Regarding the 4 Step Proof for God

[Marquis Naryshkin]

Now, I've read it. I'm atheist (it seems you like honesty), and I find a few problems with it. It says A LOT that nothing in nature happens on its own, but I'd like to request a few such examples. One that does seem to happen quite naturally is diffusion.

Also, if I understand the condensed version properly, I won't be able to understand the proof because I have not seen the light of your god? What good is a proof if it can't persuade the people it's intended to persuade, and also, if faith is such an important part of Christianity, isn't a "proof" of your god sort of blasphemous?

[Churchwork]

If you are holding a ball and let go of it, it drops. This is a cause and effect in our universe. Just as the ball dropping has a cause, so does diffusion. All things naturally occurring have a cause. The only supernatural thing that is without a cause is the uncreated creator.

So far the reason you have misunderstood the proof is not because you are without the Holy Spirit, but because you chose to misread it. The proof is not saying whether diffusion is naturally occurring, for that is obvious, but saying that it has a cause as do all things in nature.

The difference between your faith and the faith of Christianity is that the latter is grounded in evidence, whereas you can't find anything in nature that happens all by itself without a cause.

Because nothing in nature happens all by itself, therefore the ultimate cause is that which is uncaused who would be God of the Bible since none can compare to Christ.

Remember, God made us all in His image, so you are without excuse. Nobody is saved first to come to the cross to receive the atonement by the second Person of the Godhead. Calvinism is a heresy. Nobody is saved first to be able to understand the Proof of God, but the Proof of God is given for us all to understand and accept to believe in Christ and receive the redemption by His precious blood.

[Marquis Naryshkin]

If you are holding a ball and let go of it, it drops. This is a cause and effect in our universe. Just as the ball dropping has a cause, so does diffusion. All things naturally occurring have a cause. The only supernatural thing that is without a cause is the uncreated creator.

You seem to misunderstand something. It doesn't drop because you let go of it, but rather because of the propensity of two objects with mass to move closer to one another, proportional to the distance from each other.


So far the reason you have misunderstood the proof is not because you are without the Holy Spirit, but because you chose to misread it. The proof is not saying whether diffusion is naturally occurring, for that is obvious, but saying that it has a cause as do all things in nature.

But it doesn't really give any examples. I know Brownian motion is the cause of diffusion(and you lead me to think that you don't, which speaks poorly of your knowledge of modern science), but I don't see why your god is better than all the others. I'm sorry, but you can't just say "because I said so," and leave it at that. All that Christianity has in its favor is a book that's somehow right because it says that it's right. There are no contemporary records of Jesus kept by other sources(and the Romans were notorious for detailed records). Why wouldn't they keep records of your god?


The difference between your faith and the faith of Christianity is that the latter is grounded in evidence, whereas you can't find anything in nature that happens all by itself without a cause.

Errrr, I don't have a faith(lacking belief in your god or any god[unless infants have a faith since birth]). Also, my reason for being an atheist is that there is not any scientific evidence for a god out there. Radioactive-dating methods deny the account of creation in your bible, physics explains the big bang, biology has evolution (which is accepted fact everywhere but the US), and I don't find anything wanting.


Because nothing in nature happens all by itself, therefore the ultimate cause is that which is uncaused who would be God of the Bible since none can compare to Christ.

Why can none compare to Christ? What's so horrid about Mohammed? He came later? If that's your argument, Buddha lived and taught 500 years before Christ was even born, and Hinduism existed centuries before THAT.


Remember, God made us all in His image, so you are without excuse. Nobody is saved first to come to the cross to receive the atonement by the second Person of the Godhead. Calvinism is a heresy. Nobody is saved first to be able to understand the Proof of God, but the Proof of God is given for us all to understand and accept to believe in Christ and receive the redemption by His precious blood.

Wait, what? God only made us in his image if you go by your book(which has no corroborating evidence, unless you'd like to show it to me). And what's this random bit about Calvinism? I don't agree with the theology, but it makes sense that if your god's omniscient then certain people are just going to go to hell regardless, as god's predetermined their actions by knowing them before they occur.

[Churchwork]

You seem to misunderstand something. It doesn't drop because you let go of it, but rather because of the propensity of two objects with mass to move closer to one another, proportional to the distance from each other.
Both statements are true, for if you were still holding the ball, it would not drop. The point of this exercise is to show there is cause and effect in all things in nature as you wanted an example and you can't find anything that is without a cause. This gives glory to God, because if nothing happens all by itself then the ultimate cause must be that which is uncaused who would be God of the Bible since none can compare to Christ. Alas, I am repeating myself which falls on deaf ears.

But it doesn't really give any examples. I know Brownian motion is the cause of diffusion(and you lead me to think that you don't, which speaks poorly of your knowledge of modern science), but I don't see why your god is better than all the others. I'm sorry, but you can't just say "because I said so," and leave it at that. All that Christianity has in its favor is a book that's somehow right because it says that it's right. There are no contemporary records of Jesus kept by other sources(and the Romans were notorious for detailed records). Why wouldn't they keep records of your god?
Where did I say Brownian motion is not the cause of diffusion? You asked for an example of something in nature, and I gave you the example of a ball dropping to show something in nature not happening all by itself, and neither you nor I can find a thing in nature that happens all by itself. To think otherwise, speaks poorly of your knowledge of reality and science and need for evidence.

I don't say God of the Bible is better than some god, but it is proven. That is why by comparison it can always be shown. Why misrepresent the Christian position? The Bible does not say it is right because it says it is right. Not at all. It first proves itself, by showing you that nothing in nature happens all by itself; hence, the ultimate cause is the uncaused who is God of the Bible since none can compare to Christ.

Altogether we have 45 early contemporary sources, 17 of which are non-Christian. When you place this next to the documentation of the emperor of Rome who died the same time Jesus died, you find that Jesus is documented four times more within say the first 150 years of their deaths. Nobody in antiquity is more well documented than Jesus and with papyrus still preserved so close to the events that took place. The Iliad's, for example, earliest preserved document that still exists is over a thousand years after their alleged events. Our earliest known papyrus from Scripture is from 95 to 105 AD (see Case for Faith and Case for Christ by Lee Strobel).

Why would Tacitus, Roman historian, and other Roman historians write about Jesus? Why would they be excluded from writing about any subject? Well, for one thing, it was the Romans who put Jesus to death at the request of the Jews so some record is in order. Secondly, since some in Rome considered Jesus a threat like Nero, they would blame Christians though falsely for burning Rome despite no motivation.

Errrr, I don't have a faith(lacking belief in your god or any god[unless infants have a faith since birth]). Also, my reason for being an atheist is that there is not any scientific evidence for a god out there. Radioactive-dating methods deny the account of creation in your bible, physics explains the big bang, biology has evolution (which is accepted fact everywhere but the US), and I don't find anything wanting.
Infants don't have faith, so the Bible calls this the time before the age of accountability when one becomes responsible for their thoughts and choices. You do have faith; your faith is in your idol or god of atheism which you use to keep you eternally separated from God in which you assume God does not exist though you have no reason for your blind faith.

I've already given you the scientific finding in which we can cite trillions of things that have a cause in nature, but we can't find one thing that is without a cause. Radioactive-dating does not deny the account of creation in Bible. Since you don't show it, then why rely on mindless self-declaration? Because like Satan you need no reason either in your proclamations which is selfish. That biology has evolution does not go against Scripture; why say so? Where's your reason? The problem with evolution is that it is just a limited teaching, for it can't explain what came before the first biological creature. That's why we go to the 4 Step Proof for God of the Bible (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/perfectproof.htm) which is more encompassing. What I find wanting with evolution is just this: when trying to determine if God exists, evolution is a tool that is lacking, because it does not address what came before the first creature with a helix and bacteria.

