So has Jesus risen from the dead or not? Everything in Christianity hinges on this single fact, but all I've heard is circular logic from the Bible itself.
>>18685061Sure let's send in CIS to figure out this 2000 year old crime scene. It's a matter of faith. You can't prove it one way or another.
>here's a claim>and here, a bunch of testimonies that confirm it>>>> but the testimonies are about the claim :o that's circularInsane that this trope survived the r/NeoAtheism era.
>>18685068Well, would you risk everything and everyone on a claim that can't be proven? Would a reasonable God want you to believe in such a claim?
>>18685072If I write a fanfiction of me having anal sex with your mother does it automatically become true because I said so? Wouldn't it be understandable to ask for additional evidence other than my own claim?
>>18685075If you're telling me the trope survived because atheists still can't tell testimonies from fanfiction and evidence from "automatically become true because I said so", then of course, that kinda adds up.
>>18685076If someone murdered your mother and testified before court that it was you, despite not being the culprit, wouldn't you want the court to ask for additional evidence?
>>18685075>other than my own claim?Like a set of people's testimonies? From people like Peter, Mark and all? Yeah that would actually be some evidence.Guess what the Bible is....
>>Anon, testimonies are evidence, that's not what circular argumentation is>Yeah but fuck and kill yo momma Idk what I expected.
>>18685079What if I said that Josh, Tery and Barnabas all agree with me and were present that I fucked your mom? That's 3 people already, you know.
>>18685074You have to open yourself to the Holy Spirit and feel in your heart whether it's true or not, after reading the scripture with an open mind.Religion isn't a rational thing, anon. Or it would just be science. Anti-theists and apologists are wasting their time with endless debates.
>>18685081Not all testimonies are automatically true unless verified by multiple independent sources. In this case those testimonies are all from a single source and created decades after the actual events by some Greeks.
>>18685087So it's true because it feels true? Well, then I rest my case.
The funny thing is that only Matthew claims Jesus’ tomb had guards who were bribed to say Jesus’s body was stolen, the other gospels make no mention of any guards and Mark even has Mary Magdalene ask how they will open the tomb when visiting (which shouldn’t be an issue if there were guards who could open it for them). Furthermore, Matthew isn’t clear on whether it’s Roman soldiers or temple guards and both lead to problems:>The punishment for Roman soldiers sleeping on the job was execution. So even if an entire squadron of guards all fell asleep, they would have never admitted it even if they were offered a bribe.>Temple guards were disorganized and could have fallen asleep on the job or be overpowered, making it possible for someone to slip past them to steal the body.If anything, the idea that there were any guards is the counter-narrative to the likely explanation that one of Jesus’ followers simply stole his body at night, not the other way around.
>>18685082Those would be testimonies, yes. Where is the circle you speak of?>>18685089>not automatically trueI'm not challenging your disbelief, I'm challenging the trope that having testimonies for a claim is somehow circular. >independent sourcesIf you expected "this guy is God" to be corroborated by an independent "yeah he was God but didn't sway me, I'm staying neutral", that is a completely separate discussion.
>>18685097The circle is>those testimonies are true because they testified it's trueWhat about anyone else?
>>18685091That's what it boils down to, if people are honest with themselves. You become religious by feeling a connection to the divine. And you stop being religious if you don't feel it. Of course you also have pretenders on both sides.
>>18685101Which would make all testimonies on their own "circular". Are you sure you know what a circular argument actually is?
>>18685107That's a case for spirituality in general but not Christianity. Even if it feels true the lack of evidence for their particular version should be an incentive to look anywhere else but Christianity. I won't deny the immeasurable healing power of faith. That's what lead me here in the first place. But everything tells me they got it crooked.
>>18685109Fair enough. Do you know of any other sources that can support those testimonies?
>>18685120Yes. The saints.
>>18685122So they saw Jesus rise from the dead?
no
>>18685130>>18685120
>>18685123Rise from the dead, suffer on the cross, talked to Jesus directly, all kinds of stuff. Experiences of the saints really are something else. Become a saint and find out for yourself.It certainly beats (both in intellectual honesty and in reliability) waiting around for someone to discover a text saying "yeah Jesus rose from the dead but I didn't care for it, not a Christian" lol
>>18685111Large parts of mainstream Christianity do look phony and man-made to me too, but Jesus' message in the gospels rings true to me. Especially in Mark. I try to separate the original message of Jesus from the man-made doctrines that was added later on. First by people like Paul and later by the Church. The things Jesus said were true and wise. And I think the Holy Spirit was speaking through him when he said most of them. I don't really care if Jesus was one part of a three-part-godhead, the jewish messiah or the son of god, or something else. The Word stands on its own.
