How Paul Contradicts Jesus on the Most Important Doctrine of Christianity

[rational experiences]

Wasn't the evidence that Old science testimonials were already proven true of after the fact detailing, of observations, cause and effect, self and evolution/healing of self in a non practicing occult condition?

You know a theist, scientist/Satanist self, science itself.

Jesus was stated to be medical aware science, a different form of science notification to self in awareness.

Jesus told everyone after the fact also...that his own spiritual original Father was the inventor of science, the STATE of no God...to the destruction of God.

Therefore science and God is a contradiction, for science a male as a human thinking did not create God, the planet through invention....being the only status he owns.

And you lie.

New testimonials relate to science being in fact an experimental practice from its first inception to all causations. For science is only a machine reaction as controlled by male humans...so it is non stop experimentation and then outcome.

So both times nuclear science was practiced the evidence being what was revealed...meaning cause and effect is after the FACT.

Fact by males in science is DATA and using numerical conditions proven falsification of natural.

Realization....a male as a bio human organic life/body and consciousness does not exist with or involved as an equal with any body of his study.

If you say a shell.....then what information predicts not a human existence?

A whole lot of information factually.

Therefore consciousness became a term applied to teach science irrationality the con as science that it was wrong. And therefore gave a determined one of END statement.

Science as the claimant says only the END evaluation is the worth of the evaluation. And the END told you to never alter the body of natural God, the Earth SION ever again.

And yet all you want to do is re iterate old teachings that were applied to reiterate old teachings.

 

[Rise]

And the point is: Are there contradictions in the bible? You say there are not. I simply point them out.

Logical fallacy, "Moving the Goalposts" and "Red Herring".

The original claim you made was not that there are contradictions in the Bible, but specifically that you claimed the NT books gave contradictory views of who Jesus was.

I did say your claim about the NT books and their view of Jesus was wrong, and gave reasons why.

To which you responded by ignoring my points against your original claim and then tried to divert the topic into other unrelated areas about supposed contradictions in the Bible in general - claims which, even if they were true, wouldn't have any relevance to proving your original claim that the Gospels are contradictory in their view of who Jesus was. So it's an irrelevant diversion.

I've already shown you that the five main versions of Jesus follow three distinct and incompatible models.

Logical fallacy, "argument by assertion" and "argument by repetition". Merely asserting you have shown something doesn't make it true, and repeating your disproven claims doesn't make them true.

I already pointed out why you are committing the logical fallacy of "appeal to silence" when you claim the Gospels are incompatible, and you have not presented a valid counter argument to that.

If you cannot present a valid counter argument then you can't continue to act as though what you asserted is true.

You don't with to hear that,

Hear what? More of the logical fallacy of argument by assertion and argument by repetition?
No, it would be better for everyone that you not try to give us more of that.

and I don't wish to hear you repeat what you've already said.

If you corrected your logical fallacies and replaced them with valid arguments then you wouldn't have to keep hearing the same objections repeatedly.
The reason you keep hearing the same thing in response to your claims is because you ignore the counter arguments I make that disprove your claims and then just repeat your claims as though they haven't already been refuted.

You don't seem to understand that repeating your claim is not the same as defending it.
If you can't logically refute my arguments then my arguments remain standing, and your claims remain refuted until you can offer a valid counter argument in their defense.

You know I disagree with it, and why.

I know you disagree with it - but you've never given a legitimate "why". That's the problem. You like to make a lot of assertions, but you're missing the second component of a valid argument: The "why" behind why you believe what you believe.

Or, more precisely, you don't have a logically valid "why".
Logically fallacious appeals to silence do qualify as a "why" for you believing what you believe - but that doesn't meant your "why" is a logically valid reason. And, as such, there's no reason for anyone else to believe your claims are true.

That's why most of what you are arguing is just your opinion, not fact. Which wouldn't be a problem if you didn't try to talk as though your opinion were fact.

