I'm becoming more and more partial to Christianity

>re translate the Bible to whatever the fuck they feel like and cherry pick when it doesn't suit them.
That's figuratively the concept of the Magisterium.

>The US presidential campaign, the way it exposed the general corruption in the media and upper echelons of society. The bizzare passtimes of the elites, revealed by wikileaks...
>In the middle of all of that, it became apparent to me that the most evil people in the world today have one thing in common, they always do the opposite of what Christianity teaches. You don't see Hillary Clinton's dubious friends desecrating the Quran in their edgy performances. So, if anything, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Are you a 16 year old, or do you just type like one?

>Better yet Syrian or Assyrian or Ethiopian Christian

These are almost ethno-churches as that helped them to survive better, so I dont think OP would get acess easily.

OP were do you even life?
America?

I think your problem is that you haven't met any smart atheists.

Have you watched any of Sam Harris's videos:

samharris.org/blog/category/islam

He literally tears a new one into Islam and Hillary Clinton for not calling Islam out.

He is an atheist, but he points out the Christians aren't the real threat.

>The US presidential campaign, the way it exposed the general corruption in the media and upper echelons of society.
Yes.

>The bizzare pastimes of the elites, revealed by wikileaks...
If you mean """pizzagate""" that's some unsubstantiated bullshit. I'm not saying our politicians AREN'T child sex traffickers i'm saying there's no enough evidence to condemn them, let alone convert to Christianity over it.

>You don't see Hillary Clinton's dubious friends desecrating the Quran in their edgy performances.
OK? I don't desecrate anyone's scripture. Shouldn't lead anyone to believe I approve of it.

>So, if anything, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Mobster logic.

>the most evil people in the world today have one thing in common, they always do the opposite of what Christianity teaches.
Um. Example. Killing people is bad. Christianity disapproves. But so does nearly every other moral system on Earth. Christianity isn't right because evil people do the opposite. Its claims are a lot more all-encompassing than that. Its claims include such binding clauses as "Worship Christ or burn in hell." It doesn't matter how moral an Atheist is, for example, he broke the first rule. Worship Christ or burn in hell. Believe in the supernatural elements of his story or burn in hell. It doesn't matter how good the secular ethics are, it coerces people into believing in supernatural claims from a young age based on little evidence. So unless you agree with those, you're S.O.L on the secular ethics.

Any of the secular ethical "rules" of Christianity can be successfully applied without actual faith in the supernatural. I never get why people act like things such as "thou shalt not kill" was some kind of Abrahamic innovation and not a very simple and inevitable pre-existing social contract that allowed societies to thrive.

No. South America.

There is a Greek Orthodox near where I live, but I'm not Greek so I don't feel welcome.

I tend to agree with Protestant theology more.

> Killing people is bad. Christianity disapproves. But so does nearly every other moral system on Earth.

Except when you are a Muslim apostate.

It specifically says you have to die.

youtu.be/Z59wznc5DTI

Yep Asiatic religions were taken into account and I actually have quite a bit of respect for the "pseudo-religion" (dont mean that in the disrespective way but rather that it originated as a non-thiestic philosophy) Confucianism which has a really interesting concept of "Concentric circles of state" which can actually be found in later fascist writings many years later.
I never did too much research into African christian colonies but I know there is a fairly large following in Ethiopia; As far as south America it is a little bit more complicated when it comes to crime rates but you can still see geographic maps where crime such as murder,theft,rape ect. actually are "warded" off or away from the areas around churches and cathedrals. I actually got the chance to talk to a professor in Argentina about this for a project in one of my politics courses and he gave a hypothesis that is as follows: People,even irreligious people have "built in" instincts regarding the respect of areas that are societially deemed "holy". It seems that even criminals on some levels innately want to respect these religious spaces and will veer their criminal activities into areas further into urbanized areas. In Chile and Argentina rural areas are actually safe and a nice place to live - its only once you move into more secular urbanized zones that crime rates spike into astronomic levels.

>I tend to agree with Protestant theology more.
ergofabulous.org/luther/

> The muzzies is bayud
> There4 DEUS VULT

Respond to my arguments with something other than propaganda to make people hate muslims more. Islamic Terrorism is not a good reason to convert to Christianity. It's a good reason to fight Islamic terror.

>Concentric circles of state
Can you dish out some info on this? It sounds interesting

Do you have a bank account or have a retirement account?

Do you profit from any thing related to making interest?

Because that's against true Christianity that the the Orthodox preach whiles protties ignore it so they can make the money.

