Proof of the existence of Christ

Jok · Apr 13, 2020

Nihilist Virus said:
Who cares? Those who want to be informed, I presume.

My point was who cares if two writers followed up a previous writer, I don’t see how that is a bad thing.

Nihilist Virus said:
Why?

Textual criticism revealed this for us, there wasn’t a conspiracy to pretend that it was authentic.

Nihilist Virus said:
Of course Jesus is resurrected in the original ending of Mark. The "angel" literally said so. Did you read what I said?

Great then we agree.

Nihilist Virus said:
Let me spell this out for you again.

Matthew and Luke often copy Mark word for word. Mark did not describe Christ's birth or ancestry, and the original version did not describe the events after the resurrection. Matthew and Luke, lacking a source for these parts of the gospel, seem to have invented their own versions. Their versions are not only worded differently but are obviously contradictory of one another.

You said it yourself. The resurrection is in the original version. Matthew and Luke leaned on creativity to continue the story in their own divergent ways.

Please just read what I'm saying. Don't read into it. Don't read a bias into it. Just read what I'm saying.

Clearly the million dollar question is whether or not a man came back from the dead. Whether or not the original story was all naturalistic but then supernatural myth crept in. By your own admission we agree that Mark gives us a resurrection. There aren’t many degrees of EMBELLISHMENT that you can throw on top of a man coming back from death. ALL sources grant that the man came back from death.

Nihilist Virus said:
Yet they copied Mark word for word all over the place. Perhaps you should rethink what you just said.

You have demands that can’t be met. If Matthew and Luke just copied Mark word for word you would knock them for not being original and conclude that we basically just have Mark. If they wrote all original information you would conclude that they’re making everything up. If they wrote a mixture of both, which is the case, you say that all original parts are just made up. All options possible are dead ends for you. You’re falling in love with the fact that today that would be bad practice. Matthew and Luke may have considered parts of Mark to be too good to pass up on copying, who knows.

Nihilist Virus said:
Matthew and Luke invented their own versions of the resurrection because the story ended abruptly in Mark

If a previous source ends abruptly without details then clearly there IS more that can said about a story. Heck even if Mark said a lot they can still add details. You must keep forgetting that we’re in the first generation here, DIRECT links to people who were with Jesus! This rigid insistence that if Mark didn’t say it it didn’t happen doesn’t make sense.

Nihilist Virus said:
, and then someone else later on added their own ending to Mark. In fact, there are several different endings to Mark. Who cares indeed! The resurrection is not historically reliable.

A later embellishment doesn’t cause an original story to become null & void. Having proof of a later embellishment is not proof that anything at all that came after Mark was also false embellishment. The way that Biblical writers color things with theological concepts and allusions to other parts of scripture also make things get more difficult, but you don’t abandon all hope because something is a difficult study.

This is the problem a lot with these Christian/non-Christian sections, it’s not an even playing field. The Christian is dealing with a complex study of ancient cultures and sources, it’s much harder to defend a complex subject matter than it is to just sit outside and hurl attacks at it, and point out places where an explanation isn’t obvious. There’s a reason why it is a lifetime study.

Nihilist Virus said:
The authors of the gospels were very highly educated. They weren't illiterate fisherman or thuggish tax collectors.

Different skill levels, different audiences to address, and different theological slants. If puzzles remain inside of 2000 year old texts you don’t rip them up and call them useless. It’s so easy to just start screaming contradiction, it’s much more tedious work to try to understand the meanings more precisely. You call Matthew and Luke highly educated, yet you then assume that they both are completely oblivious to blatant contradictions inside of the new Christian circles to which they were a crucial part of. I think it is the modern reader who just struggles to piece together all of the original intent, some sections are easier to decipher than others.

Nihilist Virus said:
Personally, when I encounter a historical document that says something like, "King Ramses' army fled in terror from the battlefield, so Ramses killed 25000 men by himself" I read around the propaganda
.