 

[Rise]

Let me single out, from many candidates, one convenient and again well-known case. The gospel authors each wrote separate accounts of the resurrection. (More exactly, in Mark's case someone added one later.)
There are also brief references to the resurrection in Paul and in Acts 1. Each account contradicts the other five on major points. You can check this for yourself by looking at these questions and lining up the answers in Paul, Mark, Matthew, Luke, John and Acts ─
1. Who first went to the tomb? [Answer, to get you started: Paul [ ] ─ Mk: Mary M, Mary mother of James, Salome ─ Matt: MM, MmJ ─ Luke: MM, MmJ, Joanna ─ Acts [ ] ]
2. What did she or they see on arriving?
3. Did they find any guards there?
─ If there were guards, what did the guards do?
4. What did she or they do?
5. Did she or they see anyone at or in the tomb?
─ If they did, who did they see?
─ If they did, what did whoever they saw do?
6. What did she or they do next?
7. To whom did Jesus first appear?
─ How?
8. To whom did Jesus second appear?
─ Where?
─ With what result?
9. To whom did Jesus third appear?
10. To whom did Jesus fourth appear?
11. To whom did Jesus fifth appear?
12. When did Jesus ascend to heaven?
13. From where did Jesus ascend to heaven?
Not one of those questions gets a single unanimous answer. (Though Paul's the only one who claims there was a fifth appearance at all.)

It would certainly be interesting to delve into this topic for it's own sake, and I would very much like exploring those nuances of Scripture more - but before we do that you must first explain why this issue would have any relevance to proving your original claim that the Gospels contradict each other about who Jesus is.

Do any of your alleged discepencies change who Jesus is, even if your claim were true?
If not, then how can you claim this argument of yours is relevant to proving your original claim about what the NT writers believed about Jesus?

If it wouldn't support your original claim, then that would mean your attempt to debate this point becomes a logical fallacy of "Red Herring", "Irrelevant Conclusion", and/or "Avoiding the Issue". Meaning; even if we assumed your claims about these passages were true, it would have no bearing on supporting your original claim or refuting my arguments against your original claim. So it's both irrelevent and serves only as a distraction.

The way you can show that you are not committing either of those three fallacies is by first establishing why you think any of your alleged discrepencies are relevant to proving your original caim that the Gospel writers believed about Jesus was different and contradictory.
If you can do that then we can delve into it. Otherwise it must be set aside as a distraction from the issue in contention until the main issue in contention is settled.

and unhistorical events like 'all the world should be taxed' and the massacre of the innocents make it perfectly clear we're reading fiction, and to think otherwise is simply superstition.

This falls under the same category as above. IE. The logical fallacy of "Irrelevant conclusion" or "Red Herring".
The truth or falseness of your claims here would not support your original contention that each Gospel writes about a different and contradictory Jesus.

It would also not disprove any argument I have made against your original contention.

If you can, however, demonstrate why you think your claims are relevant to the original issue in contention, then we can proceed to examine them in more detail.

Having read my answer to your 'take a staff' point, you'll now know that I've given you at least that one.

I have already disproved your claim that Matthew 10:10 had to be singular and couldn't haven't been plural.
You never responded to my last arguments on that issue where I demonstrated why we had reason to believe any apparent contradiction in that case could have been the result of a simple scribal error.

 

[blü 2]

Logical fallacy, "Avoiding the Issue", and "Red Herring".
Unable to respond to the points I made, you try to change the subject.

Is not the issue the contradictions in the bible?

Are they not clearly revealed by answering my questions about the six versions of the resurrection?

Are you not doing everything you can to avoid addressing them?

 

[Rise]

Is not the issue the contradictions in the bible?

Are they not clearly revealed by answering my questions about the six versions of the resurrection?

Are you not doing everything you can to avoid addressing them?

What I already posted in my last two posts has already answered the questions you are trying to pose:

----------------

Logical fallacy, "Moving the Goalposts" and "Red Herring".

The original claim you made was not that there are contradictions in the Bible, but specifically that you claimed the NT books gave contradictory views of who Jesus was.

I did say your claim about the NT books and their view of Jesus was wrong, and gave reasons why.

To which you responded by ignoring my points against your original claim and then tried to divert the topic into other unrelated areas about supposed contradictions in the Bible in general - claims which, even if they were true, wouldn't have any relevance to proving your original claim that the Gospels are contradictory in their view of who Jesus was. So it's an irrelevant diversion.

....

It would certainly be interesting to delve into this topic for it's own sake, and I would very much like exploring those nuances of Scripture more - but before we do that you must first explain why this issue would have any relevance to proving your original claim that the Gospels contradict each other about who Jesus is.

Do any of your alleged discepencies change who Jesus is, even if your claim were true?
If not, then how can you claim this argument of yours is relevant to proving your original claim about what the NT writers believed about Jesus?