The Big Bang agrees with the Bible for Gen. 1.1 does not say how long God took to create. Gen. 2.7 says our bodies were formed from dust, though again, the time frame is not specified. We know that time to be 13.7 billion years scientifically speaking. In other words, God does not place great emphasis on the time, but that we know it was a long long time to create man in God's image 6000 years ago. However, one things you can say of the length of time is the wondrous patience God has.

Why can none compare to Christ? What's so horrid about Mohammed? He came later? If that's your argument, Buddha lived and taught 500 years before Christ was even born, and Hinduism existed centuries before THAT.
It is not the time of a person's existence for their cause of their truthfulness or untruthfulness. What a silly idea to bear false witness.

Mohammed contrived his religion, and this is proven by the fact that over 600 years later he said Jesus never died. Since all the documentation we have points to Jesus dying on the cross and nobody in the first century saying otherwise, then Mohammed does not have a leg to stand on. We must conclude then that his contrived religion was devised in hostility to God of the Bible, and he is going to hell.

Buddhism and hinduism are false because you are not going to come back as a chicken or a dog if you sin and receive endless chances to be a human being again, back and forth like a yoyo without real consequences. You get this one life to come to the cross and to believe in God. Even some person on some remote island who never read the Bible (the 66 books) or heard of it could still be saved if he looked up at the mountains and stars and believed in the Creator. Surely, if presented the Word of God, he would accept Christ as his Lord and Savior.

Buddhism also makes no commentary on an uncreated creator, thus shutting the person's mind down to the uncreated creator for selfish idol worship of gods that the flesh indulges itself and which remain a point of separation from God.

Wait, what? God only made us in his image if you go by your book(which has no corroborating evidence, unless you'd like to show it to me). And what's this random bit about Calvinism? I don't agree with the theology, but it makes sense that if your god's omniscient then certain people are just going to go to hell regardless, as god's predetermined their actions by knowing them before they occur.
Yes, the Bible provides the proof which is when you look at all creatures you would be hard pressed to shut your mind down to the fact that humans are quite unique for what we can do compared to all the creatures of the earth is vast. This is the proof to know we are made in God's image. Similarly, you can say, because we have a spirit of God-consciousness (mankind throughout all ages continues to worship) and other creatures do not, this too points to mankind as uniquely made in God's image. So, you are without excuse. Consider these points corroborating evidence.

Entering the point of calvinism as false is not a random comment but most applicable, because calvinism teaches a similar idea to the one you presented that you have to be saved first to be able to believe and believe in the proof of God in the 4 Step Proof. I think you contradict yourself when you said, "I don't agree with the theology, but it makes sense". Why do you disagree with things that you think make sense? However, it does not make sense for the very reason that God does not predetermine robots, but predestinates by foreknowing our free-choice: a conditional election, unlimited atonement, resistible grace, for preservation of the saints. When someone chooses not to be saved, they are going to hell, but don't think God premade them this way, for they are sovereign beings, with their own volition. Don't blame God for your choice to go to hell. In fact, nobody needed to go to hell after Adam, because everyone could have been saved if everyone like Abel gave a right freewill offering instead of an offering of their flesh like Cain.

This is not so complicated, but realize your flesh will spin its wheels come hell or highwater. That is the nature of the flesh to go on a rampage in mental gymnastics to maintain hostility and separation from God. Your flesh is the sin of your body and self of your soul. Who is the one whom you are following? Satan is working behind the scenes and totally owns you. Without an appreciation for this fact, you will remain lost in the matrix of the world under the god of this world who is Satan.

[Marquis Naryshkin]

First off, condescending PMs aren't particularly nice. I'll drag out discussion on a topic as long as I like, because some things need to be discussed. You can't gloss over everything like you seem to want to do. Also, if your "theology" and the theology of half a dozen Christiain thinkers can't convince me, why will some lame music do the trick?


Both statements are true, for if you were still holding the ball, it would not drop. The point of this exercise is to show there is cause and effect in all things in nature as you wanted an example and you can't find anything that is without a cause. This gives glory to God, because if nothing happens all by itself then the ultimate cause must be that which is uncaused who would be God of the Bible since none can compare to Christ. Alas, I am repeating myself which falls on deaf ears.I'm sorry, this is one IMMENSE non sequitur.


Where did I say Brownian motion is not the cause of diffusion? You asked for an example of something in nature, and I gave you the example of a ball dropping to show something in nature not happening all by itself, and neither you nor I can find a thing in nature that happens all by itself. To think otherwise, speaks poorly of your knowledge of reality and science and need for evidence.Argument from ignorance, also, this whole cause thing is still rather unproven.


I don't say God of the Bible is better than some god, but it is proven. That is why by comparison it can always be shown. Why misrepresent the Christain position? The Bible does not say it is right because it says it is right. Not at all. It first proves itself, by showing you that nothing in nature happens all by itself; hence, the ultimate cause is the uncaused who is God of the Bible since none can compare to Christ.Your god has to be better than others else you wouldn't believe in it. You say that by virtue of your position. The Bible's proof a priori assumes the existence of god etc, as does your "perfect" proof(which does so by virtue of its acceptance of sin. You can't have sin without a god(and the Christain one loves it. Also, verses plzkthxbai.


Altogether we have 45 early contemporary sources, 17 of which are non-Christian.Links or you lose credibility.


When you place this next to the documentation of the emperor of Rome who died the same time Jesus died, you find that Jesus is documented four times more within say the first 150 years of their deaths.I've looked and there is no such documentation.


Nobody in antiquity is more well documented than Jesus and with papyrus still preserved so close to the events that took place.The Roman Emperors beg to disagree. And the Japanese Emperors. The Egyptians did a pretty good job too.


The Iliad's, for example, earliest preserved document that still exists is over a thousand years after their alleged events. Our earliest known papyrus from Scripture is from 95 to 105 AD[sic] (see Case for Faith and Case for Christ by Lee Strobel).Apparently you don't know the meaning of the word contemporary. In this instance it means "existing, occurring, or living at the same time; belonging to the same time." According to your only source that you've cited so far Jesus died around 33 CE. That is most certainly NOT contemporary.


Why would Tacitus, Roman historian, and other Roman historians write about Jesus? The passage by Tacitus was arguably written in to the Annals by Christain scribes as neither Tertullian, Lactantius, Sulpicius Severus, Eusebius, nor Augustine of Hippo mention the passage. Luke didn't mention the persecution of Christians in Rome in Acts. There probably weren't very many at ALL in Rome, certainly not the number alluded to in the passage (enough to be at fault for the fire). Also, the passage was, if genuine, written circa 119 CE, also NOT contemporary, and makes merely passing reference to a "Christus," who was mistreated by the "procurator"[sic] of Judaea which spawned a religion. Not much of substance there at all.


Why would they be excluded from writing about any subject? Well, for one thing, it was the Romans who put Jesus to death at the request of the Jews so some record is in order. Secondly, since some in Rome considered Jesus a threat like Nero, they would blame Christians though falsely for burning Rome despite no motivation.I think there was plenty of motive, if Christians were being persecuted as you might have us believe(but that's a topic for another day). At any rate, I doubt people considered Jesus a threat, since he was sort of dead. And while a record was certainly in order, there hasn't been an uncontestably genuine one found.


Infants don't have faith, so the Bible calls this the time before the age of accountability when one becomes responsible for their thoughts and choices. You do have faith; your faith is in your idol or god of atheism which you use to keep you eternally separated from God in which you assume God does not exist though you have no reason for your blind faith.My faith in the god of no-god-ism? This makes little sense. It's not faith if modern science(not just biology, physics too) supports it. Please, realize that scientists aren't investigating such things to extol the virtues of your god or ANY god, they're doing it to dispel ignorance like the stuff that populates these forums.


