-->
@Stephen
@BrotherD.Thomas
Snap.
God exists, and I Can Prove It.
Posts
Total:
531
-->
@Tradesecret
Genesis 1:1
- Where is the argument? Why don't you lay it out for me.
- Say, the Universe has a Creator, God. Prove to me Jesus / Yahweh is said God.
Ok first I will prove that the universe was created by a god, then I will prove that God to be Jesus/Yahweh, in a later post.
It all comes down to time.
Definition of Time: "the indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole."
Time itself had to of had a beginning.
"So, people attempt to construct alternative theories where gravity and thus space and time can be described as quantized fields. However, irrespective of these ideas, there is always a transition from the quantum to the classical realm. Even if linear flowing time wouldn’t make sense in a quantum space-time, it has to as the quantum cosmos transitions to the classical cosmos, we live in. In a sense, as Saint Augustine had remarked some 16 centuries ago, space and time emerge with Creation. Here, Creation is precisely this transition from a quantum to a classical time. Time begins when it starts ticking, that is, when physical processes take place in the background of a classical space-time. Anything that happened before has been erased from cosmic memory."
"You couldn’t think of a distance between two points or of a time interval between two events. Everything fluctuates wildly. Physics as we know it falls apart."
Time is measurable. It's called spacetime.
Definition of Space Time: "the concepts of time and three-dimensional space regarded as fused in a four-dimensional continuum."
Now that we have gotten that out of the way, we can move on to The Big Bang Theory.
The Big Bang Theory
"The Big Bang Theory is the leading explanation for how the universe began. Simply put, it says the universe as we know it started with an infinitely hot and dense single point that inflated and stretched — first at unimaginable speeds, and then at a more measurable rate — over the next 13.7 billion years to the still-expanding cosmos that we know today."
Ok now we take both of those claims and put them together.
Time had a beginning, which is when the universe began.
That is when the Big Bang happened.
Now I ask all of you this.
How did the "infinitely hot and dense single point" come into existence, at the beginning of time, if there was nothing there to create, that point?
Answer is: There was something there to create that point, and that thing was a god, or a higher being of some sort.
That is just a scratch of my evidence proving a god, now I will return with evidence proving why the god that created the universe is Jesus/Yahweh.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Ok first I will prove that the universe was created by a god, then I will prove that God to be Jesus/Yahweh, in a later post.It all comes down to time.Definition of Time: "the indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole."Time itself had to of had a beginning."So, people attempt to construct alternative theories where gravity and thus space and time can be described as quantized fields. However, irrespective of these ideas, there is always a transition from the quantum to the classical realm. Even if linear flowing time wouldn’t make sense in a quantum space-time, it has to as the quantum cosmos transitions to the classical cosmos, we live in. In a sense, as Saint Augustine had remarked some 16 centuries ago, space and time emerge with Creation. Here, Creation is precisely this transition from a quantum to a classical time. Time begins when it starts ticking, that is, when physical processes take place in the background of a classical space-time. Anything that happened before has been erased from cosmic memory.""You couldn’t think of a distance between two points or of a time interval between two events. Everything fluctuates wildly. Physics as we know it falls apart."Time is measurable. It's called spacetime.Definition of Space Time: "the concepts of time and three-dimensional space regarded as fused in a four-dimensional continuum."Now that we have gotten that out of the way, we can move on to The Big Bang Theory.The Big Bang Theory"The Big Bang Theory is the leading explanation for how the universe began. Simply put, it says the universe as we know it started with an infinitely hot and dense single point that inflated and stretched — first at unimaginable speeds, and then at a more measurable rate — over the next 13.7 billion years to the still-expanding cosmos that we know today."Ok now we take both of those claims and put them together.Time had a beginning, which is when the universe began.That is when the Big Bang happened.Now I ask all of you this.How did the "infinitely hot and dense single point" come into existence, at the beginning of time, if there was nothing there to create, that point?Answer is: There was something there to create that point, and that thing was a god, or a higher being of some sort.That is just a scratch of my evidence proving a god, now I will return with evidence proving why the god that created the universe is Jesus/Yahweh.
- You didn't have to write any of that. I asked, assuming God is, show me how Jesus or Yahweh is said God. Which you have yet to do.
Ok now I will prove with evidence that Jesus/Yahweh is the one true god.
Proof that Yahweh is the One True God.
1: His testimony about himself.
Now I know what you're thinking. Gods' testimony about himself isn't evidence. But you would be wrong.
"But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again, the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?”
