Jesus is a Myth!

[POI]

The Gospels are fiction and the Jesus character is a myth. There may have been a Jesus upon whom the character is based, but I doubt it.

Loosely, there was a church already in existence when Paul became an apostle (Galatians 2). I don't think we know anything about it, because that church was effectively destroyed by the sack of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Paul's Asian churches were effectively unmoored and they absorbed a sort of second- or third-hand tradition left over from the Jerusalem church. That tradition was allegorically retold in the Synoptics. Acts is a sort of theological textbook, allegorically describing the fusion of the Pauline churches and what little remained of the Jerusalem church through the conflict between its Peter and Paul characters and the resoliution of that conflict.

For debate: Was Jesus a real character from antiquity? If so, how do we know?

The stakes are very high for the Orthodox believer. Why? If Jesus never existed, it's completely game over. Christianity is dead before we ever get to ask if Jesus ever rose. If Jesus did exist, then we can still question his claimed actions(s) all the way up to him rising again....

**************************************

At the moment, I'm personally agnostic to this topic position. But I would sure love to see how this topic fleshes out among all the smarties who exchange within this arena

[Clownboat]

Do I have ‘worship/reverence/idolization/love’ per se for the Bible that you’ve seen in my quote above?

Yes: "the evidence of the existence of Jesus is not traceable through those means, but the bible itself."
If religious promotional material made the gods real, we would have lots of Gods. No matter how much reverence/worship a person has for a book, books do not make Gods.

I answered your question through the use of an ‘If’ clause, where I said they are not idolaters of such idols if graven images are the object of worship. Then I followed up by further saying they are practicing bibliolatry when they worship God through the bible, which is a similar idolatrous sin as the idol of graven images. What am I saying then? People who do not share in this idolization are not idolaters or users of such idols - graven images, bible, etc. That’s all I can say, unless you specify your subject matter in detail.

I understand that these people are not Bible worshipers, which is why I asked what you would say to them if you were trying to convince them about the existence of Jesus since alluding to your thoughts on the Bible would mean nothing to such a person (since they don't share in the reverence/worship of the Bible).

Now that you name a specific group, the tone of our conversation will shift to another group of religious movements. If I were talking to a Muslim, I would not use the bible and the name Jesus to my defense, but the Almighty God alone, and I’m sure that would put us both on the same train to the point of no return.

Surely you don't mean that you would allude to the Almighty God of the BIBLE, since they would not share in your reverence/worship of said book? I'm clearly talking about people that view the Bible just like how you view the Quran. Since you do not worship the Quran, if someone told you about how great that Almighty God is (Allah), I'm sure you would be unconvinced, yet that is what you suggest you would do.

Obviously, they wouldn't share in the worship/reverence/idolization/love (whatever they would call it) of the Bible, so using the Bible as justification wouldn't mean much.

Neither would I do that, Clownboat! Seems you missed my point.

Then please help me to understand.
Let's say you are trying to convince a Muslim that the Jesus is real and the stories about him are true. Please justify these beliefs without using the Bible as you claim you would not do that.

I am of the same train with the people who find the phrases ‘the bible says this or that’ unimpressive because nothing matters most to me but the Almighty God.

Where is it that you learned about this almighty god concept? I would like to test to see if I should be impressed.

Neither do I! The bible is not God, btw!

Please allude to something about this god concept that you didn't obtain knowledge about via the Bible. I ask because it seems to me that the Bible is the idol and there would be no Christian god concept without the Bible.

Why not ask rather, what would the Almighty God think about people who idolized Him through man-made object?

Because, ironically we would have to go to the man-made object that we call the Bible in order to begin to think how this god concept might feel about such a thing.
It's as if there is no actual God involved and just a book. Can you see how someone might think such a thing?

Therefore, be careful what you make of this book, written by humans or you just might be guilty of the idolatry you alluded to. Unless you feel I'm missing something.

I’m sure you’ve misread my post!