I've already given you the scientific finding in which we can cite trillions of things that have a cause in nature,If by that you mean that you've told me that nothing in nature is without cause(which I suppose is true in a deterministic universe, with the exception of the big bang[when the "normal" laws of physics didn't apply]), then yes.


Radioactive-dating does not deny the account of creation in Bible.What bible do you read? It blatantly contradicts ANY literal reading of genesis, and if you don't read genesis literally, why read any of the bible literally(like those bits about Jesus, the flood, etc.)?


The problem with evolution is that it is just a limited teaching, for it can't explain what came before the first biological creature. That's why we go to the 4 Step Proof for God of the Bible (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/perfectproof.htm) which is more encompassing.No, that's why we go to physics.


What I find wanting with evolution is just this: when trying to determine if God exists, evolution is a tool that is lacking, because it does not address what came before the first creature with a helix and bacteria.Yes, and when trying to determine where the studs in a wall are, a chainsaw does little good. Science is not just evolution, there's a whole lot of physics behind the naturalist view.


The Big Bang agrees with the Bible for Gen. 1.1 does not say how long God took to create.See my point on literal reading of the bible etc.


Gen. 2.7 says our bodies were formed from dust,Which is patently false, and Islam's view of biological creation adheres more closely to fact than Christianity.


create man in God's image 6000 years ago. However, one things you can say of the length of time is the wondrous patience God has.Why are there indications of humans(tools, footprints, etc.) from as early as 130000 years ago?


It is not the time of a person's existence for their cause of their truthfulness or untruthfulness. What a silly idea to bear false witness.From: http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2108

First off you should not believe in the god of Islam because he lies to you. He comes 600+ years later and says Jesus didn't die on the cross when all the documentation we have He did die on the cross. Nobody in the first century thought otherwise. Can you find anyone who thought otherwise? What about the second century?:wink:


Mohammed contrived his religion, and this is proven by the fact that over 600 years later he said Jesus never died.That bit was from this topic.:wubyou: The next paragraph.:laugh:


Since all the documentation we have points to Jesus dying on the crossThe bible?


and nobody in the first century saying otherwiseThat's about as irrelevant as potatoes.


then Mohammed does not have a leg to stand on. We must conclude then that his contrived religion was devised in hostility to God of the Bible, and he is going to hell.Not really. I mean, the going to hell bit is probably right, but that's just because he's not Christian. I don't get where the hostility to Christianity bit came from; he was preaching the same things with the exception of the whole jesus died for your sins bit(which does seem just a bit silly upon reflection).


Buddhism and hinduism are false because you are not going to come back as a chicken or a dog if you sin and receive endless chances to be a human being again, back and forth like a yoyo without real consequences.You've offered no proof other than your opinion. Also, there are consequences in both, people just have more chances. Seems a lot more positive than Christianity.


You get this one life to come to the cross and to believe in God. Even some person on some remote island who never read the Bible (the 66 books) or heard of it could still be saved if he looked up at the mountains and stars and believed in the Creator. Surely, if presented the Word of God, he would accept Christ as his Lord and Savior.Your first sentence only works with an a priori acceptance of your god, and also, there are plenty of "[people] on some remote island[s]" who rejected your god. Sorry to burst your bubble.


Buddhism also makes no commentary on an uncreated creator, thus shutting the person's mind down to the uncreated creator for selfish idol worship of gods that the flesh indulges itself and which remain a point of separation from God.This sentence needs more grammar. Elaboration would be nice.


Yes, the Bible provides the proof which is when you look at all creatures you would be hard pressed to shut your mind down to the fact that humans are quite unique for what we can do compared to all the creatures of the earth is vast.Yes, I will be the first to admit that humans are unique among animals, but remember that we are just animals, and shared an ancestor with an ape which practically bases its social hierarchy on masturbation. Fun science fact!


Similarly, you can say, because we have a spirit of God-consciousness (mankind throughout all ages continues to worship) and other creatures do not, this too points to mankind as uniquely made in God's image. So, you are without excuse. Consider these points corroborating evidence.We have a propensity to worship because way back when, tribes with a god to die for and a paradise awaiting them had a better motivation to fight. Eventually, genes were selected that increased one's propensity for spirituality, and there you go.


Entering the point of calvinism as false is not a random comment but most applicable, because calvinism teaches a similar idea to the one you presented that you have to be saved first to be able to believe and believe in the proof of God in the 4 Step Proof.You still ignored my statement that a proof is useless if it can't convince people(and there are some glaring fallacies in that "proof," though I sha'n't discuss them as you already shouted down and banned a person who did).


I think you contradict yourself when you said, "I don't agree with the theology, but it makes sense". Why do you disagree with things that you think make sense?Because I find it repulsive, like the other denominations of your religion.


However, it does not make sense for the very reason that God does not predetermine robots, but predestinates by foreknowing our free-choice: a conditional election, unlimited atonement, resistible grace, for preservation of the saints. When someone chooses not to be saved, they are going to hell, but don't think God premade them this way, for they are sovereign beings, with their own volition. Don't blame God for your choice to go to hell. In fact, nobody needed to go to hell after Adam, because everyone could have been saved if everyone like Abel gave a right freewill offering instead of an offering of their flesh like Cain.If a being knows what another being is going to do, it's predestination. Don't try to dance around words like that--Isn't honesty a virtue?


This is not so complicated, but realize your flesh will spin its wheels come hell or highwater. That is the nature of the flesh to go on a rampage in mental gymnastics to maintain hostility and separation from God. Your flesh is the sin of your body and self of your soul. Who is the one whom you are following? Satan is working behind the scenes and totally owns you. Without an appreciation for this fact, you will remain lost in the matrix of the world under the god of this world who is Satan.Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight...

At any rate, I have a feeling that none of this will change your mind, but let me speak mine.

You, Troy, seem to be an insufferable little zealot who sees a god where one is not, and refuses to let anyone even try to shatter your tiny little view of the world. I've seen how many people have had their accounts deleted. You're the sort who just shouts down anything another person is saying, and if they bring up points you can't refute, you ban them or repeat yourself "like a clanging bell" as you put it in a private message to me. You are one of the saddest things on the planet, and you insult others of your faith.

[Churchwork]

First off, condescending PMs aren't particularly nice. I'll drag out discussion on a topic as long as I like, because some things need to be discussed. You can't gloss over everything like you seem to want to do. Also, if your "theology" and the theology of half a dozen Christiain thinkers can't convince me, why will some lame music do the trick?
Where is this mysterious condescending PM? You can drag out anything you like, but if you repeat yourself and not respond to what was said, you're just a clanging bell (violating Board Etiquette #6, worthy of an Infraction). What have I glossed over, you don't show anything? The reason why pure logic does not work with you time and time again is because there is a problem underneath the faulty logic of yours. That is why Christian music can help you to touch your emotion and stony heart. Your stony heart rationalizes anything as long as that anything is against God of the Bible. This is your mission. You're a creature of habit committed to a position of hostility to your creator. You don't even know why you behave the way you do, but you continue on in your fight of belligerency. This is the very nature of the devil, and he will never repent. NEVER! My prayer for you is that one day you do repent and come to the cross as a helpless sinner to receive Jesus as your Lord and Savior and become a brother in Christ.



Both statements are true, for if you were still holding the ball, it would not drop. The point of this exercise is to show there is cause and effect in all things in nature as you wanted an example and you can't find anything that is without a cause. This gives glory to God, because if nothing happens all by itself then the ultimate cause must be that which is uncaused who would be God of the Bible since none can compare to Christ. Alas, I am repeating myself which falls on deaf ears.
I'm sorry, this is one IMMENSE non sequitur.