Context is everything. Nothing in history even rhymes with what first generation Christians believed about a guy that they personally knew. And I’m aware of the horrible arguments that Jesus was copy & pasted from older religions.

Nihilist Virus said:
And do you really engage Islamic works with this much dedication? Buddhist works? I think not. I need apologists to answer me directly, but instead you're just ranting and raving and beating around the bush. You didn't even seem to have read what I said!

Plucking a bunch of historical examples out of the ancient world, then accusing the Christian that they are ignorant about those examples, has nothing to do with the accuracy of historical Jesus.

Nihilist Virus said:
Because it's not historical. That's the point. The absolute most I can accept is the original manuscript of Mark. Matthew and Luke literally added fan fiction. Historically speaking, this is absolutely irrefutable. Please acknowledge so.

I acknowledge that you come to a lot of your facts by just waving your arms in the air and declaring them to be facts.

Nihilist Virus said:
Now, with regard to the original manuscript of Mark, all we have is an "angel" telling people that Jesus rose from the dead. Is that enough to conclude that Jesus was most probably risen? No! That would be insane.

I agree with that. I don’t make the argument that it’s true just because it was written down.

Nihilist Virus said:
The orthodox ancient Indians believed that we are all reincarnated when we die. To believe that an enlightened one could end the cycle of birth and rebirth is total blasphemy according to their own belief, and in their eyes such a belief was totally irrational. The Buddhist argument is that only something as drastic as the end of reincarnation could vindicate such grandiose claims.

Want me to do Islam as well? Similar things could be said about Muhammad (feces be upon him). Oh, and Mormonism. Joseph Smith started a blasphemous religion that is still going to this day.

Again, you’re plucking out a bunch of stories from history as if doing that argues against historical Jesus. Every one of your points needs to have a question attached at the end that says “Based on what?”
Christians believe in Christianity based on reasons, and they don’t believe in god ravens or in Islam because they are not satisfied with the based on what factor/question. Although yes I do agree that there are Christians who do not think like that, and they are just in Christianity because of their circumstances.

Nihilist Virus said:
The gospels were written after the Jewish religion had been shattered. The temple was destroyed and the Jews were already in captivity. The Jews literally believed that God inhabited the temple, and it was destroyed for all to see. And yet you'd have me believe that the messiah couldn't have been crucified. I find that to be very odd.

Psychologically, I must be different than most people. When I was a Christian, I had the tacit understanding that "Yep, praise God and etc., but if we find out this is all false then we're dropping it. Right? Right guys? Anyone...?" Ape minds apparently don't usually work that way. Most of you cling to beliefs that you know are false.

I came to understand this when watching a particular episode of Star Trek. I won't attempt to spell names, so I'll refer to characters X and Y. X was clinically dead for over 24 hours and was revived with Borg technology. He was extremely distraught to learn he'd been dead for so long because he saw nothing, when he should've been experiencing his afterlife. He started to lose his faith, but then Y astonishingly said, "This can lead to an even stronger faith." No one laughed or ridiculed him for saying it. Apparently this is how apes think.

So when the temple of God was destroyed, it led to an even stronger faith for the Jews. They do remain to this day, after all. I don't see why the crucifixion of the messiah is any different.

A long spiel about how humans have ape brains when it comes believing absolutely anything, that you can just tweak the belief system this way or that way and the ape mind just goes along for the ride. Yet you conveniently have the exact same reply mixed into a psychological explanation of how the belief in Jesus as risen Messiah had to post date the destruction of the Temple because that’s the only reason that the people (um apes) would have believed it lol. It’s as if you had so much momentum going on with just throwing out attacks that you didn’t even realize that your intertwined attacks were a bit contradictory.

^^THAT is if we were to even assume the brutal historical position that risen Messiah Jesus belief post dated the destruction of the Temple, to believe that such a belief didn’t exist before that is pretty bad! It’s not even close! The literal advent of what Christianity IS is the belief that Jesus was the the risen Messiah. Post dated the destruction of the Temple?? SMH.

Nihilist Virus said:
Bogus 30 year gap?

