So then, God gave us free will but if we don't choose what He wants us to choose, He'll hate us? If so, why give us free will at all? I mean, why give us free will and then punish us for using it?

A better argument is asking why God would create something with the foreknowledge that they would go to hell. If we do not have libertarian free will, then the question is answered: God predestined it for some sort of purpose. If we have libertarian free will, then everyone should believe in Him necessarily, since God knows all things, and their deaths in hell would be purposeless.

Of course there is a self; its intuitive to think that.

“On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun.” (Julius Africanus, Chronography, 18:1)

Thallus was 52 AD.

“Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth to the ninth hour.” (Africanus, Chronography, 18:1)

“Now Phlegon, in the thirteenth or fourteenth book, I think, of his Chronicles, not only ascribed to Jesus a knowledge of future events . . . but also testified that the result corresponded to His predictions.” (Origen Against Celsus, Book 2, Chapter 14)

“And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place … ” (Origen Against Celsus, Book 2, Chapter 33)

“Jesus, while alive, was of no assistance to himself, but that he arose after death, and exhibited the marks of his punishment, and showed how his hands had been pierced by nails.” (Origen Against Celsus, Book 2, Chapter 59)

Phlegon was 80-140 AD

“Now around this time lived Jesus, a wise man. For he was a worker of amazing deeds and was a teacher of people who gladly accept the truth. He won over both many Jews and many Greeks. Pilate, when he heard him accused by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, (but) those who had first loved him did not cease (doing so). To this day the tribe of Christians named after him has not disappeared” (This neutral reconstruction follows closely the one proposed in the latest treatment by John Meier, Marginal Jew 1:61)

Josephus was 37-101 AD.

Some of them, sure, were that far away from Jesus. However, thats not all of the sources.

I think I can just repeat myself here: "have we access to any of these primary sources? A historian is not above the rigors of authentication."

Do people 100 years from now have access to the primary sources we have today about WW2? Not all of them at least, because many of them would have died.

I never denied that such stories are told about him. I denied their veracity.

The stories are not what I'm referring to. This is a red herring. I'm talking about what Jesus actually did. Both Jews and Christians, and Romans for that matter, claimed Him to have done miraculous things. The issue is not the story, since they both have differing stories. The issue is whether what He did was real or not real, in the sense of a magician could be doing real magic or it could be an illusion. You have to decide whether what Jesus did was illusion, real black magic, or Godly acts.

By most usages of the word "eternity", it implies far more than three days.

Jesus' hell experience was on the cross, not in the 3 days. He was in paradise during the 3 days.

If you knew full well you would have your money reimbursed, no it isn't a sacrifice.

Knowledge of it is irrelevant.

but if your intent was primarily immoral, it is an immoral action that just happened to work out in society's favor.

This is not consistent with your view of Jesus' sacrifice.

We can do credible historical analysis of WW2 ourselves, simply by asking WW2 veterans. Thats how many historians did it back then.

Some are historians, recording what happened at the time of Jesus. But its irrelevant if they were from Jesus' actual life time.

Which brings us back full-circle. Aside from Biblical sources, have we access to any of these primary sources. A historian is not above the rigors of authentication. The same goes for the claims of the Jews.

The primary source doesn't have to be the Bible... It is filled with people who have seen things. You're presupposing the Bible to be the only source. There were tons of people who were not Christians but witnessed Jesus' miracles.

They believed he was claiming to be God, which was against their ten commandments. Although I would say the more likely explanation is that he was simply a thorn in the side to their leadership, teachings and values. It is likely to me that they spread tales of his "magical actions" as an attempt to scape goat him, much as people made similar claims about their neighbors during the Salem witch trials.

This is a horrible historical analysis... This would only work if there were people on one side of the issue: if the Jews were the only ones teaching that he did miraculous things, then claimed they were from the devil, then we would have reason to suspect something like the Salem witch trials. However, we have Christians saying He did miracles too; they claim Him to be God though. The only logical conclusion one should have is that people perceived Him to be doing miraculous things. You could say that they were magic tricks, or you could say that He was from the devil, or you could say He was from God, or God. But you cannot say that He didn't do seemingly miraculous things.