How is this a non sequitur? You don't say. You would be wrong, because you can't show it. Come on now, don't be coy.





Where did I say Brownian motion is not the cause of diffusion? You asked for an example of something in nature, and I gave you the example of a ball dropping to show something in nature not happening all by itself, and neither you nor I can find a thing in nature that happens all by itself. To think otherwise, speaks poorly of your knowledge of reality and science and need for evidence. Argument from ignorance, also, this whole cause thing is still rather unproven.Ignorance how so? You don't say. We as human being can cite trillions of effects that have a cause, but where can you find even one thing that has no cause? Giving the weight of the evidence of over a trillion to one, isn't your idea rather unproven and fictitious?
Your god has to be better than others else you wouldn't believe in it. You say that by virtue of your position. The Bible's proof a priori assumes the existence of god etc, as does your "perfect" proof(which does so by virtue of its acceptance of sin. You can't have sin without a god(and the Christain one loves it. Also, verses plzkthxbai.The Bible does not first assume the existence of God, but proves it since it tells us nothing in nature happens all by itself; there is always a cause so that nothing in nature can be the ultimate cause. As I said,

"I don't say God of the Bible is better than some god, but it is proven. That is why by comparison it can always be shown. Why misrepresent the Christain position? The Bible does not say it is right because it says it is right. Not at all. It first proves itself, by showing you that nothing in nature happens all by itself; hence, the ultimate cause is the uncaused who is God of the Bible since none can compare to Christ."
Why misread the Bible, for that just makes you look bad. Alas, I am repeating myself, and you are not responding to what I have said, but repeat yourself like a clanging bell. Please read Board Etiquette #6 (http://biblocality.com/forums/rules.php#rules) if you want to continue this conversation without receiving Infractions that lead to Moderation which leads to a Temporary Ban which leads to Permanent Ban or Removal, as I have no interest in repeating myself to someone who is mindlessly belligerent.

Regarding sin, you can have sin without any mention of God, for if you commit a crime, you go to jail, and your sin sends you to jail. You're filled with mistaken assumptions, making claims you can't back up, such as saying sin does not exist. If you murder, steal or commit some other crime, you have sinned. Now, not all sin will put you in jail, but it is enough for us to point out here there is some sin that will put you in jail.

Since the definition of sin we are using, as stated in the 4 Step Proof for God, is one that has no requirement first mentioning God, why are you asking for proof for sin's existence in the Bible if you assume that sin requires the existence of God and you think the Bible first assumes God's existence? That's a contradiction. You're asking for something as proof which you would not accept anyway. You're sloppy in your thoughts.

By the way, every time you mention a "god" which is not "God" of the Bible, you are violating Step 3 of the Proof, because nowhere in the Bible will you find God referred to as god. So, Step 3 implores you if you want to argue against God of the Bible, don't argue against some god, for that is foolish. Try to stay on topic.

Links or you lose credibility.
http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/garyhabermas.htm

Study 3 books, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, The Historical Jesus, and Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus, all by Gary R. Habermas, today's leading scholar on the resurrection of Christ.



When you place this next to the documentation of the emperor of Rome who died the same time Jesus died, you find that Jesus is documented four times more within say the first 150 years of their deaths.
I've looked and there is no such documentation.

I guess you didn't look very hard, for it is documented in The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus.



Nobody in antiquity is more well documented than Jesus and with papyrus still preserved so close to the events that took place.
The Roman Emperors beg to disagree. And the Japanese Emperors. The Egyptians did a pretty good job too.

I've given you one example of the Roman emperor who died the same time as Jesus and Jesus was documented four times more than him within the first 150 years of their deaths, and you cite no specific example. Looks like you have nothing.



The Iliad's, for example, earliest preserved document that still exists is over a thousand years after their alleged events. Our earliest known papyrus from Scripture is from 95 to 105 AD[sic] (see Case for Faith and Case for Christ by Lee Strobel).
Apparently you don't know the meaning of the word contemporary. In this instance it means "existing, occurring, or living at the same time; belonging to the same time." According to your only source that you've cited so far Jesus died around 33 CE. That is most certainly NOT contemporary.

In the future, you should add words to someone you quote such as when you added "[sic]", because that gives the false impression I actually said that when I didn't.

I was not using the contemporary usage to the time of when Jesus was alive, but when the apostles and second generation apostles were alive of the earliest church period the Bible calls the "Ephesus" church period. I don't know of any writings when Jesus was still alive about Jesus' ministry for three and a half years. I can't say when they put their experiences to pen only that they had done so. I don't think it is reasonable for you to expect writings about Jesus before His ministry started or for the apostles to be taking notes when Jesus was ministering. They probably didn't have pens, and when Jesus wrote in the sand, the wind blew it away. But I can assure you that writings of Scripture were on the hearts of their writers daily before their final completion in the first century, and the 17 non-Christian sources are well testified of the historical Jesus. 12 of those non-Christian sources speak of Jesus' death and 7 of them mention Him as a deity. However, that's like going to a criminal for his testimony on reality. It is not reality or righteous to be a criminal.

I am surprised your contemporary argument is for writings when Jesus was alive, for I thought that was common knowledge there was none, nor is it reasonable there would be. Most would have considered Jesus of no account and His words would have fallen on deaf ears.


The passage by Tacitus was arguably written in to the Annals by Christain scribes as neither Tertullian, Lactantius, Sulpicius Severus, Eusebius, nor Augustine of Hippo mention the passage. Luke didn't mention the persecution of Christians in Rome in Acts. There probably weren't very many at ALL in Rome, certainly not the number alluded to in the passage (enough to be at fault for the fire). Also, the passage was, if genuine, written circa 119 CE, also NOT contemporary, and makes merely passing reference to a "Christus," who was mistreated by the "procurator"[sic] of Judea which spawned a religion. Not much of substance there at all.
It is not required these men mention what Tacitus said specifically about Nero and Christians, for these various other writers hardly said anything about Jesus at all as it is.

Suetonius refers to a wave of riots which broke out in a large Jewish community in Rome during the year 49 AD. As a result, the Jews were banished from the city. This has an interesting corroboration with Acts 18.2 which relates that Paul met with a Jewish couple from Pontus named Aquila and his wife Priscilla, who had recently left Italy because Claudius had demanded that all the Jews leave Rome.

The second reference in Suetonius is again to the Christians who were tortured by emperor Nero. "After the great fire in Rome...Punishments were also inflicted on the Christians, a sect professing a new and mischievous religious belief."

If what Tacitus said was added by Christians, surely someone would have indicated this addition. Just like today if someone added a book to the Bible, everyone would take note of it, but nobody said anything about the Annals after it was given; not even one of those men that you mentioned did anything, so you know the Annals is truly from Tacitus. Consequently, Rev. 9.18 mentions the number of a most evil man who is the Antichrist, which is revived Nero. In Aramaic, the language of Christ, Neron Kaisar adds up to the number 666. This takes wisdom to appreciate we are told. Nero was the most evil man who ever lived, killing many of his family members and rounding up Christians in accusing them.

How many Christians were there in Rome? Enough to call them the saints in Rome. However many there are is no great issue, for Christians are always considered the little flock. Even today, though the number of people who say they are Christians is over 2 billion, only a very small percentage are actually born-again as the little flock.

I think there was plenty of motive, if Christians were being persecuted as you might have us believe(but that's a topic for another day). At any rate, I doubt people considered Jesus a threat, since he was sort of dead. And while a record was certainly in order, there hasn't been an uncontestably genuine one found.
I am not the source of telling you Christians are being persecuted, but the documentation tells us they are being persecuted. Tradition tells us the apostles were all martyred, Christ died on the cross, and this is reported from the early church fathers and early eyewitnesses. I don't think most people gave much thought to Jesus or considered Him a threat, so I would agree with you, but this in no way discounts Him. What it shows is people are lost in the world and could care less. Since you could find no fault with the earliest 45 source documents about Jesus, and your issue with Tacitus does not hold up, because someone would have mentioned the addition, then so far, in all that you have said, gives you no grounds for rejecting Christ. You could not contest even one of these documents, and still, you find no fault anywhere in the testimonies of Scripture.