Ok, fact check time. I need to know whom I'm talking to.

What is the age of the universe? What is the age of earth? Is earth flat or spherical? Do we share a common ancestry with all life on earth?

These are not sarcastic questions.

With these questions you must have misread me. I don’t know why non-Christians are obsessed with gospels being physically written down 30 years later is what I was saying.

Nihilist Virus said:
30 year gap between the events of Jesus and the beliefs that Jesus pulled off the things that were attributed to him? ALSO YES

Wow! That’s probably all I needed to read. EVEN the hyper skeptic who completely disregards that first generation Christians were a culture of oral tradition, and who rigidly demands that absolutely nothing was going on at all until something was written down, even that person is exposed when you have Paul’s letter written in 55AD that had non-Pauline creeds imbedded into it about Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection. Imbedding creeds into your document was a literary technique for them that was used to pass on already established traditions.

This is exactly what I was talking about with uneven playing field. You can just think up one sentence attacks out of thin air and just start throwing them around, whereas the person defending a complex subject matter would have to chase around every empty sentence that you throw at them. That’s why I’m not a big fan of these sections. However I’m not knocking anyone who likes them, more power to those who love it in here lol!

ToddNotTodd · Apr 13, 2020

createdtoworship said:
sir the fact that you are dismissing my logical case that there was no technology capable of forging this is revealing your bias regarding this.

I think it’s been shown that you’re suffering from confirmation bias, but it’s interesting that you’re attempting to project it onto other people...

createdtoworship · Apr 13, 2020

ToddNotTodd said:
I think it’s been shown that you’re suffering from confirmation bias, but it’s interesting that you’re attempting to project it onto other people...

if you are winning this debate, why haven't you addressed any of the facts I present? If you wish to reenter this debate and not forfeit, just reply to this post:

Proof of the existence of Christ

Nihilist Virus · Apr 14, 2020

SkyWriting said:
You only have to provide one to make your point valid.

Mark 16 - Wikipedia

Go to "Explanations"

Both the shorter and the longer ending are considered to be later writings, which were added to Mark.[web 5] Scholars disagree whether verse 8 was the original ending, or if there was an ending which is now lost.[web 5] In the early 20th century, the view prevailed that the original ending was lost, but in the second part of the 20th century the view prevailed that verse 8 was the original ending, as intended by the author.[26][note 11]

Ending at verse 8Edit
Among the scholars who reject Mark 16:9–20, a debate continues about whether the ending at 16:8 is intentional or accidental.

That first sentence where it says "Both the shorter and the longer ending are considered to be later writings, which were added to Mark" is just a polite way of saying that it is a forgery.

Nihilist Virus · Apr 14, 2020

Jok said:
My point was who cares if two writers followed up a previous writer, I don’t see how that is a bad thing.

Then you missed the point entirely.

Textual criticism revealed this for us, there wasn’t a conspiracy to pretend that it was authentic.

You originally said,

I understand that the ending verses in Mark are later additions. I see this more as a credit towards Biblical textual criticism giving us accuracy for Biblical transmission then I see it as a conclusion of unreliability.

Now you have clarified that these later additions add credibility for the Bible. You must not be aware that these additions were fabricated hundreds of years later.

Great then we agree.

We agree that the Bible claims that Jesus rose from the dead. Hurrah.

Clearly the million dollar question is whether or not a man came back from the dead. Whether or not the original story was all naturalistic but then supernatural myth crept in. By your own admission we agree that Mark gives us a resurrection. There aren’t many degrees of EMBELLISHMENT that you can throw on top of a man coming back from death. ALL sources grant that the man came back from death.

Are you saying that the claim is simply so ridiculous that it doesn't matter how historically unreliable its transmission is to us?

You have demands that can’t be met. If Matthew and Luke just copied Mark word for word you would knock them for not being original and conclude that we basically just have Mark. If they wrote all original information you would conclude that they’re making everything up. If they wrote a mixture of both, which is the case, you say that all original parts are just made up.

