Responses to comments on other sites

[JudgeRightly]

Often times, I find myself engaging in discussions in the Youtube comments section (or elsewhere) but struggle, not with making the argument, but with the format of the medium itself.

So this thread will be a place for me to respond to the comments directed at myself (or anyone else, for that matter, I'll leave the thread open), so that I don't have to worry about the UI or formatting on that site.

 

[Right Divider]

Often times, I find myself engaging in discussions in the Youtube comments section (or elsewhere) but struggle, not with making the argument, but with the format of the medium itself.

So this thread will be a place for me to respond to the comments directed at myself (or anyone else, for that matter, I'll leave the thread open), so that I don't have to worry about the UI or formatting on that site.

What device are you usually using for this type of commenting?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Here is the first one I'll start with:

@JudgeRightly why would I test the claim again when I have already been convinced by the evidence
OK. May I ask exactly WHAT convinced you?

The evidence presented in the Bible.

You're the one who says it didn't happen
Please don't accuse me of things I didn't say.

So you agree that Christ rose from the dead? Great!

I've presented the evidence for the claim
You've presented NO evidence, except

I did present the evidence. The evidence I presented is the Bible.

Compiling evidence doesn't make it "not evidence."

The claim Christianity makes is that Christ rose from the dead. The Bible is the evidence for that claim.

a claim that one book written some 200 years after the actual events.

Actually, no.

The Bible was written by 40 different authors over the course of around 1500 years, starting with Moses around the 15th-century BC, and ending with John around 90 AD.

All 66 books are evidence for Christ's resurrection,

The fact that they were compiled after the fact does not change that.

And that book itself had many versions which were then compiled into one book.

You should look into the Dead Sea scrolls.

They disprove the idea that the Bible has changed much since it was written.

And that book itself has undergone SO MANY editions and translations that one can hardly trust what is in there.

Except it hasn't.

Whenever a new "version" is made (such as the KJV or ASV), they always use manuscripts written in the original languages that the Bible was written in, that being Hebrew and Greek, with some Aramaic. There is only ever one translation step between those languages and the destination language.

You can, in fact, trust that what the Bible says, regardless of what version you use with a few exceptions, is, for the most part, what the original texts said.

How do you know fake events were not introduced in the 1500+ intervening years

Because the entire Bible is written as a singular cohesive story. Such additions would stick out like a sore thumb.

 

[JudgeRightly]

What device are you usually using for this type of commenting?

Android phone or tablet.

Apps don't have very good formatting abilities.

 

[JudgeRightly]

@LogicStandsBeforeGod says:

@JudgeRightly "But only God can raise men from the dead, so Jesus raised Himself from the dead."

Jesus himself raised another man from death by the permission of God and your holy book tells it Acts 2:22.

Jesus did not raise another man from the dead until after He had been given authority to do so.

He did so on His own authority.

The Apostles, for comparison, did so on HIS authority.

Dying god and dead God arose from death is nonsensical but a man died and God raised dead man from death is sensible, which God did it through Jesus.

It's only nonsensical if He wasn't God to begin with. He became obedient to death, even the death of the cross.

So Christianity comprise of belief is nonsensical dying-god and dead-god arose from death for forgiveness and salvation but rather it is sham.

It's not nonsensical.

It's not a sham.

1) God do not need manslaughter and human blood to offer forgiveness and salvation. Agreed.
2) Dying God and dead God arose from death is nonsensical. Agreed.
3) A man died and the dead man was raised from death, had taken place before Jesus going on cross. Agreed.
4) God is not author of confused religion, when one is being confused and one cannot distinguish man-died and God died. Agreed.
5) Dying God and dead God arose from death is a sham. Agreed.

Do you agree with 5 points above?

No.

I agree with 1.
I disagree with 2.
Regarding 3.: Yes, Jesus raised a man from the dead. And then He raised Himself after being in the grave for three days and three nights.
I agree that God is not the author of confusion. So either I'm not being clear enough, or you're not understanding what I'm saying.
I disagree with 5. God tells us He sent His only begotten Son to die, and then He rose from the dead on the third day. The evidence supports that claim. The evidence in the Bible.

 

[Derf]

View attachment 13847

@LogicStandsBeforeGod says:



Jesus did not raise another man from the dead until after He had been given authority to do so.

He did so on His own authority.