My faith in the god of no-god-ism? This makes little sense. It's not faith if modern science(not just biology, physics too) supports it. Please, realize that scientists aren't investigating such things to extol the virtues of your god or ANY god, they're doing it to dispel ignorance like the stuff that populates these forums.
Since biology and physics do not support your idea of no creator, then you would be wrong. Since you could find no ignorance on this forums other than what you write or those who remain similarly confused, then what have you?



I've already given you the scientific finding in which we can cite trillions of things that have a cause in nature,
If by that you mean that you've told me that nothing in nature is without cause(which I suppose is true in a deterministic universe, with the exception of the big bang[when the "normal" laws of physics didn't apply]), then yes.

Since the big bang is part of nature, then there is no reason to think it does not follow the laws of nature and would not require a cause, so you would be wrong. Your whole faith is based on assuming puff the magic dragon, but you have no evidence and all the evidence points against you. A deterministic universe is simply one that has cause and effects, where nothing happens all by itself, and that is exactly what we observe.



Radioactive-dating does not deny the account of creation in Bible.
What bible do you read? It blatantly contradicts ANY literal reading of genesis, and if you don't read genesis literally, why read any of the bible literally(like those bits about Jesus, the flood, etc.)?

I read the RSV, ASV, NLT and KJV mostly. There is no contradiction of any literal reading and Genesis, nor could you find any. Yes, there really was a local flood, and yes, the Bible really is the Word of God embodying Jesus on paper. It's all about Him, not just some bits. All of it! In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word is God.



The problem with evolution is that it is just a limited teaching, for it can't explain what came before the first biological creature. That's why we go to the 4 Step Proof for God of the Bible (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/perfectproof.htm) which is more encompassing.
No, that's why we go to physics.

And the 4 Step Proof addresses physics where nothing in physics happens all by itself, so why overlook this fact, for this is the very proof for God.

Yes, and when trying to determine where the studs in a wall are, a chainsaw does little good. Science is not just evolution, there's a whole lot of physics behind the naturalist view.
There is no evidence in physics for the naturalistic view for nothing in nature happens all by itself. Naturally and scientifically speaking, nature proves the uncreated.



The Big Bang agrees with the Bible for Gen. 1.1 does not say how long God took to create.
See my point on literal reading of the bible etc.

See my point in response to your point on the literal reading of the Bible.



Gen. 2.7 says our bodies were formed from dust,
Which is patently false, and Islam's view of biological creation adheres more closely to fact than Christianity.

It is in fact true, our bodies are formed from the elements of the stars, summarized as the "dust". Whatever Islam says about how our bodies are formed is irrelevant, since their god is false due to the fact they have no evidence in their claim over six hundred years later for claiming Jesus never died.



create man in God's image 6000 years ago. However, one things you can say of the length of time is the wondrous patience God has.
Why are there indications of humans(tools, footprints, etc.) from as early as 130000 years ago?

Always your problem is reading the Bible with a darkened mind-your perspective is twisted. What the Bible considers those footprints 130,000 years to be is pre-Adamic man (part of the "dust") who did not have a spirit of God-consciousness and were not made in God's image as were all women and men since approximately 4000 BC.



It is not the time of a person's existence for their cause of their truthfulness or untruthfulness. What a silly idea to bear false witness.
From: http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2108

Nothing in this link should cause you to believe the time of a person's existence determines their truthfulness. I am glad you couldn't show it.


First off you should not believe in the god of Islam because he lies to you. He comes 600+ years later and says Jesus didn't die on the cross when all the documentation we have He did die on the cross. Nobody in the first century thought otherwise. Can you find anyone who thought otherwise? What about the second century?

Mohammed contrived his religion, and this is proven by the fact that over 600 years later he said Jesus never died.
That bit was from this topic.

You brought it up.




Since all the documentation we have points to Jesus dying on the cross
The bible?

Including the Bible, Christian writings and non-Christian writings. Altogether we have 24 source documents that talk about His death.


If you still don't think Jesus lived in person on earth then that issue can be tackled elsewhere. We have "129 reported facts concerning the life, person, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus, plus the disciples' earliest message. We have examined 45 ancient sources for the life of Jesus, which includes 19 early creedal, four archaeological, 17 non-Christian, and five non-New Testament Christian sources. Of our 45 sources, 30 record this teaching [deity of Jesus], which surprisingly includes seven of the 17 secular sources" [Historical Jesus, Gary Habermas, 250-251]. Jesus Himself said He was God (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/JesusGod.htm) with such titles as "Son of God" and "Son of Man" [Ibid., chapter 27].


"Of all the events in Jesus' life, more ancient sources specifically mention his death than any other single occurrence. Of the 45 ancient sources, 28 relate to this fact, often with details. Twelve of those sources are non-Christian, which exhibits an incredible amount of interest in this event. Not only is Jesus' death by crucifixion of major concern to these authors..." [Ibid., p. 252].


"Of our 45 sources, 18 specifically record the resurrection" [Ibid., p. 253].




and nobody in the first century saying otherwise
That's about as irrelevant as potatoes.


Nobody was saying Jesus did not exist early on, for no such notion would seem reasonable, but today, far removed people try to fathom the idea to no avail. Those closer to the time of the events that took place, surely somebody would have suggested Jesus did not exist if it was even possible. So any such notion is disregarded. The question becomes how do we explain the eyewitness accounts of His resurrection? And how can this be possible if He is not God, for He said He is God and there are no similar types of resurrections preceding Christ?

Not really. I mean, the going to hell bit is probably right, but that's just because he's not Christian. I don't get where the hostility to Christianity bit came from; he was preaching the same things with the exception of the whole jesus died for your sins bit(which does seem just a bit silly upon reflection).
Christ died on the cross, this is a certainty, so to say He didn't when it is the clearest of teachings is entirely hostile to the Creator. Since sin leads to death and needs to be punished and can not escape consequence, then in order to be redeem from the sin nature a sacrifice is needed, and only a perfect sacrifice would do, for a sinner can not atone for another sinner. Hence, only God could be the perfect ransom. A faith that denies this is a false faith of works and self, and of many trying to save himself by his own efforts rather than relying on God's Son for the free gift of eternal life. People who want to remain disconnected from God will certainly deny the death, resurrection and deity of Christ, for there is no love in their hearts for what Jesus did on the cross for them. It is silly to them, and such an attitude shows how cold your heart is. A Christian can only pity you.




Buddhism and hinduism are false because you are not going to come back as a chicken or a dog if you sin and receive endless chances to be a human being again, back and forth like a yo yo without real consequences.
You've offered no proof other than your opinion. Also, there are consequences in both, people just have more chances. Seems a lot more positive than Christianity.

This is no mere opinion, but it is real tangible reasoning. If you have endless opportunities, then there is no real consequence. Moreover, in Step 1 of the 4 Step Proof we observe the exponential progression in conscience such that there would still not be sinning by now if there was this eternity of the past of cause and effects. This too proves buddhism and hinduism false because it goes against the idea of always possibly falling back into being a chicken or a dog. Not just a lot more chances, but an infinity of chances, is unrighteous, i.e., no real consequence which is vain and without purpose. In this life it doesn't matter because you get another chance for forever, so your conscience is lowered today by such false beliefs. Thank God's grace this is not the case, because it is quite negative to know that in a trillion trillion years from now I could be a dog in hinduism. That is not something to look forward to. You really ought to uplevel your conscience.