If it wouldn't support your original claim, then that would mean your attempt to debate this point becomes a logical fallacy of "Red Herring", "Irrelevant Conclusion", and/or "Avoiding the Issue". Meaning; even if we assumed your claims about these passages were true, it would have no bearing on supporting your original claim or refuting my arguments against your original claim. So it's both irrelevent and serves only as a distraction.

The way you can show that you are not committing either of those three fallacies is by first establishing why you think any of your alleged discrepencies are relevant to proving your original caim that the Gospel writers believed about Jesus was different and contradictory.
If you can do that then we can delve into it. Otherwise it must be set aside as a distraction from the issue in contention until the main issue in contention is settled.

....

This falls under the same category as above. IE. The logical fallacy of "Irrelevant conclusion" or "Red Herring".
The truth or falseness of your claims here would not support your original contention that each Gospel writes about a different and contradictory Jesus.

It would also not disprove any argument I have made against your original contention.

If you can, however, demonstrate why you think your claims are relevant to the original issue in contention, then we can proceed to examine them in more detail.


----------------------


You're welcome to try addressing those points.

 

[blü 2]

What I already posted in my last two posts has already answered the questions you are trying to pose:

Well that clears up my third point ─ you're doing everything to avoid admitting that a comparison of the NT's six reference to the resurrection is a great weedpatch of contradictions.

That's to say, avoid admitting you were wrong when you said there were no contradictions in the bible.

So there's not much left to talk about after that.

 

[Rise]

Well that clears up my third point ─ you're doing everything to avoid admitting that a comparison of the NT's six reference to the resurrection is a great weedpatch of contradictions.

Logical fallacy, "Argument by Assertion"
You don't prove your claim that I am avoiding the issue merely by asserting it's true. You would need to be able to prove your claim by demonstrating why you think any of the points I made in response to your argument are irrelevant. Because I did, in fact, respond to your argument, and you can't dismiss what I wrote as not an effective response merely by asserting it isn't. You need to demonstrate why you think my response was either not valid, sufficient, or relevant.

If you are unable to do that, then you're just committing the logical fallacy of "Ad Hominem" - trying to avoid having to answer my valid points by attacking me as trying to actively avoid responding to your argument, despite the fact that I did respond to it, because you are trying to avoid acknowledging or dealing with the points I made.


Since you ignored it, here are those points in bold for you:


It would certainly be interesting to delve into this topic for it's own sake, and I would very much like exploring those nuances of Scripture more - but before we do that you must first explain why this issue would have any relevance to proving your original claim that the Gospels contradict each other about who Jesus is.

Do any of your alleged discepencies change who Jesus is, even if your claim were true?
If not, then how can you claim this argument of yours is relevant to proving your original claim about what the NT writers believed about Jesus?

If it wouldn't support your original claim, then that would mean your attempt to debate this point becomes a logical fallacy of "Red Herring", "Irrelevant Conclusion", and/or "Avoiding the Issue". Meaning; even if we assumed your claims about these passages were true, it would have no bearing on supporting your original claim or refuting my arguments against your original claim. So it's both irrelevent and serves only as a distraction.

The way you can show that you are not committing either of those three fallacies is by first establishing why you think any of your alleged discrepencies are relevant to proving your original claim that the Gospel writers believed about Jesus was different and contradictory.
If you can do that then we can delve into it. Otherwise it must be set aside as a distraction from the issue in contention until the main issue in contention is settled.

That's to say, avoid admitting you were wrong when you said there were no contradictions in the bible.

Logical fallacy, "strawman". You are misrepresenting my arguments.
You won't find anywhere in this thread where I make that claim. You're welcome to try to find it and quote it.

And since I already addressed your claim earlier, and you didn't respond to it, your repetition of that disproven claim makes you guilty of the logical fallacy of "argument by repetition". Merely repeating your claim doesn't make it true.

Here was what I already said concerning your claim:


Logical fallacy, "Moving the Goalposts" and "Red Herring".

The original claim you made was not that there are contradictions in the Bible in general, but specifically that you claimed the NT books gave contradictory views of who Jesus was.

I did say your claim about the NT books and their view of Jesus was wrong, and gave reasons why.

To which you responded by ignoring my points against your original claim and then tried to divert the topic into other unrelated areas about supposed contradictions in the Bible in general - claims which, even if they were true, wouldn't have any relevance to proving your original claim that the Gospels are contradictory in their view of who Jesus was. So it's an irrelevant diversion.



