Q:Why aren't there (m)any archaeological references about the deuterocanonical books?
A:Because the history behind several of them and the greek translation is very odd. 2 Edras (4 Edra if you're eastern orthodox) 14:45-46 implies that that Septuagint was compiled and accessible before 2 Edras was written. The letter of Aristeas (first mention of the Hellenistic bible) was created during the 3rd or early 2nd century B.C.E. Most professionals would agree the Septuagint was compiled during the late 3rd century B.C.E..
Both 1 & 2 Maccabees was made during the late 2nd century B.C.E. The book of Judith is anachronistic and contains Hasmonean influences (135-80 BC). The book of Tobit is in origin very Samaritan, a people group which the Jews disliked, so it's unlikely the 72 translators or Rabbitical readers would've wanted to add it with their scriptures. There's question to which books belonged to the original Septuagint index and many of the “deuterocanonical” books are too late to be included.
Q:How could we trust the bible canon if it was compiled hundreds of years after Jesus in the counsel of Nicaea by Empire Constantine?
A:Anyone who looks into the history of the biblical text knows that the belief that Constantine has anything to with compilation of bible is completely based on ignorance or maliciousness, and the biblical manuscripts, the Armenian bible, and writings of early christian theologians prove it.
Q:Why does it seem there's swift of character for God in Old Testament (OT) apart of the New Testament (NT)? Are these two different beings?
A:Well, no. I understand why you might have that impression, but the authors of the NT always expressed themselves as followers of God of the OT. Even when reaching to the gentles, the apostles viewed their actions as fulfillment of Micah 4:2. If you still have this mentality the God of both Testament are different, then I recommend reading Nehemiah 9:1-37, which the chapter will give an overview of God's character, reasons and actions throughout the OT. Please study this text with the understanding that the Hebrews were bound by God's covenant and mercy. The closest thing to a covenant in the modern age is a wedding vow (God even refers Himself as their husband), so know that when God's people are breaking their covenant that the equivalent as cheating in a faithful marriage. And I'm certain many of will see the injustice in that scenario.
If you still remain convinced of your position, then may I ask how is the God who allowed the Israelites to be conquered by Assyrians, Babylonians, etc. any different when He allowed the Jewish people to be conquered by the Romans in 70 C.E.?
Q:Did the authors of the New Testament misquote Jesus?
A:Rather than reading my opinion on the matter, please make your own conclusion from these two debaters: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5K-AOfj1Axg
Q:Why are the gospels styles so different?
A:Like any authors of their works, they have specific tastes and audiences to appease. A list of the differences:
-The gospel according to Matthew has a topical literary style. The author's audience were most likely Hebrews living in Antioch, and the author want to convey Jesus to them as higher than Moses.
-The gospel according to Mark is sermon based. The author's audiences were probably Hebrews living in Jerusalem or Egypt, and the author want to narrate Jesus as the messianic king who God's people were waiting for.
-The gospel according to Luke is similar to that of an ancient biography. The author's audience was Theophilus, a wealthy, influential, Jewish high priest. The author may have wanted to emphasis Jesus as the fulfillment the law while he introduces the prophets, since it dives more into Sadducean objections regarding the afterlife, or as a testimony for his granddaughter's (Joanna) belief in Christ.
-The gospel according to John seems strongly influenced by Aramaic, Jewish theology (derived from the same line of tradition we find in Jewish Targums and Philo's literature). The author writes what the synoptic gospels don't mention regarding Jesus's ministry (John 21:24-25). And he wanted to emphasize that Jesus Christ is God, the Word/dabar/Memra/Logos.
Q: Why isn't the gospel of Thomas part of the New Testament?
A:You may have noticed that the gospel of Thomas haven't been in news lately, have you wondered why? Well that because the research on the apocrypha wasn't completed and you were conned by people who wanted you to distrust the bible. Fragments of the gospel of Thomas reveal that the work was in fact a gnostic work (verse 22 was dead give away).
means it had to been written around the 2nd to 3rd century C.E. That's about 100 yrs after the last apostle (John) died, so it has no apostolic value, thus not deem inspired and not included in the NT.
Q:Why doesn't the Gospel of Mark mention the resurrection-doesn't this deny the divinity of the Son?