The Apostles, for comparison, did so on HIS authority.



It's only nonsensical if He wasn't God to begin with. He became obedient to death, even the death of the cross.



It's not nonsensical.

It's not a sham.



No.

I agree with 1.
I disagree with 2.
Regarding 3.: Yes, Jesus raised a man from the dead. And then He raised Himself after being in the grave for three days and three nights.
I agree that God is not the author of confusion. So either I'm not being clear enough, or you're not understanding what I'm saying.
I disagree with 5. God tells us He sent His only begotten Son to die, and then He rose from the dead on the third day. The evidence supports that claim. The evidence in the Bible.

The evidence in the bible (testimony from eyewitnesses) says that God raised Jesus from the dead. The only evidence that Jesus raised Himself from the dead is a statement or two from Himself that it would happen, which have to be interpreted to reach the conclusion Jesus raised Himself from the dead.

I'm not sure that is the biggest problem @Logic is complaining about, but it appears to be one of the problems. Maybe it wouldn't be helpful, but consider whether your conversation could progress with a statement that God raised Jesus from the dead, which we know from the testimonies in the Bible.

 

[Nick M]

Often times, I find myself engaging in discussions in the Youtube comments section (or elsewhere) but struggle, not with making the argument, but with the format of the medium itself.

Invite them here. Not that will take it. Youtube does not make for a place to have dialogue, which is why they comment there and not here.

 

[Idolater]

Invite them here. Not that will take it. Youtube does not make for a place to have dialogue, which is why they comment there and not here.

Same with nee_Twitter. It's better than Toutube, but it's still not as good as TOL.

 

[Clete]

View attachment 13847

@LogicStandsBeforeGod says:



Jesus did not raise another man from the dead until after He had been given authority to do so.

He did so on His own authority.

The Apostles, for comparison, did so on HIS authority.



It's only nonsensical if He wasn't God to begin with. He became obedient to death, even the death of the cross.



It's not nonsensical.

It's not a sham.



No.

I agree with 1.
I disagree with 2.
Regarding 3.: Yes, Jesus raised a man from the dead. And then He raised Himself after being in the grave for three days and three nights.
I agree that God is not the author of confusion. So either I'm not being clear enough, or you're not understanding what I'm saying.
I disagree with 5. God tells us He sent His only begotten Son to die, and then He rose from the dead on the third day. The evidence supports that claim. The evidence in the Bible.

LSBG seems not to understand what it means to be dead. He's thinking, I'd wager, that to be dead means to no longer exist. "How can a dead (non-existent) person do anything, much less bring Himself back from non-existence?"

 

[Clete]

The evidence in the bible (testimony from eyewitnesses) says that God raised Jesus from the dead. The only evidence that Jesus raised Himself from the dead is a statement or two from Himself that it would happen, which have to be interpreted to reach the conclusion Jesus raised Himself from the dead.

I'm not sure that is the biggest problem @Logic is complaining about, but it appears to be one of the problems. Maybe it wouldn't be helpful, but consider whether your conversation could progress with a statement that God raised Jesus from the dead, which we know from the testimonies in the Bible.

John 10:18 No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.”

 

[JudgeRightly]

Invite them here. Not that will take it. Youtube does not make for a place to have dialogue, which is why they comment there and not here.

I told them they could find my response here. One of them (the other hasn't responded) wants me to post my response from here, there.

 

[Derf]

John 10:18 No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.”

I know, but afterward, not one of the new testament writers ever said He raised himself from the dead. If they never did, should it be how we declare the gospel?

 

[JudgeRightly]

I know, but afterward, not one of the new testament writers ever said He raised himself from the dead. If they never did, should it be how we declare the gospel?

It sounds like you're making an argument from silence.

Jesus said He would. And He had the authority/power to do so. I don't see why we should say He didn't.

 

[Clete]

I know, but afterward, not one of the new testament writers ever said He raised himself from the dead. If they never did, should it be how we declare the gospel?

Last time I checked, the book of John was one of the gospels, right? Not only that, but there are four gospels for a reason. Matthew presents Jesus as King, Mark presents Jesus as servant, Luke presents Jesus as man and John's focus is on the fact that Jesus is God.

The point being that it isn't too surprising that the other three didn't make a point of Jesus raising Himself from the dead because that would have been somewhat counter to the theme of their gospel. John on the other hand, presenting Jesus as God, does naturally make the point that Jesus raised Himself from the dead.

