historical documents of the New Testament?
Partly.
Reliability of the New testament is part of the examination if what it says is true.

Q:Can the story of Ghilgameș that tries to become immortal with help of his grandfather Uta-napiștim be considered proven historically by the historical Old Babylonian and Akkadian tablets?
Epos is a totally different genre. So, partly. There will be some basis for the story, but it will be very mixed with inventions and fantasy.

Q: Can the story of the twelve appostols and the Jesus’s resurrection be a combo of real events and elements of legend , symbols?
No, there was no time needed for a legend to emerge.

Q: If you admit Noah’s global flood and the story of Adam and Eve(the Eden garden, the talking snake, making them from dirt) not to be a true event, a symbol, some kind of metaphor, why can’t you make the leap and admit that Jesus resurrection can be the symbol?
Because apostles teaching it did not use it as a symbol, but as a real fact. It is proven that Jesus realy lived, died and that his tomb was found empty after few days. There is no symbol in it.

 

[alexxcjRO]

trofimus :"Gospel of Mark was written by Mark who was a disciple of Peter.
Gospel of John was written by the apostle John.
Gospel of Luke was written by Luke, who was also a historian and a co-traveller with the apostle Paul
Gospel of Matthew was written by the apostle Matthew.
Letters of Paul were written by the apostle Paul."

That is not really the truth my friend. The story is more complicated.

Even though the Gospels go under the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, they were, in fact, written anonymously.
These names first appeared in the second century and were assigned to the anonymous writings to give the writings apostolic authority. The Gospel of Mark was written before any of the other canonical gospels and was written after the fall of the second temple which occurred in 70 CE.
The canonical gospels upon which the Christian faith is built, the ones which present the words of Jesus are writings by unknown authors writing to buttress the particular points they wished to make. The quotations allegedly from Jesus were most likely, made up by the authors to support their positions.
The titles in our English Bibles are later additions; they are not original to the Gospels themselves.
The Gospel narratives are always written in the third person.
The tradition that they were written by two disciples (Matthew and John) and by two companions of the apostles (Mark and Luke) is first attested in the 2nd century!
What we can say for certain about the authors is that they were all highly educated, literate, Greek-speaking Christians of (at least) the second generation, contrast this with the apostles of Jesus, who were uneducated, lower class, illiterate, Aramaic-speaking peasants.



There are extant writings accredited to the Apostolic Fathers, Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp; written, for the most part, early in the second century. These writings contain no mention of the Four Gospels. This also is admitted by Christian scholars. Dr. Dodwell says: “We have at this day certain most authentic ecclesiastical writers of the times, as Clemens Romanus, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp, who wrote in the order wherein I have named them, and after all the writers of the New Testament. But in Hermas you will not find one passage or any mention of the New Testament, nor in all the rest is any one of the Evangelists named” (Dissertations upon Irenaeus).

The Four Gospels were unknown to the early Christian Fathers. Justin Martyr, the most eminent of the early Fathers, wrote about the middle of the second century. His writings in proof of the divinity of Christ demanded the use of these Gospels had they existed in his time. He makes more than three hundred quotations from the books of the Old Testament, and nearly one hundred from the Apocryphal books of the New Testament; but none from the Four Gospels. The Rev. Dr. Giles says: “The very names of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are never mentioned by him [Justin] — do not occur once in all his writings” (Christian Records, p. 71).



https://thechurchoftruth.org/synoptic-gospels-not-writen-by-matt-mark-luke-or-john/
Who Wrote the Four Gospels of the New Testament? An Introduction to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

 

[Willie-T]

Are you positive John was written by John?

 

[trofimus]

Are you positive John was written by John?

Yes.

1. "Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them." John 21:20
2. "This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down." John 21:24

So the gospel of John (or at least its original core) was written by the disciple Jesus loved.

There were three disciples who were especially close to Jesus: Peter, James, and John.
(Matthew 17:1; Mark 5:37; 14:33; Luke 8:51).

It was not Peter, because Peter was the one asking about him.

It could be James or John. But the writing style of James was very different from that of the gospel of John, compare the epistle of James in NT and the 3 epistles of John.

John is the author.