If Matthew was a complete rewording of Mark, then I wouldn't be accusing him of making stuff up. You have just glossed over a major part of my argument. Please, pick up on the subtlety here:

Matthew and Luke copy/pasted large sections of Mark. Sometimes Matthew adds something that's not in Mark or Luke. That's fine. Sometimes Luke adds something that's not in the other two. Also fine

But the nativity, the genealogy of Christ, and the post-resurrection narrative are absent from the original manuscript of Mark. When Matthew and Luke tell their versions of these events, they disagree with one another. In fact, their accounts vary wildly.

Again, you completely glossed over this. Why would you do that?

All options possible are dead ends for you.

Wrong. Refer to the above.

You’re falling in love with the fact that today that would be bad practice.

In what era of history would it be good practice to have mutually contradictory historical accounts?

Matthew and Luke may have considered parts of Mark to be too good to pass up on copying, who knows.

Or maybe no other source existed and Matthew and Luke were not eyewitnesses, who knows.

If a previous source ends abruptly without details then clearly there IS more that can said about a story.

Yup. Like I said, it's called fan fiction.

Heck even if Mark said a lot they can still add details. You must keep forgetting that we’re in the first generation here, DIRECT links to people who were with Jesus!

That doesn't mean they actually consulted such sources. Your logic doesn't check all the boxes here. Do I have a direct link to Donald Trump merely by existing in the same generation as him?

This rigid insistence that if Mark didn’t say it it didn’t happen doesn’t make sense.

Another strawman.

Matthew could add things to Mark. That's fine. But if his additions directly contradict parallel additions contributed by Luke, then both sources are called into question.

How is this difficult?

A later embellishment doesn’t cause an original story to become null & void.

No one said it did. I'm not rendering Mark null and void here.

Having proof of a later embellishment is not proof that anything at all that came after Mark was also false embellishment.

Strong evidence of embellishment indicates a lack of historical reliability. Why is that difficult to accept?

The way that Biblical writers color things with theological concepts and allusions to other parts of scripture also make things get more difficult,

Yeah. It's called a biased source.

but you don’t abandon all hope because something is a difficult study.

Well, I certainly can't rely on apologists to do it for me either.

This is the problem a lot with these Christian/non-Christian sections, it’s not an even playing field. The Christian is dealing with a complex study of ancient cultures and sources, it’s much harder to defend a complex subject matter than it is to just sit outside and hurl attacks at it, and point out places where an explanation isn’t obvious. There’s a reason why it is a lifetime study.

It sounds like you're setting out to confirm your own bias. Is the conclusion that Jesus probably did not rise from the dead even an option for you? If not, what's the point of studying at all? How much study have you devoted to other religions?

Different skill levels, different audiences to address, and different theological slants. If puzzles remain inside of 2000 year old texts you don’t rip them up and call them useless. It’s so easy to just start screaming contradiction, it’s much more tedious work to try to understand the meanings more precisely. You call Matthew and Luke highly educated, yet you then assume that they both are completely oblivious to blatant contradictions inside of the new Christian circles to which they were a crucial part of.

I'm not calling them oblivious. I'm saying it's fan fiction. If you and I both wrote fan fiction on Star Trek, there's absolutely no reason to think that mine would be consistent with yours. We should only expect that mine and yours are each individually consistent with the real Star Trek.

I think it is the modern reader who just struggles to piece together all of the original intent, some sections are easier to decipher than others.

Context is everything. Nothing in history even rhymes with what first generation Christians believed about a guy that they personally knew. And I’m aware of the horrible arguments that Jesus was copy & pasted from older religions.

Horrible arguments?

A man is conceived outside of sexual intercourse who gains followers, speaks wisdom, radically alters the ancient religion he was born into, and becomes the central figure of a new religion which spreads across the world.

Wait... am I talking about Jesus Christ or the Buddha?

Plucking a bunch of historical examples out of the ancient world, then accusing the Christian that they are ignorant about those examples, has nothing to do with the accuracy of historical Jesus.