You get this one life to come to the cross and to believe in God. Even some person on some remote island who never read the Bible (the 66 books) or heard of it could still be saved if he looked up at the mountains and stars and believed in the Creator. Surely, if presented the Word of God, he would accept Christ as his Lord and Savior.


Your first sentence only works with an a priori acceptance of your god, and also, there are plenty of "[people] on some remote island[s]" who rejected your god. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Nope. The reason we know there is only this one opportunity is because the uncreated creator is proven, and we know Jesus to be Him because none can compare to Christ. And from these proofs, we listen to what Jesus said and what the prophets said in complete agreement to know that it is true-you get this one life to be saved. No opportunity exists after you die and are resurrected. I didn't say all people on some remote islands believed in God, so why would my non-existent bubble burst?


Buddhism also makes no commentary on an uncreated creator, thus shutting the person's mind down to the uncreated creator for selfish idol worship of gods that the flesh indulges itself and which remain a point of separation from God. This sentence needs more grammar. Elaboration would be nice.


Buddhism is essential atheism though it is also polytheism and reincarnation. Complex sentences can be difficult to read for those who are not careful readers. Try this...Buddhism also makes no commentary on an uncreated creator, thus shutting the person's mind down to the uncreated creator for selfish idol worship of gods. The flesh indulges itself in these gods which remain a point of separation from God.

Yes, I will be the first to admit that humans are unique among animals, but remember that we are just animals, and shared an ancestor with an ape
It stands to reason this would be the case since our bodies are derived from dust as the Bible says, but continue to realize how uniquely different and able man is above creatures of the earth. We would then not be just animals, but have an ability, admittedly, of worshipping God and have vast intellectual capability. To think this is by accident is fantastical.

We have a propensity to worship because way back when, tribes with a god to die for and a paradise awaiting them had a better motivation to fight. Eventually, genes were selected that increased one's propensity for spirituality, and there you go.
A motivation to fight would suit a god of war, but a God who is righteous and holy is not a god of war and does not want war. This is God of the Bible. So your theory is wrong. As you read the Word of God you never find war as the motivation, but it is the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth and peace. Since you could not make your case, you know you are wrong. Just think of yourself speaking forth but with the aid of the evil spirit's corrupted thoughts to try to misrepresent reality. What happened to genes? Exponential progression in conscience has transpired (Step 1 of the 4 Step Proof). Along this progression, still a person would need to choose the cross to be saved in this dispensation, because the sinner in his sins still needs atonement. During the 1000 years though the church period will have passed, one would still need to believe in Jesus reigning on Earth in Person as God, so salvation will still take place even then up to the point of the new city and new earth that follows wherein there will be no more sin; and there you go. You would be in hell for eternity because you can't be with those whom God has saved to be His own people.




Entering the point of calvinism as false is not a random comment but most applicable, because calvinism teaches a similar idea to the one you presented that you have to be saved first to be able to believe and believe in the proof of God in the 4 Step Proof.
You still ignored my statement that a proof is useless if it can't convince people(and there are some glaring fallacies in that "proof," though I sha'n't discuss them as you already shouted down and banned a person who did).


People are convinced; if it was not so, then nobody would ever be saved. I don't know what comment you made about a proof that can't convince people. Perhaps you can reproduce it here. Why would a proof for God not convince people? If they can't find anything wrong with it, and they search God with all their heart and mind, surely they will be drawn by the Holy Spirit to believe and receive the grace of forgiveness.


There was nobody banned for trying to discuss the 4 Step Proof, so why bear false witness? I am glad you can only be coy and still can't find anything wrong with the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible. Praise the Lord! I love your testimony for God of the Bible.




I think you contradict yourself when you said, "I don't agree with the theology, but it makes sense". Why do you disagree with things that you think make sense?
Because I find it repulsive, like the other denominations of your religion.


Why are things that make sense to you repulsive? Satan has the same sense. I think what you are experiencing is a condition of independency from spiritual reality. Denominations are not called for in the Scriptures, yet the Bible warns about these things by saying not to say "I of Cephas" or "I of Apollos" which is like saying "I am Baptist". God never divides the body of Christ by denoms, but it is always according to Biblical locality. The church is always referred to in locality, not by a corporation styled organization. All denominations have some false teaching. Baptists teach baptism requires water, but the Bible teaches baptism is with or without water in burial and resurrection with Christ. Baptists are also wrong because they contradict themselves by being 2 part arminian and 3 part calvinists. These are glaring contradictions and impossible to reconcile.

If a being knows what another being is going to do, it's predestination. Don't try to dance around words like that--Isn't honesty a virtue?
You're not understanding causing you to shut your mind down to the reality. There are two purported types of predestination. One in which the creator preprograms everything to cause some to be saved and others not without first regard for their choice. The other type (the correct one) is God predestinates by foreknowing our free-choice as in Rom. 8.29. First God foreknows, and what He foreknows, He predestinates, that is, He declares as good according to His righteous way of doing things. It all hinges on our free-will as sovereign beings, and God wants to walk with man made in His image, not robots. It's really not that hard to understand. This is called osas arminian-it is possible for God to foreknow without causing our choice.

You, Troy, seem to be an insufferable little zealot who sees a god where one is not, and refuses to let anyone even try to shatter your tiny little view of the world. I've seen how many people have had their accounts deleted. You're the sort who just shouts down anything another person is saying, and if they bring up points you can't refute, you ban them or repeat yourself "like a clanging bell" as you put it in a private message to me. You are one of the saddest things on the planet, and you insult others of your faith.
Let's summarize. You could find nothing in nature that happens all by itself, yet you still deny the uncreated creator which is the only possibility, for no other has been worthy of consideration. So just ask yourself the simple question, why shut your mind down as a Zombie for Satan? Just be intellectually honest with yourself that you are going to hell.


Aren't you a zealot for Satan then, given the above evidence? I don't recall shouting. Could you find any shouts? Where could you find someone who shattered my view? You couldn't could you? What have I been unable to refute where someone tried to argue against God of the Bible? Again, aren't you this "clanging bell" since you can't actually show it specifically? My brothers and sisters in Christ are most grateful for my work in the body of Christ, so you would be wrong that they are insulted. I do feel sad for you because I know you are going to hell. Often times what will end up leading a person to Christ where they would not otherwise come to the cross is great tragedy will need to befall them first before they could consider receive Jesus as Savior. If this happens to you one day, consider it God's grace to help lead you to Him. My prayers go out to you.


God entered into His creation to choose out a people for Himself. You're simply not one of those people, you admit.

[Marquis Naryshkin]

You know, about 30 minutes ago I started a big post that was to document one by one the NUMEROUS fallacies you've used. I've decided against it(15 paragraphs in I was up to around 50-60), and instead shall merely say that your post is a conglomeration of ad hominems, snobbery, proofs by assertion, appeals to tradition, emotion, personal incredulity, force, authority, and consequences, straw men, non sequiturs, loaded questions, and personal opinions not supported by modern science, and is, considered as a whole, an IMMENSE proof by verbosity. Also, you are DISHONEST. I gave a link, then quoted a post from it where you said that Mohammed was a liar because he came 600+ years later than Jesus. In your response, you acted as if it was from this very topic, which IT WAS NOT. Please, show some shame. If this is my last post on this site, so be it.

[Churchwork]

You know, about 30 minutes ago I started a big post that was to document one by one the NUMEROUS fallacies you've used. I've decided against it(15 paragraphs in I was up to around 50-60), and instead shall merely say that your post is a conglomeration of ad hominems, snobbery, proofs by assertion, appeals to tradition, emotion, personal incredulity, force, authority, and consequences, straw men, non sequiturs, loaded questions, and personal opinions not supported by modern science, and is, considered as a whole, an IMMENSE proof by verbosity.
The reason I am responding so specifically to what you say is because the Lord wants me to show you that you have nothing to cling to in your faith.