First off, why did he endure any time in hell? Was he not without sin?

He took our sins upon Him.

Second, there is a disconnect between this eternity you speak of and the 3 days usually associated with his death/rebirth schedule.

Those 3 days were to display that He did in fact actually die.

Third- I will look at it in a utilitarian sense and why should I not? If I'm going to make an important decision, especially if I KNOW without doubt what the end results are, my final results are a very important factor. In more realistic terms, I believe (though it is true I have not been tested) that I would give my life for another. But I don't even need to be tested to KNOW that I would give my life for any being, even an animal, if I was absolutely certain that I would emerge unharmed. And if I was an eternal entity to begin and end with, an eternity in hell is irrelevant.

Okay, let us break this down, then. If heaven is real, and a person gives his life for his wife, but goes to heaven right after, do you think that was a sacrifice? Of course you should! Its obvious it is; no one in their right mind would say it isn't. He sacrificed himself for his wife, and went to heaven after. Likewise, Jesus sacrificed Himself for His wife, the church, and came to life afterwards. For both of these, you say it isn't a sacrifice. However, if anything the latter is a sacrifice, since He endured an eternity of hell for His church. To be consistent, you would have to deny the former. But utilitarianistic and consequentialistic notions fail in both respects. What someone does is the issue, not what the result is. If I give my money to a homeless person, but then get money from a person who rewarded me for my good actions, no one would deny the act was a sacrifice, though the end resulted in more money. Consequentialism denies any sort of integrity: I could be a murder and shoot at someone, but hit a someone who was about to blow up a mall, and consequentialism would say I have done right. There is no moral integrity, say for what ends. Of course that person was intending to do harm! He was no in the right. Your moral compass needs fixing.

Excluding the apocryphal gospels (which I believe should be considered alongside canonical Biblical texts) are any of these demonstrable as first hand experience or anything aside from rumor and hearsay?

There are historians. They examine primary sources and try to conclude whats going on.

“On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun.” (Julius Africanus, Chronography, 18:1)

“Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth to the ninth hour.” (Africanus, Chronography, 18:1)

“And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place … ” (Origen Against Celsus, Book 2, Chapter 33)

“Jesus, while alive, was of no assistance to himself, but that he arose after death, and exhibited the marks of his punishment, and showed how his hands had been pierced by nails.” (Origen Against Celsus, Book 2, Chapter 59)

“Now Phlegon, in the thirteenth or fourteenth book, I think, of his Chronicles, not only ascribed to Jesus a knowledge of future events . . . but also testified that the result corresponded to His predictions.” (Origen Against Celsus, Book 2, Chapter 14)

“Jesus practiced magic and led Israel astray” (b. Sanhedrin 43a; cf. t. Shabbat 11.15; b. Shabbat 104b)

http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2012/is-there-any-evidence-for-jesus-outside- the-bible/

This is why Jews claimed Him to be practicing evil, because the things with which He did were miraculous. Why would so many people claim that x person did something, but be against x person, claiming x person to be evil? This was around Judea, and the only explanations were that He was divinely inspired, God Himself, or practicing evil. Your pick.

You previously stated that the elect will necessarily believe. If one is predetermined to be in the elect, will they not find that calling no matter what? What if somebody is not in the elect but you attempt to convert them? Is this not a waste of both parties time?

God predetermines even the evangelism. Ephesians 4:11-12 states, "And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ," So from this, it seems that evangelists are used to equip the saints. God predetermines them to be sent there and for them to go there, and for the elect to have their hearts opened at the time appointed by God. God doesn't work by simply making someone believe without evangelism. He works by revelation for some (e.g. Paul) and by evangelism for the rest.

If I knew without doubt that I would return to life unscathed and return to being an all-powerful deity, yes. It is a minor inconvenience at worst.

You're looking at this all wrong. Would you be willing to endure an eternity of hell at all? You're looking at this utilitarianistically. Stop that. Look at it deontologically.