>>18685132If one like me can become a saint and find out then maybe we are talking about different things because I'd like objective testimonies instead of subjective feelings. I've literally gone insane a few times and I know how easy the mind can latch onto things that feel 10000% true without them being true objectively.
>>18685134The thing is if he didn't rise from the dead then he is simply a wise guru which is like a therapist. And that's all nice and all but the main claim is that God offers eternal bliss in the afterlife in heaven even if life sucks right now. And that's something beyond a normal therapist.
>>18685137Sorry for your experience, you might actually be one in a million cases where I can't for certain recommend spiritual experiences then. I suppose you'll have to wait for that independent corroboration that by definition nobody would reasonably write...
>>18685141If God is good then you can already assume it to be the case, without requiring him to come down and confirm it in person.If he his not good, then we are all fucked anyway.
>>18685144Well, then God will surely understand my situation once I meet him once I'm dead. More blowjobs for me I guess
>>18685147But there are like certain things one has to do to get into heaven or rather certain things one should avoid. If it's all up to chance then I guess I'll roll the dice
>>18685061The living body of Christ rose from the earth to receive eternal life and dominion over the world in God's name.Those that deny the resurrection should be baptized until either they see the light or they aren't a problem anymore.
>>18685149I don't know what God will understand, but I'll pray for you today, a case like this didn't really cross my mind except as an hypothetical. God bless you, fella
>>18685157>>18685120
>>18685161You can see God yourself (Matthew 18:20).
>>18685170I'd rather see proof that Jesus has risen from the dead.
>>18685149Nope, enjoy hell haha.YOU WILL BURN!
>>18685158Thanks
>>18685155What the Markian Jesus tells you to do to get into the Kingdom of God makes sense to me, even from a non-Christian / spiritualist viewpoint.The tl;dr version is that you need to follow the 10 commandments (basic human decency), you need to have a relationship with the Holy Spirit and you need to free yourself from societal spooks that bind you like money, property and status symbols. You need to lower yourself to come closer to God. It's kind of similar to what an ancient Greek Cynic/Stoic would tell you to do. Maybe even a sprinkle of Buddhism
>>18685179If hell is full of people like me then maybe it won't be so bad
>>18685158>a case like this didn't really cross my mind except as an hypotheticalAre you genuinely stupid? You don't have to actually be insane yourself to know that people can go skitzo. Sane atheists use this argument all the time.
>>18685178That is the proof.
>>18685182Yeah, it may make sense that the version of God they tell of would want you to do those things. But maybe it's simply good advice in general.
>>18685185Can you point me to some proof that isn't from the people that want you to submit to their version of proof?
>>18685184No need for that, bitch.
>>18685188Yes there is. You really sounded like you lack a theory of mind there.
>>18685193I'm the OP and there is no need to insult him for not having thought of something before. Everyone has their blindspots and if you don't think you do too then you most likely have a lot of them.
>>18685184And to those atheists I say that they should go get checked out. "I'm not gonna go verify a claim because I might be a self-deluding schizophrenic" is not a normal reaction. This is the first time I cannot say this because the other person has legitimate reasons to suspect suspect actual delusion. So that's tough for them. But as far as an average healthy person hiding behind genuinely mentally unwell people.. that's just cowardice.
>>18685072Supposedly thousands of people arose from the dead in Jerusalem and yet ZERO historical mentions of this exist
>no way, I won’t believe that circular logic>I’ll believe the circular logic of naturalism instead
>>18685222Pretty sure the mention in the Gospels is historical
>>18685197It's always more likely for me to have a specific delusion like that than for a guy to have flown.
>>18685223Naturalism is based on the shared experience of peer-reviewed studies that led to the device that turned lightning into words on my screen. That is enough evidence for me personally. Miracles are by definition a special event. I would have believed that a miracle occurred when I heard that all the apostels died a gruesome death for their faith in the resurrection but I was disappointed when it turned out that all the evidence for those deaths came from the Bible itself. Which was written decades after the actual events and based on the oral traditions of the Christians who had literally everything to lose if it weren't true.
