As @DRE said, each to their own. If that was presented to me as an argument for believing the bible my first response would be, other than the bible what evidence is there that these are eyewitness accounts? I have many more, but that would be the first.
Whenever I’ve got into this with someone in the past it eventually boils down to “you just have to believe” and that has never been enough to convince me.
Both roman history and jewish history corroborate the new testament in various ways. As a historical document, the new testament is way more reliable than what tons of history is based on. I.e. we have to trust 1 or 2 roman or greek historians for major pieces of history. The Bible is much more robust.
The bible is comprised of 2 parts, no?
Aren’t the 10 commandments, the basis for how Christian’s should live their life in the Old Testament?
all presented as one book with no suggestion that one part should be taken as more factual or more literally than the other.
It seems disingenuous to me to say that only only the New Testament is relevant.
To be fair I take less umbrage with the New Testament than the old but how do you reconcile the shift from a vengeful god in the Old Testament to a loving one in the new?
There are different books that make up the old testament and new testament. Jewish people accept the old testament. Christians accept the old and the new. The first 4 main books in the new are matthew, mark, luke and john and they are called the gospels. Basically are each a testamentary account of what they saw happen and knew of re Jesus.
The shift is Jesus redeeming us and giving us more personal access to God's grace.
So why did god all of a sudden decide to stop being vengeful and start being forgiving? It’s quite the personality change between the old and New Testament.
God is just. Do you have kids? You tell them dont hit your sibling in the face, they turn around and do exactly that. Would you discipline them?
So you’re telling me you think god is described and acts the same in both testaments?
The Old Testament has the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah and the plagues of Egypt but the New Testament has nothing similar.
To compare to your analogy, it’s not about whether the kid is disciplined or not and more that at a point the style of that discipline changes significantly. If god was omnipotent as we are told he is wouldn’t he know the best way to keep us on track right from the start? And if he is loving as we are told wouldn’t he have intervened earlier to avoid having to be vengeful?
“But he gave us free will.” well in that case, and considering he’s omnipotent, why only give information to a small group of people and punish the rest when you don’t like what they are doing. Wouldn’t it make more sense from a loving point of view to let everyone know and keep reminding them what is expected?
Look, I have no issue with people believing whatever they want. I believe that in general religion provides a good framework for how to live your life. I just don’t believe that a god as described in any of the religions texts exists.
The New Testament has nothing similar? The wrath of God has never ceased. Once we are dead we all have to stand before judgment. It matters what you do with Jesus in this life though, if you will stand or fall at judgement.
Judgement after death is not comparable to actively killing people. Are there any examples of god actively killing a person or people that he wasn’t happy with in the New Testament?
Why the switch from taking direct action in the Old Testament to judging them after they die in the new?
It is comparable on an eternal time scale.
Ok, let’s assume I accept that argument. Still, why the switch?
God brought judgment on wicked people and nations, through different means (super natural, other humans etc) and established new covenants.
Different covenants different times.
The last covenant was established through the work of Jesus. Since that change God lives within the believers.
This is His last call to us to repent.