I don't think so.
We know nothing about this god concept without the Bible. You hold reverence/worship for the Bible and when you read things in the Bible, they are then true. This is why I asked what you would say to a person that doesn't share in your reverence/worship of the Bible and so far you allude to telling them about the Almighty God we learn about, from the Bible.

[Clownboat]

I acknowledge that if Jesus, the claimed son of a God were to have written his teachings down for us, that we would not be able to distinguish the words of this demigod from those of normal humans.

Opinions.

No silly, it was an acknowledgement, not an opinion.

Now why do you think Jesus would not be able to preserve his message for all of humanity better than mere humans?

This is a loaded question, and fallacious.

I reject the premise.

The premise is true. Jesus did not preserve his message. We have none of his writings. Best I can tell, none of our available god concepts wrote anything down. Just humans on behalf of the gods.
I understand why you don't want to answer the question and instead stick your head in the sand by saying 'opinion' as if that were a valid response.

Final question. Do you think that it is logical for an all powerful God to have a message written for all of humanity, but then require pastors, priest, theologians and random internet posters to then in interpret the said message?

Not all pastors are called by God to interpret the message.

That is not the question that was asked of you. I acknowledge that you are once again failing to answer questions posed to you and avoiding questions by calling them 'opinions'. I trust you understand why you are not found to be compelling.

[Difflugia]

The primary reasons for this conclusion are drawn from both Paul's own writings and the narrative in the Book of Acts.

Argument from Silence.

Lest we lose sight of the forest, the observation isn't just that Paul didn't mention a living Jesus, which you're trying to declare to be an argument from silence, but instead that the only Jesus that Paul did mention is a heavenly, supernatural Jesus. The important part is that Paul's Jesus is different than the Jesus of the Gospels, as are other significant details.

Part of the reasoning behind a historical Jesus is a relatively large number of independent sources for a living Jesus. In a nutshell, the mythicist argument is that the only biblical references to a living Jesus are found in the Gospels and that these are dependent on either Paul directly or a Pauline-like Christian tradition in which Jesus was a purely supernatural being. If all independent traditions lead back to a supernatural Jesus, there's no basis for a historical one. Historicists, however, think that's improbable.

Here are, again in a bit of a nutshell, the reasons why I'm a mythicist:

• Outside of the Gospels and Acts, all Jesuses are heavenly and supernatural, including Paul's.
• Paul's definition of apostle is someone that has had visions of the risen Jesus.
  • Mark only mentioned apostles once in 6:30 and in a way that doesn't define them for us. I suspect it's an interpolation. Otherwise, all of Jesus' followers, including the twelve, are disciples.
  • Matthew is similar, but his single mention of apostles in 10:2 implies that the twelve disciples are the twelve apostles.
  • Luke makes clear in 6:13 that the twelve apostles are chosen from among the larger group known as disciples. In 11:49, Luke seems to know Paul's definition when his Jesus says that he will "send prophets and apostles" in the future. It looks like Luke is trying to reframe the Markan tradition so that it matches back up at least somewhat with the original Pauline tradition.
  • John never used the word "apostle."
• Paul's gospel is undeniably weird, but it was apparently similar enough to what the Jerusalem Church believed that they more-or-less accepted him. That suggests to me that the gospel of the Jerusalem Church was similarly weird.
• All of the extra-biblical references to Jesus are late enough to have been influenced by later Christian traditions.

Historicists claim that the other Jesuses, especially Paul's, are of course the same living Jesus as portrayed in the canonical Gospels, but I don't think that's justified from a historical standpoint. I think the living Jesus is an intentional caricature of the supernatural Jesus of the first century and perhaps earlier.

If Jesus never existed, why would Paul write about him, PERIOD?

He had a "vision". Just like countless people have 'visions' of people they never met while claimed to be alive.

Exactly. We don't even have to go outside of Christianity. No modern Christian has ever met the living Jesus, yet many of them claim to have had personal experiences with the heavenly, supernatural version. If no objectively living Jesus is a necessary part of the experience now, it's hard to convincingly claim incredulity over no real Jesus in the past.