>>18685226Yes, it is ONE historical mention. It would be nice if other people also wrote something about it, too.
>>18685222Strange, you'd expect historical records if people climbed from the graves and walked through Jerusalem half-decomposed and everyone recognizing them, right? But that's not what the Bible narrates. It narrates Jesus appearing in a new body, often out of nowhere, often unrecognizable even to people close to him. And it later adds that other people also did appear, which we can reasonably infer happened the same way as described before. I don't know that we should have expected historical mentions of "5 tailors, 12 shepherds and 72 field workers swore their dead relative appeared to them but looking like someone else". It's just not what makes the records.>>18685230If you apriori believe the Resurrection is impossible than by definition everything will always be more likely lol. But at some point you have to consider how much evidence you're willing to overlook to maintain your bias. A random guy preaching Jesus in the street? Whatever. A bunch of historical testimonies compiled into the New Testament? Maybe not all of it is real... People consistently reporting miracles in Jesus' name? Really cool but I'd have to check all religions and I'm too busy... Which is why I usually recommend not waiting for a 3rd party to deliver proof to you, but for you to put in the effort proportional to your curiosity and try to experience these things for yourself. In Jesus' words "come and see".
>>18685254>try to experience these things for yourselfYou literally can't experience it yourself because it's a past event. Just because the belief in that event lead to a desirable outcome (did it? could it have been better?) doesn't mean that the event actually happened. It's really not that farfetched to imagine that the faith in an afterlife stabilized society and allowed the faith to spread without the object (the resurrection) of the faith never actually happening.
>>18685223>implying naturalism is circular>unironically using Twitter screencaps featuring fake accounts to make a point
>>18685254>If you apriori believe the Resurrection is impossibleStrawman, didn't read past that. Reread what I wrote. I never called it impossible. I said that me having a schizoid episode and thinking I've become an enlightened saint is always more likely than a guy actually having flown.
>>18685263It's especially funny when you consider that the Catholic church is against a death penalty in general. But I don't think it's worth to focus on the worst elements of a group if one wants to get to the truth of a matter. There are probably many assholes that would advocate for cleaning your teeth.
>>18685260>You literally can't experience it yourself because it's a past event. I never listen to naysayers.>It's really not that farfetchedNo denial is farfetched when viewed in isolation. Excuses always snowball precisely because they accumulate by tiny bits. But at some point you turn around and you not only find yourself in opposition to most of humanity (religious) and to some of the wisest people who ever lived (non-materialist), but you find yourself proposing conspiracy theories about 12 dudes who conned the world and induced thousands upon thousands of converging spiritual experiences and deluded thousands of people into thinking impossible miracles happened in one way or another.... That is pretty far. Maybe to you this amount of denial and speculation isn't too high of a price to pay. But what do you actually gain by paying it?>>18685266I know what you wrote and I'm satisfied with my reply. If you didn't manage to connect the two, I'm fine leaving it there.
>>18685283>I never listen to naysayers.Then there are only Yes-Men in your life which is a hell in itself in my opinion.
>>18685286They said yes.
Also it's kinda suspicious how there are so many attempts to prove God that don't rely on the resurrections. You would expect people to be very anal about that one particular thing that convinced even Paul.
>>18685295Maybe it's no.
He rose from the grave and ascended into heaven in exactly the same manner that Hercules did.
>>18685298Maybe... let me ask them.>>18685296Jesus appearing to Paul convinced him.
>>18685283>I know what you wrote and I'm satisfied with my reply.Because you're clearly not very smart. Your new argument is literally that what should tip me over is miraculous testimonies from other people, which fall into the same pitfall - it's more likely that they were having a schizoid episode than that a guy flew.
>>18685303Things would be sooo much easier if he could appear to me, too! Ideally, in front of a big crowd with video evidence and such.
>>18685304>which fall into the same pitfall - it's more likely that...If only I had addressed that pitfall, right? ;)
>>18685308That would be something. It all starts with you, friend.
>>18685314I'd rather not. You'd be surprised at how often I got things wrong.
>>18685309You literally didn't. You just gesticulated towards a bunch of shit with the same issue that I pointed out initially.
