r/ChristianApologetics

I posted this in r/TrueChristian and got the vibe the people there were not prepared to answer this question to the best of their ability. I'm hoping you all will have better answers.

It came to my attention recently that there was a verse in support of slavery in The New Testament in Paul's letter to the Ephesians.

Ephesians 6:5 - A command for slaves to obey their masters (right alongside telling children to obey their parents) granted he does tell slaveowners to not threaten their slaves but doesn't discourage violence against them??

It's really surprising. I assumed that it was talking about a less aggressive form of slavery than that of the trans Atlantic slave trade but there's no laws in regards to treatment of slaves in the New Testament despite "Do not threaten them". So I looked into the Old Testament to get an idea of what treatment of slaves would be permissible (similar to how we'd look at old testament laws about what is considered sexual immorality) and... I was shocked. Why does it allow beating and lifelong ownership of others??

Exodus 21 - In specific regards to Hebrew slaves they can be freed after 7 years, however if their master gives them a wife and she has children the wife and kids are the masters property and the only way he could be with them would be to commit to a life of slavery

Exodus 21

2 When you buy a Hebrew slave,\[a\] he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. 3 If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out alone. 5 But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ 6 then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever.

20 “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. 21 But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.

I looked into this more and found plenty of other verses all over the Bible

• Ecclesiasticus 33 - Likens slaves to animals and says that they should be kept busy so they won't try to liberate themselves, they can be tortured, put into chains and disciplined if they are disobedient... But then tells slave masters to remember they're brothers and treat them fairly??

• Leviticus 25:44 - Slaves can be owned indefinitely if they're non-Hebrew and can be inherited through generations alongside their children

• 2 Titus 9 - Paul tells his apostle Titus to teach slaves to be obedient to their owners so others will want to convert to Christianity when they see how comparatively well behaved Christian slaves are

• 1 Timothy 6 - Paul tells slaves who are believers to respect their masters regardless of if they're Christian or not but to serve them even better if they are since both are part of God's family

• Collosians 3:22 - Another command for slaves to over their "earthly masters" (again alongside telling kids to listen to parents and wives to submit to their husbands)

• 1 Peter 2:18 - Peter tells slaves to not only submit themselves to their masters but to endure beatings, not only if they deserved it but if their masters are cruel and punish them unjustly since it's similar to the suffering of Christ

I'm not longer asking why slavery was allowed. People on r/TrueChristian provided insight on the economic and historical reliance at the time as well as explaining how it differed from the Trans Atlantic Slave trade. Some even said that not all slavery is truly immoral and after some back and forth I actually ended up agreeing with them in concept but

now my question is why was this kind of violence against slaves not spoken out against by any of the apostles?

"Me" would argue that Greek grammar (two articular nouns with one possessive) directly identifies Jesus as "my Lord and my God". In John 20:28, the phrase "My Lord and my God" is a single, direct address to Jesus, not a separation of Jesus from a dwelling Father. While McClellan, a scholar of the Bible and religion, argues that the Gospel of John does not present Jesus as God, this view is contrary to the broader scholarly consensus. The narrative presents Thomas's statement as a climactic confession of faith in the risen Jesus as both Lord and God.

"Opponent" it sounds like you’re trying to leverage Granville-Sharp, but the fact that each noun carries its own article as well as its own possessive pronoun (there are two, not just one) absolutely precludes that principle.

Help? Or am I just wrong lol

I recently watched part of a debate between Michael Jones (IP) and Orthodox Muslim(Libyano), and in the debate, Libyano argues as follows:

the New Testament uses typologies in the Old Testament as prophecies of Jesus - (especially Matthew); the Nazarene prophecy and the betrayal typology from the Psalms for example - regardless of the context of the passage.

Therefore, Muslims can confidently point at the Son of Man being the Praised/Glorified One as a typological prophecy of Mohammed.

I think the Son of Man typology for Mohammed is DOA because the Son of Man is deity for one; however, I think Libyano makes a strong case that there shouldn't be double standards:

Since Jesus could be prophesied by typology, Mohammad too could be.

IP rebutted by saying it was circular for Muslims to do so, but I don't see why it is, and how the circularity rebuttal strengthens the NT's case.

How would you respond to this argument?

