Jesus Christ is God

[Deleted member 129366]

i respect that you stick to the bible, but appealing to scripture or authority doesn’t prove supernatural claims outside the text. evidence from outside the claim itself is needed to evaluate truth.

WORM

 

[Deleted member 129366]

Didnt ask u to read buddy

NIGGER VERMIN

 

[Deleted member 129366]

Didnt ask u to read buddy

die via torture let a thousand cockroaches consume your internal organs

 

[tunisianropemaxxer]

WORM

U either keep calling me a worm,ridiculizing yourself and everyone else i was having a respectful debate with.or you can actually try and debate me.

 

[Deleted member 129366]

kill everyone on earth its time to purify earth

 

[Deleted member 129366]

U either keep calling me a worm,ridiculizing yourself and everyone else i was having a respectful debate with.or you can actually try and debate me.

die six trillion deaths

 

[tunisianropemaxxer]

die six trillion deaths

Whatever u say mr nazi

 

[Deleted member 129366]

Whatever u say mr nazi

die nigger

 

[takethewhitepill]

you wrote a lot, but none of it actually proves god exists or that the bible is divine. you keep quoting scripture to prove scripture and miracles that can’t be measured or tested, while calling me a retard.

I haven't written it to prove the existence of God. I have written it to refute your refutation of scripture. I only quoted scripture in my first response, but that is exactly what I should do against an internal critique, that is reasonable debate? I only call you a retard because its the first thing you had to say about religious people jfl.

the point is, claims about the supernatural require evidence outside the claim itself.

Tell me what evidence it would take to convince you that Jesus is in fact God. I believe there is sufficient evidence, and if you tell me what it would take I can try to work with you to reach the truth whether that be for or against what I currently believe. If there is no amount of proof that would convince you, taking from the likes of Bart Ehrman, there is no real point continuing this, but I do believe it is a productive conversation nonetheless since its a public forum and hopefully a reader can take something from this.

if you say god exists because the book says so, or because miracles are unexplainable, that is circular reasoning and makes you look like a retard.

Were we offended about being called a retard or not? Help me remember. Firstly it isn't actually circular reasoning to say that the bible is a historically accurate text and its claims about Jesus being risen from the dead are not only trustworthy, but more than likely true, and then to take from that the idea that if Jesus is really God then we should treat His word which is the bible as a divine truth. Yes, the bible proves the bible (though there are many pieces of additional evidence), but this is not poor argumentation because one aspect proves another the same way you can use an aspect of one field to prove another, i.e. there is no mathematical proof without first mathematical proof (boiling down to the axioms, which in our example the axiom is God, the uncaused cause, but that isn't exactly relevant to this discussion). Miracles are explainable, and they are explained in the bible.

meanwhile, i can show how humans wrote the bible with cultural biases and contradictions, so using the text itself as proof doesn’t hold. you want me to engage with scripture seriously, but you refuse to provide evidence anyone outside the faith could verify. that makes your argument strong only to believers; it does not make it objectively true.

Okay, this is very poor argumentation and is unhelpful. I already said that humans did indeed write the bible. Tell me where the contradictions are and we can talk about it, but before you do try to save me some time and at least read the context since most apparent contradictions are explained in the next verse. You clearly haven't done much in the way of debate, the text is indeed valid as an argument when you have made an argument about scriptural claims. I also know this because your entire argument here hinges on the fallacy of begging the question. I don't have to provide proof, I am firstly refuting your claim. You have the burden of proof. But tell me what would convince you and we can talk about that, thing is your argument is that Christianity is false. I know my argument is strong to non-believers because I was not always a believer and yet I was always able to use simple reason to understand the terms of what I was arguing. Using a semicolon won't convince people you are smarter than you are, please either refute Christianity or tell me what it takes to convince you of its truth.

 

[tunisianropemaxxer]

I haven't written it to prove the existence of God. I have written it to refute your refutation of scripture. I only quoted scripture in my first response, but that is exactly what I should do against an internal critique, that is reasonable debate? I only call you a retard because its the first thing you had to say about religious people jfl.

Tell me what evidence it would take to convince you that Jesus is in fact God. I believe there is sufficient evidence, and if you tell me what it would take I can try to work with you to reach the truth whether that be for or against what I currently believe. If there is no amount of proof that would convince you, taking from the likes of Bart Ehrman, there is no real point continuing this, but I do believe it is a productive conversation nonetheless since its a public forum and hopefully a reader can take something from this.

Were we offended about being called a retard or not? Help me remember. Firstly it isn't actually circular reasoning to say that the bible is a historically accurate text and its claims about Jesus being risen from the dead are not only trustworthy, but more than likely true, and then to take from that the idea that if Jesus is really God then we should treat His word which is the bible as a divine truth. Yes, the bible proves the bible (though there are many pieces of additional evidence), but this is not poor argumentation because one aspect proves another the same way you can use an aspect of one field to prove another, i.e. there is no mathematical proof without first mathematical proof (boiling down to the axioms, which in our example the axiom is God, the uncaused cause, but that isn't exactly relevant to this discussion). Miracles are explainable, and they are explained in the bible.