A:Even Bart Erhman admits that the Mark's author believed Jesus was divine. Even if scholars hold that sacred book as damning evidence against Christianity's view of the Sonship of Christ, Apostle Paul's works discusses the divinity of Christ, which several were claimed to be written at least a decade before the Gospel of Mark, so not only does this places scholars'/Atheists' objection to rest, but also this should make us question their intellectual honesty. “So why isn't the post-burial of Jesus mentioned?” you may ask. According to early accounts, after the Gospel of Mark was read, witnesses were supposed to stand up and give their testimony about Jesus's resurrection for the rest of the congregation to hear.
Q:Why I should anyone trust the gospels if they were written long after Christ's death?
A:First of all if we're going question the historicity of any book in antiquity, then we'll have to logically apply a historical method to decipher its contents and move on from there. Historically saying, we don't have many writings that were close to the events other than maybe works on Julius Caesar, Alexander the great,etc, Even Herodotus wrote of events centuries before his time, yet every few demand a complete of those things.
Also, in the quest of trying to be neutral towards orthodoxy of religious text and the rejection of them, scholars become in conflicted with prophecy. The typical assignment to prophecy is to date the text after the “prophecy” was “fulfilled”. (Of course there's other factors as well.) Since Jesus prophesied the destruction of the temple in the synoptic gospels, to remain consistent, scholars have to assert that the Gospels were written during or after 70 AD. This is the same reason why scholars placed the book of Daniel (or at least a 1/3 of the book) around the middle of the second century B.C.E.
In short, the gospels may not have been written that late and since Christians aren't burdened by denialism of the supernatural, many of them affirm the scholars' dates for the Gospels as a potential date rather than as an objective assessment.
Q:How could anyone believe that a snake talked to a person like in Genesis?
A:First of all, if you believe our ability to speak is derived evolutionary steps, there's no reason to think it couldn't happen to other animals, it worked for parrots,it should for an extinct snake species.
Archaeology is finding more and more about ancient Hebrew language and cultures, including the understanding of the term “serpent”. “Serpent” in Hebrew has multiple meanings such as 'the burning one', the same description for the angels Isaiah saw in Isaiah 6. If you look at the 273 & 274a seals, seraphims are depicted as serpents with limbs/wings, which may explain why Genesis 3 & Revelation 13 imply that the “serpent” had limbs at one point. When you consider all the data, we might have grounds to assume that the serpent in Genesis was a seraph.
In conclusion, why could the “snake” talk to a person? Because it might have been a bright, spiritual creature.
*https://www.bibleodyssey.org/-/media/Images/Passages/S/seraphim-keel-uehlinger-seals.ashx?la=en&hash=ADD263FC4B0524B81423FEA0815563F9B26EABC1
Q:If the crossing of red sea happened then why wasn't there an Egyptian dark age
A:In your non-Hebraic bible, Exodus states there were ___ but the word eleph here can also mean chief or tribe. This reading is consistent with the drowning of the baby boys in Exodus, with few elders the Israelites would've been able to move quickly, Pharaoh wouldn't have needed to send a large part of his army and Egypt wouldn't have suffered much financial ruin after they've drown, plus it's harmonious with Jesus's miracle with the feeding of the 5000. This is not to say there weren't a large non-martial group of Israelite women and children, especially when Israelite most likely practiced polygyny, much like Abraham. And we most consider that's extremely probable that there were slaves who stayed in Egypt, especially if they were non-Israelite as they were not mistreated and highly prized (more so than Egyptian farmers).
Q: Why don't scholars believe the Exodus took place ~1450 BC when 1 kings 6:1 confirms it?
A: There are 2 reasons. First reason is because Exodus 1:11 records that the Israelites were enslaved in the city of Rameses, since the city was named by king Seti I, that means the Exodus had to supposedly taken place around the 13th century. Of course, that would mean that Joseph was king Seti I vizer because Joseph was given the land of Rameses (Genesis 47:11), but we 'little people' aren't allowed to question the obvious.
Secondly, scholars are inconsistent and hypocritical.
Scholars believe that the book of Exodus was written more or less 300 BC and 1 Kings was written around 6th century BC, so not only were they presumably created close to each other, but also 1 Kings was written before Exodus, yet these same scholars reject 1 kings 6:1 timing because it's too 'legendary' and doesn't support Pi-Ramses description of a 200 years later work. This resulted in scholars to think it's justified to isolate Exodus from the rest of the biblical works (even though that would make OT dating more contemporary with each other then the traditional view's, thus make them potentially more consistent, especially in a linguistic & cultural context, but proposing biblical consistency is an academic sin so...). And if they were to actually accept their secular dating of the OT, then the name for Rameses is more about the location than really the dating for city, which is consistent with Exodus's lack of officials' names.