As I responded, I detailed very specifically your mistaken thinking point by point, well documented for all to see and for you to review at your leisure at any time you like. In response, you can't show otherwise; all you can do is self-declare you have an ability to do so and label many false accusations like your father Satan who also needs no reason when he accuses. I know that you don't in fact have an ability to, because no such ability exists. Therefore, all you can do is be coy. Now, since you have sinned again with accusations you don't have the ability to back up, one can be confident you're just selfishly trying to be couth. This is violating Board Etiquette #1 (http://biblocality.com/forums/rules.php#rules). Please read it. As you accumulate these infractions be cognizant you are getting ever closer to entering into temporary Moderation (http://biblocality.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2796&postcount=1) so that if you get there, you will know you belong there.

Also, this becomes your point of shutting your mind down for the Devil. You're headed to the same destination.

Also, you are DISHONEST. I gave a link, then quoted a post from it where you said that Mohammed was a liar because he came 600+ years later than Jesus. In your response, you acted as if it was from this very topic, which IT WAS NOT. Please, show some shame. If this is my last post on this site, so be it.
Let's go through the conversation:

1) I said, "Because nothing in nature happens all by itself, therefore the ultimate cause is that which is uncaused who would be God of the Bible since none can compare to Christ."

2) Then, you said, "Why can none compare to Christ? What's so horrid about Mohammed? He came later? If that's your argument, Buddha lived and taught 500 years before Christ was even born, and Hinduism existed centuries before THAT."

3) My response was, "It is not the time of a person's existence for their cause of their truthfulness or untruthfulness. What a silly idea to bear false witness."

Mohammed contrived his religion, and this is proven by the fact that over 600 years later he said Jesus never died. Since all the documentation we have points to Jesus dying on the cross and nobody in the first century saying otherwise, then Mohammed does not have a leg to stand on. We must conclude then that his contrived religion was devised in hostility to God of the Bible, and he is going to hell.

Buddhism and hinduism are false because you are not going to come back as a chicken or a dog if you sin and receive endless chances to be a human being again, back and forth like a yoyo without real consequences. You get this one life to come to the cross and to believe in God. Even some person on some remote island who never read the Bible (the 66 books) or heard of it could still be saved if he looked up at the mountains and stars and believed in the Creator. Surely, if presented the Word of God, he would accept Christ as his Lord and Savior.

Buddhism also makes no commentary on an uncreated creator, thus shutting the person's mind down to the uncreated creator for selfish idol worship of gods that the flesh indulges itself and which remain a point of separation from God."

4) In response to my first paragraph in 3 above after quoting it, you responded with, "From: http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2108" and you quoted what I said in that link,
"First off you should not believe in the god of Islam because he lies to you. He comes 600+ years later and says Jesus didn't die on the cross when all the documentation we have He did die on the cross. Nobody in the first century thought otherwise. Can you find anyone who thought otherwise? What about the second century?"5) I responded with, "Nothing in this link should cause you to believe the time of a person's existence determines their truthfulness. I am glad you couldn't show it," and certainly not the portion you quoted that you had answered 3 with.

6) When I said, "Mohammed contrived his religion, and this is proven by the fact that over 600 years later he said Jesus never died,"...

7) You responded by saying, "That bit was from this topic [i.e., this thread]."

8) Obviously, so I said, "You brought it up".

What is dishonest about this? You don't say, but accuse mindlessly. Where was it that I, using your words, "acted as if it [your quote of my words from that link] was from this very topic [i.e., this thread]"? You know very well I was just requoting it. Your misreading on purpose is your problem. You said "IT WAS NOT" from this thread, but where did I say it was? You are bearing false witness. Having put you to "shame" as you like to say, why don't you just repent and get back on topic about the fact that you still can't find anything wrong with the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/perfectproof.htm).

Your problem is you are trying to be cunning through your "petty self" when you made an issue of me quoting the same quote you quoted from that link. You brought it up, and I repeated what you brought up. What you're trying to do is deflect away from the actual subject matter with such nonsense so as to shut your mind down from accepting the truth. Through God's redemptive design by the power of the cross and the Holy Spirit, may God deliver you from your petty self but first you need to be born-again.

[Composer]

. . . . like your father Satan who also needs no reason when he accuses.

Story book biblical god was a Satan against Israel, so you bible believers are actually the Satan worshippers -

"And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah". (2 Samuel 24: 1) KJV story book
Comparing this parallel account of the same incident we read: -

And Satan stood up against Israel, , , , (1 Chron. 21: 1) KJV story book

Later in story book 1 Chron. 21 we read: -

And God was displeased with this thing; therefore he smote Israel. {And...: Heb. And it was evil in the eyes of the LORD concerning this thing} 8 And David said unto God, I have sinned greatly, because I have done this thing: but now, I beseech thee, do away the iniquity of thy servant; for I have done very foolishly. (1 Chron. 21: 7 - 8) KJV story book

So the ADVERSARY = Satan (i.e. Satan is a Hebrew Word - Metaphor) that was against Israel / smote Israel - was definitely not a naughty spirit angel supernatural being (which don't literally exist in or out of the story book pages) but was story book god itself!


Your problem is you are trying to be cunning through your "petty self"
#self acclaimed born again hypocrite: As you are the proven Satan worshipper and hypocrite with the glaring ' beam in your own eye ' according to your own preferred Story book (e.g. Matt. 7:3-5 KJV Story book), you are not in a position to judge others, again according to your preferred Story book and your self acclaimed ' pearls ' ain't pearls at all!



What you're trying to do is deflect away from the actual subject matter with such nonsense so as to shut your mind down from accepting the truth.
My having presented the actual Truth, please don't continue your current hypocrisy by your trying to reject it as you falsely claimed others do exclusively!


.
Through God's redemptive design by the power of the cross and the Holy Spirit, may God deliver you from your petty self but first you need to be born-again.
Being allegedly ' born again ' hasn't worked for petty little loser you, as the above examples prove! (See: #self acclaimed born again hypocrite:)

Much much much much much much better luck next times!

[Churchwork]

You're simply misunderstanding. There is a difference between being against Israel when Israel is being evil and for Israel when Israel is abiding in God's will as His chosen people.

Whereas Satan is for Israel when Israel is being evil and against Israel when Israel is doing good, performing proper rituals and so forth.

As to my salvation the Bible says, "I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish" (John 10.28). I have eternal life and therefore, shall never perish, but you perish, because you eternally separate yourself from God.

[Composer]

You're simply misunderstanding. There is a difference between being against Israel when Israel is being evil and for Israel when Israel is abiding in God's will as His chosen people.

Whereas as Satan is for Israel when Israel is being evil and against Israel when Israel is doing good, performing proper rituals and so forth.


Unfortunately for so called bible believers, their god is a proven Satan any which way; in that in this example it was a Satan against Israel when they were bad and remained a Satan whenever they were bad and became a Satan against Israel's enemies when Israel was reasonably behaving itself!




As to my salvation the Bible says, "I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish" (John 10.28 (http://biblia.com/bible/asv/John%2010.28)). I have eternal life and therefore, shall never perish, but you perish, because you eternally separate yourself from God.
1. ANY acclaimed holy text is 100% man made and the total evidence ANY are the words of ANY god(s) given to man remains a total of zero!

Your emotional pleas and church propaganda materials do not qualify as legitimate evidence.


2. Unfortunately for so called bible believers, their god is a proven Satan any which way; in that in this example it was a Satan against Israel when Israel was behaving badly and remained a Satan when against Israel's enemies when Israel was reasonably behaving itself!

