God raising Jesus from the dead as the primary proof of His existence would really be the ultimate prank, do you really think the One could resist such mischief if He could get away with doing that?
>>18618614By the one you mean Satan? The question isn't clear, are you asking atheists if they think Satan raised Jesus as a prank?
>>18618614I don't really consider your fairy tales to be worthy of consideration.
>>18618622> monocausal geometry is a fairy taleBro’s getting divinely pranked
>>18618621How could the One be satanThat doesn’t even make sense
>>18618614The devil has no power over life or he would have needed all life already
>>18618635Are God and Jesus into the mischief business?
>>18618614>no proof>no evidence>it's in muh book brahInto the trash it goes
>>18618652Of course, that’s what the OP is saying, raising an apocalyptic niceguy from the dead is as mischievous as it gets, and if you read the Bible you see Jesus moves with quiet mischief, dry humour. In the Bible it’s more like playful reversal, God flips expectations to expose that no one else is running the show.
>>18618658Evidence isn’t an objective standard, it’s subjective. It means “reason to believe”. And there is plenty reason to believe in God and the God of the Bible, that’s where your argument fails. I agree it’s not objectively provable, because it’s a moral issue as much as a scientific one. That doesn’t mean there’s no evidence, it just means your weighing and filtering the evidence according to a different rubric to holiness.
>>18618725>God exists because people believe in himSo if people stopped believeing in God he'd cease to exist? What kind of omnipotent, omniscient god is that and why would anyone believe in him?
>>18618664Work on your definitions esl broJesus was sent (and sent Himself) to end the mischief, not to propagate it
>>18618836Mischief can be clean, it only means crime in a police context.If you haven’t seen the mischief in the Bible, read it more.
>>18618861Mischief implies deceptionGod does not deceive.
>>18618865The correction is simple: His mischief is not lying, it’s unveiling. Not hiding truth, but springing it.Jesus never deceives. But He constantly sets traps that others fall into. He answers in a way that reveals the hidden assumption instead of arguing it directly. That’s the key move. The move is: let them walk into the structure, then flip it so they see it was never theirs. That feels like mischief from the outside because the reversal is sudden and clean.You’re equivocating on the word. You hear “mischief” as deception or moral wrongdoing. “He ends mischief” only if you define mischief as sin. But if mischief means overturning false frames with precision, then He does it constantly.
>>18618942>the correction is simple>you're equivocating the wordGo learn Engrish my brown esl friend. I appreciate the effort, but I am not the one who is wrong.
>>18618953Webster definition of mischievous 1.b my racist non-friend.
>>18618966>still persists on his retardation>but muh 1b subdefinition saarYou don't lose izzat by admitting you're wrong. No English speaker in his right mind would label God or Jesus as "mischiveous". That term is reserved for the likes of Loki. Maybe it's normal in your culture ro ascribe such traits to major deities, it is not in Christianity.
>>18618978Guess I know God better than you because Jesus is mischievous, ps you are boring and racist haha
>>18618622Yet here you are replying to a bait thread. >>18618983
>>18619054I’m not “the arbiter of Christianity”, I’m saying that mischief is recognizable in the text; that someone else happens to be blind to it has no bearing, it doesn’t have any weight or count as evidence against what is already manifest. There is literally a whole oriental iconographic school devoted to mischievous Jesus too.