[SiNcE_1985]

Lest we lose sight of the forest, the observation isn't just that Paul didn't mention a living Jesus, which you're trying to declare to be an argument from silence, but instead that the only Jesus that Paul did mention is a heavenly, supernatural Jesus.

Um, you say this^ as if you weren't already owned on this here issue.

When you raised this issue the first time, I brought to your attention 1Corinth 11, where Paul quotes an earthly, pre-Resurrection Jesus.

Your response to this was to call it allegory, which, in essence, is the most text book example of moving the goalpost I've ever seen.

As far as I'm concerned, you were simply WRONG and you're gonna have to hold that L.

The important part is that Paul's Jesus is different than the Jesus of the Gospels, as are other significant details.

Opinions.

Part of the reasoning behind a historical Jesus is a relatively large number of independent sources for a living Jesus. In a nutshell, the mythicist argument is that the only biblical references to a living Jesus are found in the Gospels and that these are dependent on either Paul directly or a Pauline-like Christian tradition in which Jesus was a purely supernatural being.

Um, no.

You're trying to present Jesus as if he is some Zeus or Osiris-like character...as if Jesus is someone who was believed in, but never embedded in human history or recorded with or among mankind..like most (all) pagan mythology.

That is false.

Second, an earthly Jesus was mentioned in non-Gospel or Pauline tradition.

Rev 1:7..

“Look, he is coming with the clouds,” and “every eye will see him, even those who pierced him”;

This piercing incident occured during the crucifixion (John 19:34) ..when an earthly Jesus was alive...and prophesied in Zech 12:10.

So, again, you are WRONG.

If all independent traditions lead back to a supernatural Jesus, there's no basis for a historical one. Historicists, however, think that's improbable.

I fail to see how such a conclusion is drawn.

Here are, again in a bit of a nutshell, the reasons why I'm a mythicist:

• Outside of the Gospels and Acts, all Jesuses are heavenly and supernatural, including Paul's.

  
  And inside of the Gospels and Acts, all Jesus' are earthly with a supernatural twist, including Paul's.
  

  [*]Paul's definition of apostle is someone that has had visions of the risen Jesus.

  • Mark only mentioned apostles once in 6:30 and in a way that doesn't define them for us. I suspect it's an interpolation. Otherwise, all of Jesus' followers, including the twelve, are disciples.
  • Matthew is similar, but his single mention of apostles in 10:2 implies that the twelve disciples are the twelve apostles.
  • Luke makes clear in 6:13 that the twelve apostles are chosen from among the larger group known as disciples. In 11:49, Luke seems to know Paul's definition when his Jesus says that he will "send prophets and apostles" in the future. It looks like Luke is trying to reframe the Markan tradition so that it matches back up at least somewhat with the original Pauline tradition.
  • John never used the word "apostle."

  [*]Paul's gospel is undeniably weird, but it was apparently similar enough to what the Jerusalem Church believed that they more-or-less accepted him. That suggests to me that the gospel of the Jerusalem Church was similarly weird.
  [*]All of the extra-biblical references to Jesus are late enough to have been influenced by later Christian traditions.

I fail to see the conclusion drawn here.

Historicists claim that the other Jesuses, especially Paul's, are of course the same living Jesus as portrayed in the canonical Gospels, but I don't think that's justified from a historical standpoint. I think the living Jesus is an intentional caricature of the supernatural Jesus of the first century and perhaps earlier.

Opinions.

He had a "vision". Just like countless people have 'visions' of people they never met while claimed to be alive.

A vision doesn't explain the empty tomb.

Nor does it explain the believed appearances of Jesus to others.

And for Paul to have a vision of a man who never existed, is crazy work.

Exactly. We don't even have to go outside of Christianity. No modern Christian has ever met the living Jesus, yet many of them claim to have had personal experiences with the heavenly, supernatural version. If no objectively living Jesus is a necessary part of the experience now, it's hard to convincingly claim incredulity over no real Jesus in the past.

