And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father...

Don't argue with the crazy fundie. He is a suffering individual that needs medication and steady psychological help.

Moses and the prophets told the people what was required for salvation; either perfect adherence to the Law (impossible) or the intervention of the Messiah.

As Jesus said, if people believed Moses and the prophets, they believed in Jesus, as Moses and the prophets were speaking of Jesus.

>there are multiple positions which claim to be true, therefore truth doesn't exist

I do not believe so, no. Intercessory prayer is for the living, not the dead. God forbade communication with the dead full well knowing that they were alive in the afterlife.

So, God forbid.

Also, not only do we have Moses and the prophets ourselves, we have the Son as well.

Because the premise is that we are all wicked sinners, and your rejection of the means of redemption indicates you are still in your native state.

That's not even me. Just one more time I get to laugh at you for never learning how to /samefag.

Setting aside minor stuff like Moses never having existed in the first place, jews clearly having good arguments as per why Moses never spoke of jesus or jesus never fulfilling crucial prerequisites for being the messiah, that's not what's happening there.
Someone is asking for the sake of someone else that a clear miracle happens so that they may be convinced. The response is "well they don't believe in *dubious event* therefore they wouldn't believe even in the case of *something really convincing*". It's dumb.
No, user, that's not what I said. I said what you just did is a shitty argument, as it can be used to support anything without giving any actual reason to do so.
>Because the premise is that we are all wicked sinners
The argument is circular, by admitting we're "wicked sinners", we've already assumed christianity is true. Shitty argument.

But think about it. Think about how often, on this very board, people debate and dismiss miraculous events and happenings. Even if there's a certain amount of evidence for them, it gets cast aside.

It really does seem like "evidence" of God and Christianity is purely for the faithful. It doesn't ever wind up convincing atheists. The only thing that ever winds up convincing them is their actually encountering Scripture and the Gospels--just as Abraham says in the story.

>Even if there's a certain amount of evidence for them, it gets cast aside.

There is NEVER any evidence that has been subject to scientific scrutiny. You just have really fucking low standards of proof.

>Even if there's a certain amount of evidence for them, it gets cast aside.
Discussing something that happened to somebody else, completely removed from you by time and space, and actually witnessing the thing for yourself are two completely different things.
Also the reasons why people reject biblical miracles so quickly are many. For example, because there's not any particular reason to believe those happened but those talked about in other religions didn't. Or the strangely coincidental decrease in the potency of miracles with the passing of time: we basically went from high fantasy to low fantasy, again, coincidentally as our ability to accurately record things and test scientific explanations for them improved.

You can believe whatever you want, until you die.

Then you'll know that you were always wrong, and it's too late.

>I said what you just did is a shitty argument
It wasn't an argument, it was a fact. Learn the difference

Rubbish. We could all be wicked sinners with no plan of redemption, in which case Christianity would not exist.

You're not making your case look any better, dude.
"Sin" already implies theology, which means god exists, which means we've already assumed tons of things. Also, in the way you've formulated, it implies that christianity is true, in fact, a particular strand of christianity. So yes, we've assumed plenty thus making the argument circular.

That's simply not true. It's just that when miracles are subjected to scientific scrutiny, the goalposts are shifted and atheists move on to critiquing and trying to find fault with the scientists doing the studies.

"Sin" means "missing the mark", in this context the mark is "be perfect as God is perfect".

We are all sinners. None of us are like God. If you think you are, please feel free to create your own universe that I can explore.

Some of us have dealt with the problem; you have not.

>fear tactics and non-arguments

You people do literally nothing here but make this board worse and lower the level of discourse even further than the already low Veeky Forums norm.

Yes, it's simply amazing how many thousands of x-rays, MRIs and CT scans "must have been wrong in the first place".

Just amazing.

>Stop disagreeing with me.

Perhaps you'd be better suited to not post here yourself. It seems as though that would solve your problem.

>Why don't I ever have a prevailing thought or argument in this arena in which I am completely ignorant???

All studies get their methodology and practitioners scrutinized. Your studies simply never hold up.

I'm very sorry Christian scientists are expected to play by the big boy rules of science; I know it's very hard for people with your mindset to live in the real world.

