I prefer to think of mankind as having an abundance of free will, stubbornly pushing ahead in an unpredictable world, trying to make the best of what they can find for themselves and their children. I don't buy this mankind is inherently evil line. If that's your belief as a Christian, it makes no sense in the God-created-man paradigm.
It’s called “free will”. God created man for fellowship, a relationship, and created man in a capacity to live, enjoy, flourish in it. Because of sin, man’s “free will” choice to disobey God, man can no longer enter into that relationship. Everyone of us is guilty of seeking after our own wants, desires vs. God. Actually, man in this fallen state, the natural man’s desires are anti-God. We are eager to proclaim ourselves “just” when we compare ourselves to others, I’m better than ....... But when compared to perfection, total absolute Holiness, we all fall short, way short. This is the mark that God judges us by. The Bible is a chronicle of God’s attempt to reconcile that relationship, God reaching out to us, not the other way around. God extends his offer of forgiveness and relationship and gives you a choice, He won’t violate your freewill choice but He won’t extend the offer forever, there comes a point in time where He abandons us to our choices and consequences of our actions. See Pharaoh, Exodus. The question is God who He says he is ( the Creator of this universe) and if so, how do you respond?
Except it can't be. Christian dogma has it that everyone is born with sin. How exactly is not being able to be born without sin, free will? Being able to choose whether you commit sin would sound more like free will. I guess ancient storytellers just didn't think it through.
Stu said: "Christian dogma has it that everyone is born with sin. How exactly is not being able to be born without sin, free will? Being able to choose whether you commit sin would sound more like free will. I guess ancient storytellers just didn't think it through." You have some sort of fatalistic view of what Christians believe. You keep bringing up that God created us sinful and makes us sin. The Bible says differently. King Solomon, in Ecclasiastes 7:29 ISV said, "This alone have I discovered: God made humankind upright, but they have sought many evil schemes." This shows that the fault lies with PEOPLE, not God. Also, the Bible clearly says, "Let no one say when he is tempted, 'I am tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed." James 1:13, 14 This shows that God does not make people sin. People sin because they WANT TO. Think about this: God is all powerful and all knowing. He controls every particle in the universe. Is He also able to create beings that can freely choose, while He remains in control? This would seem like a contradiction, if there ever was one, in the Bible. Yet, many Christians, such as myself, believe both exist. Some things are beyond our comprehension because God is not like us. "How great are Your works, O Lord! Your thoughts are very deep." Psalm 92:5 I hope you will watch this 1 minute video explaining that we do have a will that IS able to choose or refuse God. "One can be in bondage to sin but still have the liberterian freedom to confess that they are in bondage in the light of the truth of God's Word." "Yes, we're addicted to sin, but we are able to confess that addiction and trust in the One who is offering to free us."
Getting back to our discussion on contradictions, I thought I'd start with this: I did not ignore it. I referenced it twice: So, here's my response to the last contradiction you sent over, the one claiming that "Preparation Day of the Passover" meant it was the First day of Unleavened Bread. The First day of Unleavened Bread is when the lamb would be sacrificed. Instead, I would take the phrase to mean the "Preparation Day that came during the 7 day Feast of Passover." Here’s the second time: John has the same sequence of events, and during Jesus overnight mock trial states in 19:14, “Now it was the Preparation Day of the Passover……" then later in 19:31, says “Therefore, because it was the Preparation Day, that the bodies should not remain on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day).” I also showed that Mark defines what Preparation day means: “Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they killed the Passover lamb…” Mark 15:12 This would be Thursday evening. The story of the “Last Supper” follows. (Mark 15:14)Then came Jesus arrest overnight and Friday was the day of His crucifixion. “When evening had come, because it was the Preparation day, that is, the day before the Sabbath….” Mark 15:42 Now let’s look at what you wrote here: That is incorrect. I previously showed you that the feast of unleavened bread lasts 7 days. According to a current rabbi: https://www.aish.com/atr/Passover-14th-or-15th.html If you read Leviticus 23:5-6 carefully, you will see that there are actually two holidays at this time: (a) “Pesach” – the slaughtering and eating of the paschal lamb (or goat) which begins the afternoon of the 14th with its slaughtering and continues that night with its consumption. (b) “The Holiday of Matzot” – the seven day feast we refer to as Passover, which begins the night of the 15th. Here is an article that gives 5 scenarios presented by scholars to address this subject. I only agree with the 5th scenario: https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/390-did-jesus-eat-the-passover-supper Fifth, the Greek word for Passover is pascha. The term is used in three different senses in the Bible. Sometimes the word stands for the Passover sacrifice, the lamb itself (Mk. 14:12; Lk. 22:7; 1 Cor. 5:7). On other occasions pascha can denote the meal that was eaten on the 14th of Nisan, the first month of the Hebrew calendar (Mt. 26:18-19; Lk. 22:8, 13; Heb. 11:28). But it is also the case that the term pascha can refer to the entire eight-day period which included the feast of unleavened bread — thus from the 14th of Nisan to the 21st. Note this passage: In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month, you shall observe the Passover, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten" (Ezek: 45:21; cf. Lk. 22:1, 7; Acts 12:3-4). F.W. Danker7 notes: “Popular usage merged the two festivals and treated them as a unity, as they were for all practical purposes.” There were several “feasts” during this period (see 2 Chron. 30:22); the one mentioned in John 18:28 may have been on the day following the main Passover supper. It was called the Chagigah (sacrificial meal). This view is defended by many respectable scholars, e.g., Lenski and Edersheim. Edward Robinson has a clear and detailed explanation of this position that is worthy of serious consideration, and, in this writer’s judgment, this argument carries the greatest weight of evidence8. In conclusion we must say that we may not be able to determine the precise situation alluded to in John 18:28. Nonetheless, there are sufficient possibilities to establish the fact that no insuperable difficulty exists to challenge our confidence in the sacred text.