To all that, I will add this - You need to look back at the original claim you made in your first post to me:

The NT gives you at least five Jesuses to choose from, Paul's, Mark's, Matthew's Luke's and John's.

That was your first post. In it you made a specific claim.
Because you made that claim, the onus is on you to prove it is true.

To which I responded by challenging you to prove your claim; saying you wouldn't be able to do it because it's not true:

This was my first response to you:

They are all in unison and harmony about who Jesus was and what He said.
You're welcome to try to post verses from any of those writings you think prove those writers were in contradiction to each other.
Any verse you might try to pull out to demonstrate a supposed contradiction will, upon further study and proper application of logic (like context), be shown to actually be in harmony with each other.

And thus far, what I said has proven to be true: You haven't been able to produce a single verse that shows a contradiction between the NT books about who Jesus is or what He said.

You have only made a fallacious appeal to silence as your proof. And since you eventually admitted that an appeal to silence is an invalid form of argument, your entire argument falls apart because you had nothing else to offer as proof of your original claim.


That is the issue in contention here, the original purpose of the debate.

Thus, why I told you that you would need to establish what relevance your verses about the resurrection account have to the proving original your claim about who Jesus is in the NT. Because if you can't establish why they would be relevant then there's no purpose behind wasting considerable amounts of time debating them - they would serve only as distractions.

The onus is on you, as the one trying to introduce an argument, to establish the relevance of your argument before it must be accepted as a valid defense of your original claim. If you cannot do that, then no one is obligated to take up debating that issue in order to refute your original claim.

 

[blü 2]

Logical fallacy, "Argument by Assertion"

No, an entirely empirical observation based on your behavior, which has been to deny and to avoid the issue. That is, I don't merely assert, I note that your behavior demonstrates my case.

By way of further demonstration, let's see how you go with this question:

When exactly are you going to report on the inconsistencies you've found when comparing the six NT accounts of the resurrection?

Especially since it goes to the heart of our discussion, the existence of inconsistencies in the NT.

 

[Rise]

No, an entirely empirical observation based on your behavior, which has been to deny and to avoid the issue. That is, I don't merely assert, I note that your behavior demonstrates my case.

There's a few problems with your statement:

1. Your claim is demonstrably false. I never said I wouldn't address it. I said I would be happy to address it if you could explain why your argument about the resurrection account it's at all relevant to your original claim that the Gospels supposedly show that the writers believed and wrote contradictory things about who Jesus is. Afterall, there's no sense in going through all the time and effort of arguing over the details of the resurrection account if it has no relevance to your point.

2. The onus is on you as the one making a claim to prove your claim is true (you are making the claim that your argument about the resurrection account is relevant to proving your original claim). Afterall, it should be obvious to you why you can't just start introducing random side debates into this thread about why one football team is better than another, or why a certain type of pasta is unsuitable for a given dish, and then demand that I debate those issues with you or be accused of the fallacy of "avoiding the issue". The onus would be first on you to prove why your random arguments about football and pasta are relevant to the issue being debated before I would be logically required to refute them.

3. I gave you several reasons in my response why it does not appear your attempt to debate the resurrection account is relevant to proving your original claim about the Gospel writer's belief of who Jesus was. You didn't respond to any of them and attempt to show why those reasons would be in error. Therefore, they continue to stand as valid reasons why I would be under no logical obligation to debate that irrelevant side issue with you in order to prove my original claim and disprove your original claim. Which is why you have no logical basis for claiming I am avoiding the issue.

4. You committed the logical fallacy of argument by assertion and argument by repetition.
First because you claim the resurrection account has to be debated as part of this debate, without ever giving a reason why. You merely think by asserting it has to that you've proven it has to. That's the logical fallacy of argument by assertion.
Second, because you ignored the arguments I made about why you don't appear to have a legitimate claim about the need to debate the resurrection account as part of debating the real issue in contention. You responded only by re-asserting your original claim, which makes you further guilty of argument by repetition. Merely repeating your assertions doesn't prove they are true.
Third, because you try to merely assert that my behavior is avoidance, without giving any reasons why it would logically constitute avoidance. Given that you have given no logical need for me to respond to it by demonstrating it's relevance, and you have not refuted the reasons I gave which showed why I don't see your claim as being relevant to the main issue, you have no logical basis for claiming I am committing the fallacy of "avoiding the issue".

By way of further demonstration, let's see how you go with this question:

When exactly are you going to report on the inconsistencies you've found when comparing the six NT accounts of the resurrection?