 

[trofimus]

trofimus :"Gospel of Mark was written by Mark who was a disciple of Peter.
Gospel of John was written by the apostle John.
Gospel of Luke was written by Luke, who was also a historian and a co-traveller with the apostle Paul
Gospel of Matthew was written by the apostle Matthew.
Letters of Paul were written by the apostle Paul."

That is not really the truth my friend. The story is more complicated.

Even though the Gospels go under the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, they were, in fact, written anonymously.
These names first appeared in the second century and were assigned to the anonymous writings to give the writings apostolic authority. The Gospel of Mark was written before any of the other canonical gospels and was written after the fall of the second temple which occurred in 70 CE.
The canonical gospels upon which the Christian faith is built, the ones which present the words of Jesus are writings by unknown authors writing to buttress the particular points they wished to make. The quotations allegedly from Jesus were most likely, made up by the authors to support their positions.
The titles in our English Bibles are later additions; they are not original to the Gospels themselves.
The Gospel narratives are always written in the third person.
The tradition that they were written by two disciples (Matthew and John) and by two companions of the apostles (Mark and Luke) is first attested in the 2nd century!
What we can say for certain about the authors is that they were all highly educated, literate, Greek-speaking Christians of (at least) the second generation, contrast this with the apostles of Jesus, who were uneducated, lower class, illiterate, Aramaic-speaking peasants.



There are extant writings accredited to the Apostolic Fathers, Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp; written, for the most part, early in the second century. These writings contain no mention of the Four Gospels. This also is admitted by Christian scholars. Dr. Dodwell says: “We have at this day certain most authentic ecclesiastical writers of the times, as Clemens Romanus, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp, who wrote in the order wherein I have named them, and after all the writers of the New Testament. But in Hermas you will not find one passage or any mention of the New Testament, nor in all the rest is any one of the Evangelists named” (Dissertations upon Irenaeus).

The Four Gospels were unknown to the early Christian Fathers. Justin Martyr, the most eminent of the early Fathers, wrote about the middle of the second century. His writings in proof of the divinity of Christ demanded the use of these Gospels had they existed in his time. He makes more than three hundred quotations from the books of the Old Testament, and nearly one hundred from the Apocryphal books of the New Testament; but none from the Four Gospels. The Rev. Dr. Giles says: “The very names of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are never mentioned by him [Justin] — do not occur once in all his writings” (Christian Records, p. 71).



https://thechurchoftruth.org/synoptic-gospels-not-writen-by-matt-mark-luke-or-john/
Who Wrote the Four Gospels of the New Testament? An Introduction to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Your sources:
https://thechurchoftruth.org/ "Free persons of all faiths from the tyranny of their religion"
Human Religions

And you were talking about biased sources? I dont care, just a note.

-----

Names of books appeared later, that does not mean they are false.

-----

There are many places in apostolic writings that are proof authors knew the gospels. They just are not naming them, but were certainly knowing them.

There are more than 36,000 New Testament quotations present in writings of early church fathers who wrote prior to the council of Nicaea in 325 AD.

----

I am not sure, why is Justinian so important. If he did not mention gospels, so what?
But in fact, he did.

He mentions the gospels on numerous occasions; typically he calls them “Memoirs of the Apostles” and quotes from them, especially from Matthew, Mark and Luke.

 

[alexxcjRO]

trofimus :"And you were talking about biased sources? I dont care, just a note."

Look not a biased source the wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels

"The historical reliability of the Gospels refers to the reliability and historic character of the four New Testament gospels as historical documents. Although some claim that all four canonical gospels meet the five criteria for historical reliability, others say that little in the gospels is considered to be historically reliable.
Almost all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts of Jesus, and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. Elements whose historical authenticity is disputed include the two accounts of the Nativity of Jesus, the miraculous events including the resurrection, and certain details about the crucifixion."

As you can see the fact that Jesus resurrected is not such a historical proven fact as you say.
Maybe only by Christian scholars who are subjective when it comes of the fact of Jesus resurrection .
When you are not Christian it doesn't seem so certain.
Plus all the confusion about who wrote the gospels, the fact that the stories were transmitted orally for some decades takes away from the credibility of the Jesus really resurrecting.


trofimus: "Gospel of John was written by the apostle John.
Gospel of Matthew was written by the apostle Matthew."

Q: If Gospel of John was written by the apostle John and Gospel of Matthew was written by the apostle Matthew why they are written in the third person?

trofimus :"Reliability of the New testament is part of the examination if what it says is true."