From the time he was alive? From people who actually met him? All of the accounts I have heard of were from people who weren't even born yet when he died on the cross. All they had to go by was what his followers and enemies believed about him, which was already the exact legends that would fill the NT, and none was from first hand experience.

There are multiple accounts from non-Christian historians, from the Roman empire, from the Jewish faith, etc. We have many apocryphal gospels even.

Then there is no point to conversion or indoctrination. People like me have no option, so why do so many try to convince me to join up?

Namely 3 reasons: (1) God is gracious to the non-elect by the mere fact that they have heard the Gospel message, (2) we don't know who is the elect, (3) people don't understand the doctrine of double predestination. But other than that, there is most certainly a point in conversion! Conversion is not a simple profession of faith; it is a spiritual birth, which is where we get the idea of born again from--Jesus told us of this in John 3.

If it is all undone three days later, especially if you know it will be, it is no sacrifice. True sacrifice means accepting that what you give up may never be regained.

Sacrifice does not mean that at all; of course that is one form of sacrifice, but that is ignorant of the other definitions, similar to how atheists use "faith" to only mean belief without evidence--it is deceitful. Sacrifice can be done in multiple forms. Jesus dying on the cross for an eternity of hell is a sacrifice. How could one disagree with that? Would you be willing to do that?

I can mostly accept that he may have existed, but our knowledge of him and his life comes purely from the Bible and I highly doubt Biblical Veracity.

There are multiple accounts of Him outside of the Bible.

I don't understand why everyone who lived before his time gets arbitrarily screwed out of eternal life.

Those who were before were saved by faith in the coming Messiah. The Old Testament is littered with prophesies for Him. Refer to Hebrews 11.

I don't get how his one sacrifice cleans our slate so long as we recognize it.

Jesus died for His elect, or His family, those whom He foreknew, or fore-loved. No one else was died for. Those whom He died for necessarily will believe.

I don't get how you can even call it a sacrifice if he knew he would be coming back.

He bore an eternity of Hell on the cross. I'd call that a sacrifice.

http://thedevineevidence.com/jesus_similarities.html Here is a nice little article on how Jesus is in no way copied from any pagan figure.

If a being can perform any action, then it should be able to create a task which this being is unable to perform; hence, this being cannot perform all actions. Yet, on the other hand, if this being cannot create a task that it is unable to perform, then there exists something it cannot do.

Most theologians and philosophers don't think that God is defined as being able to do any action, but being able to do anything that can be done. This means that it cannot do the logically impossible, such as making a married bachelor, or a square circle, or be an omnipotent non-omnipotent being. So, there is no issue here, since omnipotence does not state to be able to do the logically impossible. However, even if God can do the logically impossible, then it logically follows that He would be able to create a task that is unable to be performed, but then be able to perform it.

So, really the problem is flushing out what omnipotence is. It is in no way a paradox. If you say He can do the logically impossible, then He cannot make a task that cannot be done. If you say He can do the logically impossible, then He can make the task and then complete it. So, I don't see the problem here.

They are tested on objects that they know the age of. It never gives an exact date, but it does give a range.

And how did they get that age of the object, o friend? haha They get the age by a number of possible ways. One is radiometric dating, which cannot be trusted, and would be begging the question if done in a certain way. Second way is through index fossils, which raises the question as to how they go the date for those. Third is the law of superposition; but, that can be countered if there were a flood. And much more. However, as said, every single old earth theorist evidence can be countered through the mere fact of the flood.

Take 2 Peter 3 - "This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved. In both of them I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles, knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly."

Christians are warned from the very beginning of this age to be wary of any people who scoff, follow their sinful desires, asking where the second coming is, believing in uniformitarianism, and deliberately overlooking the flood.

Romans 1 says, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

This one says that there are and will be people who suppress the truth of God, knowing God to be real in their hearts, who then claim to be wise, while making creation out to be god.

Both of these passages sound a lot like modern day, atheistic, naturalistic, scientific evolutionists. The Bible warns us about people like them, o friend.

Well, that's hardly a convincing argument. There are also plenty of people who have Ph.D.'s and consider it to be accurate.