That is a big "if".

[Difflugia]

Um, you say this^ as if you weren't already owned on this here issue.

Bless your heart.

When you raised this issue the first time, I brought to your attention 1Corinth 11, where Paul quotes an earthly, pre-Resurrection Jesus.

Paul quotes Jesus in 11:24-25, but the Jesus he's quoting is the risen, heavenly Jesus. That's the Jesus that delivered the gospel to Paul via direct revelation. He explicitly tells us that in 11:23.

Your response to this was to call it allegory,

I don't think you quite understood what I said. 1 Corinthians isn't allegory. You were trying to claim that Paul's Jesus was the earthly Jesus from Mark 14, but Mark's earthly Jesus is allegory. The important part there, though, isn't that Mark's Jesus is allegory or anything else, but that Mark's Jesus is Mark's rather than Paul's, which is the one we're discussing.

which, in essence, is the most text book example of moving the goalpost I've ever seen.

I don't think you know what "moving the goalpoast" means, either. Paul doesn't talk about an earthly Jesus. That's the goalpost. Your claim that Mark affects what Paul wrote is interesting, but that doesn't somehow change my goalpost.

As far as I'm concerned, you were simply WRONG and you're gonna have to hold that L.

Of course.

The important part is that Paul's Jesus is different than the Jesus of the Gospels, as are other significant details.

Opinions.

Now it looks like you don't know what "opinion" means. Do you even read, bro?

Part of the reasoning behind a historical Jesus is a relatively large number of independent sources for a living Jesus. In a nutshell, the mythicist argument is that the only biblical references to a living Jesus are found in the Gospels and that these are dependent on either Paul directly or a Pauline-like Christian tradition in which Jesus was a purely supernatural being.

Um, no.

No? You disagree with my characterization of the two opposing claims? Which do you think I've misrepresented?

You're trying to present Jesus as if he is some Zeus or Osiris-like character...as if Jesus is someone who was believed in, but never embedded in human history or recorded with or among mankind..like most (all) pagan mythology.

Got it in one.

That is false.

This is the part where you now support this heretofore unjustified assertion.

Second, an earthly Jesus was mentioned in non-Gospel or Pauline tradition.

Rev 1:7..

“Look, he is coming with the clouds,” and “every eye will see him, even those who pierced him”;

If you read the Gospels back into Revelation, the same way you keep trying to do for Paul, sure. Otherwise, it equally fits as a simple reference to all of Christ's adversaries.

This piercing incident occured during the crucifixion (John 19:34) ..when an earthly Jesus was alive...and prophesied in Zech 12:10.

It kind of sounds like a tradition involving vague prophetic language from the Old Testament was allegorically transformed into a literal event in the Gospels. That also happened with other prophetic details involving donkeys, silver coins, and casting lots. Revelation doesn't tell us how the Revelator interpreted that particular reference at all, let alone that it refers to an earthly crucifixion. I hope you'll excuse my continued skepticism.

So, again, you are WRONG.

Bless your heart.

If all independent traditions lead back to a supernatural Jesus, there's no basis for a historical one. Historicists, however, think that's improbable.

I fail to see how such a conclusion is drawn.

Of course.

Here are, again in a bit of a nutshell, the reasons why I'm a mythicist:

I fail to see the conclusion drawn here.

Of course.

Historicists claim that the other Jesuses, especially Paul's, are of course the same living Jesus as portrayed in the canonical Gospels, but I don't think that's justified from a historical standpoint. I think the living Jesus is an intentional caricature of the supernatural Jesus of the first century and perhaps earlier.

Opinions.

Which part? My characterization of the historicist claim or my reaction?

If you mean the former, then, once again, you appear not to know what "opinion" means. If you mean the latter, then congratulations: you've successfully divined what "I think" means.

He had a "vision". Just like countless people have 'visions' of people they never met while claimed to be alive.

A vision doesn't explain the empty tomb.

When did Paul discuss the empty tomb?

Nor does it explain the believed appearances of Jesus to others.