The problem is that you don't have any outside source of Jesus resurrection except of the new testament historical documents written by Christians.
The problem is that you don't have any outside source of the apostles executions (as martyrs) except of the new testament historical documents written by Christians.
There is no source of information from people of that time that were not Christians.

 

[trofimus]

trofimus :"And you were talking about biased sources? I dont care, just a note."

Look not a biased source the wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels

"The historical reliability of the Gospels refers to the reliability and historic character of the four New Testament gospels as historical documents. Although some claim that all four canonical gospels meet the five criteria for historical reliability, others say that little in the gospels is considered to be historically reliable.
Almost all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts of Jesus, and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. Elements whose historical authenticity is disputed include the two accounts of the Nativity of Jesus, the miraculous events including the resurrection, and certain details about the crucifixion."

As you can see the fact that Jesus resurrected is not such a historical proven fact as you say.
Maybe only by Christian scholars who are subjective when it comes of the fact of Jesus resurrection .
When you are not Christian it doesn't seem so certain.
Plus all the confusion about who wrote the gospels, the fact that the stories were transmitted orally for some decades takes away from the credibility of the Jesus really resurrecting.


trofimus: "Gospel of John was written by the apostle John.
Gospel of Matthew was written by the apostle Matthew."

Q: If Gospel of John was written by the apostle John and Gospel of Matthew was written by the apostle Matthew why they are written in the third person?

trofimus :"Reliability of the New testament is part of the examination if what it says is true."

The problem is that you don't have any outside source of Jesus resurrection except of the new testament historical documents written by Christians.
The problem is that you don't have any outside source of the apostles executions (as martyrs) except of the new testament historical documents written by Christians.
There is no source of information from people of that time that were not Christians.

I do not say that the opinions of historians will not differ. Atheists will always say that Christ was not ressurrected and christian scholars will of course say he was.
Everybody is biased regarding this topic.

I say that it is as proven as anything else from that time.

They are written in a third person because it was common in that time.

Of course the ressurrection of Christ and the history of the church will be mainly from a christian sources. What would you expect?
When somebody was a witness that he is alive, he naturally became a Christian. What would you expect? How could anybody like that stay "neutral and unbiased"?

I see no problem with christian sources, because christian sources are reliable. New Testament is reliable and if you know NT at least a little, you will see very high moral teaching, against any kind of lie and darkness.

 

[Chester]

AlexxcjRO wrote: This was a logical deduction for the free will theodicy of Hell/Lake of Fire that tells that theoretically people can get out hell, that Hell/Lake of Fire is locked on the inside but none will change their mind and remain forever there. (as Dr. W. L. Crane and C.S. Lewis thought).
I thought you were on same page with them, my bad.
So you are saying Hell/Lake of Fire is locked from the outside, not inside; that they can’t get out of there and that God is not trying to reconcile with all humanity?
You had your chance during your life on Earth and that’s it.

Response: Yes, I do believe that for the unbeliever his chance is his life on Earth and then that's it. He may still have "free will in that he could choose to "repent", but there will be no change in eternal destiny.
For the Christian in heaven I am still exploring that situation - does the Christian still have free will in heaven (and as such could he choose to rebel like Satan did?). A question that stirs my mind and my heart and I am not sure I have a good Biblical answer yet.
The quote you had given earlier by C S Lewis that unbelievers lock hell from the inside?? I would like to explore more what he was trying to say because my idea of what he meant is somewhat different than you are saying here.

AlexxcjRO wrote: You are believing basically, on blind faith.
-Fine tuning of the universe and Ex nihilo creation arguments being proof for Yahweh created our universe are weak arguments when you have Parallel Universe Theory, String theory and Virtual particles. It’s called God of the gaps theory. People when don’t know how something works or how it came to be use the “God must have did it“.

Response: Blind faith? Call it what you like, I guess -- I would call believing in some of the theories you have been putting forth "blind faith"!? I have a book - the Bible - that is a historical and prophetical masterpiece and has been written and confirmed by an omnipotent God. I have the testimonies of many around me and many, many in the history of the world who have testified to the truth of the reality of Yahweh. I see all around me the testimony of the natural world that speaks of a God of power and love and beauty and justice. Blind faith? I think it is rock solid faith. Opinions I guess . . . Which is correct? I am standing 100% on my "blind faith"!