Of course, this implies that the book of Exodus is more 'mythological' than 1 kings since it was written later.
In conclusion, if you're a traditionalist, you'll accept 1 kings 6:1's timing of Exodus in 1450 BC, and if you want to follow the assumed, earliest writings regarding the Exodus's dating (like historians are expected to), you'll accept 1 kings 6:1's timing.
Q:“Habiru” is more of a derogatory title, not an ethnic group. How can you say the Amarna letters has anything to do with the Hebrews of the Exodus?
A:The origin of Habiru may have came from the Akkadian word for migrate or foreigner, which the Egyptians took the term as Apiru. Apiru sounded like a similar Egyptian word that meant 'filthy' hence its negative association (which supports Genesis 46:34), later, other kingdoms, like the Hittites, would adopt the Egyptian pronunciation and definition of Apiru.
Look into how much the Hebrews emphasize their identity with being freed from Egypt even to the days of Paul (Galatians 3:17?). It shouldn't surprise anyone that a recently freed group would want to be viewed as rebels of their oppressors.
Notice that all the Amarna letters report the uprising of Habiru happens in Canaan which you would expect of the biblical conquest occurred (although several latter found in other lands were reports/request for help). Remember though, according to the book of Joshua & Judges the Hebrews recruited Canaanites into their fold, which addresses several of the scholars doubts between the letters and the biblical narrative.
And it's just pure coincidence that after the uprising of the Habiru comes inscription references the land of Israel just, right?
Q:Why do Christian try to enforce part of the Law if they don't even follow the commandments to not eat particular meats and don't observe the Sabbath on Saturday?
A:Mostly because of what Jesus said according to Mark 7, which He states that all unclean foods are now clean. But Christ goes on describing a list of what defiles a person and the first thing He mentions is sexual immorality, which would've been obvious to His audience with Leviticus 18 on their mind. As for the sabbath, what we read in Acts, Corinthians, Revelations, and Didache that followers of Christ were to met on the first day of week(A.K.A the lord's day), which is Sunday. Plus Jesus answered this question according to Mark 2:23-28. So as Christians, we walk in the standards of our holy Master, even if it breaks our hearts along the way.
Q:Why should we respect a god who would demand the genocide of the Canaanites
A:If the hyksos theory were, at least partly, Abrahamic is correct; then the Hyksos who fled from the native Egyptians during a war in 1400's B.C.E. were the ones who entered the land of Canaan becoming Canaanites, leaving rest of the Hyksos in Avaris (the land under the city of Ramses) to be abandoned and enslaved.
This means that the Canaanites were not only related in blood (at least partly) but also in religion with the Hebrews ( they said they knew of God's deliverance in Joshua), so they knew that they, their children as well, are part of the promise to Abraham and were created by the image of God, yet they would idolize and butcher themselves for idols formed with human hands.
So, If anyone is going to call this a genocide, then it should only be defined as an Abrahamic genocide (and divine treason) since Canaanites serve their children to the flames of Moloch, but let's not forget that those Canaanites who repented, were consequently spared of God's revenge.
Q:Does this mean that God's people ought to follow in Joshua's footsteps towards apostates with swords and all?
A:No, because their Messiah has arrived -through the promise to Abraham- and the Christian's familial covenant is of spirit, not of blood.
Q:What's the meaning of life?
A:There are three paths to these question. The meaning of life for the individual is obtaining, displaying, and giving glory, initially it was towards God, but now people mainly take it to themselves or for others. For the living in general, it's to be fruitful and multiply (although, metaphysically, this could mean the propagation of ideas). Cosmologically, besides other answers previously mentioned, Ecclesiastes makes it clear there isn't any meaning.
Q:Wasn't Jesus is just a man?
A:Here's the irony of scholars' claim that figures become more divine/legendary over time then insist that it has to be true for Jesus, yet, in the history of Christianity we see the opposite occurred. The earliest recordings regarding Jesus viewed Him as fully God and fully human, afterwards, the early church's opponents try to paint Him as lesser being like a magician or an Aeon to explain Jesus's nature. And then ever since the monastic movement & the Arian controversy, the view of Christ as become more and more earthly/human. Now most people view Jesus as merely a person of his time, all of which disproves that particular scholastic claim for legendary development on Christianity.