Logical fallacy, argument by repetition. You're only repeating what you already said, while ignoring all the points and arguments I made in response to it.

You do not disprove my points by simply ignoring them and repeating your original assertion.

Especially since it goes to the heart of our discussion, the existence of inconsistencies in the NT.

Logical fallacy, argument by repetition.

I already disproved your claim that the original issue in contention was whether or not the NT in general had any inconsistencies.
You did not refute my evidence and arguments, therefore my arguments stand.
In order for you to be able to claim your assertion is true you'd need to be able to refute the arguments I already made against your claim.

Merely repeating your original assertion doesn't prove it's true, or disprove the arguments I made wherein your claim was disproven.



My last post contains the arguments which disproves your claim. You're welcome to try to refute any of those points:

------------------

Logical fallacy, "Moving the Goalposts" and "Red Herring".

The original claim you made was not that there are contradictions in the Bible in general, but specifically that you claimed the NT books gave contradictory views of who Jesus was.

I did say your claim about the NT books and their view of Jesus was wrong, and gave reasons why.

To which you responded by ignoring my points against your original claim and then tried to divert the topic into other unrelated areas about supposed contradictions in the Bible in general - claims which, even if they were true, wouldn't have any relevance to proving your original claim that the Gospels are contradictory in their view of who Jesus was. So it's an irrelevant diversion.


To all that, I will add this - You need to look back at the original claim you made in your first post to me:

"The NT gives you at least five Jesuses to choose from, Paul's, Mark's, Matthew's Luke's and John's."


That was your first post. In it you made a specific claim.
Because you made that claim, the onus is on you to prove it is true.

To which I responded by challenging you to prove your claim; saying you wouldn't be able to do it because it's not true:

This was my first response to you:

They are all in unison and harmony about who Jesus was and what He said.
You're welcome to try to post verses from any of those writings you think prove those writers were in contradiction to each other.
Any verse you might try to pull out to demonstrate a supposed contradiction will, upon further study and proper application of logic (like context), be shown to actually be in harmony with each other.

And thus far, what I said has proven to be true: You haven't been able to produce a single verse that shows a contradiction between the NT books about who Jesus is or what He said.

You have only made a fallacious appeal to silence as your proof. And since you eventually admitted that an appeal to silence is an invalid form of argument, your entire argument falls apart because you had nothing else to offer as proof of your original claim.


That is the issue in contention here, the original purpose of the debate.

Thus, why I told you that you would need to establish what relevance your verses about the resurrection account have to the proving original your claim about who Jesus is in the NT. Because if you can't establish why they would be relevant then there's no purpose behind wasting considerable amounts of time debating them - they would serve only as distractions.

The onus is on you, as the one trying to introduce an argument, to establish the relevance of your argument before it must be accepted as a valid defense of your original claim. If you cannot do that, then no one is obligated to take up debating that issue in order to refute your original claim.

 

[dfnj]

Romans 10:13: "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

What does it mean to call on the name of the Lord?

My interpretation is when we die we go into the light. There is a brief nanosecond moment when we realize we are in the presence of God. We say in our minds, "God". At that moment, that is, the moment we look fully into the face of God we then experience God's infinite beauty. The experience is so fulfilling, so complete, we no longer have any desires, needs, or conscious thoughts. Time stops as we experience eternal bliss. Our soul returns back to God from whence it came. Everyone has the realization of God when they enter the light. So everyone is saved regardless of how we practiced, or not practiced our religion.

Hell was invented by the church to get practitioners to pay for their absolution with tithes. And to manipulate people in attending with fear. Splitting the hairs on the details of church doctrine is not going to get you crucified. You have to be bold to get noticed!

 

[blü 2]

There's a few problems with your statement:

You see?

You immediately dodge the direct question, and try to divert the conversation into irrelevant issues.

All your post is about side issues, none of them is about substance, just your usual mumblings about logical fallacies which you either don't understand or are misapplying mischievously.

NOTHING in answer to the question.

And to make sure you haven't forgotten it, the question is:

How many inconsistencies have you found when comparing the six NT accounts of the resurrection?

I've already given you at least three free ones. Now apply your mind and see how many more there are.

 

[Rise]

You see?