“I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” (Mark 14:62 NIV).
"Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” (John 8:58 NIV).
"But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” (Matthew 16:15-16 NIV).
Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” (Matthew 16:15-16 NIV).
"My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all[a]; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.” (John 10:29-30 NIV).
“You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am." (John 13:13 NIV).
"Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really know me, you will know[a] my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”
Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”
Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?" (John 14:6-9 NIV).
Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”
Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?" (John 14:6-9 NIV).
All of these examples show God telling us that he is God, which someone who isn't God wouldn't do.
So, this isn't mind breaking evidence, but it is evidence.
In the wise words of C.S. Lewis," Someone who claims to be God is either a liar, a lunatic, or the Lord." (C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity Book III, Chapter 3).
So, let's pick one of those. If he's claiming to be God and isn't, then he isn't just a great moral teacher, he is either a liar, lunatic, or the Lord.
2: The Eyewitness Testimony of those who Knew Him.
If we look at it historically, there are many people in the bible that existed historically. They weren't just characters in a book of story's; they were real people who actually existed.
Consider this:
Jesus disciples abandon their occupations and their families to spread the news that Jesus Christ, the son of God, rose from the dead. And they were willing to be beaten, tortured, starved, jailed, and killed for sharing that message.
Now those kinds of things have happened in other religious traditions too, but the difference is this:
These people were actual eyewitnesses to what they were claiming.
So how likely is it that all of them would sacrifice so much, for something they knew to be untrue?
3: The Resurrection
The Resurrection was when Jesus rose from the dead in front of hundreds of people. Now that is not something a normal person can do.
Now I know that a lot of people will ask for proof that the resurrection really happened?
The argument for the actual historicity of the resurrection, comes from this man:
Professor Gary Habermas.
He studied more that 2000 academic sources, and identified several pieces of evidence, on which the vast majority of scholars believe.
Scholars who were both Atheist, and Christian, believed him and his evidence.
Almost all biblical experts agree to this historical timeline.
"Almost all Biblical experts agree that:
1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
2. He was buried.
3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lost hope.
4. The tomb was later found empty after his interment.
(accepted by 75% of scholars)
5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus.
6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.
7. The proclamation of the resurrection took place at the very beginning of the church.
8. They preached the message of Jesus's resurrection in Jerusalem, where Jesus had been crucified and buried.
9. The gospel message centered on the death and resurrection of Jesus.
10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.
11. James, a family skeptic, was converted to the faith, when he believed he saw the resurrected Christ.
12. Saul (Paul) was converted to the faith because he believed he saw the risen Jesus."
Gary Habermas, The Risen Jesus & Future Hope, 2003, pp. 9-10.
Now let me ask you this:
If an overwhelming majority of experts agree that these things actually occurred, then what other theory explains these facts?
And If Jesus really did resurrect from the dead, then was he really just a man?
-->
@Yassine
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
It is not an argument. It is a statement of fact.
A statement of fact testified to by the only witness who was there. God.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
Yes. He was convicted of Les Majesty and for crimes against Rome along with two other rebels that had taken part in the rebellion with him.
2. He was buried.
No. He was taken to a tomb privately owned by his secret disciple Joseph of Arimathea that was inside private walled garden where his wounds were treated with medicines brought to the tomb by his other secret disciple Nicodemus and he recovered from his trauma.
3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lost hope.
No. His crucifixion made them despair and lose hope. The mission had failed. He hadn't live up to what was expected of the promised Messiah. And most of his following had deserted him and well before his arrest because they knew it was doomed to fail .The promise by god that he would "inherit the throne of David" didn't come to fruition either..
4. The tomb was later found empty after his interment.(accepted by 75% of scholars)
Yes. Jesus had recovered enough to be moved. And an empty tomb is only evidence that a tomb was found to be empty.
5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus.
That's because he hadn't died.
6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.
No, it left them arguing among themselves over who would lead the church.
7. The proclamation of the resurrection took place at the very beginning of the church.
Proclaimed by all those that hadn't witnessed anything but an empty tomb.
8. They preached the message of Jesus's resurrection in Jerusalem, where Jesus had been crucified and buried.
And they were lying. They hadn't witnessed anything.
9. The gospel message centered on the death and resurrection of Jesus.
No. The church is built on the lie of the resurrection.
10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.
That doesn't mean, or prove anything. Least of all that a three days old rotting and stinking corpse came back to life
11. James, a family skeptic, was converted to the faith, when he believed he saw the resurrected Christ.
This is the nearest you have gotten to telling anything resembling the truth. James and the rest of the family including his mother believed him to be crazy. Which is rather odd considering that she had experience an " immaculate conception" and told by god himself how successful her holy begotten child would become.