Response: Dating methods: Perhaps the biggest issue with dating methods is that they assume that process rates have been constant. The Biblical flood may have wreaked havoc with any sort of assumption of constancy of process rates. We have no way of knowing the process rates before the flood.

Below is a link to a good article on the subject and a quote showing the Bible actually speaks about this issue in Peter:

There is also a specific statement about this issue in 2 Peter 3. The Apostle Peter, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, warned that there would be scoffers who deny that God created the world by His supernatural activity and then intervened catastrophically at the time of the Flood to judge the earth by engulfing it in a watery cataclysm. The basis of their deliberate rejection of God’s Word is their declaration that “all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation” (2 Peter 3:4). In other words, they would declare that natural process rates as we measure them today have always occurred at the same rates. This is exactly the assumption behind all the dating techniques used in geology, cosmology, and physics to arrive at the secular estimate of the ages for the earth and the universe. But the Apostle Peter reminds us that the scoffers are wrong due to their willful ignorance and deliberate rejection of God’s testimony as the Creator in His Word.

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/dating-techniques/

 

[alexxcjRO]

Chester :"Dating methods: Perhaps the biggest issue with dating methods is that they assume that process rates have been constant. The Biblical flood may have wreaked havoc with any sort of assumption of constancy of process rates. We have no way of knowing the process rates before the flood.
https://answersingenesis.org/geology...ng-techniques/"

"Answeringenesis.com" models, and explanations for a global flood and 6000 years old earth are not more credible then the models and explanations of the flat earth society site that says the Earth is flat.

Chester :"I would call believing in some of the theories you have been putting forth "blind faith"!?"

My friend virtual particles are real and not just a theory, how many times i must say this. Pfff.
Regarding the string theory and multiverse theory i am not believing on blind faith i am skeptical about that too for now.
I am just saying that these explanations can be logically correct as can be that a designer did it. No one is more probable then the other. But none has any actual and solid proof of being truth. You are believing on faith not me.

Chester :"Yes, I do believe that for the unbeliever his chance is his life on Earth and then that's it. He may still have "free will in that he could choose to "repent", but there will be no change in eternal destiny.
For the Christian in heaven I am still exploring that situation - does the Christian still have free will in heaven (and as such could he choose to rebel like Satan did?). A question that stirs my mind and my heart and I am not sure I have a good Biblical answer yet.
The quote you had given earlier by C S Lewis that unbelievers lock hell from the inside?? I would like to explore more what he was trying to say because my idea of what he meant is somewhat different than you are saying here. "

LET ME MAKE SOME LOGICAL DEDUCTIONS:
A. Many of Yahweh’s “children” go in the Lake of Fire
Logical deduction:
P1. Yahweh exists.
P2. Yahweh is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good.
P3. Yahweh creates “children” and loves all equally.
P4. Yahweh chastises his “children” to get them to learn and go to heaven.
P5. Yahweh lets the believers into heaven.
P6. Yahweh throws all nonbelievers in the Lake of Fire where they will suffer eternal destruction.
P7. Yahweh didn't chastise his “children” enough so that all would learn and go to heaven.
P8. Yahweh either was not able to or did not want to get all his "children" to learn and go to heaven.
P9. Yahweh loses most of his "children".
C. Yahweh is either not omnipotent or malevolent.

B. Non-moral evil that bring suffering to beings that are not rational, capable of making moral choices
Logical deduction:
P1. Yahweh exists
P2. Yahweh is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good.
P3. Yahweh made man with free moral will so because not even an omnipotent being can causally determine a genuinely free choice Yahweh can’t stop moral evils from existing without compromising free moral will.
P4. A perfectly good being would want to prevent non-moral evils from hurting beings that are not rational, capable of making moral choices (small children, those mentally impaired, animals).
P5. An omniscient being knows every way in which non-moral evils can come into existence.
P6. An omnipotent being who knows every way in which a non-moral evil can come into existence has the power to prevent that non-moral evil from coming into existence.
P7. A being who knows every way in which an non-moral evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that non-moral evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil in the lives of those that are not rational, capable of making moral choices exists.
P8. If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being, then non-moral evil that hurt those that are not rational, capable of making moral choices does not exists.
P9. Non-moral evil that hurt those that are not rational, capable of making moral choices exists (logical contradiction).
C. Therefore, Yahweh is not an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being.