This is your immortal soul we are talking about.

Don't be afraid to talk to the Orthodox church members about joining.

>Bad Muslim meme
> Muh Sam Harris
> Muh Hitchslap videos

..... S-s-sargon...is t-that you?

Did you watch the video?

Its Richard Dawkins asking a Muslim religious figure what the punishment for apostasy is.

Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris have studied Islam more than most moderate Muslims have bothered.

...

Do you have to hate fun to be a true Christian?

No you just need one of these:

myholystone.com/categories/jerusalem-stone/

To be a true protestant

it was Jefferson, but that was because he was autistic and sperged the fuck out of shit that didn't fit his perspective (look it up he was a full on aspie)

no, in general you can't. Christian morals and ethics are at the same time affirmed in every human conscience yet contrary to human nature. Looking at the beatitudes is the fundamental core how how Christian spirituality and teachings coincide

there is no wisdom in peace, mercy, forgiveness, selflessness, and humility if Christ isn't Lord. It only works if Jesus is God incarnate. If he was not the messiah, then his teachings are worthless. They are the foundation for which they work

I, for one, am completely convinced that Christ's teachings are true. It speaks to my observation of the world more loudly and clearly than anything else possibly could. The relationship between Man and God explains everything. Jesus fulfills the needs of the human heart, and his teachings bring a sense of peace and indestructible truth. My solid understanding and acceptance of the teachings of Christ, followed with the understanding that they REQUIRE Christ to be God, is what gives me such a solid faith, even if in practice I waiver on a daily basis

Sure thing
So Confucius was pretty much obsessed with ritual and tradition - even when he himself didnt believe that the ritual actually did anything. He saw the act of the ritual and the traditional structure of the thing as being a cohesive element of society that kept people together and happy working together. The concentric circles go state is almost "Zen" in its simplicity and effectiveness:

Essentially any nation is a large circle made of smaller ones (Imagine a bulls-eye). The smallest possible circle is the family - which if healthy, happy, and prosperous can allow the health of all other circles; the next is the Town or Village which has to be made of healthy families in order to exist in a good way, then you have "Provinces" or in other countrys could be called "States" which in order to exist must consist of successful families and villages. Finally you have the Nation which is the largest of the circles, MUST give proper management and support to States,Villages, AND Families.

If all of these concentric circles are properly supported and maintained than in theory you could construct a utopia that Confucius imagined.

To be Baptist

>South America

That is a quiete pious land, you should find good communities whether they are catholic or protestant.

>pseudo
Well, it often seems to simply complement other beliefs which give the purely religious character (praying to spirits etc) while confucianism enhances it.

How much beef do modern christians have with the far easteners and others of that kind anyway?
The orthodox church starts interfaith dialogues with bhuddists and hindus for example, while american protestants shun those strongly as "eating from the same table as the Lord and the demons" is a core part of their beliefs and life. Who is in the right and how do the oldworld churches justifie this newfound lenience towards the civil heathen?

Kek isn't cultural christianity what that richcuck spencer of the ""alt right"" believes in?

I was an atheist until I was 21, I had a mildly religious experience that pushed me deeper into Christianity than I would have been able to get through dry interpretation but a lot of investigation for me was still self-motivated. I found the same thing as you did - the most deplorable people on Earth are in direct opposition to Christ, and the most moral people are in harmony with him, this a pretty telling sign of the legitimacy of Christianity. I discovered, upon reading the Bible, that the supposed "contradictions" that atheists always ramble about were simple not present in the actual text, I really don't think many atheists can read or understand the Bible at all, they are seriously disingenuous in their interpretation of many passages and their relevant historical context, I have yet to come across a single legitimate contradiction in the Bible and at this point.

It is easy for faith to waver in this unimaginably immoral society we live in, even after a religious experience I have still had a number of moments where I lost faith, but it has always come back to me after a short time, God is certainly helping me hold onto my faith even in times of despair, that is very clear to me now. Christianity is the truth, the absolute truth, it might take a while for you to warm up to it but if you pay attention to the world around you the truth of Christianity is self-evident, confess that Jesus is Lord and your journey will begin.

I'm not going to talk about denomination here, just be sure to give every branch a good, fair examination and you'll find the true Church.

>Christian morals and ethics are at the same time affirmed in every human conscience

Are you saying Christian morals and ethics are just what people default to even when they haven't heard of Christianity by this? Also why would the teachings of Jesus in his morality be useless if he wasn't the God incarnate? Are you in the belief that without God morals and ethics can't exist?