Again you miss the point. The point is that most historical documents contain fantastical claims, such as casual references to magic or monsters as though it's expected that the reader already agrees such things exist.

Christians basically give the Bible a pass every single time such a thing happens there, and then just "lol" at the Islamic texts when they talk about Muhammad (fbuh) and his magic carpet ride.

I acknowledge that you come to a lot of your facts by just waving your arms in the air and declaring them to be facts.

Ok. So could you explain how the resurrection narratives found in Matthew and Luke are probably not fan fiction?

I agree with that. I don’t make the argument that it’s true just because it was written down.

Again, you’re plucking out a bunch of stories from history as if doing that argues against historical Jesus.

I'm arguing against your method.

Every one of your points needs to have a question attached at the end that says “Based on what?”
Christians believe in Christianity based on reasons, and they don’t believe in god ravens or in Islam because they are not satisfied with the based on what factor/question.

No. Many Christians will happily say they just have faith, and that there is insufficient reason to believe, and that they have not looked into other religions at all. I suspect that I've discussed this particular subject with Christians far more than you have. My interaction with Christians is straight to points like this, and I don't waste time with prayer requests or splitting hairs on theological issues.

Although yes I do agree that there are Christians who do not think like that, and they are just in Christianity because of their circumstances.

That would be the vast majority.

A long spiel about how humans have ape brains when it comes believing absolutely anything, that you can just tweak the belief system this way or that way and the ape mind just goes along for the ride. Yet you conveniently have the exact same reply mixed into a psychological explanation of how the belief in Jesus as risen Messiah had to post date the destruction of the Temple because that’s the only reason that the people (um apes) would have believed it lol.

How is it a bad thing to connect my points together?

It’s as if you had so much momentum going on with just throwing out attacks that you didn’t even realize that your intertwined attacks were a bit contradictory.

Contradictory? No. The word you're looking for is "complementary."

^^THAT is if we were to even assume the brutal historical position that risen Messiah Jesus belief post dated the destruction of the Temple, to believe that such a belief didn’t exist before that is pretty bad! It’s not even close! The literal advent of what Christianity IS is the belief that Jesus was the the risen Messiah. Post dated the destruction of the Temple?? SMH.

Remind me, how was Christianity doing number-wise prior to the gospels being written? Consider your answer, then re-read what I said and your response.

With these questions you must have misread me. I don’t know why non-Christians are obsessed with gospels being physically written down 30 years later is what I was saying.

We aren't. You're the one who keeps making an issue out of it. Do you accept that they were or don't you? I keep getting flat-earth vibes from you.

Wow! That’s probably all I needed to read. EVEN the hyper skeptic who completely disregards that first generation Christians were a culture of oral tradition, and who rigidly demands that absolutely nothing was going on at all until something was written down, even that person is exposed when you have Paul’s letter written in 55AD that had non-Pauline creeds imbedded into it about Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection. Imbedding creeds into your document was a literary technique for them that was used to pass on already established traditions.

Woah, calm down there. Yes. Paul gives us the resurrection, last supper, and maybe a virgin birth. That's it. Where are these "events of Jesus and the beliefs that Jesus pulled off the things that were attributed to him"? Are those couple of things from Paul enough to make the gospel of Matthew? No! So YES, there is a 30-year gap.

This is exactly what I was talking about with uneven playing field. You can just think up one sentence attacks out of thin air and just start throwing them around, whereas the person defending a complex subject matter would have to chase around every empty sentence that you throw at them.

That's why it's called the BURDEN of proof. It's harder to defend a claim than attack one.

But I'm not giving you a lot of attacks here. Just a small idea that you haven't even addressed in all this rambling.

That’s why I’m not a big fan of these sections. However I’m not knocking anyone who likes them, more power to those who love it in here lol!

Well, it would be loads better if you could stick to the point.

When Matthew and Luke retell the same story, they agree verbatim with each other if the story is found in Mark and they disagree wildly if the story is not found in Mark. So it looks a whole lot like they copy/pasted Mark and then just fabricated details from there.

