TJ

Good news for those who are screw ups and sinners

@Aref4rvl @Acts17David @mohammed_hijab You could always turn off your phone or device. What Jesus says, “You are blessed when they insult you and persecute you and falsely say every kind of you against you because of me. Be glad and rejoice because your reward is great in heaven.”

@Rmns58 @Acts17David @mohammed_hijab 👋🏼bye

Arrogant High School Drop Out Instantly Regrets Question

@Aref4rvl @Acts17David @mohammed_hijab You missed the point. A religion that kills those who leave it is despicable and controls primarily through fear and violence. Jesus controls through love primarily. Rome was changed not by Christian violence, but by love. Islam isn’t strong enough to do that

@Rmns58 @Acts17David @mohammed_hijab Yes, he might leave Islam, and I mentioned that – but what I said is that it's impossible for him to transcend Islam. Islam, like other religions, is a matter of the heart. Whoever has experienced Islam will not be able to transcend its teachings in terms of belief.

@Aref4rvl @Acts17David @mohammed_hijab x.com/SaidAbuMustafa…

@Rmns58 @Acts17David @mohammed_hijab The same applies to you, and the proof will be the deciding factor between us. Look for the article I sent you. Bye 👋🏼

@Aref4rvl @Acts17David @mohammed_hijab I have to go. I will pray for you and hope that you at some point can be put in a situation where you can consider the claims of Christ without being influenced by the threat of death and coercion. Or better have courage to truly seek truth, regardless of the consequence

@Rmns58 @Acts17David @mohammed_hijab I told you that the resurrection isn't an infallible summary; a gospel without the resurrection isn't a gospel—and whoever added the resurrection texts to the Gospel of Mark knows this very well.

@Aref4rvl @Acts17David @mohammed_hijab For historians, they have philosophical assumptions that influence what they are willing to say. They also have methodological constraints that influence what they can say. 2/

@Rmns58 @Acts17David @mohammed_hijab You say there's a historical consensus that Christ was crucified. Is there a historical consensus that he rose again? No. Mark doesn't mention it, and without the resurrection there is no Christianity. So why did he write the book of Mark?

@Aref4rvl @Acts17David @mohammed_hijab I already answered why he wrote the book of Mark. The reason why there isn’t a consensus on the resurrection is that it’s a miracle and historians don’t feel comfortable inferring miracles as historians. However, as a philosopher or person, it’s fine. 1/

@Aref4rvl @Acts17David @mohammed_hijab However, it is the events that I care about more so than the record of them. That’s why I point to secular historians. I don’t need an infallible text because I have an infallible Savior.

@Rmns58 @Acts17David @mohammed_hijab I answered you that God is able to raise the dead—that is, raising the dead is not impossible for God, and the same applies to Jesus, but that is not my point.

@Aref4rvl @Acts17David @mohammed_hijab In fact, when the early Christians were going around, proclaiming Jesus as Lord, and that God had raised him from the dead, there weren’t Gospel’s written. I have tremendous respect for the New Testament and the gospels and I don’t think your criticisms are fair. 2/

@Aref4rvl @Acts17David @mohammed_hijab But that is my point. The events are not the same as the written text. All of Christianity could still be true without the gospels. Jesus could have said what he said, died on the cross and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Old Testament scriptures. 1/

@Aref4rvl @Acts17David @mohammed_hijab The historical events proceed the accounts written. First Corinthians predates Mark. Why was the account written? It points to Jesus and hints at his resurrection. By the way, you’ve completely dodged my question about why Uthman needed to burn perfectly good Qurans

@Rmns58 @Acts17David @mohammed_hijab No, I'm not looking at it from a secular perspective, but from a narrative one. If Mark ignored the most important event in Christianity, what was the point of his account? The proof of its importance is that there's an imposter who completed the text.

@Aref4rvl @Acts17David @mohammed_hijab That is an excellent example of Muslims committing the fallacy of begging the question.

@Rmns58 @Acts17David @mohammed_hijab

@Aref4rvl @Acts17David @mohammed_hijab If you aren’t gonna answer my question, I’m not going to exit this conversation. I’ve asked multiple times if it’s logically possible that Jesus rose from the dead without it being written down. It’s a simple yes or no.

@Rmns58 @Acts17David @mohammed_hijab Christ was able to raise the dead by the power of God, because raising him is not impossible, because the One who created him the first time is able to raise him again. What I mean is that his resurrection is a very important event for you, so how could Mark ignore it?

@Aref4rvl @Acts17David @mohammed_hijab The Gospels stand as an ancient text just like any other ancient text. I am using them in that way and asking what we can know about Jesus. Secular historians going through that exercise come up with those four facts that I described earlier. 3/

@Rmns58 @Acts17David @mohammed_hijab No, they don't agree with the resurrection. Mark doesn't mention it, and John also disagrees with them regarding the details of the crucifixion with the other three.

@Aref4rvl @Acts17David @mohammed_hijab Ancient historians don’t dismiss an account because there are disagreements in details. But you aren’t understanding what I am saying. Secular historians look at all of the data. You are trying to find a hole in a document that shows it’s not inerrant or divinely inspired.1/

@Aref4rvl @Acts17David @mohammed_hijab What Christianity offers you is Jesus. What Jesus offers you is his resurrection if you want historical evidence, his Spirit if you desire communion with God, his yoke which is easy and his burden which is light.

@Rmns58 @Acts17David @mohammed_hijab

@Aref4rvl @Acts17David @mohammed_hijab Is it logically possible that Jesus rose from the dead and it was never written down?

@Rmns58 @Acts17David @mohammed_hijab What is interesting is that the two oldest manuscripts lack his resurrection in the Gospel of Mark.

@Aref4rvl @Acts17David @mohammed_hijab The earliest sources unanimously agree on a crucifixion. That’s why historians think Jesus was crucified. This isn’t about disagreements 300 years after the fact.

@Rmns58 @Acts17David @mohammed_hijab For your information, in the first three centuries there was a major doctrinal conflict between Christian sects, and the only thing that settled the matter was Rome's adoption of the crucifixion.

@Aref4rvl @Acts17David @mohammed_hijab That somebody rejects something does not make it untrue. You have to agree that is a silly claim, right?

@Rmns58 @Acts17David @mohammed_hijab I believe you on this point. What makes it unacceptable is that there were groups that rejected the idea of ​​Christ's crucifixion.

@Aref4rvl @Acts17David @mohammed_hijab I am only somewhat mentioning what is in the Gospel’s. The Gospel’s agree with those 4 facts, but they say much more. I am talking about the way people do secular history. I am saying that secular historians agree with those facts.

@Rmns58 @Acts17David @mohammed_hijab You are relaying what is written in the Gospels. The resurrection of Christ is the most important event in Christianity. If the narrator doesn't mention this, there is something wrong because he didn't write it in the three days following the crucifixion.