What do you mean by fun? If you mean acting like an undisciplined hedonists, then yes you do.

OP, I'd recommend watching the debates of William Lane Craig.

Also C.S. Lewis's book 'Mere Christianity' is a classic among newfound Christians or those curious about the faith.

Belief in God is totally enriching on a very deep level (i.e. the spiritual). The stronger your faith, the more expertly you can handle the travails of life.

"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you."

Hey man this isnt OP but I (and im assuming others) would be interested in hearing your "mild religious experience"

Only religious experience I ever had was making myself an idol and trying to emulate worship for a long time to see if results happen as a selfexperiment as fedorahtipper.
Regret not picking it up again but its nothing you can tell anyone without feeling like an esoteric retard or shizophrenic.
The concept of an absolute truth seems rather alien, there are thousands of virtuous hindusaints as well, but we cant connect to them as its a strange culture.

So the seeker in the west miht be automatically drawn to christianity because it is the closest and not the absolute.

But hey, thats faithpart I dont understand I guesss.

>Christian morals and ethics are just what people default to even when they haven't heard of Christianity by this?
I wouldn't say that, but I would say that every human mind is geared towards "eye for an eye" yet every human heart is softened by forgiveness.
>why would the teachings of Jesus in his morality be useless if he wasn't the God incarnate?
because his teachings are based entirely on the theology of sin. Without God, there is no sin. Not that there can't be morals or wrongdoing, but it's not sin. Sin is an essence, and almost black-hole type of spiritual force that envelopes and sickens every person. Christs teachings are specifically geared towards healing and growing the individual spirit to be more Christlike, to be more God like. Christian teachings are not geared to create a kingdom or society on earth, Christ's kingdom is in heaven.

This is what pissed off the Jews which killed him. They wanted the messiah to have teachings that applied to this world, not the next. I mean, what's the point of saying that lust is in essence adultry if it's just a matter of ethics and not the spirit?

the other hand is that, logically, you cannot give authority to Christ's teachings without giving authority to his claims. In every Gospel he proclaims to be God. It's the CS Lewis Liar, Lunatic, or Lord theory. I feel like it's often misinterpreted to trick atheists into believing there's a logical deduction to Christs divinity, when it's actually used to combat the question of him being just "a good teacher." It's out of the question. It is an unacceptable conclusion to reading the Gospels.

>I have yet to come across a single legitimate contradiction in the Bible and at this point
How about Jesus' birth in Matthew and Luke

but you can say that morals of other religions are also affirmed in the same way.

I would, with the exception that this only applies to morals also found within Christianity. I can't think of a major religion with moral teachings opposed to Christianity that I find appealing/I've seen having a universal appeal or effect the way Christian morals do.

Convert to the native religions. Better than christianity.

Atheist who enjoys theology here.
My recommendation is to study early church history, read theological works by different thinkers: Augustine, Aquinas, the scholastics are surprisingly good, even modern people like Van Til or Barth (definitely Barth). It's important to separate theology and the philosophy and exegesis behind it from the common person's understanding of it.
Read through the Bible too, appreciate the really interesting stories and teachings like you would any other ancient holy book.
Basically approach it high mindedly, try to avoid any popular apologists and read the apologists that influenced them.
And read Kierkegaard. Always read Kierkegaard.

I prayed for God to show me the truth, as I was completely lost spiritually, having no idea which religion was true or false, and immediately afterwards I saw a vision of the cross illuminated on my bedroom wall, which then faded.

Considering prayer was something I had never really done before, to get a sign like that immediately after praying gave me the push I needed to take Christianity seriously, it all makes sense after reading the New Testament too.
>Ask, and it shall be given you: seek, and you shall find: knock, and it shall be opened to you. For every one that asketh, receiveth: and he that seeketh, findeth: and to him that knocketh, it shall be opened.
Literally all you have to do is earnestly ask and pay attention to the world around you and the Lord will reveal the truth to you if you are willing to receive it.

I went to church as a child and teenager, then went into ultimate fedora atheist mode, and then finally came to Christianity

basically my journey has been:
don't care -> agnostic apolitical -> atheist democrat -> agnostic libertarian -> agnostic conservative -> christian conservative

***the key is in the metaphysics of religion***

OP check these two vids out:

youtube.com/watch?v=04wyGK6k6HE&t=210s

youtube.com/watch?v=nqONu6wDYaE

other Christian currently ITT, I can back this up.