Suppose instead that Matthew and Luke copy/pasted from Mark but then agreed with each other on stories not found in Mark. Then it would look like they had a real source and were not writing fan fiction. Please address this. Thanks!

NxNW · Apr 14, 2020

createdtoworship said:
sir you have two choices for the origin of the universe, either the universe created itself from nothing, or it was created by something else that was created from nothing.

That's a false dichotomy.

God by definition is beyond time and space,

That's not the definition of God.

Sir every atheist that used to be christian that I talk to, when I ask them if they repented when they were saved, none of them say yes. That means that the version of Christianity they tried and failed, was on a wrong foundation.

A collection of anecdotes is not data, nor is it an argument.

createdtoworship · Apr 14, 2020

NxNW said:
That's a false dichotomy.

you can't quote two of the three options and then say it's a dichotomy. I presented a 3rd option, but then said it does not have any evidence.

That's not the definition of God.

If God created time, space and mass, shouldn't he be outside of it? I mean when you bake a cake, are you part of the cake or are you outside of it? I think the basic principle of what God is, dictates He be outside of the universe. But even if that is not convincing to you. Here is another evidence. God by definition is omnipresent, which means He is everywhere at once. If God is everywhere at once, HE cannot have form and mass, because wherever that mass was not located, God by definition would not be there, and that would contradict the definition of what God is (omnipresent). So because God does not have mass, due to the definition of God, therefore God is outside of time. Without time as an aspect to Him, He would therefore not have a beginning. But this goes in line with the previous argument and not in substitution of it.

A collection of anecdotes is not data, nor is it an argument.

so when a health organization does clinical studies on the treatment of a medicine and it's side affects, it is of no use. I see. I guess I don't find that convincing. We use statistics every day.

createdtoworship · Apr 14, 2020

Mitty said:
So why is the shroud dated to the middle ages? Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin - Wikipedia

sir dating the shroud to a date and age where it is impossible to forge the shroud sort of refutes your argument. Go ahead and believe the dating of the patchwork. They didn't even date the actual shroud but the patchwork. So yes the middle ages is when they repaired it. But that doesn't even matter, how do you find negative artwork and sunlight artwork in the 1200's?

ToddNotTodd · Apr 14, 2020

createdtoworship said:
if you are winning this debate, why haven't you addressed any of the facts I present? If you wish to reenter this debate and not forfeit, just reply to this post:

Proof of the existence of Christ

This isn’t even a debate. Unless you address your confirmation bias and arguments from incredulity, the whole thing is a non starter.

ToddNotTodd · Apr 14, 2020

createdtoworship said:
sir dating the shroud to a date and age where it is impossible to forge the shroud sort of refutes your argument.

Argument from incredulity... again...

ToddNotTodd · Apr 14, 2020

createdtoworship said:
Sir every atheist that used to be christian that I talk to, when I ask them if they repented when they were saved, none of them say yes.

When I was a Christian, I was taught that lying was a sin. Do you not feel the same way?

NxNW · Apr 14, 2020

createdtoworship said:
If God created time, space and mass, shouldn't he be outside of it?

It's your argument, not mine. Why are you asking me?

I think the basic principle of what God is, dictates He be outside of the universe.

That's not really an argument.

God by definition is omnipresent, which means He is everywhere at once.

Which contradicts your claim that he's outside the universe.

so when a health organization does clinical studies on the treatment of a medicine and it's side affects, it is of no use. I see. I guess I don't find that convincing. We use statistics every day.

You didn't quote a statistically significant study. You mentioned some anecdotes. There is a difference.

createdtoworship · Apr 15, 2020

ToddNotTodd said:
This isn’t even a debate. Unless you address your confirmation bias and arguments from incredulity, the whole thing is a non starter.

sir again if you are winning then just reply to the post and we can keep going, but saying "i'm winning, i'm winning, but not scoring points in the actual game just looks foolish."

again please respond this this post if you wish to continue where we left off:
Proof of the existence of Christ

createdtoworship · Apr 15, 2020

NxNW said:
It's your argument, not mine. Why are you asking me?