12. Saul (Paul) was converted to the faith because he believed he saw the risen Jesus."
Paul was a self confessed liar that would be "all things to all men" as long as promoted his cause.
-->
@Yassine
@Tradesecret
YouFound_Lxam Well, I mean there are a lot of ways I can prove his existence. But I was hoping someone else would put in why they don't believe it so I can disprove their argument.Yassine- Say, the Universe has a Creator, God. Prove to me Jesus / Yahweh is said God.Tradesecret wrote: Genesis 1:1Yassine- Where is the argument? Why don't you lay it out for me.Tradesecret wrote: It is not an argument. It is a statement of fact. A statement of fact testified to by the only witness who was there. God.
John 5:31, KJV: If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.
John 5:31, NLT: 'If I were to testify on my own behalf, my testimony would not be valid.
You just can't help yourself , can you Reverend.😁
-->
@Stephen
Do you really think that quoting Jesus out of context somehow refutes what I said? You really are sadder than I thought.
Jesus is the Son of God. The Second Person of the Trinity. He is one person.
God in the beginning created the world as the Trinity. Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
When Jesus was on this planet in the form of a human, he was not the TRINITY, even though he remained as the second person of the Trinity. In fact Jesus is never one and the same as the Trinity. He is the Son. Not biologically. Ontologically.
I know you don't understand that - but that is the doctrine of the church.
Hence the only witness to the Creation is God the Trinity. He is three persons. But one God.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
How did the "infinitely hot and dense single point" come into existence, at the beginning of time, if there was nothing there to create, that point?
Wouldn't the same question be applicable to a God idea? How did God "come into existence"? If you claim that God was "outside" of the flow of time then you have created a special pleading. Your conclusion, necessary for you to sustain a belief, is just a claim with no proof.
Answer is: There was something there to create that point, and that thing was a god, or a higher being of some sort.
Or that point always was, outside the flow, as you posit God is
one of your quotes includes the statement:
"Time begins when it starts ticking, that is, when physical processes take place in the background of a classical space-time. Anything that happened before has been erased from cosmic memory."
This points to a "before" standing outside of time. Paradoxical yes, but apparently within the understanding of the author of the quote.
That is just a scratch of my evidence proving a god, now I will return with evidence proving why the god that created the universe is Jesus/Yahweh.
But there has been no evidence. Drawing a conclusion based on interpretation and then synthesis from a selection of facts is not evidence.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
All of these examples show God telling us that he is God, which someone who isn't God wouldn't do.
Your proof that a particular version of God is God is that God says he is God?
So any theology which has a text in which its idea of God declares itself to be God is equally valid.
You then use only internal texts whose validity and authority rests on already believing their validity and authority. You use the bible to proof the accuracy of the bible. That doesn't work as proof of anything.
Then your litany of claims by "experts" is flawed. It is a catalogue of beliefs and emotional reactions (with at least one factual error, BTW). No one has to argue that people didn't believe something. But today, many people believe things -- does that make every object of belief a reality or truth? Is every conspiracy theory a proven truth? Is every religion right?
Here is your list
1. Jesus died by crucifixion.2. He was buried.3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lost hope.4. The tomb was later found empty after his interment.(accepted by 75% of scholars)5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus.6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.7. The proclamation of the resurrection took place at the very beginning of the church.8. They preached the message of Jesus's resurrection in Jerusalem, where Jesus had been crucified and buried.9. The gospel message centered on the death and resurrection of Jesus.10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.11. James, a family skeptic, was converted to the faith, when he believed he saw the resurrected Christ.12. Saul (Paul) was converted to the faith because he believed he saw the risen Jesus."
1 may be a claim of historical fact. 2 may even be, though "buried" is a technical and probably wrong word here. By #3 you are wading into reaction and feelings, all evidenced by that self-serving text. 4 is also a matter of faith and doesn't account for cause, only effect. Five is about what people believed about their experiences, 6 tells of a reaction to five. Many people now believe their visions and beliefs are real and they change their lives accordingly (see the obit for GG Allin and look at the source of his birth name).
Seven moves into more reaction, built on a foundation of belief. 8 and 9 are the codification of that belief, and no one has to disagree that someone thought that a restaurant serving dogs was a good idea so he built it. This doesn't mean it was a good idea, just that he believed it.
10 is wrong.