You immediately dodge the direct question, and try to divert the conversation into irrelevant issues.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion. Merely asserting it doesn't make it true.
You would need to demonstrate with logical argumentation and evidence why your claim is supposedly true that any of my arguments are not relevant to the main issue, or your claim that my arguments don't constitute a relevant counter to your claims.

All your post is about side issues,

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion. Merely asserting it doesn't make it true.
You would need to demonstrate with logical argumentation and evidence why your claim is supposedly true that any of my arguments are not relevant to the main issue.

none of them is about substance,

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion. Merely asserting it doesn't make it true.
You would need to demonstrate with logical argumentation and evidence why your claim is supposedly true that my response to you lacked valid arguments.

that just your usual mumblings about logical fallacies

Why do you think you are entitled to debate using invalid logic and not be called out for it?

Your arguments aren't valid if you base them on fallacious logic. You need to amend your arguments to be valid - otherwise the logically valid arguments where I disproved your claim stand unchallenged by you because you have offered no logically valid counter argument in defense of your claim.

If you stopped committing logical fallacies then this wouldn't be an issue. So the amount we have to talk about logical fallacies is entirely up to you and whether or not you want to amend the fallacious way you're trying to argue. I'd much rather be debating the issue than having to constantly point out why your latest response was logically invalid and therefore didn't refute my arguments. I welcome seeing you make a logically valid argument to which I can respond.

which you either don't understand or are misapplying mischievously.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion. Merely asserting it doesn't make it true.
You would need to demonstrate with logical argumentation and evidence why your claim is supposedly true that any of my arguments about how your statements were logical fallacies was in error.

NOTHING in answer to the question.

And to make sure you haven't forgotten it, the question is:

How many inconsistencies have you found when comparing the six NT accounts of the resurrection?

I've already given you at least three free ones. Now apply your mind and see how many more there are.

Logical fallacy, "Avoiding the Issue" and "Argument by Repetition".

I gave you arguments in response to what you said concerning that. You have chosen to ignore them and merely repeat yourself.
But ignoring my arguments doesn't disprove them, nor does it absolve you of the logical need to defend your claims against my refutations of them.
And repeating yourself, while ignoring my arguments, doesn't prove your arguments or disprove my counter arguments.

 

[blü 2]

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.

Talk about mere assertion!

The question you're not answering is, how many contradictions did you find when you compared the six NT accounts of the resurrection?

That's not an assertion. That's not an assumption. That's your homework to do and report back on.

And I've already answered the first two questions for you, which show three or more contradictions already.


Now the evidence that you're trying to duck answering the question was already voluminous and you've just further enlarged it.

So on that evidence, I'm ready to conclude that you know that if you compare the six accounts of the resurrection, you'll find contradictions.

And when you realized that, you didn't want to say so, and you adopted your tactics of evading addressing the question.

You might feel you should be honest in debates like this, but of course that doesn't apply to those who are attempting Christian apologetics, because there the ethics of the defense attorney apply ─ truth is only to be used if it's helpful to the argument.

So I'll be interested to see your own attitude to truthfulness in debate as I wait for your next reply and see whether you're still not addressing the question, still evading, still ducking and weaving.

Go on, surprise me: report honestly on the number of contradictions you found when you compared the six accounts.

Or you'll have established the point I was making and we can both go home.

 

[Rise]

Talk about mere assertion!

The question you're not answering is, how many contradictions did you find when you compared the six NT accounts of the resurrection?

...

Go on, surprise me: report honestly on the number of contradictions you found when you compared the six accounts.

Or you'll have established the point I was making and we can both go home.

Logical fallacy, "Argument by Repetition".
I already addressed your claim, and you didn't deal with any of my arguments. Merely repeating your claim doesn't prove it true or disprove my arguments against your claim.

That's not an assertion. That's not an assumption. That's your homework to do and report back on.

Logical fallacy, "Argument by Repetition".
I already addressed your claim and you ignored my arguments without even attempting to refute them.
Merely repeating your assertion doesn't make your claim true, nor does it disprove the arguments I gave against your claim.

You are under the mistaken belief that you did not make a claim, but I already explained why you did make a claim.

Although what I already posted is sufficient to prove you did indeed made a claim that needs to be supported (And you ignored those arguments), I will nevertheless try to explain it for you again so that I might be able to aid you in understanding your error:

1. The implication of you even trying to debate the details of the resurrection account carries with it the implicit assertion and assumption that it must be relevant to debating your original claim. Your original claim was that the Gospels give different and contradictory accounts about who Jesus is.