I don't know if you were in the thread the other day, but I just found this gem:

Hebrews 2:16 For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham.

Fallen angels BTFO

>"Sin" means "missing the mark", in this context the mark is "be perfect as God is perfect".
You've literally just admitted that talking about sin means you've already assumed god exists. I am disputing that. Saying "you're a sinner" isn't an argument because you've already assumed you're correct about God existing in the first place.

>"Sin" already implies theology, which means god exists
Your erroneous presupposition is that there is no such thing as atheist theology. If you have prerequisites which would cause you to believe in God if met, you have theology.

Perhaps you should go fuck yourself until you bleed. You worthless piece of shit.

You come to a board about academic subjects to proselytize and can't actually make your subjects stand on an academic level. YOU are the problem.

Stop talking about yourself.

It's as though you were completely unaware of the entirety of nascent ID philosophy and science that is overtaking the stale, stultifying evolutionary fantasy.

If you don't know that "peer review" is a circlejerk, you're probably the pivot man.

Of course God exists.

Do you think your disbelief causes him to not exist in reality?

In saying that God does not exist you have assumed that God does not exist. Why is your presupposition more valid than mine?

Why so mad tho?

Because you are a fool, and he is not.

Only the fool says in his heart "there is no God".

>my hot opinions are disregarded due to a conspiracy against them

People make their careers by defying academic expectations. The entire field of quantum physics started out by defying the current paradigm. The reason your bullshit doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny is because it's built on faulty methodology by people looking to sustain their ideology; all the related jargon is just window dressing for "I'm right because Jesus tells me so (in my head)."

>Your erroneous presupposition is that there is no such thing as atheist theology
There isn't. There's atheistic philosophy of religion, sure.
>Of course God exists.
Not an argument. Also, bad troll.
>In saying that God does not exist you
But I didn't say that, I said I'm disputing as in "I don't know one way or the other, user, why should I believe you?"

No, that's the trouble, the studies DO hold up. They hold up even though atheists don't want them to. And that's when atheists either deny they ever happened or try to find fault with the researchers.

There's no consistency, except the consistent need to deny God's work in the world. Hence the story. Even if Jesus Christ popped into existence in front of them, some people still wouldn't believe.

>There isn't
What would it take for you to believe in God?
>But I didn't say that, I said I'm disputing as in "I don't know one way or the other, user, why should I believe you?"
Is it true that atheism is the "lack of belief in a deity or deities"?

To ask whether or not there is a God is pointless, because one cannot prove or disprove it.
What one can argue, however, is whether or not God exists as He is alleged to in the various Abrahamic theologies.
The answer is probably not.

>No, that's the trouble, the studies DO hold up.

Which ones from which academic institutions?

>What would it take for you to believe in God?
It depends. For example, counter arguments to atheistic arguments that I find convincing plus good arguments for the existence of God. Or some personal experience that is so strong that to deny it I'd have to deny my own sanity.
I'd say that atheistm is the belief that gods don't exist, the definition you're using is for pussies desu.

>It depends. For example, counter arguments to atheistic arguments that I find convincing plus good arguments for the existence of God. Or some personal experience that is so strong that to deny it I'd have to deny my own sanity.
What evidence would it take to prove to you that God exists?
>I'd say that atheistm is the belief that gods don't exist
Yes it is, because "I believe that there is no god" and "I do not believe that there is a god" are identical statements. Agnosticism does not exist.

QM. Quantum. Quanta. Particles. Atoms. Atomism.

Atomism is thousands of years old, and already proven wrong thousands of years ago.

You can't pay much attention to science if you don't know it's always wrong.

God exists whether you want him to or not. The sheer arrogance of you and your ilk to deny the obvious is truly beyond reason.

>What evidence would it take to prove to you that God exists?
Haven't I already answered this? Or do you mean what specific personal experience would convince me?
>I believe that there is no god" and "I do not believe that there is a god" are identical statements.
No they aren't, one is a way to practice epoche, the other is flat out stating what is(n't)

The answer would be "yes, of course".

Jesus made extraordinary claims to be God, and backed them up with extraordinary evidence, including raising from the dead to be alive forevermore.

