No.hate_just.halal

[No.hate_just.halal @NoHateJustHalal]

@CitadelKeys @TaymiApologia I do believe he's a real figure?
The topic is whether the purpose behind the death was said by Jesus or added later.

[No.hate_just.halal @NoHateJustHalal]

@Bruhquatch @CitadelKeys @TaymiApologia Yes, that's true. But the topic is about the purpose behind the resurrection.

[No.hate_just.halal @NoHateJustHalal]

@Bruhquatch @CitadelKeys @TaymiApologia I never said that everything is faith based. When it comes to historical claims, we look at the historicty. When it comes to supernatural or non-historical claims, we can't prove it. For example, we both believe Adam and Eve existed. But that doesn't mean it's a historical claim

[No.hate_just.halal @NoHateJustHalal]

@Manny81145117 @CitadelKeys @TaymiApologia Pro tip: People who are actively trying to demonstrate that they won even if they know they didn't don't seek validation from others. The fact that you're waiting for someone to praise shows that you're not doing it to yourself, or not enough.

Good luck reading this message tho

[No.hate_just.halal @NoHateJustHalal]

@Manny81145117 @CitadelKeys @TaymiApologia Lolllll just running away.

I'm tired of schooling you, have a good day.

[No.hate_just.halal @NoHateJustHalal]

@Manny81145117 @CitadelKeys @TaymiApologia Straight up running away because it didn't specify which one. That's hillarious.
When a source tells you that they're all wrong your counter-argument is that it doesn't specifically quote every instance?
You've lost it bro. The more you feed your ego, the more you will sink in it

[No.hate_just.halal @NoHateJustHalal]

@Manny81145117 @CitadelKeys @TaymiApologia Exactly, I use it. Not historians, not scholars, I do. Why? Because you have to already believe in the book for it to be true. That's why it's not a historical claim. How are you not able to track?

[No.hate_just.halal @NoHateJustHalal]

@Bruhquatch @CitadelKeys @TaymiApologia That's a supernatural claim, not a historical one. It's faith-based

[No.hate_just.halal @NoHateJustHalal]

@Manny81145117 @CitadelKeys @TaymiApologia Are you blind? It literally says multiple times that Mark was the author of these predicitons.
Read the end: "Mark was probably the author. They do not reflect anything Jesus said".

You have to be trolling

[No.hate_just.halal @NoHateJustHalal]

@Manny81145117 @CitadelKeys @TaymiApologia Clearly, reading more than one line isn't exactly your strongsuit. So I gave you another source.

[No.hate_just.halal @NoHateJustHalal]

@Manny81145117 @CitadelKeys @TaymiApologia As I already explained, the Qur'an never claims to be an eyewitness to the event, so once again, your comparison is fallacious.

For the last time, the Qur'an was never meant to be a historical document about Jesus. Why is that so hard to understand?

[No.hate_just.halal @NoHateJustHalal]

@Manny81145117 @CitadelKeys @TaymiApologia Not to mention that you're completely ignoring the source that tells you that the death was never even meant to happen. Once again, lying. And here's another source for that. Now you can't ignore it anymore

[No.hate_just.halal @NoHateJustHalal]

@Manny81145117 @CitadelKeys @TaymiApologia Sure.
1- It's whataboutism fallacy.
2- It's a false equivalence, since the Qur'an never claims to be an eyewitness account.

The Qur'an was never meant to be a historical document acout Jesus.

[No.hate_just.halal @NoHateJustHalal]

@Manny81145117 @CitadelKeys @TaymiApologia Did you just lie to my face? It says the oldest besides the addition of his prediction. Either you can't read or you're in pure denial.

Proof of addition by Mark is historical criticism. And again, you lied. They don't "debate" whether it goes back to Jesus, they affirm it.

[No.hate_just.halal @NoHateJustHalal]

@Manny81145117 @CitadelKeys @TaymiApologia Completely irrelevant and fallacious in multiple ways

[No.hate_just.halal @NoHateJustHalal]

@Manny81145117 @CitadelKeys @TaymiApologia Guess what? These were later additions. Here are some scholarly works that agree with me.

[No.hate_just.halal @NoHateJustHalal]

@Bruhquatch @CitadelKeys @TaymiApologia The Qur'an was never meant to be an eyewitness account, genius. That's a false equivalance.

[No.hate_just.halal @NoHateJustHalal]

@CitadelKeys @TaymiApologia When it's supposed to be an eyewitness account, it's very bad.

Bring me evidence of any scripture from the first century.

And Google ai is not a source. Bring an actual source.

Nice job deflecting the rest btw

[No.hate_just.halal @NoHateJustHalal]

@CitadelKeys @TaymiApologia 1- That's first john, a book written in 85-90 ad.
2- That wasn't Jesus saying it, so you proved nothing.
3- No evidence for the exterior source claim.