11. is a claim made in a text. Lots of claims are made in texts. Only if you start by believing in the value of the text does the claim have use.
Same with 12.
-->
@Tradesecret
If a GOD created something, then it could not also witness the act.
For that, a GOD would have needed a witness.
The above statement (#156) was a tad silly.
Admirable devotion to biblical mythology, but a tad silly.
Wouldn't the same question be applicable to a God idea? How did God "come into existence"? If you claim that God was "outside" of the flow of time then you have created a special pleading. Your conclusion, necessary for you to sustain a belief, is just a claim with no proof.
God didn't come into existence as I explained in post #103:
"God is eternal without a cause because he lives outside of time. Think of it like this:
In a metaphorical sense, there is a box, and in the box is all of time/space. God doesn't live in the box. He lives outside of that (outside of time and space, things he created.)
He can stick his hand in the box and affect things, but he doesn't live inside that box."
So any theology which has a text in which its idea of God declares itself to be God is equally valid.
Well no. Go to any other religious text or history, and you will find little to no proof of its actual historical existence.
But Christianity has actual proof.
Seven moves into more reaction, built on a foundation of belief. 8 and 9 are the codification of that belief, and no one has to disagree that someone thought that a restaurant serving dogs was a good idea so he built it. This doesn't mean it was a good idea, just that he believed it.
So, how did all of those people all of the sudden go from mourning gods' death (which actually did happen) to immediately leaving their homes and families to go risk their lives to spread the word.
No. He was taken to a tomb privately owned by his secret disciple Joseph of Arimathea that was inside private walled garden where his wounds were treated with medicines brought to the tomb by his other secret disciple Nicodemus and he recovered from his trauma.
Why would they take him to his tomb, if he was still alive?
No. His crucifixion made them despair and lose hope. The mission had failed. He hadn't live up to what was expected of the promised Messiah. And most of his following had deserted him and well before his arrest because they knew it was doomed to fail .The promise by god that he would "inherit the throne of David" didn't come to fruition either..
Then why did all the sudden, soon after his death and resurrection, did all of his disciples all at once leave their families and risk their lives in the name of Jesus?
And they were lying. They hadn't witnessed anything.
That's not a valid point. Saying to someone you lied isn't a proof of lying. You are just assuming they lied, because you don't want to believe it.
In 1543 Nicolaus Copernicus proved that the sun didn't revolve around the earth, but instead the earth revolved around the sun. A lot of people believed him to be lying for the same reason you believe that the disciples were lying.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
God didn't come into existence as I explained in post #103:"God is eternal without a cause because he lives outside of time. Think of it like this:In a metaphorical sense, there is a box, and in the box is all of time/space. God doesn't live in the box. He lives outside of that (outside of time and space, things he created.)He can stick his hand in the box and affect things, but he doesn't live inside that box."
That's the eseence of the special pleading -- you assert a nature of God and because of that nature, God must exist. But nothing is proven, just claimed.
Go to any other religious text or history, and you will find little to no proof of its actual historical existence.But Christianity has actual proof.
Huh? Plenty of other religions are entrenched in the history books. All Christianity has is faith in its text, and so do all the others. I found a website that says "scholars agree that Buddha existed" so there goes your claim.
So, how did all of those people all of the sudden go from mourning gods' death (which actually did happen) to immediately leaving their homes and families to go risk their lives to spread the word.
What happened, if it happened, was the death of a man. You can't just jump to insisting (without any evidence otehr than the self-serving text) that Jesus was God. Then to the question of "why would people leave to spread a message if it wasn't true?" and the answer to that is "because some people are easily influenced and are looking anywhere for a sign to drive their lives." People knock on my door all the time to preach their views. People send me unsolicited emails. Some start their own religions. If your logic about "people only champion what is true" is accurate then plenty of other religions which have people spreading the word must be likewise true. Again, no proof, just a rationalization.
But today, many people believe things -- does that make every object of belief a reality or truth? Is every conspiracy theory a proven truth?
Yes, but how many other beliefs have this much evidence, and the most religious followers in the world going over 2 billion followers.
I found a website that says "scholars agree that Buddha existed" so there goes your claim.
I don't see a link to that website.
Also, scholars do agree, that Buddha was also a bad person. If the person who is responsible for starting a religion is with sin, then that religion is false.
Jesus was without sin. He lived a sinless life. Therefore he was God.
That's the eseence of the special pleading -- you assert a nature of God and because of that nature, God must exist. But nothing is proven, just claimed.