Here there seems to be a contradiction between Judas throwing his money into the temple and yet buying a field. The rest of the details can be easily combined to explain that he may have hanged himself over a large rock or cliff or possibly a branch. Bloating after his death and then the rope or branch breaking in such a manner that he would trip over the rock or branch or something could explain falling headfirst and bursting. There are also other scenarios that could also have happened. There are plenty of commentaries that give insight to how these verses complement each other without contradiction. Here is one: https://biblehub.com/commentaries/ellicott/acts/1.htm Acts 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. (18, 19) Now this man purchased a field.—Better, acquired, got possession of, a field, the Greek not necessarily including the idea of buying. On the difficulties presented by a comparison of this account with that in Matthew 27:5-8, see Note on that passage. Here the field bought with Judas’s money is spoken of as that which he gained as the reward of his treachery. The details that follow are additions to the briefer statement of St. Matthew, but are obviously not incompatible with it. This concordance lists some Internal Evidence of Credibility that I thought would be good to post here as well: Internal Evidence of Credibility.—The internal consistency of any book is not necessarily evidence of more than the skill of the writer. Every writer of fiction aims more or less at producing the impression of verisimilitude by touches that have the effect of coincidences between one part of the narrative and another; and the art that conceals art will produce, according to the skill of the author, the impression that the coincidences are undesigned. On the other hand, we feel, as we read some stories, that they contain, in the naturalness of their style, the absence of any sensational dove-tailing of incidents, primâ facie testimony to their own veracity. And it is submitted to the reader whether instances such as the following may not fairly claim consideration, as coming under the latter category rather than the former. (1)Hostility of the high priests, as Sadducees, to the preaching of the resurrection (Acts 4:1-2; Acts 5:17). (2)Barnabas of Cyprus going twice to his own country (Acts 4:36; Acts 13:4; Acts 15:39). (3)The complaints of the Hellenistae (Grecians), leading to the election of seven men with Greek names (Acts 6:1-5). (4)The Cilicians disputing with Stephen (Acts 6:9). The young man named Saul (Acts 7:58); afterwards described as of Tarsus (Acts 9:11). (5)Philip’s arrival at Cæsarea (Acts 8:40). No further mention of him till we find him again at Cæsarea (Acts 21:8). (6)Mark’s return to Jerusalem (Acts 13:13) explained by his mother’s being there (Acts 12:12) and the pressure of the famine (Acts 11:28). (7)Agabus prophesying the famine (Acts 11:28); again appearing in the character of a prophet sixteen years later (Acts 21:10). (8)The speech of Lycaonia as accounting for the surprise of Paul and Barnabas at the preparations for sacrifice (Acts 14:11-14). (9)Conversion of Samaritans (Acts 8:14). Incidental mention of the brethren in Samaria (Acts 15:3). (10)Men of Cyprus and Cyrene found the Church at Antioch (Acts 11:20). Barnabas of Cyprus sent to carry on the work (Acts 11:22). Lucius of Cyrene among the prophets of the Church (Acts 13:1). (11)Philippi a colonia (Acts 16:12). Philippians speak of themselves as Romans (Acts 16:21). (12)Trophimus the Ephesian (Acts 21:29) recognised by Jews of Asia, i.e., from Ephesus and its neighbourhood. The list might, it is believed, be easily enlarged, but these will be sufficient to put the student on the track of a method which he can apply almost indefinitely in other instances for himself.[2]
It’s a fallacy, imo, to believe the Bible needs some kind of external proof to be accepted. The Bible is it’s own proof when you seriously study it. It is so inter-connected, tightly woven, ever illuminating, it is impossible for some approximate 40 writers, spanning some 1500+ years to complete without Divine influence. People have throughout the centuries tried to discredit the Bible, yet they have all past and the Word of God remains. Regards,
Me Fatalistic? You must be joking. Aren't you the Christian, the one with the submissive mental attitude that everything is predetermined by an imaginary God? It's Christian doctrine. The Bible says anything you want it to say. But even Augustine wasn't so far gone in the rationality department to deny the absurdity of Christian original sin. He declared it must destroy free will. Martin Luther in all his religious superstition, also decided it resulted in the loss of free will, except for the free will to sin. Catch 22 goes back a long way. But you think differently. Apparently you can just make up your own personal version of Christianity as you go along by finding some Bible passage which says the opposite to Bible passages you don't like.