You said "I mentioned the empty tomb of Jesus at least three times already, that is the proof of resurrection." If mentioning something three times is enough to provide proof of something, then I merely need to mention three times that you are a rhinoceros and that would be proof you are a rhinoceros.
This is disingenuous. She mentioned the empty tomb repeatedly, and you refuse to respond to it.
Bring forward a verifiable account of the empty tomb that's written by an unbiased third party.
The Gospels, being the Word of God,
are, each of them, unbiased parties for all Christians. They are biographies, especially the synoptic ones.
You said "Christians are persecuted and killed for the truth they tell."
First, we don't know that what they're telling is the truth, as we don't have a god or a Jesus to examine to verify that. And if Christians are being killed, the incidents on 9/11 certainly aren't an instance of Christians not being killed.
Are you, in all earnestness, doubting the veracity of the persecution and martyrdom of early Christians under the Romans? That is historical revisionism of the worst kind. I wonder what other atrocities of the past you deny.
Christians who died on 9/11, did not die for their beliefs.
A person who is indoctrinated with a belief as a young child by a person they trust (parents) is far more likely to latch onto that belief and hold that belief than if you were to try to do the same with a person who was, say in his/her 20s.
Your reasoning is complete bogus. By your logic, any new religion or denomination would stand no chance of gaining new members. Yet what we see in reality is a proliferation of Christian denominations, beginning with the Reformation (not to mention unchristian cults, such as JWs, Mormonism, Theosophy, Crowleyism, LaVeyism, dendrophilia, Wicca, Hare Krishna, Moon sect, Bhagwan, Scientology, Rael, Dawkinsism, etc. etc.).
WoundedDeep, by her example, disproves your odd statement: she was raised in an atheist family, she wasn't allowed to attend Church or even read Christian literature (she had to do it secretly); her parents made it well-nigh impossible for her to become an heretic of the atheistic religion (such as materialism, scientism etc.). And yet, despite a youth filled with ungodly indoctrination, she found her way into Christianity!
That's a fallacious argument called selective observation. Something good happens and you cherry pick something which you did or which happened earlier and credit the earlier event as the cause of the good thing.
How is she cherry-picking; what information did she leave out? A fallacy
mon œuil!
OK, then there must be rules under which God operates. Who created the rules or guidelines (or whatever we need to call them) under which God operates?
Unless you know God better than I, there must be no such rules.
Please provide your best example of a prophecy which was fulfilled. Provide the date and details or the prophecy and where it is documented. Also provide the date and details of the prophecy being fulfilled and where it is documented. Please do not refer to the same source for documentation of the prophecy and fulfillment of the prophecy.
This question has already been answered. The Books of the Bible are separate works, written by different authors at different epochs. The prophecies about Jesus Christ were made several centuries BC; most of the Old Testament was finished by 500 BC. The prophecies were fulfilled in AD time.
How do you know the prophecies weren't made up after Jesus was born such that they matched what really happened?
Not only were they in the Hebrew Bible; they were also already in the LXX for more than 200 years. You should, like, do some reading on the history of the Holy Scriptures; something like '
Key to the Bible', which is accessible to lay readers. Avoid Bart Ehrman, though, he's a pseudo-scholar with an atheistic agenda.
I asked you to read up about it already. Let's not continue with analogies that make no sense.