Either way, Story book bible believers remain Satan worshippers by worshipping their Story book god=Satan!

As far as the claim that ANY are already forgiven -

i) Quoting from a proven 100% Story book (bible) is no legitimate evidence for your otherwise empty arrogant claim.

ii) The Story book promises were made to genuine Story book jesus' believers of which not a single one in history outside of Story book bible land has stepped up and qualified themselves as a legitimate candidate, let alone a confirmed legitimate and genuine Story book jesus' believer.

Tell us all please: Do you still sin?

Much much much much much much better luck next times!

214

[Churchwork]

Don't repeat yourself, but respond to my point...

You're simply misunderstanding. There is a difference between being against Israel when Israel is being evil and for Israel when Israel is abiding in God's will as His chosen people.

Whereas Satan is for Israel when Israel is being evil and against Israel when Israel is doing good, performing proper rituals and so forth.

As to my salvation the Bible says, "I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish" (John 10.28 (http://biblia.com/bible/asv/John 10.28)). I have eternal life and therefore, shall never perish, but you perish, because you eternally separate yourself from God.

[Composer]

Don't repeat yourself, but respond to my point...

I didn't ' repeat myself ' I confirmed what I correctly stated in the beginning and reinforced it with extra evidence again confirming the errors are entirely yours!


You're simply misunderstanding. There is a difference between being against Israel when Israel is being evil and for Israel when Israel is abiding in God's will as His chosen people.
Chosen people in Story book land or not, the Story book god remains always a Satan to them when they are bad and to Israel's enemies when they are not as bad! Story book bible confirms me as correct, not you -

And Satan stood up against Israel, , , , (1 Chron. 21: 1) KJV story book

Later in story book 1 Chron. 21 we read: -

And God was displeased with this thing; therefore he smote Israel.

Thus Satan (god) he smote Israel!



Whereas as Satan is for Israel when Israel is being evil
You remain incorrect: Story book Satan (god) was against Israel when it was evil!

And Satan stood up against Israel, , , , (1 Chron. 21: 1) KJV story book

Later in story book 1 Chron. 21 we read: -

And God was displeased with this thing; therefore he smote Israel.

Thus Satan (god) smote Israel!



and against Israel when Israel is doing good, performing proper rituals and so forth.
So you claim your alleged biblical god(Satan) was against Israel even " when Israel is doing good. . . . . "

IF I believe that then this god you purport is a Satan against Israel when they are good or bad?

How does that allegedly work for your claims?



As to my salvation the Bible says, "I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish" (John 10.28 (http://biblia.com/bible/asv/John 10.28)). I have eternal life and therefore, shall never perish, but you perish, because you eternally separate yourself from God.
You repeated your false claim and I asked you whether you still were a sinner and still sinned?

I wrote:

As far as the claim that ANY are already forgiven -

i) Quoting from a proven 100% Story book (bible) is no legitimate evidence for your otherwise empty arrogant claim.

ii) The Story book promises were made to genuine Story book jesus' believers of which not a single one in history outside of Story book bible land has stepped up and qualified themselves as a legitimate candidate, let alone a confirmed legitimate and genuine Story book jesus' believer.

Tell us all please: Do you still sin? (Now emphasised so you can't Unintentionally miss it)

Please follow my brilliant examples by actually answering what is asked along with supportive legitimate evidence, instead of you persistently falsely claiming that e.g. I repeated myself, when in fact it was you & only you that did so and hypocrytically to boot!

Much much much much much much better luck next times!

215

[Churchwork]

You're still making the same mistake. When Israel is doing evil God punishes. When Israel is doing God's will they are rewarded. Pretty simple. Satan wants Israel to do evil not good. Why do you keep shutting your mind down like a zombie to this fact?

[Composer]

You're still making the same mistake.
The mistakes are all yours and those like you!

You are a sore loser whose entire capacity is to silence me by using illegitimate and fabricated penalties and bans (temporary so far whilst you recouperate from your losses to try again) simply because
-
1. You are a sinner and hence a fraudulent Story book jesus' believer

2. Your legitimate evidence for your claims is wanting hence silencing me dishonestly is your only disgraceful alternative!

3. The beam in your eye isn't quite as large as your arrogance and religious ineptitude!



When Israel is doing evil God punishes.
That's because Story book god is the Adversary(Satan) responsible for the creation of ALL evil!

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: (Col. 1:16) KJV Story book

And Satan (i.e. Story book god the creator of ALL evil) stood up against Israel, , , , (1 Chron. 21: 1 (http://biblia.com/bible/asv/1 Chron. 21. 1)) KJV story book

Later in story book 1 Chron. 21 we read: -

And God was displeased with this thing; therefore he smote Israel.

Thus Satan (god) smote Israel!

You are a sore loser!

Perhaps some one else can jump in and try to do much much much much better than Churchwork and his predecessors?



When Israel is doing God's will they are rewarded.
ALL god(s) are human inventions and the combined legitimate evidence otherwise remains a constant zero!


Pretty simple. Satan wants Israel to do evil not good.
Again your claims are proven incorrect!

The Story book christian alleged Satan is often a goody -

Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme. (1 Tim. 1:20) KJV Story book

What a foolish, self contradictory 'satan being' many have invented for themselves.

If for any purpose this claim were true. All that would be achieved would be to expose its foolishness, inconsistency and self contradiction. (I can imagine this alleged being's followers thinking - "What do we do, do we teach godliness also and when, and how much, for if it were good enough for our leader - satan, then we must do likewise?")

Once again, for evil to teach godliness for any purpose would only bring about its self contradiction and self destruction. i.e. a house divided against itself will soon collapse. (Not last thousands and thousands of years)

i) Why would Paul or any Christian take or recommend any one to this evil Satan spirit being to learn how ' not ' to blaspheme?
ii) How did they find it? (Isn't it supposed to be in Hell? - cf. Satan's seat - Rev. 2:13) KJV Story book)
iii) How did they know it would agree to help Christians turn to god?
iv) Why wouldn't Paul or any Christian seek this biblical god's help instead of going to get help from its alleged greatest adversary / enemy?
v) Your alleged naughty spirit angel's assistants and followers (apparently? - Rev. 12:4 KJV Story book) surely must be confused and thinking to themselves, " eh! I thought the boss and us always went against this god? "
vi) Besides a total self contradiction for itself, what did your naughty spirit being achieve for itself by helping others learn how not to blaspheme their god?
vii) How did Hymenaeus and Alexander and the others that delivered them there survive in this Hell (Satan's Seat?) then safely return?

&

To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. (1 Cor. 5: 5) KJV Story book.

So your alleged naughty Satan isn't that bad after all heh? teaching others not to blaspheme and here again even saving spirits / souls for Jesus? LOL!

So far therefore, these examples confirm your Satan was in accordance with your god!

Much much much much much much much better luck next times!

I know why those like you keep shutting your mind down like a zombie to these Story book facts? (e.g.
1, 2 & 3 above)

Much much much much much much much better luck next times you sinner and hence Story book jesus' reject!

216

[Churchwork]

It's a fact the twelve apostles in their contemporary writings of the first century multiply attested they truly believed they saw Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings (talked with him, walked with him, touched him and ate with him) for which there is no naturalistic explanation, thus proving Jesus is God for only God can resurrect Himself from the grave. Amen.

The approach that I take is called the Minimal Facts Approach because it draws from what most scholars concede that Paul truly believed and wrote 1 Cor. 15, Gal. 1 & 2 in which he states the gospel message, some of the resurrection appearances and that he spent 15 days with Peter (one of the 12 Apostles), and with John (one of the 12 Apostles) and James (brother of Jesus) on more than one occasion. Suffice it to say they talked about more than just the weather. Paul recounted the resurrection testimony from these Apostles.