The long, detailed version is on my blog

AboutSalama.blogspot.com/2019/10/hosea-96-is-prediction-of-muhammad.html

The verse is difficult to translate, even the Greek LXX had to change some letters to make it coherent.
Reading the English translations conceals the problematic words. To see them you have to read annotated versions.
Hosea 9:6 says
כי-הנה הלכו מ:שד מצרים תקבצ:ם מף תקבר:ם מחמד ל:כספ:ם קמוש יירש:ם חוח ב:אהלי:הם

מִצְרַיִם תְּקַבְּצֵם
Egypt will gather them,
מֹף תְּקַבְּרֵם
Memphis will bury them,
מַחְמַד לְכַסְפָּם
The desirable things of their silver
קִמּוֺשׂ יִירָשֵׁם
Nettles possess them,
חוֺחַ בְּאָהֳלֵיהֶם
Thorn is in their tents.

In Hebrew, the prepositions are attached to the words, which makes reading the text difficult sometimes. You will notice that this Hebrew section uses somewhat poetic 2-word smaller sections. The first line has the word EGYPT then the word Will Gather Them (yes, it's one word in Hebrew. Arabic has the same structure)
The second line: Memphis & Will Bury Them.
The third is the funny one!
MHMD & For Their Money.
The fourth line: Nettles & Will Inherit Them.
The fifth line: Thorns & In Their Homes.

The 3rd line is very difficult to translate as a separate sentence, so translators tend to combine it with the 4th, ignoring a pesky preposition (the Hebrew letter L, which means: for), and reconstructing the two sentences into a new one.
Why?
The problem they face is that the Hebrew word MHMD is a simple word, means "pleasant, desired or desirable".. but "The desire for your silver" isn't a complete sentence, AND doesn't mesh well with the next sentence.
(See: The Septuagint Text of Hosea Compared with the Massoretic Text, The University of Chicago Press, by Gaylard H. Patterson)

This is why the New Oxford Annotated Bible says: "Nettles shall possess their precious things of silver. (Meaning of Hebrew uncertain)"

The Jewish Study Bible had a cute solution. They changed the order of the lines, bringing the 3rd line (the pesky one about silver) to the top!
"Behold, they have gone from destruction
[With] the silver they treasure.
Egypt shall hold them fast,
Moph shall receive them in burial.
Weeds are their heirs;
Prickly shrubs occupy their [old] homes"

I like the added "with" :) When the glove doesn't fit, YOU MAKE IT FIT!

The Pulpit Commentary: "The LXX; again puzzled by the word maehmad, mistook it for a proper name"
They had to change it to something else. They made it a city's name.
μαχμας το αργυριον αυτων ολεθρος κληρονομησει ακανθαι εν τοις σκηνωμασιν αυτων
So the Septuagint changed the spelling completely!
It became מכמס (Strong #H4363, Mikmac) [A name of a city, literally means "Hidden"]
MHMD --> MKMS (!!)
Septuagint in English, Brenton's edition:
"Therefore, behold, they go forth from the trouble of Egypt, and Memphis shall receive them, and Machmas shall bury them: [as for] their silver, destruction shall inherit it; thorns [shall be] in their tents"

All of these conflicting attempts, just because they didn't understand at the time that the word was a proper name, a prophecy about Muhammad's 625 CE incident with the Jewish tribe Banu Nadir (visiting them, asking them to honor the peace treaty by contributing to a blood-money he had to pay.. their attempt to assassinate him.. his retaliation by banishing the whole tribe)

In 1 Corinthians 15:8 Paul said: "Last of all, as though to one born at the wrong time, he appeared to me also"

In 1 Samuel 28, the witch of En-dor supposedly brought up for king Saul the ghost of prophet Samuel, who looked like him and made a true political prophecy. The Old Testament context treats this as the real Samuel, but some Christians deny the concept of ghosts (as they should) and say it was a demonic ruse, a trick, and the prophecy was a lucky guess.
Fine. They are reinterpreting the uncomfortable parts of the Tanakh, using mental gymnastics that contradict the gist of the story (as usual!), but their interpretation throws doubt on many other apparitions!

The main thing that most Christians will reference when discussing whether the ressurection is true is the vast amount of historical evidence that has led many secular scholars over the years to change from the idea that the ressurection was made up, to the Apsotles at least sincerely believed that Jesus rose from the dead. The way we determine this is that the Apostles and early Christians very early on attested to Jesus dying and rising and they were willing to die for this belief.

So, overall, we have a long line of early tradition, testimony, and historical evidence.