>What evidence would it take to prove to you that God exists?
>it's another "atheists are impossible to convince and I'll prove it by putting them on the spot" episode

Yawn. I guarantee you that if God opened up the heavens every 10 years and blared in a language all could understand "I AM GOD, WORSHIP ME!" you'd have vastly lower disbelief rates.

But that's really irrelevant, as it's not on the disbeliever to decide what proof is necessary; it's on the proselytizing piece of dog vomit to convince people. You don't expect people to give reasons to a car salesman why they don't want to buy his car.

You're already insane by believing there is no God.

>You don't expect people to give reasons to a car salesman why they don't want to buy his car.

Have you never bought a car before, or is this a massive typo?

I said "you" don't, as in it's an unreasonable expectation. Maybe you really are just a pushy piece of human refuse.

>Or do you mean what specific personal experience would convince me?
Yes, this.
>No they aren't, one is a way to practice epoche, the other is flat out stating what is(n't)
It shouldn't have to be explained to you that "I do not X" and "I not do X" are equal statements.

Then why does God change characters, personalities, and even bodily form throughout the Old Testament? If the foundation is suspect, then everything above it is in danger of collapse.

>it's on the proselytizing piece of dog vomit to convince people.

This is perhaps the most uncharitable thing I have ever seen posted.

Please let me know one iota of benefit I receive from telling you the gospel of Jesus Christ, and I will tell you the infinite benefit you would receive by believing the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Let's just see who the dog vomit really belongs to.

Hey, you two young folks looking to buy a car? How about this one right here!

You: Sold!

So you want me both to prove to you that God exists and to do this without knowing what would prove that God exists?

Why do you think you are in a position to say what God can and cannot do?

Who are you that God Himself has to comport to your dictates?

>Please let me know one iota of benefit I receive from telling you the gospel of Jesus Christ, and I will tell you the infinite benefit you would receive by believing the gospel of Jesus Christ.

You fulfill your ideological obligation, you filth. But aside from that, you validate your own beliefs by convincing others of their merit and displaying your own power in so doing, but you've sublimated that so far you don't even acknowledge it.

>Let's just see who the dog vomit really belongs to.

Your parents and they should be ashamed of having made it.

Figure it out for yourself. Paul managed.

I have no such obligation. I am free.

So, wrong again.

Validate my own beliefs? I am already convinced of my own beliefs, and have been since before you were born.

You cannot make the comparison between your two states, the one burning in hell forever, which is where you are headed, and the other living in bliss forever, which is where I and God want you to be.

You cannot even fathom the difference.

>Yes, this.
Dunno, seeing somebody raised from the dead for example would be pretty cool, or having an exact prophecy that isn't vague as fact, or like god literally talking to me and saying stuff I can't know. Lots of stuff.
>It shouldn't have to be explained to you that "I do not X" and "I not do X" are equal statements.
If your language is so plebeian that it doesn't contemplate the difference, maybe, but the sapir-worf hypothesis is false therefore you should be able to understand it anyway. I can neither believe nor disbelief something, it's called being neutral, suspension of judgment or more colloquially "dunno".

So ride a horse back and forth from Jerusalem to Damascus to see if God is going to personally make you his greatest apostle to the Gentiles.

Protip: He's not.

>I have no such obligation.

So not only are you a terrible human being, you're bad at being a Christian. Remarkable.

As for the rest of that post, oh that is some sweet, sweet cognitive dissonance my friend.

No, you're human, driven by the same chemical desires as everyone else.

173,880 days from when Daniel said the Messiah would appear, Jesus rode a colt into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, the only day he allowed people to worship him.

173,880 days exactly.

Zion was to be reborn in one day, her children being citizens on Day One.

That happened May 14, 1948. One day. Exactly as prophesied 2700 years prior.

No, the evidence is everywhere, and but for your ability to rebel against God, which God gave you so that you could reject Him, it is overwhelming.

No Christian has any obligations.

We have been set free by the Son, and we are free indeed.

It's not unusual for someone like you to have zero understanding of Christianity; if you knew what it was, you would embrace it with your entire being.

I am not "human" anymore, no. So, wrong again. I am a new creation in Christ Jesus, just as he promised.

Does your ignorance level ever bother you? Like, ever?