Mythicists wonEhrman lost Abrahamism lost
>>18685328Like I said, if you didnt' understand what I said about apriori bias leading one to always find flaw with likelihood, I'm happy to leave it there. Why respond? You know I'm satisfied with what I said and you know you have zero ways to motivate me to change it.
>>18685337I know you're low IQ, I've already said as much. That's why you a priori believe it's more likely for a guy to have flown than for you or others to have a schizoid episode.
>>18685390A schizoid episode? A personality disorder causing social disinterest makes people to see miracles? Could you cite a case, Anon?
>>18685061Jesus’ disciples fled when He was betrayed by Judas Iscariot. They were nowhere to be found when He was crucified. However, fifty days later, they were boldly proclaiming that Christ had risen from the dead. They went out and turned the world upside down for Jesus Christ. Something changed their lives. If one assumes it was some type of conspiracy then, it has to be explained how these disciples could have been fooled.If they were part of the conspiracy then what motivated them to spend the rest of their lives knowingly promoting this fraud? Especially when preaching about the risen Christ resulted in their persecution and eventual death. It does not make any sense. They could have lived comfortable lives in the world if they just stopped.Confirmed by prophecy, attested by God through miracles, and risen from the dead to glory, there is no one we ought to trust more than Jesus as to who God is. And Jesus points us back to the Bible and to the one, true God found therein, and confirms for us that the Triune God of Christian Scripture is the one true God.https://truthischrist.com/seven/ The Bible is a miracle, and it clearly shows up what God thinks because only someone knows the future perfectly could be responsible for it.Salvation is by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8-9, given by God, Romans 10:8 & 17) only in the one, final, effectual sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ (Heb. 10:8-12) dying in your place (1 Cor. 15:3-4) as a substitutionary offering for sin (Rom. 5:1-10). His blood atonement made for you is finished, so if you have received the Lord Jesus by faith (John 1:12, Rom. 10:9) in your heart, you're forgiven of all your sins and are saved, once for all; finally and forever! (Rom. 8:38-39, Romans 4:5)The gift of salvation can't be earned, it's a gift: Eph. 2:8-9: “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VRT2FFXntc
>>18686630Any other source other than the Bible?
>>18685234>Naturalism is based on the shared experience of peer-reviewed studies that led to the device that turned lightning into words on my screenNo, it isn’t, and if you really think it is you are not qualified to be debating anything.>That is enough evidence for me personallySo some authority figures said so is enough evidence for you? A few hundred years ago you would be wearing a tonsure and operating a wrack. >I heard that all the apostels died a gruesome death for their faith in the resurrection but I was disappointed when it turned out that all the evidence for those deaths came from the Bible itself. Actually, most of those are not in the bible at all. They come from post-biblical sources, a very small number of the martyrdoms of the apostles are recorded in scripture. You see, you haven’t really done any research into this subject at all, you’ve just swallowed the first glass of kool-aid atheists handed to you. Why do you think that is, Anon? Could it be that you simply don’t want it to be true?>Which was written decades after the actual events and based on the oral traditions of the Christians who had literally everything to lose if it weren't true.No it wasn’t. I deny that. Most of the New Testament was written before 70 AD, including the epistles of Paul all of which were written before then, as he died in the mid 60s. Now, technically that is “decades later”, and I suppose you could describe Paul’s conferences with the disciples as “oral traditions”, but that’s not the picture you were painting was it? >>18685235How do you know they didn’t?>>18685263Of course it is. We know miracles don’t happen, because miracles never happened, because all the miracles of history were fake, because miracles don’t happen. Besides, how do you expect to prove nothing exists but dirt? You deceive yourself in believing you do, you do nothing but reason within the circle of the presuppositions of your worldview.
>>18686674>no not that source, I refuse to believe what the bible says. I’m totally neutral btwLuke 16:31
>>18686688>Of course it is. We know miracles don’t happen, because miracles never happened, because all the miracles of history were fake, because miracles don’t happen. Besides, how do you expect to prove nothing exists but dirt? You deceive yourself in believing you do, you do nothing but reason within the circle of the presuppositions of your worldview.Are you okay? You sound like you're having a stroke.
>>18686691One source is nice. Two sources would be better. Three would be even better than that etc.
>>18686688Ok, then I'll stop debating with you.
>>18686801If one source is nice, why don’t you believe? The word of God is worth more than an infinite number of sources.