2. The onus is thus on you to first establish your claim is true that supposed contradictions in the resurrection account are even relevant to proving your original claim.

3. Only then can you claim I am required to provide a counter argument as part of debating the original issue in contention.

4. Your claim that the debate was originally about whether or not contradictions in general exist in the Bible has already been proven false by my quotation of your original posts which show what the real original issue being debated was about specifically whether or not the NT had any contradictions between books about who Jesus is. You have not attempted to refute the arguments I made which disproved your claim about what the topic of the debate is, therefore my conclusion stands as true unless you can offer a valid refutation of it.

5. You are therefore committing the fallacy of "Moving the goalposts" by trying to retroactively change what the subject of the debate was in order to try to claim your new topic is relevant to the debate. Which is itself a fallacy of "Red Herring" where you're trying to change the topic of debate because you can't defend your original claim anymore.

And I've already answered the first two questions for you, which show three or more contradictions already.

Logical fallacy, "Irrelevant Conclusion". The truth or falseness of your claims about those particular verses has no relevance to proving your original claim is true that the Gospel writers all believed in a different and contradictory Jesus.
It also has no relevance to disproving any argument I've made here. If you believe otherwise, then the onus is on you to demonstrate by way of facts and logic how it would disprove any specific argument I have made.

Now the evidence that you're trying to duck answering the question was already voluminous and you've just further enlarged it.

Logical fallacy, "Argument by Repetition".
Merely repeating your claim I have committed the logical fallacy of "Avoiding the argument" does not make it true just because you repeat it.

In order to prove your claim is true, you would need to provide logical arguments that demonstrate why any of my arguments are not relevant to disproving your claims.

So on that evidence, I'm ready to conclude that you know that if you compare the six accounts of the resurrection, you'll find contradictions.

And when you realized that, you didn't want to say so, and you adopted your tactics of evading addressing the question.

You might feel you should be honest in debates like this, but of course that doesn't apply to those who are attempting Christian apologetics, because there the ethics of the defense attorney apply ─ truth is only to be used if it's helpful to the argument.

So I'll be interested to see your own attitude to truthfulness in debate as I wait for your next reply and see whether you're still not addressing the question, still evading, still ducking and weaving.

Given that I have shown (in both previous posts and this one) that your conclusion is based on factually untrue and logically fallacious premises (Ie. your false claim that I am avoiding the issue) then your conclusion is already disproven.

You would need to go back and formulate logically valid arguments for your premises, or try to refute the evidence I presented which proves your premise is false, before you could even try to claim your conclusion is true.

In the absence of evidence and a logically valid argument your statement merely descends into committing the logical fallacy of "Ad Hominem" - turning to baseless personal attacks because you can't defend your claims on their merits.

 

[blü 2]

Logical fallacy, "Argument by Repetition".

There you go again (by which I mean again and again and again and again and ...)

You're determined not to compare the resurrection reports because you know that will reveal contradictions in the NT.

So we're done.

Have a nice day

 

[Rise]

There you go again (by which I mean again and again and again and again and ...)

Logical fallacy, "Avoiding the Issue". You did not address any of my arguments that disproved your claims and invalidated your arguments.

You're determined not to compare the resurrection reports because you know that will reveal contradictions in the NT.

Logical fallacy, "Argument by Repetition".
You have ignored the arguments I made which disproved your claim that I was supposedly committing the logical fallacy of "Avoiding the Issue". Merely repeating your assertion doesn't prove it's true, nor disprove my arguments which disproved your claim.

Here is a summary of those arguments if you would to try to deal with them:

----------------

1. The implication of you even trying to debate the details of the resurrection account carries with it the implicit assertion and assumption that it must be relevant to debating your original claim. Your original claim was that the Gospels give different and contradictory accounts about who Jesus is.

2. The onus is thus on you to first establish your claim is true that supposed contradictions in the resurrection account are even relevant to proving your original claim.

3. Only then can you claim I am required to provide a counter argument as part of debating the original issue in contention.

4. Your claim that the debate was originally about whether or not contradictions in general exist in the Bible has already been proven false by my quotation of your original posts which show what the real original issue being debated was about specifically whether or not the NT had any contradictions between books about who Jesus is. You have not attempted to refute the arguments I made which disproved your claim about what the topic of the debate is, therefore my conclusion stands as true unless you can offer a valid refutation of it.