Okay, this is very poor argumentation and is unhelpful. I already said that humans did indeed write the bible. Tell me where the contradictions are and we can talk about it, but before you do try to save me some time and at least read the context since most apparent contradictions are explained in the next verse. You clearly haven't done much in the way of debate, the text is indeed valid as an argument when you have made an argument about scriptural claims. I also know this because your entire argument here hinges on the fallacy of begging the question. I don't have to provide proof, I am firstly refuting your claim. You have the burden of proof. But tell me what would convince you and we can talk about that, thing is your argument is that Christianity is false. I know my argument is strong to non-believers because I was not always a believer and yet I was always able to use simple reason to understand the terms of what I was arguing. Using a semicolon won't convince people you are smarter than you are, please either refute Christianity or tell me what it takes to convince you of its truth.

even if we assume the bible is historically accurate, that alone doesn’t prove divinity. lots of ancient texts, like roman, greek, or egyptian records, are historically reliable for events and people, but that doesn’t make their gods real. being written by humans who understood their world and culture does not automatically make the supernatural claims contained within true. if historical accuracy were enough, every ancient religion would be equally “proven,” but we know they’re not. claiming divinity based on a text being well-documented is a weak argument, because it ignores the need for independent, verifiable evidence outside the book itself. the bible can be an important cultural and moral text, but that doesn’t mean it proves the existence of god.

 

[takethewhitepill]

even if we assume the bible is historically accurate, that alone doesn’t prove divinity. lots of ancient texts, like roman, greek, or egyptian records, are historically reliable for events and people, but that doesn’t make their gods real. being written by humans who understood their world and culture does not automatically make the supernatural claims contained within true. if historical accuracy were enough, every ancient religion would be equally “proven,” but we know they’re not. claiming divinity based on a text being well-documented is a weak argument, because it ignores the need for independent, verifiable evidence outside the book itself. the bible can be an important cultural and moral text, but that doesn’t mean it proves the existence of god.

you have fundamentally misunderstood my argument. I have many reasons to believe that Jesus is God, we were arguing over what is within the bible assuming it is already true. The question is not "does God exist", its "how does your worldview explain reality", I am telling you that the bible explains reality for me as a Christian, either disprove my worldview by looking within it and showing where it fails to explain it (inb4 miracles are not reality, not a real argument), give a stronger argument for your worldview (I have to assume athiest?), or show why the bible is not trustworthy through an external critique. Additionally, I would read up on your history if I were you because we do not in fact have historically reliable texts for those religions. Ancient greek mythos is at earliest recorded is 3rd century BCE while Homer lived in late 8th century - early 7th BCE. If its textual trustworthiness, the bible is unmatched by a great deal. By the way, this is called the spider-man fallacy if you want to do further reading, but this is just my own writings because I know my history. The events and people aren't actually reliable, and even if they were they don't provide any reason for us to believe in the truth. I believe the bible is divine because I believe Jesus is God, not the other way around, though there are arguments that take that route I personally am not as familiar with. So, you have strawmanned my argument and even then you are still wrong because you haven't looked at the historical data. You clearly didn't take a very critical reading of my writing, it is what is within the text that affirms its truth, but there are also many pieces of data outside of these texts that show the same thing. You might be interested in Thomas Aquinas, I'm not a scholar but I am pretty good at apologetics so I hope to help give you the evidence you need to see the truth. As I said, please tell me what it would take to convince you if you want to be convinced (I can't ever prove it by the way, nothing can be proved except cogito ergo sum, which seems like your worldview here).

 

[tunisianropemaxxer]

you have fundamentally misunderstood my argument. I have many reasons to believe that Jesus is God, we were arguing over what is within the bible assuming it is already true. The question is not "does God exist", its "how does your worldview explain reality", I am telling you that the bible explains reality for me as a Christian, either disprove my worldview by looking within it and showing where it fails to explain it (inb4 miracles are not reality, not a real argument), give a stronger argument for your worldview (I have to assume athiest?), or show why the bible is not trustworthy through an external critique. Additionally, I would read up on your history if I were you because we do not in fact have historically reliable texts for those religions. Ancient greek mythos is at earliest recorded is 3rd century BCE while Homer lived in late 8th century - early 7th BCE. If its textual trustworthiness, the bible is unmatched by a great deal. By the way, this is called the spider-man fallacy if you want to do further reading, but this is just my own writings because I know my history. The events and people aren't actually reliable, and even if they were they don't provide any reason for us to believe in the truth. I believe the bible is divine because I believe Jesus is God, not the other way around, though there are arguments that take that route I personally am not as familiar with. So, you have strawmanned my argument and even then you are still wrong because you haven't looked at the historical data. You clearly didn't take a very critical reading of my writing, it is what is within the text that affirms its truth, but there are also many pieces of data outside of these texts that show the same thing. You might be interested in Thomas Aquinas, I'm not a scholar but I am pretty good at apologetics so I hope to help give you the evidence you need to see the truth. As I said, please tell me what it would take to convince you if you want to be convinced (I can't ever prove it by the way, nothing can be proved except cogito ergo sum, which seems like your worldview here).

i appreciate the time and effort you put into writing this, your argument is very detailed and shows a lot of thought. i respect how thoroughly you present your worldview and your understanding of scripture and history. while i may not agree with your conclusions, i can see that you’ve clearly thought critically about your beliefs and are engaging seriously, which is refreshing in a debate.
to convince me jesus is divine, i would need clear, independently verifiable evidence of a supernatural event something testable and observable outside scripture or tradition. without that, faith alone isn’t enough.