>>18686691Typically, when people ask for sources, they mean reliable sources from serious people. Not stupid stories written by insane people.
>>18686815So not the Origin of Species or the God Delusion.
>>18686818Haha, you're so mindbroken.
>>18686821>I’m so addicted to degenerate pornography that I make casual references to extreme BDSM rape porn for no reason constantly
What I’m not understanding is how “circular reasoning” is an objection under atheism, seeing as they do not believe laws of logic are universal, immaterial, and absolute standards of reasoning.
>>18686829You're clearly the expert on bdsm rape porn terminology here since I wasn't even aware of the origin of the term before your post.
>>18686856Backpedaling.
>>18686862Is that another bdsm reference?
>>18686849I think they do. They might not believe logic is wound into fabric of reality like some theists seem to think, but they are completely content with the discipline of logic being defined by particular set of principles.
>>18686872>They might not believe logic is wound into fabric of realityThen they don’t believe that, those are literally the same exact thing
>>18686895Nope. Standards of a discipline need to be just that - standards of the particular discipline. Whether they go deeper than that or not is completely irrelevant. You might be completely convinced that logic goes all the way down do Jesus the logos and that by logos they totally meant logic and stuff, but that's your personal lore. In reality, logic is a discipline we practice and it has specific standards we happen to maintain.
>>18686849Is it an objection under your view?
>>18686807Personally I prefer more evidence
>>18686849So you don't mind circular reasoning in your evidence for the afterlife?
>>18686867Do you like BDSM?
>>18686901No, it is necessary that the laws of logic be real. If they do not exist objectively, they do not apply objectively. If the laws of logic are not a real abstract object (and I do not see how they could be under naturalism), then they are nothing more than the mere invention of men. And yet this fictional thing which men made up is supposed to bind my reasoning, and it is supposed to have something to do with something called “truth”? Positively absurd. Second, if the laws of logic are an invention of man, I am free to invent my own, and define the rules thereof to be that everything I say is a truth by definition, and I challenge any man to tell me how I would in any way be in error without presupposing the laws of logic are real.>>18686943Absolutely. Laws of logic reflect the thinking of God, they are real ideas in the mind of God and therefore the truth actually does conform to them. Ergo, I should not think irrationally but rationally, at least if I desire to know the truth, whereas under atheism there is not even really such a thing as “rational” besides arbitrary personal preference.>>18687107No, my point is an atheist has no reason to mind it. By objecting to it you are presupposing the existence of God.
>>18687104There is no such thing as evidence which is greater than the testimony of holy scripture.
>>18687651Personally I don't like circular reasoning and circular reasoning is bad because I don't like it
>>18687653That's disappointing
>>18687654You should’ve said “I don’t like it because it’s bad” first then it would sound even dumber.
>>18687662No, it's bad because I don't like it
>>18687664But I like it so it’s good actually
>>18687667Well now we are in a pickle
>>18687651>Absolutely.Then why engage circular reasoning?
>>18686674https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHq06-XWcxo&list=PLFIc5Y7xpsJJq3G4Q8b60ZDacfE8SCRt6&index=35https://kjvcode.com/What other source do you want other than the Bible? The words of some random guy? The Bible is true.Every time an unsaved historian casts doubt on the Bible, an unsaved archaeologist digs up the evidence that shows the Bible was telling the truth all of the time. Two-thirds of the Scriptures are prophetic, either in type, symbol, or direct statement; and more than one-half of the OT prophecies, and nearly all of the NT, points to events that are future. This is what makes the Bible different from every other Book in the world.The Bible is a history book, verified by those who saw the events unfold. The Koran is not that way for example. It is an illiterate, epileptic egomaniac in a cave listening to an unclean spirit describe supposedly historic events from over 4,000 years before Mohammed was born. On top of that, there is not one shred of evidence that anything the Koran describes in history is true, unless it was stolen from the Bible.