What atheists with the "why doesn't God just reveal himself to prove me wrong?" mentality don't understand is that that kind of spiritual arrogance is the polar opposite of Christianity. God has already given and shown himself more than you deserve. I mean hell, Jesus is the most famous man in history. The Bible is the most widely available book in the world. It's right in front of you. You need to open your heart to God being God though, with and knowing that it is you who needs him, not him who needs you

liar, lunatic or lord... why can't he be a lunatic or liar.

i also think that thing only applies if you assume christ wrote the gospels and not other random people which are unreliable/corruptible.

He can only do that if he is an actual indio with a connection to a community with a mostly unbroken line of worship and udnerstanding, as the indios dont want foreigners coming for their insular communities as far as I know you are telling him to LARP like odinist americans do.

i feel like your opinion isn't a great one; yes material but you're an atheist!

>Literally all you have to do is earnestly ask and pay attention to the world around you and the Lord will reveal the truth to you if you are willing to receive it.

Come on, you don't think millions of people ask and don't get the same outcome as you?

I highly recommend looking up Ravi Zacharias on YouTube, and Aaron Budgen at living god ministries dot net.

Aaron will teach you the gospel, and Ravi will teach you how to reason.

Just be clear that Christianity is based on two things, and two things alone:

1. That Jesus Christ is Lord God Almighty in the flesh; and
2. That he rose from the dead.

Confessing the first out loud, and believing the second in your heart will cause you to become a Christian (Romans 10:9-10).

I wish you godspeed and will pray for you. You're seeking the right path, the narrow path that is Christ Jesus, and him alone.

Once you become a born again Christian, however, know that you are merely a babe in Christ, and this place is full of monsters. Shun it until you learn about the complete armor of God so that the joy of your salvation will not be taken from you.

>why can't he be a lunatic or liar.
that's the argument as how I'm saying it; he can be, but then his teachings are bullshit
>other random people which are unreliable/corruptible.
no, read the Gospels yourself and any serious study on them (historical, literary, or spiritual) and you will find that the message they tell is not worthy of doubting in philosophical reliability. Yes of course its claims are extraordinary and very possibly untrue, but if it's untrue then it was an organized and early effort of untruth. The meme that Christian canon wasn't established until Constantine is essentially bullshit

Jesus said knock and the door will be opened to you; seek and you will find. Ask and it will be given to you; believe and you will be saved.

Indians generally don't care of your race, what's more important is whether you become a member of their community.

Jesus said that if you seek him with an open heart, you will find him.

And you will realize that he was waiting for you at that moment, at that time, and always was. He will meet you right where you are, just as you are.

The people you debase as "protties" were given the power by the Holy Spirit to become the children of God.

Not to become members of your church. Anyone can do that, and be doubly damned.

philosophical unreliability? i just mean people making shit up and theres definitely atleast some stuff in those gospels which are made up. I also find it abit disheartening the way the gospels seem to have been compiled and how they are clearly not primary sources.

im saying many people do seek with an open heart and do not find.

Explain please.

>Come on, you don't think millions of people ask and don't get the same outcome as you?
Obviously not everyone gets as blatant an answer as I did, but there are countless people like me who tell you with honesty that these things do happen, and you have the entire Bible at your fingertips full of the same truth I was shown, and it is even proven that Jesus was a historical person at the very least, and that he was crucified and his tomb was found empty. There is more than enough material information at your disposal to reason Christianity to be reasonably believable, but of course it is all meaningless without faith. Faith is the cornerstone of Christian belief, I could have reasoned away my experience as a hallucination, or maybe a reflection coming in my window or something, but I have faith that it was a small miracle, and that makes all the difference.

And Jesus says none do.

Who do you think I will believe? You? Or Jesus?

See, the obvious condition is "with an open heart". So if a person says they searched for Jesus with an open heart, but did not find him, one of two things are true:

1. They did not have an open heart; or
2. God lies.

1. is more likely, and 2. robs men of all hope.

>i just mean people making shit up
if this were true then the four Gospels wouldn't be theologically and philosphically reliable. Yes, at least 2 if not 3 of the Gospels are almost certain to be primary sources. I took a history course on the early, pre-consantinian Church and I believe it's Luke and Mark as the earliest Gospels, with Matthew potentially being an offshoot of Mark

John is one of the latest Gospels, but it's also the most original in content yet doesn't oppose the other three in any meaningful way

Most ethnic groups dont care about race, but being a part of them is most evident by having two parents who were part of them which makes the race thing often more of a convenient indicator then something people obsessed over since always.