Many Muslims will claim the the Prophet Mohammad had a revelation from God that became the Quran and things like the hadiths reveal that Mohammad also performed miracles. The Muslim apologist will also mention how the hadiths have a MUCH better attested line of communication from the early eyewitnesses to Mohammad's miracles to the current writers. Without this, Haidths are rejected. This process is considered quite rigorous to examine the historical accuracy. It is also important to note the persecution early Muslims faced in Mecca. They were also killed and isolated far before they became politically involved.​

​So, overall, we have a long line of early tradition, testimony, and historical evidence

So...both have the same type of evidence for miraculous ideas. So which is true? They cant both be true. They are completely mutually exclusive.

Hello! It is my first post on this subreddit, and as a Christian myself, I have questions about this. Skeptics claim that these verses condone the rape victim marrying the rapist.

How is it possible that sulfur/brimstone exists on the surface of the earth and in hell? I thought hell was the absence of God and his creations, and sulfur is part of his planet he created, so how is there sulfur in hell and on earth, but not in heaven? Are there other elements I'm not thinking of that exist in hell and on earth at the same time? Can anyone explain? Thanks

I’ve seen proposed by Godlogic and others:

1. God commands Muhammad to go to the people who have read the book before him if he is in doubt about what god has revealed to him,

2. Being in doubt means being uncertain as to the truth,

3. The Bible says X while the Quran says Y about the same event,

Therefore

Conclusion: Muhammad is being told by God that the things match in the Torah and New Testamant AND the Quran are correct, while those things that are not matching means the Quran is wrong.

This argument is extremely weak

Case 1: Quran says they did not crucify him (Jesus), they did not kill him, but it was made to them to appear so

Case 2: Jesus was crucified and died, rose on the 3rd day

In the Islamic dilemma argument that means Case 2 would have to be accepted by Muslims and case 1 rejected (granting Muhammad had doubts about those cases). If god was telling Muhammad that everything in the Bible is true and only the things matching the Quran are true, then why would god be revealing completely different truths to Muhammad in the first place? Why wouldn’t he just send one message “read the Bible.?

Internal to Islam, which is the kind of argument this is (internal critique) the perspective would be that Case 1 would be true and Case 2 wouldn’t.

People who use this argument sneak in centering of Christianity as true and then apply an internal critique. It’s one big oxymoron.

Dumb argument. Don’t use it.

When looking into Christianity in terms of authentic interpretations, it can be particularly hard to remain calm and collected when trying to navigate God's demands and expectations for humanity.

As a start, being Christian believes in God's fundamental power, at least from what I understand, to bless or curse our lives. God can orchestrate paths for humans to become wildly successful and God can remove it from anyone as He did Job.

In addition, there is a need to repent of sins you have done in the past. And from what I understand of Jesus's commandments, any type of fornication or giving into lust, as an example, is an abomination. Fornication outside of sex, ejaculation, looking at attractive members of the opposite sex in any capacity, visiting any kind of worker that could be classified as sex work, all of it is an affront to God. And so there's a need to repent and even then God could lash out at you as He did Job. And I confess that while I have not have had sexual intercourse before, in fact for various reasons I've never dated anyone or had romantic partnerships of any kind, I have done the above before.

So the issues at hand are, what are the proper ways to repent of past sins, other than the natural way of refraining from it down the line? Is there a specific way to ask for forgiveness?

And how does one properly navigate God's existence knowing His mercy and grace is conditional and could be withdrawn at the drop of a hat?

How would you respond to the following objections to following God?

1. God is Cruel and Violent

2. God Endorses Slavery and Patriarchy

3. The Bible Contradicts Itself

4. Salvation Seems Arbitrary if I'm already a Good Person

How could a good God create a bad world?

What are the best free documentaries & resources that really help convince skeptics of God's existence & power? I come into contact with people but often 1 of the best I have is "The Ark & The Darkness" movie by Genesis Apologetics. I figured you all might know some better ones. Thanks :-)

"about the greater good"

What's a greater good in the fallen creation than the lack of evil from the beginning? I know that the Lord created the world with the idea of allowing free will in mind, because if He didn't, He wouldn't even put the tree of knowledge of good and evil in it and it certainly wouldn't be because He's evil since God the Son willingly came to earth to suffer, be humiliated and die for us, He also know about the many times when He will get sad or angry because of our actions, which is something rather strange for a suposedly egocentric or prideful omniscient being to do, its just free and extreme stress for something that could be easily avoided by a single decision, not create, He would be eternally happy with himself alone since He doesn't need anything outside of Himself, we also know from the book of revelation that God have the power to change the entire universe to at least the point where death doesn't exist anymore, but what greater good comes from a person experiencing evil and choosing not to follow it than from learning from God Himself to not follow it? Wouldn't these people feel the repulse that the people who experienced it and rejected it feel?"