>>18687711Like any source other than the Bible would be nice
>>18687711>what other source do you want besides the book that says animals can talk
>>18687712You can go with a couple of early church fathers and their certainty in the resurrection and the incredibly fast spread of the faith. “For Says the Scripture, ‘Many bodies of the saints that slept arose,’ their graves being opened. He descended, indeed, into Hades alone, but He arose accompanied by a multitude” (chap.Ix, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. I, p. 70)“Therefore endure, that we may be found the disciples of Jesus Christ, our only Master—how shall we be able to live apart from Him, whose disciples the prophets themselves in the Spirit did wait for Him as their Teacher? And therefore He who they rightly waited for, being come, raised them from the dead”[Chap. IX] (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. I (1885)Irenaeus was also closely linked to the New Testament writers. He knew Polycarp who was a disciple of the apostle John. Irenaeus wrote “…He [Christ] suffered who can lead those souls aloft that followed His ascension. This event was also an indication of the fact that when the holy hour of Christ descended [to Hades], many souls ascended and were seen in their bodies”(Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenaeus XXVIII, Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. I, Alexander Roberts, ibid., 572-573)The Church is the best source for safekeeping the tradition of the early days of Christendom and the landscape they were in.
>>18685074the entire bible hinges on "just trust me bro", from the garden of eden to the book of job to jesus extolling you to keep faith even as trials and troubles come your wayit's 2000 years ago, anon. they didn't have video evidence back then. there are ostensibly eyewitnesses (the apostles and the 500) but what testimonies we have of them we either have had preserved for 2000 years or dug up from the ground. apparently those witnesses were so convincing that the religion ended up taking over the roman empire that suppressed it, ruling over medieval europe and now influential globally with only islam and maybe hinduism opposing it. any proclamation of faith isn't a scientific "i know it's true" but "sounds plausible enough, and i want the rewards". thats the lens you have to look at all religions through, none of them can definitively prove themselves, and they never needed to. they just needed to be plausible enough and more appealing than the other worldviews.
>>18685061What's the point? Even if we had evidence that God existed people would not obey himIt's your choice. You either believe that God came down here 2000 years ago or that life is completely pointless.
>>18688041>mfw christians unironically believe these are the two options
>>18687792I'd rather go to someone outside the church instead on relying on the church to tell me that the church is believable. Just because it spread doesn't mean it's true. Islam and Mormonism spread, too.
>>18688041If there was evidence then I would obey him not sure why you think that I would risk my eternal afterlife in bliss if there was waterproof evidence from multiple independent sources
>>18685074>a claim that can't be proven?It was proven. Jesus stayed around on Earth for a while after he rose from the dead, and went back to visit his disciples. When Thomas refused to believe it was possible, he let Thomas touch the spear wound to prove that, yes, he had been stabbed to death, but was still alive nonetheless. All of those disciples then spent the rest of their lives preaching Jesus' message, and none of them ever recanted their faith in Jesus even as almost all of them were ultimately killed for their beliefs.So, we're left with two possibilities: One option is that the disciples really did interact with the reanimated Jesus and their actions thereafter can be understood as the rational behavior of people who had seen absolute proof the Jesus was who he said he was. The other option is that Jesus remained dead, and the resurrection was just a lie the disciples concocted to support their cult. Then they went their separate ways, spending the rest of their lives spreading this lie for no apparent reason, which not a single one of them ever admitted was false or even significantly diverged from the original message despite facing persecution and death.Which of those two scenarios seems more implausible to you? I would posit that unless you adhere to a strictly atheistic worldview in which the supernatural is categorically impossible, it makes more sense that the disciples saw Jesus alive after the crucifixion than that they didn't.
>>18688635>spreading this lie for no apparent reasonGetting a cult under your authority is actually a great reason.>not a single one of them ever admitted was false or significantly diverged from the original messageThings like that won't get written down by cult members, anon. Confirmation bias abounds in cults, and what is an entirely natural death of a cult leader gets transformed into a glorious spiritual one by modern cults even today. Imagine then, a cult in the first century. You only have less reliable "church tradition" to go off of when it comes to the deaths of the apostles, none of which made it into the Bible.
>>18688635Yes, according to the Bible, but it would be nice if there were other sources too that can support the claim.
>>18685134Paul is fully consistent with the teachings of Christ. He only gets hate from zuttsluts who think he invented Christianity and New Age hippies butthurt that he made men the ritual head of the church.
>>18685061Yes He hashttps://rentry.org/shroud-of-turin-27042026/
>>18689017How do you know?
>>18688308sure, but the objection doesn't really work when I cite you people from the same century of the resurrection and most of the information corroborates the events in the new testament and its message.