Which of the appearances that Paul mentioned were unexplainable by visions?

And for Paul to have a vision of a man who never existed, is crazy work.

"And of course, Paul can't have been crazy." Right?

Right?

Exactly. We don't even have to go outside of Christianity. No modern Christian has ever met the living Jesus, yet many of them claim to have had personal experiences with the heavenly, supernatural version. If no objectively living Jesus is a necessary part of the experience now, it's hard to convincingly claim incredulity over no real Jesus in the past.

That is a big "if".

You believe that Jesus is objectively living now, in the era of modern Christians? This should be interesting.

[OneJack]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #251]

Yes: "the evidence of the existence of Jesus is not traceable through those means, but the bible itself."
If religious promotional material made the gods real, we would have lots of Gods. No matter how much reverence/worship a person has for a book, books do not make Gods.

The bible, in my perception, has no authority at all, as far as the reality of God is at stake. The real and forever living Almighty God alone is the sole authority for this matter.

I understand that these people are not Bible worshipers, which is why I asked what you would say to them if you were trying to convince them about the existence of Jesus since alluding to your thoughts on the Bible would mean nothing to such a person (since they don't share in the reverence/worship of the Bible).

As I have said, I won’t use Jesus and the bible but the Almighty God alone to deal with this kind of people.

Surely you don't mean that you would allude to the Almighty God of the BIBLE, since they would not share in your reverence/worship of said book? I'm clearly talking about people that view the Bible just like how you view the Quran. Since you do not worship the Quran, if someone told you about how great that Almighty God is (Allah), I'm sure you would be unconvinced, yet that is what you suggest you would do.

I’m referring to generic terminologies to level the playing field.

Then please help me to understand.
Let's say you are trying to convince a Muslim that the Jesus is real and the stories about him are true. Please justify these beliefs without using the Bible as you claim you would not do that.

Instead of Jesus, I’ll use the ‘Almighty God’ and tell him God is real and He is still talking to the people across all generations.

Where is it that you learned about this almighty god concept? I would like to test to see if I should be impressed.

God proved His reality to us one night when my family came to and called upon Him due to a serious family problem. Much to our surprise, the Almighty God responded to us through angels and automatic writings in the air. The start of a long personal relationship with God began that night, and it went on for over a period of fourteen years, more or less.

Please allude to something about this god concept that you didn't obtain knowledge about via the Bible. I ask because it seems to me that the Bible is the idol and there would be no Christian god concept without the Bible.

The Almighty God alone is the source of the ‘right faith in God.’ If we want to have the right faith in God, all we have to do is come to God and get it from Him.

Because, ironically we would have to go to the man-made object that we call the Bible in order to begin to think how this god concept might feel about such a thing.
It's as if there is no actual God involved and just a book. Can you see how someone might think such a thing?

Ditch the book then and come to God who is beside you 24/7, though you do not see Him.

I don't think so.
We know nothing about this god concept without the Bible. You hold reverence/worship for the Bible and when you read things in the Bible, they are then true. This is why I asked what you would say to a person that doesn't share in your reverence/worship of the Bible and so far you allude to telling them about the Almighty God we learn about, from the Bible.

I can ditch the bible if that will prove to you that I trust no one but the unseen Almighty God alone.

[Clownboat]

The bible, in my perception, has no authority at all, as far as the reality of God is at stake.

Without the Bible, you wouldn't know anything about this god concept though. Therefore, I must reject your perception for being unreasonable. My point remains unaddressed... books do not make Gods.

The real and forever living Almighty God alone is the sole authority for this matter.

I acknowledge this form of self indoctrination. Why are you employing it in debate though? You can't self indoctrinate others obviously, but I do hear your words. They sound a lot like that of a devout Muslim don't you think?

As I have said, I won’t use Jesus and the bible but the Almighty God alone to deal with this kind of people.

Neato! Please supply this Almighty God for us and let us know how you gained the knowledge about such a being.

I’m referring to generic terminologies to level the playing field.

