Christianity is the Right Religion Part 2

Maybe you didn't read, But I was talking about other books compared with Scripture, Not your body. Your body wasn't put together in 400 years and carry the same message. Maybe you didn't realise but unity can be applied to a lot of things. My body is still unified without it being together for 400 years and still being the same so you argument falls flat. You are using unity and then using other arguments to somehow make readers think you are still talking about unity. You are not. 400 years is a length of time. Same message has nothing to do with unity. Using claims that have nothing to do with unity does not rebut my claims. The evidence for the unity of the Bible is so powerful that a firm foundation of faith can be firmly planted on it. Bear in mind you were supposed to give me reasons why the Bible is true not assume it to be the case. Read the title you gave before typing this in Twelve Points That Show Christianity is True. Going by the claim by your logic the Last Jedi is so powerful that a firm foundation of bad faith can be planted on it. You gave me an argument to say how The Last Jedi is a good foundation to know what to do wrong. Happily, There is additional, Substantial evidence that the Bible is historically reliable and was not forged by clever men through the ages. There is also plenty of external evidence-non-Christian-sources substantiating the existence of Jesus and archaeological evidence corroborating historical events recorded in the Bible. When compared to any other ancient document or book, By any fair measure, The Bible acquits itself objectively as more historically reliable. I have a very strong feeling you are just copying it from somewhere. If not then you know this paragraph was filler and yet you still added it in. Knowing full well you did not have space for your arguments yet you still thought this was required for some reason. As we point to the Bible as evidence for the truth of Christianity- in its prophecies, Its unity, The miracles, And in Jesus' assertion of his deity-we need to assure ourselves that the Bible itself is reliable. Miralces only happen once and no evidence has been found this occured which is from reliable sources. Prophecies come and go. I can make a prophecy the sun will rise the next day so also not an argument. Unity as mentioned above means nothing. So you might have one point miracles but no way of proving it to be the case since more then likely miracles only happen once. You would think that would be obviousMore stronger feelings of copying. Having established these matters, Geisler and Turek show that New Testament documents are reliableIs this your argument? An argument of authority? You haven't given ideas or these two people are so I am going to fill in these gaps with problems with the both of them. First Turek. Just noticed he had a debate with Hitchens. From the debate: https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=uDCDTaKfzXU I gathered that instead of spending the 20 minutes to make a solid argument instead tries to please the crowd. Common tactic not inherently bad but when you have 20 minutes and you clearly state you do not have enough time to give the best argument why not use the time effectively to actually use the entire time to make an argument? Later on finally gave arguments. Now I know why you were not presenting their arguments by themselves because they are debunked. I will only tackle one which is the Cosmological argument. I have debunked this before so here is a copy of what I said in the past: Kalam Cosmological Argument1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause2. The Universe began to exist3. Therefore, The universe has a causeTheist's stretch cause to be God. Another way this falls flat is God goes against the first premise. If God existed without a cause then Kalam Cosmological Argument is wrong. (I used this from an earlier forum post that was mine) This should be enough to debunk this argument. If you have problems stick quote what I said and tell me what I did wrong. You did say: Pro for God"s existence so you agree God does exist. Meaning if this argument was true God will also require a cause. If God does not the argument is wrong. On to Norman Geisler. I don't see the point in discussing him. He makes similar point to Frank Turek but has less resources that I can find. Couldn't find any debates that he was apart of so I will keep to Frank. Besides I am sure they make the same arguments. demonstrate in this debate and the next. Make the arguments now. All I am reading is filler and lacks substance. "It is not begging the question to use the Bible to prove the Bible when you prove that the Bible is a historically reliable document. " Yes it is and doesn't matter if a person you like says it isn't when it is. So we will examine the historical reliability of the Bible, We'll confirm that the New Testament credibly records that Jesus lived a sinless and miraculous life, That he performs miracles- including the greatest miracle of all, His resurrection from the dead, Which He predicted and which is the lynchpin of Christianity truth claims-and that the miracles he performed were not random demonstrations of His divine power, But an outworking of His message and purpose. We will also document His affirmation that the Bible is the Word of God. No proof given. All of what you said were assumptions. Besides using circular logic does not mean the Bible is historically reliable. By that logic I am right because I say so. Before examining the evidence itselfMore filler. If the evidence is correct then it is. No point in giving me a history lesson. The DaVinci CodeAbout something that is not relevant. Really what I wanted in a debate about the Bible. According to apologetics professor Dr. R. B. RudgeAm I reading a article or a documentary? This is supposed to be a debate. With your arguments yet you point to many argument of authorities as if they explain it for you which I point out they do not and you don't even if me their argument. Clear example with Geisler and Turek. There Weren't Multiple ChristianitiesLets say there wasn't. Just for arguments sake. What about now? Are you saying the different sects are not different types of Christianity? Along these lines, Lee Strobel asks New Testament historian Craig EvansCan you make your own arguments or are you always going to use an argument from authority? Evidence shows that theories that the gospels are historically unreliable are themselves fictitious. Are you making arguments for me? At least give evidence when doing so. Evans agrees: "There's every reason to conclude that the Gospels have fairly and accurately reported the essential elements of Jesus' teachings, Life, Death, And resurrection. They're early enough, They're rooted into the right streams that go back to Jesus and the original people, There's continuity, There's proximity, There's a verification of certain distinct points with archaeology and other documents, And there's the inner logic. That's what pulls it all together. Evan disagrees. Another argument of authority.