How is that different? If the Apostles died believing their faith that Jesus was resurrected is truth, then isn't it the same thing as Muslims who die believing their faith in Muhammed is the truth?No. FYI the devil can enable people to do miracles, and we know Mormonism is a cult, which in part is built on lies. Joseph Smith borrowed from the Bible, changed things and then inserted them in the Book of Mormon. For instance, in Isaiah 29 it's been reported that he added 16 verses, and then put it in the Book of Mormon
You guys always make the same mistake. Muslim martyrs would have died believing their faith, etc., is the truth.
If Jesus was not resurrected, the Apostles would have died for a known lie. That's a huge difference. So your "martyrdom is irrelevant" is not a viable claim.
So, once again, how about you show me your BEST ONE EXAMPLE ( 1 - JUST ONE) of a fictitious person, place, or event in the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John). PERSON, PLACE OR EVENT. Cite the pertinent scripture(s) and make your case with some kind of evidence or substantiation why it's fictitious. Please follow the instructions above. Let's see that bad boy. Because if the story of Jesus is bogus like I think you believe, then it should be a piece of cake for a smart guy like you to demolish it. The bad news for you is none of you skeptics ever come up with anything compelling. You make claims, but never have any credible evidence.How is that different? If the Apostles died believing their faith that Jesus was resurrected is truth, then isn't it the same thing as Muslims who die believing their faith in Muhammed is the truth?
Your evidence for Jesus' resurrection is no different than the evidence of Muhammed or Joseph Smith's miracles. Eyewitnesses recorded them, yet you doubt these eyewitnesses' credibility because of their devotion to the "cult." I am doubting the eyewitnesses who recorded Jesus' miracles for the same reason: The eyewitnesses aren't credible due to their devotion to the person they are writing about. They have the exact same motive to lie in order to build up the legend of a charismatic leader. I don't see the difference.
Do you agree that Joseph Smith performed divine miracles like Jesus did? They were attested to by multiple Mormon "eyewitnesses." Does that make them fact? And martyrdom is irrelevant. How many Muslim martyrs have there been? Does that indicate that Islam is true and Muhammed was a prophet of God?
I am assuming it is fiction, like you assume that the miracles of Muhammed and Joseph Smith are fiction. Can you prove they aren't?So, once again, how about you show me your BEST ONE EXAMPLE ( 1 - JUST ONE) of a fictitious person, place, or event in the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John). PERSON, PLACE OR EVENT. Cite the pertinent scripture(s) and make your case with some kind of evidence or substantiation why it's fictitious. Please follow the instructions above. Let's see that bad boy. Because if the story of Jesus is bogus like I think you believe, then it should be a piece of cake for a smart guy like you to demolish it. The bad news for you is none of you skeptics ever come up with anything compelling. You make claims, but never have any credible evidence.
I am assuming it is fiction, like you assume that the miracles of Muhammed and Joseph Smith are fiction. Can you prove they aren't?
Incorrect. I can believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical and influential person without believing that he was the Jewish Messiah capable of performing miracles.That's a cop out. To assume it's fiction implies you had some basis in thought or evidence to bring you to that assumption. So what was it?
That also strongly implies that you haven't done your homework on the historical Jesus. Which is a common fault among skeptics and atheists. If you ever do your proper due-diligence, you wouldn't be questioning his miracles.
Matthew 28:19 does not line up with Acts 2:38 (or any other record) that says:
"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”
I think Peter would have known the exact command given. Odd that he omitted an important part of it.
So then he is gifted God (holy ghost)? How did Jesus send the Holy spirit to the people when it was here all along? And if Jesus was fully God, what would he need the father and the Holy spirit for? And why wasn't he all knowing or all powerful?Oddly indeed, why mention only Jesus Christ? Surely, Peter would've known about the exact command.
Peter knew there was no need to add in the name of "The Father and the Holy Spirit," because both are in Jesus Christ.
Jesus is God.
He commanded baptize "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit".If Jesus is not God - that means The Father was not crucified for us.
So, why did Jesus command baptize in the Name of the Father?
No. To assume something is true calls for evidence, believing something is not true doesn't need evidence.That's a cop out. To assume it's fiction implies you had some basis in thought or evidence to bring you to that assumption. So what was it
So then he is gifted God (holy ghost)? How did Jesus send the Holy spirit to the people when it was here all along? And if Jesus was fully God, what would he need the father and the Holy spirit for? And why wasn't he all knowing or all powerful?
Most importantly, why did he, as he clearly did according to your narrative, mislead the people he was supposed to guide? Why didn't he make clear he is God if being saved depends on that? Why did he fast when it is an act of worship? Why would God worship? Why did he pray? Why did he supplicate? Why did he eat? How come he learned when God is all knowing? Why can't he act alone if he is fully God? Why does he keep talking about the father that is superior to him and whom he depends on?
He commanded baptize "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit".
The words "in the name of God" have been prevalent among the religious for quite some time and by no means began with Jesus. In the name of the father is normal because the father is God, but to say in the name of *anything else*, is blasphemy.
Then why does it say that? Well the Bible is filled with problems like this. The more reasonable question is, why should one trust the Bible to begin with?
That's exactly what I'm addressing.This thread isn't about why God did this or why Jesus did that.
This thread is about evidences in the Bible that support the argument for the Triune God (Trinity).
Refer to the OP.
No, they're of the same topic. Precisely so. Maybe you don't feel confident enough to try and answer them. After all, they are controversies the Catholic scholars have tried to circle around for centuries.You're missing the point.
Should you wish to pursue the issues you've brought forth, create a separate thread.
To answer them here would derail my topic.
No, they're of the same topic. Precisely so. Maybe you don't feel confident enough to try and answer them. After all, they are controversies the Catholic scholars have tried to circle around for centuries.
There is no evidence only claims Illogicman doenst understand the differenceHow is that different? If the Apostles died believing their faith that Jesus was resurrected is truth, then isn't it the same thing as Muslims who die believing their faith in Muhammed is the truth?
Your evidence for Jesus' resurrection is no different than the evidence of Muhammed or Joseph Smith's miracles. Eyewitnesses recorded them, yet you doubt these eyewitnesses' credibility because of their devotion to the "cult." I am doubting the eyewitnesses who recorded Jesus' miracles for the same reason: The eyewitnesses aren't credible due to their devotion to the person they are writing about. They have the exact same motive to lie in order to build up the legend of a charismatic leader. I don't see the difference.
How is that different? If the Apostles died believing their faith that Jesus was resurrected is truth, then isn't it the same thing as Muslims who die believing their faith in Muhammed is the truth?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?