Q: Is God of Judaeo-Christianity the same god as Allah described in the Qur'an?
A:If we move from the description the divine beings main title “God” (Allah simply means “the god” in Arabic), we find meaningful differences between the two. The Judaeo-Christian God for one has a plurality among the godhead (orthodox rabbis may disagree, so I would appeal to the divine relationships with the memra found in the Jewish Targums and the two powers of heaven discovery by Dr. Allan Segal to refute them) while the Islamic allah is unitarian (sort of. Allah's relationship with the eternal Qur'an, who's a white man is a complex one).
The Judaeo-Christian God has a name: YHWH (or the LORD in the NT), while allah may have numerous titles, he doesn't share nor makes reference to the same name.
The author of the book of Revelation who was inspired by God, the Holy Spirit, wrote there are no more literacy inspiration after Revelation. The author of the Qur'an -supposedly Allah- contracts this by inspiring Muhammad to recite whatever's on the Qur'anic tablet in heaven.
The divine beings in their respected religions, if a follower commit a crime earthly punishment is to submit to the law, but what happens in heavenly matters are different. The person who sinned has to holy before the Judaeo-Christian God through sacrifice (that's why Messiah had to die on a cross) and repentance, however, for allah, even if the person killed a hundred, innocent people, he 'forgives' (except for shirk) without much prerequisites or justice.
In Judaeo-Christianity God is the greatest being, He doesn't appeal to anyone higher than Him, but allah reportedly prays for Muhammad (not to Muhammad) which implies there's someone who more transcended then allah.
Psalm 139 makes it clear that God is omnipresent, where certain Hadiths states that allah is literally on a throne (or just above it). This attribute greatly affects how a deity's influence of power and reliability of prayers to him.
Many biblical critics claim that the deityship of the Christ was a gradual development as legend ages about him. However, by examining ancient prophecy with manuscripts(like the dead sea scrolls) that the notion of a God-Messiah existed before Christianity was manifested, we can easily object their preposition with Isaiah 9:6, Jeremiah 23:5-6, and Zachariah 12:8-11.
Q:Why didn't Pontius Pilate just release Jesus if he was found innocent?
A: The Judean crowd was blackmailing to Pontius Pilate (John 19:12). Pilate already was once trouble with the emperor Tiberius for dismantling the residence of Judea (Philo's Embassy to Gaius XXXVIII, 299-305). If another, similar complaint reached to Tiberius, Pilate may not only be expelled from his life's work, but perhaps even be executed because of it.
Q:If Jesus existed then why didn't Philo mention anything about him or Christians in general?
A:Philo was a theosopher, not an historian. There are a lot of things Philo doesn't mention like the Samaritans, Zealots, John the Baptist, etc. Philo wrote only wrote two contemporary, historical works, one is dealing with a local problem in Alexandra, Egypt, and the other is a complaint to Rome on their mistreatment to Jews. As for the latter letter, why would Philo mention Jesus Christ when the argument can easily backfire against him? Philo also had a strong sense of Israelite nationalism, so Jews killing their anointed, expected savor doesn't compliment his self-identity very well.
Q:Why should we listen what Christians have to say about data when Atheists, who are nondogmatic and unbiased, could interpret it for us?
A: The idea that anyone, especially a group, is unbiased is absurd. Atheists, by definition, are dogmatic about the unbelief of God. They may claim otherwise, but not only do their actions disprove their claims, there are studies that demonstrate atheists aren't unbiased.
It's even questionable that atheists can see a positive connection with God (especially if they emotinally became Atheists the way Paul Vitz describes in his book: The Faith of the Fatherless), which can/does influence how they understand biblical evidence.
Does this mean we should just blindly accept everything Christians say? In biblical theology, God's people are to present witnesses to make a case, likewise, to make the case for biblical history, Christians are to present evidence. At the same time, we Christians aren't respectable for non-believers' salvation, the individual is, and that personal respectability affects everyone.
Q:Why doesn't the list discuss about Genesis in relation to Creationism/Evolutionary processes?
A:I would have to describe varying perspectives of Christian evolutionists and Creationists. Horizontal gene transfer. How epigenetics can produce morphologically changes without one family evolving into another (like Darwin's Finches https://science.sciencemag.org/content/305/5689/1462) which challenges the anatomical evidence of the evolutionary theory, while it might explain convergent evolution and diversity better than present evolutionary models.