 

[takethewhitepill]

i appreciate the time and effort you put into writing this, your argument is very detailed and shows a lot of thought. i respect how thoroughly you present your worldview and your understanding of scripture and history. while i may not agree with your conclusions, i can see that you’ve clearly thought critically about your beliefs and are engaging seriously, which is refreshing in a debate.
to convince me jesus is divine, i would need clear, independently verifiable evidence of a supernatural event something testable and observable outside scripture or tradition. without that, faith alone isn’t enough.

I don't know how much I can help you, unfortunately. Most of the texts that give verified eyewitness accounts of Jesus being risen from the dead become considered scriptural as they are of key relevance to the faith. The 'inspired' word of God is the literal definition of the bible, and for it to be inspired it just means someone wrote it down after experiencing it. So if you were to write down about our conversation it it would be inspired by me. There is more evidence of supernatural events, but I can't in good conscience give them to you as evidence for Jesus since they could be any god in the modern day (most people don't know this by the way, but the bible actually confirms there are other gods, just that God is the strongest and is good. Not exactly pertinent but its just to say that I am not someone who tries to prove God with modern evidence), and for older stuff like roman accounts and the shroud of turin and the like I don't love them as evidence but they are still there and real, just I don't find them nearly as convincing and think if you aren't convinced by scripture they won't convince you either. I would tell you to remain undecided on whether you believe scripture and go to church to see how you feel and all, but less than 2% of US churches even teach basic ideas from the bible jfl. If you look and find not enough evidence of Jesus having risen, I still enjoyed our debate and think we can definitely see eye to eye except that I believe it is enough evidence. I would mostly just urge you to not dismiss Christianity and try reading the scripture, if you find it to be false trust me you will still find it good advice, I read it for years to engage in proper internal critiques as an agnostic and also just to learn more about people since culture is downstream from religion and it lets you understand the thought process of anyone living in a society with religious values (not even necessarily religious). You seem pretty reasonable about this, so you could try getting into apologetics, there is a lot of evidence for it but a lot of arguments against it and it is honestly pretty fun to be able to debate. It feels like a game often which I like. I also won't make any pragmatic arguments to you like pascals wager or the fact that christian women are better than secular women or that christians have higher happiness than athiests since you seem smarter than that. keep an open mind ig is all i really have to say. fun debating though

 

[tunisianropemaxxer]

I don't know how much I can help you, unfortunately. Most of the texts that give verified eyewitness accounts of Jesus being risen from the dead become considered scriptural as they are of key relevance to the faith. The 'inspired' word of God is the literal definition of the bible, and for it to be inspired it just means someone wrote it down after experiencing it. So if you were to write down about our conversation it it would be inspired by me. There is more evidence of supernatural events, but I can't in good conscience give them to you as evidence for Jesus since they could be any god in the modern day (most people don't know this by the way, but the bible actually confirms there are other gods, just that God is the strongest and is good. Not exactly pertinent but its just to say that I am not someone who tries to prove God with modern evidence), and for older stuff like roman accounts and the shroud of turin and the like I don't love them as evidence but they are still there and real, just I don't find them nearly as convincing and think if you aren't convinced by scripture they won't convince you either. I would tell you to remain undecided on whether you believe scripture and go to church to see how you feel and all, but less than 2% of US churches even teach basic ideas from the bible jfl. If you look and find not enough evidence of Jesus having risen, I still enjoyed our debate and think we can definitely see eye to eye except that I believe it is enough evidence. I would mostly just urge you to not dismiss Christianity and try reading the scripture, if you find it to be false trust me you will still find it good advice, I read it for years to engage in proper internal critiques as an agnostic and also just to learn more about people since culture is downstream from religion and it lets you understand the thought process of anyone living in a society with religious values (not even necessarily religious). You seem pretty reasonable about this, so you could try getting into apologetics, there is a lot of evidence for it but a lot of arguments against it and it is honestly pretty fun to be able to debate. It feels like a game often which I like. I also won't make any pragmatic arguments to you like pascals wager or the fact that christian women are better than secular women or that christians have higher happiness than athiests since you seem smarter than that. keep an open mind ig is all i really have to say. fun debating though

thanks for taking the time to explain your perspective so thoroughly. i really respect how thoughtful and reasonable you’ve been in this debate. while i remain skeptical without independently verifiable evidence, i can see the value in understanding scripture and the role it plays in culture and reasoning. i appreciate the discussion and the effort you put into engaging seriously, it’s refreshing to have a civil and thoughtful debate like this.

 

[cooIguy]

out of 5 thousand religions only yours is true
i believe you