For certain aspects of Christianity, you have to have some sort of faith to believe in God.
I could say the same for Science. In fact, you actually have to have more faith to believe in science, than to believe in God.
But I have already proven the existence of a higher being in one of my first posts. Then all I had to do was prove was that Yahweh was the one true God. I have done both, therefore the claims that cant be proven, you must have faith in, based on my other evidence.
Then to the question of "why would people leave to spread a message if it wasn't true?" and the answer to that is "because some people are easily influenced and are looking anywhere for a sign to drive their lives."
Yes, but there hasn't been any other case in history, where that big of a group of people go from mourning, and doubting Christ, to risking their lives to spread his word, in the span of less than a year.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Yes, but how many other beliefs have this much evidence, and the most religious followers in the world going over 2 billion followers.
so it is a matter of numbers? The 1.6 Billion Muslims and 1 million Hindus just aren't enough? Since Christian belief came by the edge of a sword and by an emperor's fiat, is it really valid?
I don't see a link to that website.
If the person who is responsible for starting a religion is with sin, then that religion is false
I guess that Christianity is false then because according to Jesus' own religion, Judaism, he sinned. Thanks.
For certain aspects of Christianity, you have to have some sort of faith to believe in God.
So then it isn't a function of proof and you might want to stop insisting that you can prove it.
But I have already proven the existence of a higher being in one of my first posts
No, you have claimed it and relied on a special pleading which you just conceded requires faith. You then try to justify with the circular statement that "therefore the claims that cant be proven, you must have faith in, based on my other evidence."
So things that you can't prove have to be believed in because of claims you made that can't be proven but need to be accepted by faith.
Yes, but there hasn't been any other case in history, where that big of a group of people go from mourning, and doubting Christ, to risking their lives to spread his word, in the span of less than a year.
two problems -- the first is that you are still relying on a faith based book to make your supposedly historical claim, and second, you are making a claim about all people and all history that you cannot support. Did all the people who accepted Jesus first doubt? Or maybe they had no opinion. Was the group that big? We don't really have any evidence of that. Remember, it took an act of an emperor to force people to adopt the religion.
This is from an online comment by a person named Paul (ironic)
I cant believe in God anymore simply because of the staggering level of injustice on this planet. I used to believe, and I keep trying to believe, but then I am confronted by the level of injustice in this world and it kills my belief. Injustice was too high a price to pay for ‘free will’. And hard on injustice’s heels is senseless suffering. I cant believe in a loving God when people suffer such terrible things in their lives. I just cant do it. I feel I am playing a game of self-delusion when I do. And then the last reason: Hell. A ‘loving God’ who holds Hell in reserve and sends the vast majority of Catholics to Purgatory is no God I wish to worship. We have a world of pain because HE is a God of pain. So I’m done.
Other reasons: The Manchester Arena bomber prayed to God before he slaughtered 22 young lives. Who is to say his prayers were less valid than mine? Why didnt God speak to him and tell him not to do it? What are we to take from THAT!? Was God ok with it? Or did God not wish to interfere with the bomber’s free will to maim and kill? See how the non-existence of God becomes the simplest explanation for all these things? Makes sense, doesnt it?
-->
@rosends
I guess that Christianity is false then because according to Jesus' own religion, Judaism, he sinned. Thanks.
Give me an example of this. This is a lie and a false statement.
Jesus himself lived a pure life, and faced all the hardships of humanity.
The whole point of Jesus sacrificing himself, wasn't just a show.
Jesus, showed God, that it was possible to live a sinless life, therefore, people can enter the kingdom of heaven by accepting Jesus as there lord and savior.
His sinless body died on the cross for our sins.
So then it isn't a function of proof and you might want to stop insisting that you can prove it.
I have literally spent this entire time proving it.
No, you have claimed it
Claiming it is saying it happened without evidence, just simply claiming.
I have provided valid proof of his existence. It is up to you to believe it or not.
two problems -- the first is that you are still relying on a faith based book to make your supposedly historical claim
Well, if you looked at my evidence (the links in my argument) then you would see that evidence.
Try reading The Risen Jesus & Future Hope by Gary Habermas.
That will help you understand the historical part of it.
Did all the people who accepted Jesus first doubt? Or maybe they had no opinion. Was the group that big? We don't really have any evidence of that. Remember, it took an act of an emperor to force people to adopt the religion.
Actually, that wasn't the start of Christianity, you are false.