All of those are tangential about a list generally addressing biblical archaeology. That is also the reason why I hardly dive into source criticism
Q:There are more religions than the religions humanity could ever concoct, how do we know that Christianity is the right one?
A:First of all, don't apply double standards, if you don't believe astrology has any credibility regarding natural phenomenon then if you apply that standard to the credibility of religions, you've essentially eliminated a plethora of ancient religions as creditable while Christianity remain.
Second, we all know that universe (and everything inside of it) began to exist in history, so something like a tree god couldn't eternally exist because there was a time before genes, water, the sun, even electrons existed, yet someone independent of creation could have existed, do this, and you're left with a handful of religions that recognize such a sole being, and remember, Jesus historically come to save us. If you go a pagan religion, ask their idol (not their followers) about the time before creation and once you get bored of the silence, return to researching Christianity.
After you've done your research, Christianity would be the most satisfactory when such reasonable standards that are and could be given.
Q:What the bible's response for the problem of evil?
A:The book of Job explains in detail the answer of evil.
Q:What your response for the problem of evil?
A:If you read Epicurus' premises, what really follows if God is omnipotent even over human choices, then the choice of call him a god or not isn't up to us humans, rather God's choice for us to say.
Part of being omnipotent is being self-sufficient and, by extension, independent of everything in the ultimate sense, so if God is definitively omnipotent then whether or not He prevents evil doesn't effect His benevolence because His attributes are self-sufficient and independent of what happens in biology (from single cell organisms to humans with complex social commutations). Moreover, if God is as cruel Epicurus paints Him to be, then trying to appease Him is the wisest decision you can ever make, since God can change the outcome of rebellion with omnipotence and because you value your own life.
Q:But what about suffering?
A:Which suffering? The suffering God experiences whenever someone disrespects Him and violates His property (creation) on a daily basis (and through execution) and has to be aware it for eternity because of his omniscience or the one an individual may physically endure at most 120 years (usually fewer)?
The fact God doesn't bring punishment the moment we became totally deprived, and the possibility for us to enjoy in this life at all, is an act of benevolence and patience of His suffering on His part. God also provided an escape for humanity through the cross and sanctification if they turn to him, but most people rather live their lives by their own definition of good & evil, hence why sin continues to spread. Eventually God's patience will end and will bring justice for violations directed toward Him & His property.
Q:Why can't we just be happy and leave each other alone?
A:Hedonism for the basis for human flourishing from a neurological perspective is unrealistic.
Dopamine, the that's commonly prescribed as the main means of happiness, like all neurotransmitters becomes insensitive after repented exposure, so you feel less “happiness” whatever activity you engage in over time. That's why have to do more of the activity in order to obtain “happiness” and avoid withdrawal, but there's a problem with this. Many of the neurotransmitters people that contribute to “happiness” are excitoxic that means these neurotransmitters can destroy neurons once they become overstimulated (not until you feel symptoms of anxiety, ofc). For dopamine, this could lead to Anhedonia, the inability to feel pleasure. BTW this is why in the West people are more depressed and more divorces than ever, despite having more means to obtain “happiness”.
2nd A:As second half of the question, people have an innate need to other because of oxytocin. Oxytocin is the social hormone people need to mentally function properly, otherwise their adrenaline levers becomes unbalanced and then they start experiencing anxiety. Oxytocin is especially necessary for cooperation (which translates for civilization as a whole). For your mental & spiritual safety, we Christians ought not to leave you alone.
All of this concludes that hedonism is untenable way to live, unlike Christ once you repent.
Q:Why should I care if this view of evidence and logic seems 'unhuman' and robotic?
A:There are numerous animals that have emotions, mostly certain non-human mammals and birds. What one of the things makes us human, the image of God, is the ability to control emotions so to look at/interact with reality objectively. If we're to abandon this ability to think logically, we were would become different than human. (This is not to say we should neglect our emotions, but it shouldn't control us and our ability to understand reality).
Q:What your response to those deny Jesus Christ's existence?
A:Jesus-deniers don't typically apply their claims with a historical standard of antiquity like scholars do, so they're viewed as conspiracy theorists (almost equivalent to people who deny the moon landing) even among secular historians.
Q:If I want to read the bible, what do I read?
