There are no true Christians

Well, not exactly. When Jesus said exactly what true believers are capable of, I can know what true faith is. Sir, I do not doubt I'm capable of these things in Jesus. My problem is my own faith. It is not great enough. You have nothing but your own assertions for this argument.The same faith it takes to believe you can drink poison and have no side effects is the same faith you need to believe that Jesus died for your sins and is coming back for you - the smallest amount of faith possible. Faith is believing what God says is true. If you believe the one part, how can you not believe the rest? Are you suggesting that when Jesus said you could that he may not have been honest?I believe in every word of the Bible, sir. My doubt comes from my own mortality. How many times did Jesus chastise His own dsiciples for being of "little faith"? These were eyewitnesses to His own miracles! It's amazing how weak-willed humans are. I am included in this. But I must keep trying, because through Christ, all things are possible.First, what did I say the money was for? I never mentioned sinful behavior. I never mentioned anything. Also, Jesus did not say "when someone asks you for money to borrow or keep, find out what it is going to be for." No, he said to simply give it. I know it does not make sense but that is what the Bible says. I did not imply that it made sense.Jesus also gave this command while on the sermon on the mount, which was painting a picture for a society where everyone was a believer. In context, this makes even more sense. In practicality, Jesus was emphasizing that Christians must be selfless. I'm sorry too because you are not familiar enough with the Bible. However, I have a few decades on you so I will show a few examples: 1. Peter and John healed a lame man who did not even know who they were (Acts 3 1-10) and he did not even ask nor expect to be healed. They just zapped him. 2. Jesus raised the dead at a funeral. How could the dead person have had faith? (Luke 7) 3. Remember when Peter cut the ear off of the soldier at Jesus's arrest. Jesus promptly put it back on and we know that faith did not come into play. The soldier was an enemy. 4. Jesus healed great crowds of people without any indication of anyone having faith. Blind people could not even see Jesus and yet they had faith? Based on what? In the beginning of his ministry, no one knew who he was. They did not follow him until he started doing miracles. Also, if what you say is true, then Jesus only healed believers in him leaving all non-Christians today exempt from any healing. Think about that. Even if you had the faith to let Jesus heal through you, you would have to tell the non-believers "Sorry, the healings are only for our kind of people." What kind of love is that?Faith was required for Jesus to heal. He wasn't trying to only heal those who were loyal to Him. In the Bible there are numerous references of faith being the pivotal role in healings. Faith in God's power, yes, but faith. In response to your examples, again, faith is internal. If, in every healing, faith was stated as the enabling factor, then logically, we must assume that those others who were mentioned were also faithful, at least in Jesus' ability to heal them. As far as the dead go, God is an omnipotent God and omniscient God. If we believe these miracles, we will believe that God knows their hearts and souls. No, Peter was not a Christian. You would not call a Jewish person who believes the Messiah is here a "Christian." There were no Christians in the modern sense while Jesus was still alive. Paul gave us the definition of a Christian as someone who believes he died for your sins and rose again.I'm afraid I don't understand this argument at all. By both your beginning definition, and by your second standard you brought up, Peter was the perfect example of a Christian. Merely saying "no he wasn't" doesn't prove your point.John 3:16 is simply about belief and the Bible explains what belief is. It is accompanied by action. If you have a true belief, you will be keeping the commandments of God (Rev. 14:12) and doing what Jesus said. Belief in weight loss means nothing until you actually change your diet and/or exercise. Belief will not make one lose weight.You are right in a sense. You brought up the verse, "faith without works is dead". However, you misinterpreted the meaning. It does not mean you must have works in order to have faith. On the contrary, it means that if your actions, such as loving those around you, do not convey your faith, then your faith probably doesn't exist. However, John 3:16 doesn't add any stipulations for salvation. What it proposes is the bottom line. If you believe, you are saved. Why would it say that if it wasn't true to the faith, in a book that calims it is completely accurate? Justin, you seem like a really nice, polite guy. You are giving answers that I would pretty much expect from any professing Christian and I do not expect you to throw it all away in one debate. You would be weak-willed if you did! I mean that. I grew up in church, ignored it for a while and then went at it full force for 12 straight years until I started seeing first one problem, then more, then a lot more, then a tremendous amount more. It all started with me simply testing the Bible, something that it says to do. If you have looked at any of my other debates, I pick certain things in the Bible and debate them to show the lack of credibility and trustworthiness in the Bible. I specialize in the NT and how it completely contradicts the OT (especially Paul) but I debate lots of Biblical topics. I mentioned Peter earlier and said I would get back to him. Justin, it is as simple as this. You cannot use Peter as an example of someone who had weak faith but he still believe and Jesus was fine with that and here is why; it is a story in a book. You never met Peter. You never were told by Jesus that Peter existed. You are basing this not on faith in Jesus but in your faith in man that the book itself is actually the word of God. You assume it is and you believe it is but you have not the first piece of evidence. However, there is plenty of evidence against it and that would be true even if there were no mistakes in the book. Are you up for a real faith test? I would like to challenge you. You don't have to drink poison, give me money or cast any demons out of the voice of Nickelback's lead singer (unless you also see the need). Here is all you have to do. Email me at bw124 at hotmail and I will send you a digital copy of a book I wrote for free. If you can read all of this book and you still believe the Bible, you pass. Great debating with you!However, simply because I never met Peter doesn't mean he didn't exist. Not only is there documented references to Peter outside of the scriptures, but that which is mentioned in the scriptures all ligns up with historical events and all results from archaeological digs performed to this day! Peter, by all standards, was a true Christian. I, by all standards, am a true Christian. You didn't respond to the fact that your definition at the beginning of the round had to do with faith alone, not miracles. You didn't respond to the fact that I showed that faith was quantifiable. You provided a threadbare response to me "faith is subjective" argument. I believe I have negated the resolution.Sir, I debate because I like testing my faith. When I find a possible fallacy in the Bible, I don't look over it, I look into it. Your arguments challenged me, and forced me to think. I appreciate that. The difference between you and me, my admittedly formidable opponent, is that I operate in my search for truth out of faith that the Bible is true. You operate out of faith (as well) that the Bible is not. I will consider emailing you as well, however, I don't typically talk to strangers I have just met on this site. It's more of a security reason than anything.Thanks for the great debate. God bless.