You are stating that an emperor forced people to worship god, therefore, that's when it started. The religion itself actually started after Jesus's Resurrection, which was sparked by his disciples, who led thousands of people to God.
so it is a matter of numbers? The 1.6 Billion Muslims and 1 million Hindus just aren't enough? Since Christian belief came by the edge of a sword and by an emperor's fiat, is it really valid?
Numbers is just an extra addon to the proof. It is a matter of historical continuity. Muslim, and Hindu don't have that much type of evidence when it comes to events that scientists cant explain.
but then I am confronted by the level of injustice in this world and it kills my belief.Injustice was too high a price to pay for ‘free will’. And hard on injustice’s heels is senseless suffering. I cant believe in a loving God when people suffer such terrible things in their lives.
This is actually a reason why a lot of people don't want to believe in him for.
But let me ask you this:
If we did not have free will, would we be able to love?
The answer is no. You cant force someone to love you. Just as God wants true love from us, he cant force us to love him either.
The injustice in the world is very sad. And it makes God sad as well.
But it isn't a reason to not believe in him. If anything it proves his existence even more.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Give me an example of this. This is a lie and a false statement.Jesus himself lived a pure life, and faced all the hardships of humanity.The whole point of Jesus sacrificing himself, wasn't just a show.Jesus, showed God, that it was possible to live a sinless life, therefore, people can enter the kingdom of heaven by accepting Jesus as there lord and savior.His sinless body died on the cross for our sins.
Here are some resources
He healed on the sabbath (which is a sin)
He encouraged others to break laws (like laws of food and the sabbath).
There's more, but there you have it. He sinned according to Judaism, so by your logic, his religion is false.
Then of course you make the ridiculous claim about dying for another's sin which is not a thing in Judaism...
I have literally spent this entire time proving it.
No, you keep claiming it.
Claiming it is saying it happened without evidence, just simply claiming.I have provided valid proof of his existence. It is up to you to believe it or not.
your "valid" proof is from texts that require belief to give them any authority.
Habermas is already speaking from within the box of faith in Jesus, so his scholarship outside of the faith box is absent.
Actually, that wasn't the start of Christianity, you are false.You are stating that an emperor forced people to worship god, therefore, that's when it started. The religion itself actually started after Jesus's Resurrection, which was sparked by his disciples, who led thousands of people to God.
Until it was forced on people, it wasn't a large number. You conflate the population before and after. Thousands (still an unprovable claim because it relies on the bible testimony) isn't all that impressive.
Numbers is just an extra addon to the proof. It is a matter of historical continuity. Muslim, and Hindu don't have that much type of evidence when it comes to events that scientists cant explain.
So we abandon your numbers argument. Great. Now you wnat to say that it depends on things you say science can't explain. First this would require that science accepts your biblical accounts as historically accurate. I would suggest it doesn't. Do you think science can explain the magic in the Harry Potter books? Fiction is like that.
-->
@rosends
Give me an example of this. This is a lie and a false statement.Jesus himself lived a pure life, and faced all the hardships of humanity.The whole point of Jesus sacrificing himself, wasn't just a show.Jesus, showed God, that it was possible to live a sinless life, therefore, people can enter the kingdom of heaven by accepting Jesus as there lord and savior.His sinless body died on the cross for our sins.Here are some resources
First of all, this link is false. It is taking the bible out of context.
Let me give you and example:
"Not far away there was a large herd of pigs feeding. 31 So the demons begged Jesus, "If you are going to drive us out, send us into that herd of pigs." 32 "Go," Jesus told them; so they left and went off into the pigs. The whole herd rushed down the side of the cliff into the lake and was drowned. 33 The men who had been taking care of the pigs ran away and went into the town, where they told the whole story and what had happened to the men with the demons." Matthew 8:30-33.Here we have a clear case of Jesus stealing a herd of pigs. Why do I say he stole them?Well, ask yourself: did these pigs belong to Jesus?Nope.Those pigs didn't belong to Jesus per the Christian bible.Are pigs wild?No, they are domesticated meaning they belonged to someone.Were they running wild?Also “no.” The Christian bible tells us "Those tending the pigs ran off” Matthew 8:33.
This is taking the bible out of context. Jesus cast the demons out of a person who was being tormented by them, and he cast them among the pigs, the animals.
The fact that the pigs ran away, was not his felt, but the demons who were in control of the pigs.
To assume that this was Jesus stealing is preposterous.
He healed on the sabbath (which is a sin)He encouraged others to break laws (like laws of food and the sabbath).There's more, but there you have it. He sinned according to Judaism, so by your logic, his religion is false.Then of course you make the ridiculous claim about dying for another's sin which is not a thing in Judaism...