A:If you want the historical side, start with Genesis to Ester then read Luke, John, and Acts. If you want to know what happen during major time gaps between books, you may want to read Flavius Josephus's antiquities of the Jews.
If you want the holistic, theological side, first read Nehemiah 9:5b-35 and allow this prayer to be the overtone of how you're to view the old testament, go to Genesis 2 and look for the one who's to fulfill Genesis 3:15- Exodus 20 if you wish-skip to Numbers 20:2-21:9 then Deuteronomy 4-12 but just understand that in the ritual laws God demands His people to be pure before Him and that the Israelites conquered Canaan. Then read the 4 Gospels and follow along the prophecies regarding Christ.
Q:Who gets to interpret scripture?
A:-The earliest commentary of the Gospels reported in Christian history is by Papias, a disciple of the Apostle John, yet it wasn't viewed as in par with Scripture in the sense it was tradition passing down, and it wasn't seen as important enough to be copied even to this day. The references we do have on Papias' commentary from other Christian theologians is rather dismissive. What we can take from this there probably weren't a respected interpretation that was passed down disciple to disciple, otherwise Papias' commentary would the bases of churches understanding of the four gospels which didn't happen.
-The earliest claim of a tradition that was passed down to the churches (specifically the churches in the northeastern part of the Mediterranean) was by Irenaeus (second generation after Apostle John). Irenaeus of claimed that Jesus was over fifty years old when he died. No one believes in that now, and if that's the first essaliatic tradition outside of the bible, what does that say about the rest of them?
-In 180's-210's C.E the vast majority of early churches adopted something called the “Alexandrian Allegorical method of interpretation”. If most churches had to accept a new method to understand the bible, we logically have to agree that they didn't have a tradition of interpretation to understand the bible that was passed down, otherwise the said method would be treated as redundant and perhaps heretical.
Above all else, if anyone writes any pieces of literature and needs a interpreter (not a translator) to comprehend their meaning, they've failed as authors. So, who gets to interpret scripture? The author/s, but it's the responsibility for the reader to find the historical & grammatical contexts/intent in the authors' writings.
Q:How could God exists if X exists?
A:Whaddo you meme?
Q:What about social justice and the church?
A:To understand what going to happen to western Christians once they're full under marxism we should read the gulag archipelago; volume 1: chapter 8; section: The Trial of the Churchmen to The Moscow Church Trial.
It's ironic whenever some say real socialism has never been done before; yet, what we see now is rhymed with the Arians politicians in the 4th century did by controlling discussion, and how Lenin influenced Russian academics (the ones later propagandize the disenfranchised and students). History is repeating itself from Marxists who thinks they're doing something new, refusing to acknowledge what they're doing is historically outdated.
To directly answer the question, it continues to cause most liberal churches to divide members & foreclose many of their individual buildings, and in the future the churches that stand firm will suffer until the socialist society inevitably collapses onto itself. Those who think this is a conspiracy theory, there's no sizable, long-term push back against it, our soft sciences love it, and even our leaders are follow along the narrative (abet slowly).
More importantly, they're basically carpocratians, which means not only are they outdated, they've been rejected as authentic Christianity for nearly 1800-1900 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcellian_Carpocratians
Q:What about Feminism?
A: Even the old testament times women could own land. The tradition of female land ownership goes as far back as the first civilization in Sumer. In fact, shared ownership was one of the benefits of traditional marriage. Where both in-laws would give the couple's inheritance so they have a head start in building a family (also acted as an investment for the parent's retirement plan).
What feminists fail to mention (perhaps deliberately) is child morality prior to the invention of vaccines. By average, only 3/10 children, 1/7 children during the Bubonic plague, survived into adulthood past the age of 5-7 (and then you have plague, dysentery, parasites, etc. to live with) as a result the vast majority of the women HAD to be pregnant throughout their young adult lives. Their efforts were essential for their tribes could survive, let alone thrive. And consider this, what were the three main occupations for humanity prior to the 20th century? Hunting, Ranching, and farming. Imagine forcing most expecting mothers to engage in such deadly, arduous tasks, if they didn't call you “idiotic”, then “abusive” is accurate. That's why fathers had authority with their responsibility & love in their families in the past.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueChristian/
http://aomin.org
https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/theology/general-christian-topics/doctrine-questions/4703746-2-thessalonians-2-15
https://coldcasechristianity.com/
https://www.gotquestions.org/
https://patternsofevidence.com/blog/