And this fails to address the question about if you would be impressed by a Muslim telling you about the Almighty God of the Quran. I will assume you would not be impressed since you didn't clarify.

God proved His reality to us one night when my family came to and called upon Him due to a serious family problem. Much to our surprise, the Almighty God responded to us through angels and automatic writings in the air. The start of a long personal relationship with God began that night, and it went on for over a period of fourteen years, more or less.

Gah!!! Would you believe in Allah if I provided similar anecdotal evidence from a Muslim. If not, please self reflect.

Please allude to something about this god concept that you didn't obtain knowledge about via the Bible. I ask because it seems to me that the Bible is the idol and there would be no Christian god concept without the Bible.

The Almighty God alone is the source of the ‘right faith in God.’

This is a falsehood and fails to allude to anything about this god concept that doesn't come from the Bible. The Bible alone is the source for obtaining information about the god concept of the Bible. If I'm wrong, please demonstrate.

If we want to have the right faith in God, all we have to do is come to God and get it from Him.

This is know to be false on a personal level. Begging and pleading for the Christian God to make itself known in your life in fact does nothing. You are free to disregard this of course as it is anecdotal.

Ditch the book then and come to God who is beside you 24/7, though you do not see Him.

Your talking to a former street evangelist, drunk in the Holy Ghost, missionary to 3 countries Christian of two decades here. Not some person that has never sought nor desired a relationship with this said god concept. There was a time where I wanted nothing but your words to be true. I have sense been set free from my beliefs. Perhaps someday you will be as well.

I can ditch the bible if that will prove to you that I trust no one but the unseen Almighty God alone.

What? How would you even know about this god concept if there was no Bible to tell you about it?

[OneJack]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #257]

Without the Bible, you wouldn't know anything about this god concept though. Therefore, I must reject your perception for being unreasonable. My point remains unaddressed... books do not make Gods.

What’s the matter with you, don’t you see we’re on the same train with your phrase ‘books do not make God. What else do you expect me to say?

I acknowledge this form of self indoctrination. Why are you employing it in debate though? You can't self indoctrinate others obviously, but I do hear your words. They sound a lot like that of a devout Muslim don't you think?

Whatever sound this may come to you is of no value to me, but the concern that God is always beside you and He’s just a call away from you.

Neato! Please supply this Almighty God for us and let us know how you gained the knowledge about such a being.

The only way for you to know God rightfully is to come and talk to Him, and wait for Him to respond, even though He’s still unseen at the moment.

And this fails to address the question about if you would be impressed by a Muslim telling you about the Almighty God of the Quran. I will assume you would not be impressed since you didn't clarify.

Play generic if you want to level the playing field.

Gah!!! Would you believe in Allah if I provided similar anecdotal evidence from a Muslim. If not, please self reflect.

No tournament when the playing field is tilted to one side.

This is a falsehood and fails to allude to anything about this god concept that doesn't come from the Bible. The Bible alone is the source for obtaining information about the god concept of the Bible. If I'm wrong, please demonstrate.

Talk to God so that you may know He is not the bible, straight from the horse’s mouth.

This is know to be false on a personal level. Begging and pleading for the Christian God to make itself known in your life in fact does nothing. You are free to disregard this of course as it is anecdotal.

Losers suffer everything when we cross the Great Divide. Wait a little while for its fulfillment.

Your talking to a former street evangelist, drunk in the Holy Ghost, missionary to 3 countries Christian of two decades here. Not some person that has never sought nor desired a relationship with this said god concept. There was a time where I wanted nothing but your words to be true. I have sense been set free from my beliefs. Perhaps someday you will be as well.

I’m not an evangelist but a plain follower of the Living God.

What? How would you even know about this god concept if there was no Bible to tell you about it?

God does not stop communicating with mankind across all generations. Unfortunately, it seems, by your words and actions, you’re not one among those whom He shepherds and guides in this time of grief and sorrow brought about by the ongoing Great Tribulation.