>>18688310The Bible is waterproof evidence, take a look at just the patterns in it that cannot be replicated by anything else:https://truthischrist.com/written-response-to-bryan-ross-criticism/https://kjvcode.com/It's not just coincidence that the Bible correctly predicts the future every time, there is plenty of evidence that the Bible is the only truth if you're willing to look.
>>18689842The Gospel of Mark in the King James Version (KJV) contains 666 verses if you remove the disputed longer ending (Mark 16:9–20).
They went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid
>>18688721You are a source.
>>18685061Bible is basically about people experiencing God and failing to believe in Him at some point. Like with Lot seeing angels and Sodom getting nuked and getting simple instructions to settle in a certain place and then still screwing that up and bad things resulting from that. So assuming you personally saw Jesus rose up from the dead, you'd still find a way to doubt (it was actually his twin and he sneaked into the tomb and it's a roman plot so us jews don't wait for the proper messiah!) and screw everything up; at which point God's mercy delivers you. I choose to believe because a world without objective good (God) is meaningless. Believing in God is a good act in itself, because you subscribe to good that is bigger than you, and declare it as your value, of which of course you will fall short always, but you still gotta try. Tangentially there's a correlational finding that people who naturally believe in free will show better outcomes, so if you subscribe to scientific-materialist milieu of opinions you gimp yourself.>>18685149Blowjobs are allowed but cum only goes into vagina FYI.
>>18689516I don't think it's very convincing when the church agrees with the church.
>>18689842I disagree I guess
>>18689872Unfortunately I can't confirm that Jesus rose from the dead.
>>18689877For me it's mostly about the resurrection. Belief is nice and all but if no one can verify that the actually rose from the dead then he is simply another prophet among uncountable others
>>18689877I know but what's the point if I don't get to cum into her mouth? And maybe I want to give some oral too or use toys.
Honestly I don't even care anymore
>>18689877>I choose to believeHow do you do that? I know how to pretend I believe but I have absolutely zero idea how to actually flip a switch in my brain that will suddenly make me think an itinerant preacher from rural Levant walked on water, healed the blind with his spit, turned water into wine, rose from the dead after being crucified and then flew into the sky.
>>18689017This nigga just asked his free chatgpt chat and pasted the conversation LMAO
>>18689882You can, but you are choosing not to.I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.
>>18685075Nobody wrote a fiction that you are a faggot and yet here you are being a faggot
>>18689888>walked on waterIn the beginning, when the readers saw him hovering over the waters, they were terrified. “It’s a ghost,” they said, and cried out in fear.But Jesus immediately said to them: “Take courage! It is I.”ἐγώ
>>18687677Who’s engaging in circular reasoning? That was false to begin with. My point was just that it makes no sense for an atheist to complain about it.
>>18689883The problem is the resurrection itself doesn't prove a moral God necessarily. The same logic applies as when someone claims apostles or whatever lied, the agency is just kicked up one tier higher - what if it was magical illuminati lizard ppl jews staging the resurrection with their satanic magics? Then what's the point of worshipping a God that is not all good? Just as a transaction to get good stuff? That's satanism/paganism basically. Otoh "you shall know them by their fruit", and practicing Christianity properly without turning it into "burn down all gays" or some other stupid larp thing does change a person and their life for the better.>>18689885You can do whatever as long as youa) cum into the vagina and only into the vaginab) its done in the spirit of mutual giving, respect, love, etc which can include basically anything if done in good faith - we do rough sex/oral and roleplay fine. >>18689888Ok. First of all, watch Chosen. It's grounded enough to show you how stuff might have happened believably, and to find aspects of that story around you in everyday stuff.Second, live it. God is very accessible, and wants to be accessible, not removed from you. Find an aspect you can jive with. Mercy, honor, food, work, art, love, jokes, whatever, if it's good, you can use it to connect to God. Sex even - in its procreative aspect - which is why sexual sins are automatically grave, creating another human is a great gift/ability and abusing it is a mistake of corresponding gravity. Practice of presence of God is a good short read.
>>18689929>Ok. First of all, watch Chosen.Why the fuck would you tell me to go watch some netflixslop series? Are you for real?>Second, live it. I literally just told you that I am capable of pretending that it's true but I can't actually believe that it's true.
>>18689856That's because the devil is associated with the number 666, and removing things from the word of God is the first thig we see him doing in the Bible in Genesis.
>>18690258>picrel>"Catholic forged Epistle of Ignatius"lol who is this guy and what is he going on about