Do you speak Spanish?

youtube.com/watch?v=GwmFYA0H_bI

You'd expect a God who is always right to maintain a constant attitude and act in a logical fashion. Instead, we have a God who demands literal human sacrifice, then bans it, a God who says there are other gods, then those other gods disappear from the theology altogether, a God who had a Son but inexplicably this Son must also be of the line of David.

There is so much interpolation, redaction, rehabilitation, and censorship in the Bible that it contradicts itself many times and people must do all sorts of mental acrobatics in order to have it make sense.

>Dunno, seeing somebody raised from the dead for example would be pretty cool, or having an exact prophecy that isn't vague as fact, or like god literally talking to me and saying stuff I can't know.
See? You have proven you have a theology! If you believe it is possible for there to be evidence of God, then you believe that there are things which are intrinsically divine, since for this to be evidence you have to be able to look at it and say "Yes, God does this." The fact you know what would be intrinsically divine proves you already believe that God exists and you are suppressing that knowledge because of your sin, since something that does not exist does not have intrinsic characteristics, so if you believe something is intrinically divine, so that it could serve as evidence of God, then you must believe God exists.

For the first part, Jesus didn't fullfill several prophecies related to the messiah, like rebuilding the temple so saying he's the messiah doesn't even make sense.
For the second part, people knew about the prophecy, it's called a self-fulfilling prophecy.

>If you believe it is possible for there to be evidence of God, then you believe that there are things which are intrinsically divine
No I don't, I said those things can make me believe in God, that doesn't mean they're intrinsically divine, just that the divine hypothesis is preferred in those conditions.
>The fact you know what would be intrinsically divine proves you already believe that God exists
As I've already said, no, I don't. Also, the argument is yet again so bad it can be used for anything. "Well, is there some way you could believe in Allah? Yes? Then you already believe in allah since those things that would make you believe in allah are intrinsecally allah-related" and so on. Really bad argument.

>rebuilding the temple
He did, He rebuilt the temple of God which is the human being, created in His likeness. Jesus Christ causes the image of God to be restored to its former glory, and the Spirit dwells within this temple. Therefore, Jesus rebuilt the true temple, which was destroyed by sin.

? So why make a reference to the Temple at all? Why not say he will come back to life? Why leave room for ambiguity?
Inb4 muh free will

>I am not "human" anymore, no. So, wrong again. I am a new creation in Christ Jesus, just as he promised.

That is the single cringiest thing I have ever read. You're pathetic. I hope someone photoshops that onto a picture of an obese man.

>Does your ignorance level ever bother you? Like, ever?

Just because I don't agree with it doesn't mean I don't get it. The Bible was the single most retarded and worthless thing I ever read.

>I said those things can make me believe in God, that doesn't mean they're intrinsically divine
But they can't be evidence of God unless they are something which God does by definition. If they are not intrinsically divine then it can't be evidence, since it is more rationally explained by something else.
>just that the divine hypothesis is preferred in those conditions
Why? What makes those conditions more likely to be supernatural rather than natural, is it something inherent about the condition itself?
>"Well, is there some way you could believe in Allah?
Wait, you mean A GOD?? You're telling me this argument supports theism, but cannot be used to support the alternatives?

That is the most absurd asspull ever. The temple is a building, not a person.

Another stupid thing I could prove with your argument.
Do you believe unicorns exists?
No?
Well, do you believe there are things that could prove to you that unicorns exist?
yes? well then you already believe unicorns exist since you admit that those things would be intrinsecally unicorny and so on.

>He rebuilt the temple of God which is the human being
Yeaaaaah, that's not written anywhere in the original prophecy, there's nothing in there that makes you thing about anything except a very real temple.
Imagine you make a prophecy "this guy will erect a building so tall it's going to reach mars, this guy is going to be the prophet".
Then I come around, I build a capsule, go to mars and say "see? This building reached mars? Clearly, I'm the prophet!"
Kinda dishonest.

>since it is more rationally explained by something else
Nope, like there's nothing intrinsically "murdery" about a motive or the lack on an alibi, or being seen on the scene of a crime, but put together it's more reasonable to assume that they are referring to a murder than something else.
>Wait, you mean A GOD?
No, I mean anything, literally anything at all. The argument can be used to "prove" anything exists, gods different than yours, unicorns, anything. An argument like that is shitty beyond belief.