C.The story of Uzzah
Logical deduction:
P1. Yahweh exists.
P2. Yahweh is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good.
P1. Yahweh killed Uzzah, because the penalty for sin is death.
P2. Jesus died on the cross and paid the penalty for all for all sins, even for the sin of Uzzah.
P3. Because of Jesus sacrifice guilty sinners only need to repent, and ask for forgiveness to be saved.
P4. Those who are not saved experience the everlasting destruction of the Lake of Fire.
P5. Because Uzzah died instantly after committing the sin, he didn’t got time to repent at all for his sin.
P6. Because Uzzah didn’t repent for his sin, he is not saved, he will experience the everlasting destruction of the Lake of Fire.
P6. Yahweh being omniscient knew that Uzzah needed few minutes at least to repent and ask for forgiveness and being perfectly good would not have killed him instantly so that he has the opportunity to repent.
P7. Yahweh killed Uzzah instantly and he didn’t got time to repent and ask for forgiveness (logical contradiction).
C. Therefore, Yahweh is not an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being.


D.The story of Moses and the plagues of Egypt
Logical deduction:
P1. Yahweh exists.
P2. Yahweh is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good.
P3. Yahweh has given man this precious gift-free moral will; so because not even an omnipotent being can causally determine a genuinely free choice Yahweh can’t stop moral evils from existing without compromising free moral will.
P4. Yahweh being perfectly good would not punish and bring pointless suffering to beings that are not rational, capable of making moral choices (small children, those mentally impaired, animals).
P5. Yahweh being perfectly good would not punish thousands for the immoral act of one.
P6. Yahweh hardened Pharaoh’s heart(temporarily removed and compromised his free moral will) so that he will refuse to allow the Israelites to go, therefore his choice was not his, but Yahweh’s ; since he was programmed to do so like a robot.
P7. Free moral choice is the essential component which justifies the concepts of reward and punishment. It would be inappropriate to punish a robot for performing an immoral act which it was programmed to do.
P8. Yahweh being omniscient and perfectly good would not punish a robot(a man with no free moral will) for performing an immoral act which it was programmed to do.
P9. Yahweh punishes the robot “Pharaoh”, his people (including infants) and animals for doing something he was programmed to do by Yahweh with pestilence, famine, suffering and death(logical contradiction).
C. Therefore, Yahweh is not an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being.

 

[fredoheaven]

A critic of critics, all the logical deductions and premises were incorrect!

Thank you

 

[alexxcjRO]

fredoheaven :"A critic of critics, all the logical deductions and premises were incorrect!

Thank you"


Which of the premises is incorrect?
Why did God kill Uzzah?
Why did God hardened Pharaoh’s heart?
Why non-moral evil that hurt those that are not rational, capable of making moral choices exists?

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

Why did God hardened Pharaoh’s heart?

This is the English translation but when studying the Hebrew picture you will find that God gave Pharaoh over to his own sinful desires...

 

[Becky124]

On Question about the Bible we all have those. God did Create Adam and He also knew that he would sin if Adam had not sin we would not have a need for Jesus who Died on the Cross for you and I. He paid the price for us so He could restore us to His side. Adam was the Natural man capable of sinning where Jesus is Fully Man and Fully God. Eve listened to the Enemy of our souls that wants to steal us away from the Truth. Keep Reading the Word, praying for wisdom in that area.

 

[alexxcjRO]

GandalfTheWhite :""This is the English translation but when studying the Hebrew picture you will find that God gave Pharaoh over to his own sinful desires..."