Anyway, this has potential to derail.
I just mean that OP would have to go out of his way to find one of the few remaining splintergroups that are left, might as well become christian which offers a solid base for life and death as evidenced by its popularity.

I've heard many testimonies like yours. One man in the bible demanded that a fleece be wet and the ground dry in the morning, and then when that happened, he demanded the fleece be dry and the ground be wet the next morning, and that happened too.

More recently, a Christian giving his testimony on the radio told Jesus that he couldn't give his heart to Jesus if Jesus couldn't do something simple, like cure his dog of the mange. The dog had been treated ineffectively for months, but the next day was made whole.

God's not adverse to proving himself to people.

He's adverse to forcing himself on people.

I love your sign, because when I get weary and bloodied, that's where I go. I go to the cross. I go to where my savior died in my place, pinning my bill of crimes on that cross, and paying my penalty for them, which is death, and eternal separation from him. I place my hand on his bloody head knowing in my heart that I would have driven the nails into his hands and feet, or stabbed him in the heart, just so that I could live.

And he knowing that loved me anyways, and died for me anyways.

No greater love.

going to back up the user who replied to you

many people ask for God with *but* clauses
>God I want you in my life, but I need my personal strongholds
>God I want you but I won't or can't change that much
>God I want you but only some of you
>God I know I've rejected you in the past and currently have the same mentality and emotional worldview as back then, but I need you to save me from my problems
>God I want you but to fight on my side against other people
>God I want you to give me what I want
etc etc.

Dude, Luke said outright that he took everyone's account and put everything into good order.

Saying Luke is not a primary source is believing what Luke wrote. That he took what people wrote and put it into good order.

Then he wrote the Acts of the Apostles.

Don't believe this nonsense about a Q that other gospels are based on; it's merely a ploy to denigrate the fact that three apostles, Matthew Peter (through John Mark) and John wrote their own eyewitness testimonies of their years with Jesus.

And bearing witness to his life, ministry, miracles and resurrection.

Where is your miracles?

I'd agree that the Catholic church leadership is rather weak, but in the paste they created the Crusades and saved Europe from Muslims several times.

What has Protestant done short of give King Henry an heir that died and corrupt Christianity by letting Christians commit usury for profit.

You say you have the holy spirit, but even Muslims claim they have the one true religion.

>Who do you think I will believe? You? Or Jesus?

i dont think you're the most reliable source of information either dude, especially with that reasoning.

My grandson with a hole in his heart had the hole disappear after being prayed for.

My deaf, dumb and blind grandson regained his hearing, sight and speech when prayed for.

At least twice my vehicle has occupied the same space as another vehicle without being hit, or rolling over, or me dying.

At least twice angels kept me from bleeding to death.

The reason you do not see miracles is that you do not know God, and you cannot see things through God's eyes.

Nor would you believe if you did see a miracle; not all Jews in Jerusalem were saved.

Christians have formed the Church, with Christ as its head, and have secured places in heaven, in the New Jerusalem, to live with Jesus Christ forever after this universe is destroyed.

After the universe is destroyed, your precious accomplishments of your whore church will be remembered no more, and its inhabitants sharing space with your spiritual father, the devil himself, in a dark lake of fire.

If you cannot debunk Islam, which preaches that Jesus was not God, did not die, was not crucified, is not part of the Trinity, and did not rise from the dead, I see no basis for you to consider yourself anything but lost, blind, and poor.

Jesus said one thing.

You contradicted Jesus.

As a Christian, which person do you think I hold in higher esteem? Jesus? Or you?

Who do you think God the Father holds in higher esteem? Jesus speaking the truth?

Or you, lying?

You don't have to get your information from me. You can get it from the bible, and from the Holy Spirit of God directly.

I suggest you do so, quickly.

mark is the earliest gospel(or thought as) but that doesn't mean it was an eye witness account. In fact, the earliest dated books in the new testament is usually pauls work. thats how non-primary the gospels are. In my opinion, there is definitely some stuff in the gospels which had to be made up independently.

Paul is also an eyewitness to the risen Christ Jesus, and also spent years with Jesus in Arabia.

By lying you do the devil's work, and prove to God that you are worthy of the same fate as the devil.

Repent, and be saved, for the kingdom of God is at hand.

I don't mean to be that guy, but even Hitler survived death all the time. Like 30 times in his life.

Unless you think he was a good Christian.