[Clownboat]

What’s the matter with you, don’t you see we’re on the same train with your phrase ‘books do not make God. What else do you expect me to say?

I'm not aware of anything being the matter with me.
As far as the expectations you ask about... I would expect you to either clarify or acknowledge. You seem to now acknowledge that books do not make Gods. Do you acknowledge that you wouldn't have a god concept to believe in without the book we call the Bible? Meaning, this book has made your God which is something we both agree can't happen? Do you acknowledge this or wish to offer clarification?

I acknowledge this form of self indoctrination. Why are you employing it in debate though? You can't self indoctrinate others obviously, but I do hear your words. They sound a lot like that of a devout Muslim don't you think?

Whatever sound this may come to you is of no value to me, but the concern that God is always beside you and He’s just a call away from you.

Once again you fail to acknowledge or clarify what was said. I acknowledge your self indoctrination and remain bewildered as to why you are employing it in a debate setting.

Consider this exchange:
Clownboat: The way I see it, you wouldn't have a god concept to worship if not for the Bible.
OneJack: My God is great! He is almighty and is just a call away!
Clownboat: And you're wondering what's the matter with me!

Neato! Please supply this Almighty God for us and let us know how you gained the knowledge about such a being.

The only way for you to know God rightfully is to come and talk to Him, and wait for Him to respond, even though He’s still unseen at the moment.

As you can see, this fails to supply this Almighty God you claim is there and also failed to answer how you gained the knowledge about such a being and is nothing more than an excuse. Are you still wondering what is wrong with me by chance?

And this fails to address the question about if you would be impressed by a . I will assume you would not be impressed since you didn't clarify.

Play generic if you want to level the playing field.

Still no clarification on the matter. I remain convinced that you would not be impressed by a Muslim telling you about the Almighty God of the Quran and yet that is what you offer me.

Gah!!! Would you believe in Allah if I provided similar anecdotal evidence from a Muslim. If not, please self reflect.

No tournament when the playing field is tilted to one side.

This assumes facts that are not in evidence and fails to answer the question that was asked of you. Are you still wondering what's wrong with me?

This is a falsehood and fails to allude to anything about this god concept that doesn't come from the Bible. The Bible alone is the source for obtaining information about the god concept of the Bible. If I'm wrong, please demonstrate.

Talk to God so that you may know He is not the bible, straight from the horse’s mouth.

I did this for decades. Do you acknowledge this or will you continue to pretend that I have never done what you suggest?

Losers suffer everything when we cross the Great Divide. Wait a little while for its fulfillment.

What is this suppose to mean and how do you know it to be true?

Your talking to a former street evangelist, drunk in the Holy Ghost, missionary to 3 countries Christian of two decades here. Not some person that has never sought nor desired a relationship with this said god concept. There was a time where I wanted nothing but your words to be true. I have sense been set free from my beliefs. Perhaps someday you will be as well.

I’m not an evangelist but a plain follower of the Living God.

I never said that you were an evangelist. Still wondering what's wrong with me?

What? How would you even know about this god concept if there was no Bible to tell you about it?

God does not stop communicating with mankind across all generations. Unfortunately, it seems, by your words and actions, you’re not one among those whom He shepherds and guides in this time of grief and sorrow brought about by the ongoing Great Tribulation.

As we all can plainly see, you once again fail to address what is said and offer me your self indoctrinating statements. Why? Is it because there is something the matter with me?

[OneJack]

quote=Clownboat post_id=1180654 time=1764864418 user_id=3939]

What’s the matter with you, don’t you see we’re on the same train with your phrase ‘books do not make God. What else do you expect me to say?

I'm not aware of anything being the matter with me.
As far as the expectations you ask about... I would expect you to either clarify or acknowledge. You seem to now acknowledge that books do not make Gods.

Absolutely, books do not make God, come what may!

Do you acknowledge that you wouldn't have a god concept to believe in without the book we call the Bible? Meaning, this book has made your God which is something we both agree can't happen? Do you acknowledge this or wish to offer clarification?