Let's look at the translation:

So hardened is the word "way·ḥaz·zêq "
Let's look at others occurrences of "way·ḥaz·zêq" in the bible:
way·ḥaz·zêq
Exodus 9:12
HEB: וַיְחַזֵּ֤ק יְהוָה֙ אֶת־
NAS: And the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart,
KJV: And the LORD hardened the heart
INT: hardened and the LORD heart
Exodus 10:20
HEB: וַיְחַזֵּ֥ק יְהוָ֖ה אֶת־
NAS: But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart,
KJV: But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart,
INT: hardened the LORD heart
Exodus 10:27
HEB: וַיְחַזֵּ֥ק יְהוָ֖ה אֶת־
NAS: But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart,
KJV: But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's
INT: hardened the LORD heart
Exodus 11:10
HEB: לִפְנֵ֣י פַרְעֹ֑ה וַיְחַזֵּ֤ק יְהוָה֙ אֶת־
NAS: yet the LORD hardened Pharaoh's
KJV: and the LORD hardened Pharaoh's
INT: before Pharaoh hardened the LORD heart
Exodus 14:8
HEB: וַיְחַזֵּ֣ק יְהֹוָ֗ה אֶת־
NAS: The LORD hardened the heart
KJV: And the LORD hardened the heart
INT: hardened the LORD the heart
Judges 3:12
HEB: בְּעֵינֵ֣י יְהוָ֑ה וַיְחַזֵּ֨ק יְהוָ֜ה אֶת־
NAS: So the LORD strengthened Eglon
KJV: and the LORD strengthened Eglon
INT: the sight of the LORD strengthened the LORD Eglon
1 Samuel 23:16
HEB: דָּוִ֖ד חֹ֑רְשָׁה וַיְחַזֵּ֥ק אֶת־ יָד֖וֹ
NAS: at Horesh, and encouraged him in God.
KJV: into the wood, and strengthened his hand
INT: David Horesh and strengthened his hand God
2 Chronicles 11:11
HEB: וַיְחַזֵּ֖ק אֶת־ הַמְּצֻר֑וֹת
NAS: He also strengthened the fortresses
KJV: And he fortified the strong holds,
INT: strengthened the fortresses and put
Isaiah 41:7
HEB: וַיְחַזֵּ֤ק חָרָשׁ֙ אֶת־
NAS: So the craftsman encourages the smelter,
KJV: So the carpenter encouraged the goldsmith,
INT: encourages the craftsman the smelter

In conclusion : God hardened, strengthened, encouraged his heart so he would not let go of the Israelites.
No matter how you put it this sounds like God messed up with the free will of the Pharaoh.
So my logic is still valid.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

The KJV translates Strongs H2388 in the following manner: strong (48x), repair (47x), hold (37x), strengthened (28x), strengthen (14x), harden (13x), prevail (10x), encourage (9x), take (9x), courage (8x), caught (5x), stronger (5x), hold (5x)

And the you are missing

H853 which was not translated with the following meaning - ayth; apparent contracted from H226 in the demonstrative sense of entity; properly, self (but generally used to point out more definitely the object of a verb or preposition, even or namely):—[as such unrepresented in English].

So if you look at the verse again

God made Pharaoh stronger in himself, to prevail in himself….

It pretty much looks like you are messing up and not God.

 

[alexxcjRO]

GandalfTheWhite :"God made Pharaoh stronger in himself, to prevail in himself…"

What this "God made Pharaoh stronger in himself, to prevail in himself…" means ?
God made Pharaoh stronger in himself, to prevail in himself… to do what? ... continue the phrase please so to complete the translation.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

GandalfTheWhite :"God made Pharaoh stronger in himself, to prevail in himself…"

What this "God made Pharaoh stronger in himself, to prevail in himself…" means ?
God made Pharaoh stronger in himself, to prevail in himself… to do what? ... continue the phrase please so to complete the translation.

I did explain it to you the first time

 

[alexxcjRO]

GandalfTheWhite :"God made Pharaoh stronger in himself, to prevail in himself…"

NAS: But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart,and he was not willing to let them go.
KJV: But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's,and he was not willing to let them go.
INT: hardened the LORD heart and he was not willing to let them go.

I say: "God hardened, strengthened, encouraged his heart, and he was not willing to let them go."
And what are you saying is "God made Pharaoh stronger in himself, to prevail in himself ,and he was not willing to let them go."

The logical conclusion is: As a consequence of God's involvement in the heart, character, will of Pharaoh's he was not willing to let them go. This is clear as day that God is responsible for the Pharaoh's decision.
Why God didn't make him weak in himself, so to not prevail in himself and let them go?
All the suffering that came next could have been avoided.
No matter how you put it God limited Pharaoh's free moral will by getting involved.
You can't say God's does not stop moral evils because he does not want to compromised free will.
And then you see him doing just that.But not to stop a moral evil, but to help creating it.Seriously?