5. You are therefore committing the fallacy of "Moving the goalposts" by trying to retroactively change what the subject of the debate was in order to try to claim your new topic is relevant to the debate. Which is itself a fallacy of "Red Herring" where you're trying to change the topic of debate because you can't defend your original claim anymore.

------

Given that those arguments disprove your claim that the resurrection account is relevant to proving your original claim, you cannot logically accuse me of avoiding the issue.

That would be like you trying to demand I debate which football team is the best and then accuse me of avoiding the issue when I try to point out that you are engaging in an irrelevant diversion away from the real issue that is being debated. Now, if you could prove that your side debate about football teams were actually relevant to the main issue, then I might be compelled to respond. But if you can't do that you're just guilty of the logical fallacy of "Red Herring" by trying to create a distraction to hide the fact that you can't defend your original claim anymore.

 

[blü 2]

Logical fallacy, "Avoiding the Issue". You did not address any of my arguments that disproved your claims and invalidated your arguments.

And I told you why ─ I'm not here to play along with your stalling and evading tactics.

Anyway, you've learnt that the bible contains contradictions, and I've learnt that you don't want to say so.

Have a nice day.

 

[Rise]

And I told you why ─ I'm not here to play along with your stalling and evading tactics.

Logical fallacy, "Argument by Repetition".
You have ignored the arguments I made which disproved your claim that I was supposedly committing the logical fallacy of "Avoiding the Issue". Merely repeating your assertion doesn't prove it's true, nor disprove my arguments which disproved your claim.

Here is a summary of those arguments if you would to try to deal with them:

----------------

1. The implication of you even trying to debate the details of the resurrection account carries with it the implicit assertion and assumption that it must be relevant to debating your original claim. Your original claim was that the Gospels give different and contradictory accounts about who Jesus is.

2. The onus is thus on you to first establish your claim is true that supposed contradictions in the resurrection account are even relevant to proving your original claim.

3. Only then can you claim I am required to provide a counter argument as part of debating the original issue in contention.

4. Your claim that the debate was originally about whether or not contradictions in general exist in the Bible has already been proven false by my quotation of your original posts which show what the real original issue being debated was about specifically whether or not the NT had any contradictions between books about who Jesus is. You have not attempted to refute the arguments I made which disproved your claim about what the topic of the debate is, therefore my conclusion stands as true unless you can offer a valid refutation of it.

5. You are therefore committing the fallacy of "Moving the goalposts" by trying to retroactively change what the subject of the debate was in order to try to claim your new topic is relevant to the debate. Which is itself a fallacy of "Red Herring" where you're trying to change the topic of debate because you can't defend your original claim anymore.

------

Given that those arguments disprove your claim that the resurrection account is relevant to proving your original claim, you cannot logically accuse me of avoiding the issue.

That would be like you trying to demand I debate which football team is the best and then accuse me of avoiding the issue when I try to point out that you are engaging in an irrelevant diversion away from the real issue that is being debated. Now, if you could prove that your side debate about football teams were actually relevant to the main issue, then I might be compelled to respond. But if you can't do that you're just guilty of the logical fallacy of "Red Herring" by trying to create a distraction to hide the fact that you can't defend your original claim anymore.

Anyway, you've learnt that the bible contains contradictions, and I've learnt that you don't want to say so.

If you'd like to have a debate about your claim that the Bible has contradictions then that is certainly something we could do...

However, before we could move on to a new and different topic, as you seem to want to do, we would first need to conclude the topic that was originally being debated: That is your claim that the Gospels are contradictory accounts of who Jesus is.

If you are unable or unwilling to offer any counter arguments in defense of your original claim, as seems to be the case, and are willing to concede you were proven wrong or are unable to defend your claim, then we can gladly close that topic and move on to the next topic you'd liked to debate (Such as your claim of supposed contradictions in the resurrection account).

I'd actually love to debate that with you. We just can't engage in that new debate until you're willing to conclude the one you're currently engaged in first. Given that your new desired debate topic has no demonstrated relevance to the current ongoing debate topic.

 

[blü 2]

Logical fallacy, "Argument by Repetition".

'Bye.

Have a nice day.

 

[Rise]

'Bye.

Have a nice day.

An intelligent person learns more from one rebuke than a fool learns from being beaten a hundred times.
-Proverbs 17:10 (GNT)

Most people don't need to be repeatedly beaten in debate with their own fallacies for a hundred times in a row. The wise will accept correction the first time and amend their ways.