Why is it, when I contacted God, it didn't have any of the qualities of the Christian God?

>So why make a reference to the Temple at all?
Because the human is a temple?
>Why not say he will come back to life?
Who?
>Why leave room for ambiguity?
Who are you to say what God can and can't do.
Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God?
1 Corinthians 6:19
>Well, do you believe there are things that could prove to you that unicorns exist?
No, unicorns are fictional creatures. Their intrinsic characteristics are a creation of the human mind. Before you use this against God, keep in mind a true God by definition would not have intrinsic characteristics from a human mind.
>there's nothing in there that makes you thing about anything except a very real temple
It is a very real temple. Further, there are prophecies which clearly say the temple would not be rebuilt. It must be fulfilled in this way
>Kinda dishonest
You have no right to determine how God reveals truth.
>Nope, like there's nothing intrinsically "murdery" about a motive or the lack on an alibi, or being seen on the scene of a crime
Uh, yes it is. These are evidences of murder because they are intrinsically "murdery"
>The argument can be used to "prove" anything exists, gods different than yours, unicorns, anything.
See above

Meant to link

I understand why these things are confusing to you. They are not confusing to me. They are the things of God, and the things of God are not for the people who do not belong to God.

>You'd expect a God who is always right to maintain a constant attitude and act in a logical fashion.
And that is what we have.

>Instead, we have a God who demands literal human sacrifice
You are omitting the part where God had promised Abraham that his descendants would be numerous as the stars. So Abraham believed God's promise, and was obedient to God's commands knowing that even if he had to kill his son, that God would raise Isaac from the dead in order to fulfill his promises. That is the Father of Faith in action.

Note that Isaac was in his mid-30's and childless at this time. Note that this mid-30's man bore some wood up Mt. Moriah to a place of sacrifice, willingly. Note that at no time did the Son refuse to be obedient to the Father.

Does this seem familiar to you? What if I told you Mt. Moriah was where Calvary was? Would that make the story's allegory more plain?

>then bans it
If you mean "stayed Abraham's hand", then yes. If you mean a total ban, Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was a human sacrifice. Note that God stayed Abraham's hand and provided a ram for the sacrifice. Not a lamb, as Abraham had said: God will provide Himself a Lamb for the sacrifice.

And 2000 years later, God indeed did provide Himself as the Lamb of God as a sacrifice for the sins of the world.

>a God who says there are other gods
He says there are none like him, and there are not. But you can carve a pumpkin and call it your god, and it will be your god. It just means you have a carved pumpkin for a god, and your carved pumpkin will never be God. The devil is the god of this world, but that does not mean the devil is God; it means the world has a devil for a god.

con't.

>Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God?
>proof that this claim of the new testament is valid is from the new testament

Intardesting.

>These are evidences of murder because they are intrinsically "murdery"

Are you fucking retarded? Each of those is circumstantial, and if you just had any one of those alone, you'd get laughed out of a courtroom.

Corinthians is an epistle, written with Paul's interpretation of the events. That's like me using the Book of Mormon to prove that Joseph Smith was indeed a prophet and vessel of God.

>No, unicorns are fictional creatures
Look, you're really bad at this, you keep assuming stuff without realizing it. You can't just say "well they're fictional". Also, again, you can make the same argument for anything, things you don't know if they're fictional or not, things you clearly don't believe in, like allah and so on.
>It is a very real temple
No it isn't, it's a "temple". There's no reason to think about a "temple" in that prophecy.

Anyway, seems as usual people who aren't well versed in actualy philosophy of religion only make christians seem dumb as hell, too bad that wolfshiem dude isn't around, at least he's a smart fella.

>then those other gods disappear from the theology altogether
They do not. The foreign gods the Israelites worshiped when they betrayed Jehovah are gods still worshiped today. For instance, Ba'al is allah, and is worshiped as God by a billion people. Same demon god.

>a God who had a Son
The Son is God. Jesus created the universe. Jesus was in heaven prior to his birth, and came down from heaven in the flesh. There are also many appearances of the preincarnate Jesus in the Old Testament.