Yea your right, in Judaism not Christianity.
I think you are arguing about a different religion.
Jesus did not go by Judaism's laws, in fact he revoked them when he argued with the high priests and called them out for their sins.
Until it was forced on people, it wasn't a large number. You conflate the population before and after. Thousands (still an unprovable claim because it relies on the bible testimony) isn't all that impressive.
Yes, but it is was still proven historically to be a religion.
I would suggest it doesn't. Do you think science can explain the magic in the Harry Potter books? Fiction is like that.
Well to compare the Bible to Harry Potter is very stupid.
The Bible is based in facts.
Harry Potter is based in fiction.
And really, the fact is that their will never be blatant truth and there will never be hard concrete evidence of Yahweh's existence, because again, God wants us to love him, and if we only base this faith in facts, and only accept god because the facts are right, then that is not true love, the thing that God wants most from us.
So no their will never be hard, concrete, physical evidence of Yahweh, but their is still no evidence to this day, that the bible contradicts itself, or that Jesus contradicted himself either. Their is a lot of evidence proving his existence and resurrection.
Now whether you believe that or not is up to you.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Jesus cast the demons out of a person who was being tormented by them, and he cast them among the pigs, the animals.The fact that the pigs ran away, was not his felt, but the demons who were in control of the pigs.To assume that this was Jesus stealing is preposterous.
In Jewish law (remember, he was Jewish supposedly), he caused it so he is responsible for the result. So, a sin.
Yea your right, in Judaism not Christianity.I think you are arguing about a different religion.Jesus did not go by Judaism's laws, in fact he revoked them when he argued with the high priests and called them out for their sins.
There was no Christianity. Jesus was supposedly a Jew, breaking Jewish law. Remember, you said" If the person who is responsible for starting a religion is with sin, then that religion is false." If Jesus is responsible for starting Christianity, and, as you concede, in Judaism (he was Jewish) he was sinful, then the religion he starts must be false.
Yes, but it is was still proven historically to be a religion.
So are other religions.
Well to compare the Bible to Harry Potter is very stupid.The Bible is based in facts.Harry Potter is based in fiction.
I sense that some people might disagree with your claim to facts behind the bible.
And really, the fact is that their will never be blatant truth and there will never be hard concrete evidence of Yahweh's existence, because again, God wants us to love him, and if we only base this faith in facts, and only accept god because the facts are right, then that is not true love, the thing that God wants most from us.So no their will never be hard, concrete, physical evidence of Yahweh, but their is still no evidence to this day, that the bible contradicts itself, or that Jesus contradicted himself either. Their is a lot of evidence proving his existence and resurrection.Now whether you believe that or not is up to you.
So basically, "there will never be hard concrete evidence of Yahweh's existence". Any statement you make about being able to PROVE God's existence must NOT be based on facts. 'nuff said.
In Jewish law (remember, he was Jewish supposedly), he caused it so he is responsible for the result. So, a sin.
So your evidence for him not being god, is doing something supernatural? Hmmmmm......
There was no Christianity. Jesus was supposedly a Jew, breaking Jewish law. Remember, you said" If the person who is responsible for starting a religion is with sin, then that religion is false." If Jesus is responsible for starting Christianity, and, as you concede, in Judaism (he was Jewish) he was sinful, then the religion he starts must be false.
Laws don't negate sin. Their are many laws in many countries that are sinfully in themselves. Raising taxes because of greed is one example. So he did not break the law, he just understood what was sinful and what wasn't.
I sense that some people might disagree with your claim to facts behind the bible.
Yes.....and?
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
So your evidence for him not being god, is doing something supernatural? Hmmmmm......
I am using the story as told in a text I don't value to show that even according to your logic, your own text testifies the falsity of the religion. I can use the text of Harry Potter to show that Harry Potter is sinful also if you would like.
Laws don't negate sin. Their are many laws in many countries that are sinfully in themselves. Raising taxes because of greed is one example. So he did not break the law, he just understood what was sinful and what wasn't.
No, he broke laws. If I drive 56 miles per hour in a 55 zone, I am breaking the law even if I think it is a dumb limit designed to trap drivers into getting tickets. That makes me a law breaker. Sin has to do with breaking laws. Jesus broke laws, therefore he was a sinner. QED.
Yes.....and?
and therefore your logical conclusion, predicated on a presumption which you invalidate as it applies to others can equally be applied to and cause the invalidating of your position.