>I already believe in Christian morality despite not believing in god and the fact that the elites don't follow Christian morality is making me want to believe in god.

The bigger question OP is why you thought the elites are evil to begin with.

>In fact, the earliest dated books in the new testament is usually pauls work. thats how non-primary the gospels are
how do Paul's letters being dated earlier than Mark mean that Mark never wrote the Gospel? or that John never wrote his Gospel, Revelations, or Epistles?

and Paul is a primary source to the divine nature of Christ, if not the Man. And his encounters with Peter, probably the most reliable eye witness of Christ as a man, are a testament to his legitimacy

dude, i don't know you think youre convincing but its not me.

and again, you don't think you should believe me? well i think the same of you.

and i've read the gospels thank you.

Nah. It wasn't that much. It was only about seven times, but hey that's better than most people.

militaryhistorynow.com/2015/12/03/lucky-bastard-seven-times-hitler-narrowly-escaped-death/

Yeah but nobody likes Jews. Jesus himself was like "shit man this religion sucks my version is better"

I like Jews and I think their religion is neat.

dude, whats wrong with you, im jkust giving my opinion, calm down. im not lying if its my honest belief.

you would think someone wrote it before.

Well, it was innovative at least.

Why are the genealogies of jesus in luke and matthew contradictory? that clearly shows that someone made atleast one thing was definitely made up.

Fuck off back to Pol or the donald

>you would think
so now do you see why Christians don't take the argument of the inauthenticity of the New Testament seriously?

Sure there's reasons to doubt, as you even just said there. It's not unfounded, and not unreasonable, but the only reason to give credence to that line of reasoning OVER the reasoning that
>all of the New Testament is theologically and philosophically sound
>vast, vast majority if not all of the New Testament can be traced back to very early times historically
>therefore, it's unlikely that the New Testament is the result of random people making up their own ideas and interpretations of a mythological man which embodies the spirit of his time and place, and these ideas over time were then morphed into a single story with a single ideology

well i don't necessarily mean random things up but theres reason to think of bias and the making up of events in order to fit agendas of the writers.

>but theres reason to think of bias and the making up of events in order to fit agendas of the writers.
yes they really wanted to be persecuted by Jews and Romans lmao

how would that have anything to do with being persecuted by jews or romans.

no i mean things like fulfilling messianic prophecies.

Thank you everyone for the answers. I'm going to sleep now.

You can blame that on colonization

the direct result of preaching Christianity in the society of the early church is persecution. People don't just make up stories to "fulfill prophecies" like the fantasy trope exists today. That makes no sense at all why people would go through punishment, suffering, and death all just to pretend that something happened

they'd need a reason for those prophecies to be fulfilled. In fact, one good reason would have been the independence of Israel. Zealots wanted the messiah to deliver Israel from Rome, but Jesus is counter revolutionary. He said to submit to authority and worry about loving your neighbor.

If you can think of a single reason why Christianity would benefit the early jews then we can have a discussion
>the agendas of the writers
>fulfilling prophecy

im trying to respect you but this is seriously retarded

What if they believed in the story of jesus already but just edited it to emphasize messianic prophecies to be more convincing to jews... that makes sense.

no, that still doesn't make sense then because we're back to our original argument (over the reliability and consistency of the NT) and THEN some.

Christianity was taught to the Greeks. Why would someone care about jewish OT nitpicking in making up a story to be told to Greeks and written in Greek?

why does it go back to the original argument, what is the original argument? It wasn't just told to greeks, there were alot of jewish christians as well in the beginning.

the new testament isn't 100% consistent.

Why does the NT cite messianic prophecies in the first place then? Why even call him the messiah?

Furthermore there are actual proven examples of the gospels inventing fulfilled prophecies, like Jesus' birth in Bethlehem.

that the NT could not have been composited of made up stories because of the level of consistency in teaching. That's just so unlikely that it's absurd to accept just because the alternative has supernatural implications
>Why does the NT cite messianic prophecies in the first place then? Why even call him the messiah?
Because was the messiah of the Jews, but now opens the arms of the God of Abraham to the whole world. I never once claimed that Jesus wasn't Jewish. That would be completely retarded. What's just as stupid and baseless though is to look at the Jewish elements of Jesus and use that as reasoning behind theorizing his fabrication, since common sense opposes that at every turn.

please show me which teachings are inconsistent? The genealogies in the two Gospels have already been mentioned ITT

The Ethiopian kingdom was one of the wealthiest and longest Christian empires which reigned for almost a millennium

I meant contemporary ones.