Also, would it be logically possible that all people are free and decide to do good without the knowledge of good and evil? (Since fallen humanity has it because of the first couple eating the forbidden fruit)

And, what would be the implications that God created a world that would be perfected by time and not just perfect from the beginning? Coming from the word for "dominion" in the creation of humanity being "radah" which mostly means violent dominion or the implication that Adam and Eve could die even before the fall since they couldn't eat from the three of life because they would live forever in corruption.

What do you say to Jewish objections (spesific OT profecies 'unfulfilled') or the 'messianic secret' motif in Mark, where the author seemingly is making excuses for the historical Jesus not proclaiming Himself to be the messiah?

Hey everyone, I’d love some feedback from this community.

One thing I’ve noticed is that many Christians at some level want to understand apologetics, but it can feel overwhelming or too academic to really get into.

I’ve been working on a platform that helps people think through their beliefs (questions, discussions, etc.), and now I’m trying to go a step further. Help people actually learn the “why” behind foundational Christian beliefs in a way that’s digestible.

Right now, most apologetics content ends up being:

• “Read this book”
• “Watch this 2-hour debate”
• Or very dense explanations

What I’m trying to figure out is:

How would you break down apologetics so it’s approachable for someone who’s interested but not deeply studied?

What formats have actually helped you learn (or teach) these topics well?

If you were building something like this, what would you include?

I’ve experimented with things like:

• Short explanations for each belief
• Community discussions
• Bible + video references

…but I feel like there’s more that could be done to make it stick and not feel like a chore.

If anyone’s willing to check it out and give feedback, I’d really appreciate it (it’s free). But honestly, even general thoughts would be super helpful. I'm open to any input to help get the gears turning on this.

I proposed an apologetics zoom group about 2 years ago in here. I got some interest from a few people and then my life kinda got crazy kinda fast and I didn't get into reddit much. Now I tried to bump that thread to bring it back up but it is not letting me. I think I have a more well developed idea now anyways.

So now I have been getting back into heavier apologetics a lot in the last several months and my life has seemingly calmed down a fair bit. Wondering if there would still be any interest in doing a zoom group. I was thinking it could be on 1 day a month or perhaps every week? I'm not sure what type of schedule would be conducive to 1 peoples schedules or 2 the format that I am thinking of.

The format I am imagining here would be a 1 or a combination of upto 5 different types of group interaction:

1Topic driven where one of us in the group pics a topic and then develops an indepth presentation(possibly interactive?) And then gives that presentation to the group to later be opened up for q/a.

For example, someone might go through 1 or all 5 of Aquinas' 5 proofs of Gods existence, the next person might do an in depth exposition on the Muslim Dilema, another person might dive into the historicity of Jesus and/or the reliability of Scripture.

2 A general freeform round table disscussion on a particular topic/book with an agreed upon reading material. Tactics by Koukl or On Guard by Craig, for example. Or even more generic discussions about more fundamental topics like basic logic or the Socratic method.

3 Watching other content from youtube and rumble to see how certain view points are actually argued in the real world often by your general lay person (Im thinking of the live call in discussions by Godlogic, David Wood, Etc. Or the presentations by Frank Turek or J Warner Wallace) and then a discussion after.

4 A mock debate where 1 side argues for a position and another side presents the view points(as best as we can understand them since we likely will not hold those beliefs) of the opposition.

5 Just general fellowship time to get to know each other on a personal level, talk about other hobbies, music etc. Basically just talk about whatever is on our hearts, anything and everything under the sun as a group of friends.

I kinda listed these in an order of what I perceive to be most to least intensive/time consuming for any given person/productive for the purposes of apologetics. Some of thes ideas may or may not be totally hammered out. If anyone else has an idea for another type of group gathering, Id be open to hearing that too. Some are of more or less value than others, and possibly a couple could be done as a secondary gathering on a different day given the potentially lower value offered, and thereby less interest. I am certainly open to discussion and critique.