I am using the story as told in a text I don't value to show that even according to your logic, your own text testifies the falsity of the religion. I can use the text of Harry Potter to show that Harry Potter is sinful also if you would like.
This is flawed logic.
You are both trying to prove that Yahweh doesn't exist, but your using his supernatural power as evidence?
Well.....ok then.
When we look at the story of Jesus casting the demons into the pigs, he is not stealing them
Definition of Stealing: "take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it."
Jesus did not take the pigs with him, nor did he make them run away. He cast the demons into the pigs, and the demons caused them to run away.
His action made the outcome. He did not steal the pig, therefore not breaking the law or sinning.
No, he broke laws. If I drive 56 miles per hour in a 55 zone, I am breaking the law even if I think it is a dumb limit designed to trap drivers into getting tickets. That makes me a law breaker. Sin has to do with breaking laws. Jesus broke laws, therefore he was a sinner. QED.
Breaking laws because you want to, vs, breaking a law because it is wrong, is two different things. Yes if you speed, then you are breaking the law, because you knew that it was illegal and the law is beneficial to help people. It isn't a sin to break the law, if the law was something like, if someone says something wrong then they will be killed.
You can still have laws that are morally bad. Jesus doesn't run by laws, he runs by morals.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
No. He was taken to a tomb privately owned by his secret disciple Joseph of Arimathea that was inside private walled garden where his wounds were treated with medicines brought to the tomb by his other secret disciple Nicodemus and he recovered from his trauma.Why would they take him to his tomb, if he was still alive?
I can't believe that you even had to ask that. But here goes. He was crucified for crimes against Rome. He was entombed (not buried) to keep up the pretence of him being "dead". If it was known that he had survived, they would have simple rearrested him and made sure he didn't survive a second time. (unless of course there has been a bribe involved).
No. His crucifixion made them despair and lose hope. The mission had failed. He hadn't live up to what was expected of the promised Messiah. And most of his following had deserted him and well before his arrest because they knew it was doomed to fail .The promise by god that he would "inherit the throne of David" didn't come to fruition either..Then why did all the sudden, soon after his death and resurrection, did all of his disciples all at once leave their families and risk their lives in the name of Jesus?
Who says they did? Besides, doesn't the scriptures say they did this at their first meetings?
As a matter of curiosity, did his followers go into mourning when he was arrested, crucified and pronounced "dead"?
And they were lying. They hadn't witnessed anything.That's not a valid point. Saying to someone you lied isn't a proof of lying. You are just assuming they lied, because you don't want to believe it.
Ok. tell me. How many of Jesus. disciples witnessed a stone cold dead Jesus get up of his cold slab, change his tunic, roll away the stone and go mincing around the olive groves as if nothing had ever happened?
Now would you afford me the same curtesy and reply to my post that you have ignored three times.
Stephen wrote: So the 7 day creation story is not to be taken literally but the 1 day = 1,000 years is to be taken literally?How do you know?YouFound_Lxam Wrote: Here is the thing about the scripture. The scripture doesn't always mean something literally happened, and it doesn't mean something metaphorically happened.
All very ambiguous then.
So how do you know when to take something literal or metaphorical? Did the illiterate superstitious Jews and early Christians understand metaphor and idioms?
From what I have read even the disciples of Jesus didn't understand what he was talking about most of the time, so how can you claim that you understand what is meant by something spoken 2000 years ago, when the local goatherd and fisherman couldn't?
Stephen wrote: "So the 7-day creation story is not to be taken literally but the 1 day = 1,000 years is to be taken literally?"YouFound_Lxam wrote: Yes maybe. But maybe by the scripture saying that, it could be representing that God lives outside of time, therefore it was portrayed differently.But then again it could have meant a literal 7 days, or 7 thousand years. Thats the fascinating thing about the bible.
"maybe it is"? "could have meant"?
That's called make it up as you go along where I come from. And opens the door for you take literary licence and apply any excuse as long as it suites.
YouFound_Lxam wrote, That's the fascinating thing about the bible.
And it is fascinating to me that Christians have had 2000 years to iron out these ambiguous half stories that make up the NT and with every new excuse for these biblical ambiguities comes new dilemmas and questions To put that in English, you Christians have continually been putting patches on a burst innertube for over 2000 years and it has left you holding nothing but patches..
You should actually take note of what your Christ had to say on such matters.
Matthew 9:16-17 New International Version
“No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, for the patch will pull away from the garment, making the tear worse. Neither do people pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst; the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.”