And so yes, we absolutely should not be afraid at all of presenting the gospel in such a way as to make Jesus out to be God because that's what He is. God raised Jesus from the dead. Jesus raised Himself from the dead. The two are equivalent statements.

 

[Derf]

Last time I checked, the book of John was one of the gospels, right? Not only that, but there are four gospels for a reason. Matthew presents Jesus as King, Mark presents Jesus as servant, Luke presents Jesus as man and John's focus is on the fact that Jesus is God.

The point being that it isn't too surprising that the other three didn't make a point of Jesus raising Himself from the dead because that would have been somewhat counter to the theme of their gospel. John on the other hand, presenting Jesus as God, does naturally make the point that Jesus raised Himself from the dead.

And so yes, we absolutely should not be afraid at all of presenting the gospel in such a way as to make Jesus out to be God because that's what He is. God raised Jesus from the dead. Jesus raised Himself from the dead. The two are equivalent statements.

John didn't say, "Jesus raised Himself from the dead." What he did was quote Jesus and explain it was about His body as opposed to the brick and mortar temple.

John had a chance to say it, but he didn't. He said this (John's commentary in blue):

John 2:19-22 KJV — Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body. When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

So, John is saying they (His disciples) believed the scripture, and they believed the word which Jesus had said, yet none of them, including Paul, including John, ever said anything like "Jesus raised himself from the dead."

Yes, this is an argument from silence, but the silence is conspicuous in light of what was said.

And my point for this thread is merely to suggest that the statement "Jesus raised Himself from the dead," is not a good one to use in sharing the gospel. The disciples of Jesus seemed to agree with me.

 

[Nick M]

Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

Did you miss this? While most doctrine in the 4 gospels is not for me, all the information is. As is the letters to the circumcision.

 

[Derf]

Did you miss this?

I quoted it specifically because it applied to the conversation. Did you miss the point I made about it?

While most doctrine in the 4 gospels is not for me, all the information is. As is the letters to the circumcision.

Yes, I know that's how you see those, but my point was that none of the disciples of Christmas ever told anyone in the gospels or epistles that Jesus raised Himself from the dead. So why is that a major point when we present the gospel today?

 

[Nick M]

So why is that a major point when we present the gospel today?

It isn't. He is God. God raised him from the dead. There are many true things regarding it. He died and went to hell according to English translations of Peter's letter. Pretty shocking if you ask me.

 

[Clete]

John didn't say, "Jesus raised Himself from the dead."

Not in quotes but that was certainly the point Jesus was making.

What he did was quote Jesus and explain it was about His body as opposed to the brick and mortar temple.

Precisely!

John had a chance to say it, but he didn't. He said this (John's commentary in blue):

John 2:19-22 KJV — Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body. When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

Whether or not He said it in manner that those around Him would understand isn't the point at all. The point is that He did, in fact, say it.

So, John is saying they (His disciples) believed the scripture, and they believed the word which Jesus had said, yet none of them, including Paul, including John, ever said anything like "Jesus raised himself from the dead."

Except for when Jesus said, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." and "No one takes it (my life) from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.". Both instances are Jesus claiming the ability to raise Himself from the dead. The second one is explicit. It's before the fact but it is still an explicit claim of having the ability to rise from the dead. His immediate listener's understanding or acceptance of it, or the lack thereof, isn't relevant to the point. We are all today living after the fact and we can see what He was very definitely talking about.

Yes, this is an argument from silence, but the silence is conspicuous in light of what was said.

And my point for this thread is merely to suggest that the statement "Jesus raised Himself from the dead," is not a good one to use in sharing the gospel. The disciples of Jesus seemed to agree with me.

I don't think it's an argument from silence, although it would be if your contention where true, in which case you'd have no way of knowing whether the disciples agreed with you or not, which is the only reason an argument from silence is a bad idea. You don't get to just pretend that an argument from silence leans in your favor. It doesn't.

But again, I don't think it is an argument from silence. I think it is an argument contrary to fact. John's gospel teaches that Jesus raised Himself from the dead, full stop. Jesus definitely DID rise Himself from the dead because God raised Him from the dead and He IS God. He is THE God. Which is the theme of John's entire gospel.