O yeah, I'm not denying that. However, if you watched the Bill Nye vs Ken Ham debate, many professors and scientists admitted that many of their colleagues were very sympathetic to creationism, and a young earth creationist model, and many of them were afraid to come out about how they actually believe it to be true, first and foremost, above evolution, but didn't in fear of losing their jobs. What is clear here is that science has a hegemony rule over evolution, and anyone who argues against it is classified as an idiot, and will very likely be tossed to the dogs. So, my argument here was to simply show that there are many people who disagree with radiometric dating, and it is not simply "obvious" and "true."

Take Carbon dating as an example. When you use carbon dating, you have to have a base measurement for how much was in the atmosphere so that you can measure how much was in the thing itself. So for example, when you use carbon dating, you take the atmosphere levels of the time, which is based in the strata, and then compare them to the amount in the fossils to determine the age through decay rates. The problem with this is that we are already assuming for multiple things. For one, we are assuming that the thing actually died at that location. Second, we are also assuming that the atmosphere did not change. Third, we are assuming that the strata can actually measure the atmosphere levels. Fourth, we are assuming that the decay rate has stayed the same. Fifth, we are assuming that the strata was the same strata that was there. And much more. As you can see, if there were a flood, all of these things would be contradicted. We would have things from x place be in y place; we would have strata from z place in a place, mixed with other strata from other places; and much more. The flood counters all of the evidences presented by old earth peoples. In fact, if I remember correctly, there are only 3 or 4 C14 dating centers in the US, because scientists don't think it is a trustworthy dating method. That raises the questions as to why they think long-term dating methods will work.

Here's a "secular" and somewhat "academic" source:

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html

And also, there are books by "creationists" who have gotten their Ph.D.s claiming that radiometric dating is not factual.

I do not. Radiometric dating has been shown to be insanely fallible. There are many variables one must have to assume for to validly present a conclusion.

Lizards grow their entire lives. So do humans. I don't see why dinosaurs couldn't have been the ancestors of modern day lizards. Most dinosaurs are under 2 ft tall, which means that once the bigger ones go extinct, then you have a viable theory of creation.

I don't think there's any to be honest. :)

Some people call Cain the spawn of Satan, one view from the basis of Lilith, and another from the view of spiritual offspring. But, all in all, Lilith is possible but unlikely.

I do! However, I have no issue, nor complaint, with evolution. Augustine said that the days of creation could be metaphorical. However, I don't think they are meant to be that. So, I am a 6000 young earth creationist, but I don't think it matters.

Most theologians do not think that she existed. This was why Adam burst into song after God had given him Eve!

“This at last is bone of my bones

and flesh of my flesh;

she shall be called Woman,

because she was taken out of Man.”

However, even if there were, I don't think it would have any real bearing on Christian theology, say for possibly the end of time. Some think that Lilith was the mother of Cain, giving rise of Cain, the first "spawn of Satan." This line, some conspiracy theorists believe, is supposedly the line of the Illuminati. Some think they are the line of Satan, who will give rise to the beast in the end.

This is where theologians differentiate between God's divine/absolute and revealed will. He hates evil, and wants it destroyed (revealed), but He allows it to happen so that a greater good might come about (divine/absolute)! 2 Corinthians shows this really well. Paul says he has a thorn of the flesh that God won't take away from him. Why? Because his power is made perfect in weakness, and the glory of God shines through us in our weakness.

Well, that depends on how one defines "cause." In a common sentence of "subject, verb, object," God did not causeanything. He simply let it happen. However, that being said, it was his will. God willed for it to happen. But, I wouldn't fret about that at all! God is sovereign over even evil, and allows it to happen, leading us to His truth! Psalm 107 states that God wills for us to suffer, so that we might build hope in Him. He wants to satisfy us; however, we require first a lack for Him to then satisfy us!

Well, I personally think, and I know many theologians who believe it also, that God placed it there for the above reasons. He wanted to display His goodness and man's need for Him! So, similar to God deliberately not placing Eve in the Garden, God deliberately placed the tree so that they might understand and know evil and goodness. Man would understand personally what evil actually was, realizing his need for God! I personally think this answers the issue, though another might disagree. What do you think?