We would not have a good concept to believe in if God did not exist. As I’ve said, God does not stop communicating with mankind across all generations; hence, the Bible would be irrelevant in this context.

I acknowledge this form of self indoctrination. Why are you employing it in debate though? You can't self indoctrinate others obviously, but I do hear your words. They sound a lot like that of a devout Muslim don't you think?

Whatever sound this may come to you is of no value to me, but the concern that God is always beside you and He’s just a call away from you.

Once again you fail to acknowledge or clarify what was said. I acknowledge your self indoctrination and remain bewildered as to why you are employing it in a debate setting.

If you heard and learned what you share with others, would you call what you’re doing self-indoctrination? Debate appears to be a mistake on my part if I engage in it.

Consider this exchange:
Clownboat: The way I see it, you wouldn't have a god concept to worship if not for the Bible.
OneJack: My God is great! He is almighty and is just a call away!
Clownboat: And you're wondering what's the matter with me!

Neato! Please supply this Almighty God for us and let us know how you gained the knowledge about such a being.

The only way for you to know God rightfully is to come and talk to Him, and wait for Him to respond, even though He’s still unseen at the moment.

As you can see, this fails to supply this Almighty God you claim is there and also failed to answer how you gained the knowledge about such a being and is nothing more than an excuse. Are you still wondering what is wrong with me by chance?:

Yes I still wonder why you fail to understand [not to accept is out of the question] we were able to talk to God for approximately 14 years, hence, the manner by which we gained the knowledge about Him, real and forever living. It seems you want me to bring God to you and force Him to speak with you just to appease your wanting desire of seeing God truly exist.

And this fails to address the question about if you would be impressed by a . I will assume you would not be impressed since you didn't clarify.

Play generic if you want to level the playing field.

Still no clarification on the matter. I remain convinced that you would not be impressed by a Muslim telling you about the Almighty God of the Quran and yet that is what you offer me. .

No comment.

Gah!!! Would you believe in Allah if I provided similar anecdotal evidence from a Muslim. If not, please self reflect.

No tournament when the playing field is tilted to one side.

This assumes facts that are not in evidence and fails to answer the question that was asked of you. Are you still wondering what's wrong with me?

Passed for this particular issue.

This is a falsehood and fails to allude to anything about this god concept that doesn't come from the Bible. The Bible alone is the source for obtaining information about the god concept of the Bible. If I'm wrong, please demonstrate.

Talk to God so that you may know He is not the bible, straight from the horse’s mouth.

I did this for decades. Do you acknowledge this or will you continue to pretend that I have never done what you suggest?

Doing this in the wrong way, even for a century, merits no favor.

Losers suffer everything when we cross the Great Divide. Wait a little while for its fulfillment.

What is this suppose to mean and how do you know it to be true?

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Crossing the Great Divide will give you the taste of the pudding. When we die, that. will be the time we’ll come to know the truth about God.

Your talking to a former street evangelist, drunk in the Holy Ghost, missionary to 3 countries Christian of two decades here. Not some person that has never sought nor desired a relationship with this said god concept. There was a time where I wanted nothing but your words to be true. I have sense been set free from my beliefs. Perhaps someday you will be as well.

I’m not an evangelist but a plain follower of the Living God.

I never said that you were an evangelist. Still wondering what's wrong with me?

Being an evangelist is a wrong choice of profession and service to God because He (God) appoints no one to that post but Him. You should have doubted a bit about your job when God did not respond to you despite your effort in talking to Him for the whole duration of your supposed service to Him?

What? How would you even know about this god concept if there was no Bible to tell you about it?

God does not stop communicating with mankind across all generations. Unfortunately, it seems, by your words and actions, you’re not one among those whom He shepherds and guides in this time of grief and sorrow brought about by the ongoing Great Tribulation.

As we all can plainly see, you once again fail to address what is said and offer me your self indoctrinating statements. Why? Is it because there is something the matter with me?

Yes, something is wrong with you. You can’t accept that God continuous to speak with mankind across all generations, as simple as that.