In other words, we know that Jesus raised Himself from the dead because of John's gospel. The idea that we should somehow avoid saying it to unbelievers makes no sense whatsoever. Such a prohibition would be even less valid than the Church of Christ's prohibition of musical instruments during worship services, which genuinely is based on an argument almost identical in form to the one you are using. It amounts to legalism.

 

[Nick M]

I am not sure when the left moved their goal posts. Right and wrong are absolutes. Rape and murder are not wrong because God said they are. That means if he said they are ok, then it would be free season and not immoral. Alleged Christians are now taking this view. I asked him to reply and he did. He deployed his logical fallacies. But in the end, he said it is not wrong to tie a man to the bumper of your truck and drag him to his death. It is only wrong because our creator said it was wrong to him.

I said

Correct sir. Consenting does not make it moral either.

He replied

What makes something moral/immoral? Do you believe in objective morality?

I replied

I will answer what you kind of skirted around. Right and wrong are absolutes. The left has always argued against it because the creator said it. Rape isn't wrong because God said it is wrong, it is wrong because it is wrong. It is an absolute. They also say gray area, instead of right and wrong, because there is not a third position.

He replied

Objective morality requires a source of that morality to be independent of human beings; In a purely materialistic and evolutionary worldview, the concept of objective morality—moral truths that exist independent of human opinion—collapses under its own weight. If all life is merely a different branch of the same evolutionary tree, then concepts like “right” and “wrong” are nothing more than arbitrary preferences, shaped by survival and social conditioning. Without a transcendent source, morality is just a human construct, no more real than a preference for chocolate over vanilla.
1. Evolutionary Morality is Subjective, Not Objective If morality evolved alongside human beings, then it is by definition changeable. What is considered “right” today could have been “wrong” a million years ago and might be different a million years from now. In an evolutionary framework, morality is merely what helped a species survive. But survival does not equate to moral truth. Lions kill their young in times of scarcity—does that mean infanticide is morally permissible? Certain ant species enslave other ants—does that mean slavery is morally acceptable? If morality is just a byproduct of evolution, then we have no grounds to condemn actions like murder, theft, or oppression beyond “it’s not beneficial for society,” which is a pragmatic argument, not a moral one.

2. Without a Higher Authority, Morality is Just Opinion If there is no God, then there is no ultimate standard beyond human consensus. This means that what is “right” or “wrong” is simply determined by culture, power, or personal preference. In Nazi Germany, genocide was legally and socially accepted—does that make it right? Without an objective moral standard, we have no basis to say that any act is truly evil or truly good; we can only say “I personally don’t like it” or “society currently disagrees.” But that’s not morality—that’s just preference.

3. Only a Transcendent Moral Lawgiver Can Establish Objective Morality For morality to be truly objective, it must come from a source beyond human opinion—a source that is unchanging, universal, and authoritative. This can only be God. If God exists, then morality is grounded in His nature, not in human evolution or social constructs. Murder is wrong not because society says so, but because it violates the moral law established by the Creator. Love, justice, and truth are real moral values because they are rooted in the eternal character of God, not in the shifting tides of human thought. Conclusion Objective morality cannot exist in a purely materialistic, evolutionary framework. If humans are just highly evolved animals, then our sense of right and wrong is no more significant than a chimpanzee’s social hierarchy or a pack of wolves enforcing dominance. But if morality is real—if some things are truly good and some things are truly evil—then there must be a higher moral standard that transcends human opinion. That standard can only come from God. Atheism and materialism ultimately lead to moral relativism, where nothing is truly good or evil. But deep down, we all know that some things—like torturing children for fun—are objectively wrong, no matter what anyone thinks. That knowledge points directly to the reality of God, because without Him, morality is nothing more than a meaningless illusion.

He just said if there is no God then he can rape and it isn't immoral. He is not in Christ. Nobody is who would say such outrageous things. You cannot have the mind of Christ and confess evil like this. You think I am wrong? Hold on to your butts as Mr Arnold said.

I replied

No. I said nothing about evolution which does not exist. Here is your 1 question and you will deploy a logical fallacy as it destroys your obfuscation. If there was no God, would it be absolutely wrong to tie a man to the bumper of your truck and drag him to his death? Yes or no only.

I replied 21 hours later as he saw the trap.

The silence is deafening.

He decided to be honest. His reply.

if God doesn’t exist your example would be just as bad as a lion killing a giraffe No