[
Replying to POI in post #43]
Yes. And I find that it is impossible to achieve when attempting to 'defend' the Bible. After I read the Bible for myself, I tried defending it for years only to realize that to retain the Bible's assertions about some things would require cognitive dissonance. And every Christian apologist I have ever encountered, at one point or another, exposes some or more cognitive dissonance.
That has nothing to do with my apologetics. Nor is it a reasonable excuse on your part re not being able to critique said apologetics.
We have to be careful with our assessments that we are not painting all with the same brush, as that may itself be a symptom of similar mental disorder getting in the way of one's ability to understand clearly what is actually going on.
Notice you only mentioned the "NT" for Jesus. I say the source for the NT is the devil.
Notice that my own apologetics puts this argument to rest since your argument requires one to accept a presumption of universal deception, which would invalidate not only the NT but also the logical coherence of any scriptural interpretation, including your own.
Since the devil posed as a Messiah, and has superhuman powers, and his aim is to deceive, viola. The "NT". Write many things to make it 'fit', and get millions to believe and worship the WRONG entity. This ticks YWHW off to no end. But, what'za gonna do? The devil was given free will.
What evidence or scriptural basis supports the claim that the devil crafted the NT or posed as the Messiah?
If the NT aligns with the prophetic themes of the OT, does this not indicate coherence rather than conflict with YHWH’s plan?
YHWH’s sovereignty would ensure the preservation of truth, preventing the devil from successfully deceiving millions in such a way.
If the NT were a work of deception, it would necessitate contradictions with the OT and YHWH’s character. Without evidence of such contradictions, the claim of the NT being the devil’s work remains speculative. Instead, the NT aligns with and fulfills the OT narrative, pointing to continuity rather than conflict in the divined plan.
I already touched on this. 'Jesus' is the devil. The devil is 'Jesus.' The devil is not contained. Countless claims flow abound, about how the devil is running loose. There exists no way for you or me to know what specific permissions the devil has. For all we know, the NT is the ultimate test, and the ones who accept Christ failed.
Your claim that Jesus is the devil lacks scriptural support and contradicts the biblical narrative of their distinct roles. Furthermore, your epistemic uncertainty regarding the devil’s permissions undercuts your assertion that the NT is the devil’s work.
I thought the title of this thread gave the intent away? You already know I carry no religious affiliation, right? Sometimes we need a little more of a light-hearted thread. And yet, it is still completely unfalsifiable at the very same time.
Isn't that frustrating?
It’s always good to explore ideas with a bit of levity. At the same time, even lighthearted discussions can shed light on important principles when grounded in mutual understanding.
I understand how unfalsifiability can seem frustrating in these discussions. However, my apologetic offers a pathway to clarity by shifting the focus away from unattainable proofs and toward coherence, purpose, and alignment with divined intent. When properly understood, it addresses not only the challenges of specific claims but also the broader frustration you’ve expressed.
Unfalsifiability isn’t unique to theology—it applies to many philosophical and metaphysical claims. My apologetic embraces this by grounding understanding in a rational framework that aligns with both scriptural evidence and experiential understanding. In doing so, it mitigates the frustration of engaging with abstract claims that can’t be empirically verified.
When we evaluate any claim—whether it’s the assertion that Jesus is the devil or that the NT is a deception—the key isn’t falsifiability alone but coherence within the larger framework of theology and scripture. My apologetic provides this coherence, showing how the NT aligns with the OT and how Jesus fulfills divine intent rather than contradicting it.
By focusing on the integrity of the divined narrative and the transformational impact of divined understanding, my apologetic reframes frustration into an opportunity for exploration. Instead of viewing the inability to disprove as a flaw, we see it as an invitation to engage with deeper questions about meaning and purpose.
Then we can immediately reject all claims from the YEC's, at the start. And then we can watch how they debate the OEC's on the same topics in Genesis alone. And we can then watch how they are both wrong, in differing ways. And this is just for Genesis alone.
Such internal disagreements don’t invalidate the broader framework of apologetics. True apologetics isn’t about resolving every interpretive debate but about building a coherent, evidence-based foundation for understanding divined truth and its relevance to humanity. Dismissing all claims because of these debates risks reductionism, whereas engaging with differing perspectives can strengthen the pursuit of truth.
I do not take THIS topic TOO seriously, because I actually do not believe it myself in reality. Make sense?
Moving the goalposts remains a recognized debate fallacy. I understand your lighthearted approach, and it makes sense if this topic is more speculative for you. However, even in playful discussions, maintaining rigor and respect for the ideas being debated is valuable. Meaningful apologetics thrives on balancing the exploration of possibilities with grounding the conversation in reasoned discourse, regardless of personal belief about how far one chooses to take things.
Regarding cognitive dissonance, it’s intriguing that, despite saying you don’t take these arguments seriously or believe them, you invest considerable time and thought in these discussions. Could it be that these topics hold more significance for you than you openly acknowledge? Perhaps they resonate on a deeper level than mere 'fun.'
That said, there seems little point in continuing if you are not genuinely interested in even critiquing my apologetic as treating the subject matter as something unworthy of serious engagement or adherence to well-established debate methods undermines the potential for meaningful dialogue.