>but inexplicably this Son must also be of the line of David.
God promised David that his heirs would rule Israel forever, and God keeps his promises. He said the scepter would never depart from Judah, and Jesus is the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, and the Root of David.

Hence David crying out "The Lord said to my Lord" when no king would ever call his own heir "Lord".

Dude, just give up, these ones are not particularly bright. I literally skipped that part in my reply to him because it's so stupid it makes my head hurt.

Actually, it looks pretty clear that Abraham actually sacrificed Issac. Isaac's life is suspiciously like Abraham's, as if someone copy and pasted it. Also, early Canaanite religions practiced human sacrifice heavily.

There were other gods worshipped. Why not say, you shall have no other God but me? Why, no other god BEFORE me? The primacy of Yahweh is not established until Elijah murderates all the priests of Baal. It is suspected that this is when the redaction of Isaac's sacrifice takes place.

The tear this temple down and I will rebuild it in three days is his death and resurrection; he was a temple of the Holy Spirit, that temple was torn down on the cross, and He raised it on the third day.

It's not even that they're not bright (necessarily, at least one of these people here seems to be a bit of a thicky) it's that they're so emotionally invested in this narrative that they'll twist literally anything to support it, and then act like we're the unrealistic ideologues. I'm not even closed to the idea of God; I found Spinoza's arguments quite plausible if not altogether convincing, I just expect something a bit better than "take it on faith LMAO" for something as extraordinary as a god that kills people with bears.

Actually, nobody recognized the day Jesus rode into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday as a fulfillment of the Daniel 70 Week prophecy. They rejected him as the messiah, remember?

They should have known the day, the exact day, but they did not.

And Daniel's prophecy was triggered by an event that would happen after Daniel's death, by an outside agent. King Artaxerxes.

And of course Jesus rode into town on the exact day because he is God, and can make all things come true.

Luke 19

Jesus Weeps over Jerusalem
And when he drew near and saw the city, he wept over it, saying, “Would that you, even you, had known on this day the things that make for peace!

It's in the bible dude. Which was written before I was born, if you know even that much about it.

2 Corinthians 5:17
Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.

>the new testament is true because it says it's true

Do you have to get help buttoning up your shirt?

Two reasons. 1) to predict his death and resurrection, and 2) to show us that we too are temples of the Holy Spirit.

By this time, Jesus told the pharisees that he was not going to show them any more signs that he is the messiah; he had completed the entire checklist, including their own personal test: cast a demon from a deaf, dumb and blind man.

But when Jesus did that, they said he had the spirit of Beezlebub, blaspheming the Holy Spirit, and so the only sign they were to receive from that day forward was the sign of Jonah: three days dead in the belly of the beast, and then spit out alive.

The same Spirit inspired 1 Corinthians and Daniel
>>proof that this claim of the new testament is valid is from the new testament
The New Testament is a part of the bible.
>Look, you're really bad at this, you keep assuming stuff without realizing it. You can't just say "well they're fictional". Also, again, you can make the same argument for anything, things you don't know if they're fictional or not, things you clearly don't believe in, like allah and so on.
Keep reading user, I already refuted this
>you keep assuming stuff without realizing it
No, it is you who are assuming things without realizing it. I am the one who is acknowledging our presuppositions. You have naturalist presuppositions, by which you would dismiss any evidence I could bring forth for God as assuming God's existence. You have to assume God's non-existence.
>No it isn't, it's a "temple"
Keep reading user, I gave scripture
>seems as usual people who aren't well versed in actualy philosophy of religion only make christians seem dumb as hell
Your mockery is flattering
It makes your head hurt because it is beyond you, evidenty
>Why, no other god BEFORE me
This means "in my presence". This is the obvious meaning of it, hence why you do not see any mention of true gods other than God anywhere in entire bible.
>It is suspected that this is when the redaction of Isaac's sacrifice takes place
I could not care less about the suspicions of "intellectuals"
The New Testament is true because it is from God.

All born again Christians have the Holy Spirit dwelling within us; the Holy of Holies was opened to all who believe, as demonstrated by the veil before the Holy of Holies being rent in two (an impossible task with their tech) from top to bottom the day Jesus died.