That's not really an argument.

Which contradicts your claim that he's outside the universe.

You didn't quote a statistically significant study. You mentioned some anecdotes. There is a difference.

I quoted first hand eye witnesses, if the are good enough for courts to deem guilt or inmocence then it's good enough for me. But say I am wrong, find a former Christian athiest who did repent at salvation and that would settle the issue. As far a omnipresence and locality, Jesus was God in the flesh but God the son was also everywhere at once. God the Father while being everywhere can also be on the throne for example. For our minds it's a contradiction bit we cannot prove it contradicts because we don't know enough of the science of God. Light being both a wave and a particle orrl acting like both is a contradiction but we don't know enough about light even to know why it does that. Many quantum principles directly contradict know physics, but that is because we don't have all the information.

ToddNotTodd · Apr 15, 2020

createdtoworship said:
sir again if you are winning then just reply to the post and we can keep going, but saying "i'm winning, i'm winning, but not scoring points in the actual game just looks foolish."

again please respond this this post if you wish to continue where we left off:
Proof of the existence of Christ

I didn’t say I was “winning” anything. Putting words in people’s mouths isn’t very honest.

And again, unless you address the confirmation bias and arguments from incredulity, you’re not accomplishing anything at your end. No one is listening to fallacious arguments.

ToddNotTodd · Apr 15, 2020

createdtoworship said:
But say I am wrong, find a former Christian athiest who did repent at salvation and that would settle the issue.

You mean like me, who’s said he did in this thread, and then called you out on your repeating this line about former Christians not repenting after I said I did?

The fact that I’m having to do this again should let everyone know your character...

createdtoworship · Apr 15, 2020

ToddNotTodd said:
I didn’t say I was “winning” anything. Putting words in people’s mouths isn’t very honest.

And again, unless you address the confirmation bias and arguments from incredulity, you’re not accomplishing anything at your end. No one is listening to fallacious arguments.

again just saying someone is committing fallacy doesn't work. I can simply disagree with it and then we are back to square one. However f you wish to continue this conversation please respond to that last post you ignored.

Proof of the existence of Christ

however if you wish to accuse me of unsubstantiated fallacy and are using that as a means of exiting the conversation then by all means go ahead.

createdtoworship · Apr 15, 2020

ToddNotTodd said:
You mean like me, who’s said he did in this thread, and then called you out on your repeating this line about former Christians not repenting after I said I did?

The fact that I’m having to do this again should let everyone know your character...

I literally have never heard you say any of this. I get lots of replies sir and I do miss posts occasionally even if they are addressed to me, but if they are not, then I will for sure miss them. So if I understand you correctly, you recieved Christ as savior repented fully of all known sin at the time and recieved forgeiveness? And then christianity at that point did not work for you? Well I have a few questions, did you repent of pornography, sleeping with women, and/or of lust? If it was a known sin at the time, and pornography usually is, did you repent fully of that sin? Also repenting of drug use, alcohol, smoking weed, watching sex scenes and nude types of television (Rated R), and any other sin of looking at inappropriate images online? That is what I mean sir, when we become christians we don't have to clean up our act ahead of time, but it is a commitment that I was once a sinner and now I am following Christ, and I resolve in my mind to no longer be bound to those sins. Did you do that yes or no? If you didn't repent at salvation then that is the very reason it didn't work for you. And no, I have had no athiest confess they repented at salvation, in fact I don't even have to mention specifics, 99% of them basically said "no." So you are the first of dozens I have asked this question. So naturally I am skeptical. So please excuse my probing of your personal life.

Proof of the existence of Christ

Well-Known Member

Iconoclast

In the grip of grace

Infectious idea

Infectious idea

Well-Known Member

In the grip of grace

In the grip of grace

Iconoclast

Iconoclast

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member

In the grip of grace

In the grip of grace

Iconoclast

Iconoclast

In the grip of grace

In the grip of grace

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency