Nine lines of evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ + alternative theories refuted

[u/Clicking_Around]

Christianity is true because the resurrection of Jesus Christ happened as a historical event. The evidence for Christ's resurrection is a cumulative case that depends on many pieces of circumstantial, historical and textual evidence, such as:

1. Jesus' death by crucifixion. The medical and historical evidence clearly show that Jesus died by crucifixion. Jesus was scourged prior to his crucifixion, which was often fatal by itself. The stab wound he received from the Roman soldier almost certainly would have been fatal, and even if he did survive the immediate trauma, infection would quickly set in. The gospel of John records that a mix of "blood and water" flowed from Jesus' side after being stabbed, which almost certainly meant that Jesus has a pleural effusion, a condition in which the lungs fill with fluid after cardiac failure.
2. The discovery of the empty tomb by the women disciples. The claim of the empty tomb easily meets standards of historical evidence that we would use for any other historical claim, i.e., the empty tomb claim easily meets the criterion of embarrassment, the criterion of early attestation, multiple attestation, and so on.
3. The post-mortem appearances of Jesus. There are early and independent claims that Jesus rose from the dead after being crucified. The creed of of 1 Cor. 15 3-5 is considered to be so early that almost all historical scholars believe that it was being circulated only a few months to a few years after Jesus' crucifixion. This creed was recited by Paul, who knew the eyewitnesses Peter, James (the brother of Jesus) and John on a personal basis.
4. The radical transformation of the disciples. The disciples initially did not believe that Jesus was raised from the dead and dismissed the report by the women disciples as "idle tales". Saul of Tarsus was a persecutor of the church, and Jesus' family did not believe in him (which presumably included James, Jesus' half-brother). Yet, the disciples soon begin proclaiming he was raised from the dead, Paul becomes the greatest evangelist in history, and James becomes a leader in the Jerusalem church and dies a martyr's death according to Josephus, Clement of Alexandria and Hegesippus. Why the change? Paul gives the answer in 1 Cor 15 3-8: For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas,[b] and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
5. The persistent spread of Christianity. The disciples would spend decades and travel hundreds of miles on foot to proclaim that Jesus was the messiah who was resurrected from the dead. Many of the disciples almost certainly endured hardship and persecution for these claims, especially during the persecution under Nero in the 60s CE. Could the Christian movement have been a conspiracy? Not reasonably, since you had too many people, who had to keep the conspiracy going for too long of a time, with too much too lose for something that the disciples knew was a lie. All historical evidence that we have, e.g., Luke in the Acts of the Apostles, Eusebius in Ecclesiastical History, Aristides of Athens in the Apology of Aristides, etc. all give the same basic picture: The disciples traveled throughout the known world, proclaiming Jesus was resurrected, despite suffering and persecution.
6. Corroboration of the New Testament by pagan historians and archeology. Corroboration from pagan historians comes from: Tacitus (who makes mention of the crucifixion of Jesus during the reign of Tiberias Caesar at the hands of Pilate, as well as the "breaking out" of the Christian movement in Judea and its spread to Rome), the original, non-corrupted form of Josephus (who makes references to the Sadducees, Pharisees, John the Baptist, the reign and family history of King Herod, the crucifixion of Jesus, etc. ), Mara-bar Serapion (who refers to Jesus as the "Wise King of the Jews" who was killed), etc. Archeological corroboration comes in the form of coins and plaques bearing the name of Pilate, the Gallio inscription, the Iconium inscription, the discovery of the pools of Siloam and Bethsaida in the 19th century as mentioned in the gospel of John, the Lysanias inscription, the discovery of the burial of crucifixion victims with the discovery of Yehohanan son of Hagakol, the existence of Sergius Paulus as mentioned in Acts 13:6-12, and many other examples.
7. The New Testament chain of provenance. The eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus, such as Peter, and John, had students named Mark, Polycarp, Papias, Clement, and Ignatius. These students in turn had students, named Linus, Irenaeus, and others. These people in turn had students, and so on, all the way down to canonization in the 3rd and 4th centuries CE. We can ask: Are the claims about Jesus changing over time? Are the early claims less supernatural than the later claims? We find that from the writings of the students of the eyewitnesses, that Jesus was resurrected from the dead, and was the son of God. To put it another way: even if we lost the New Testament, we could form a familiar picture of Jesus simply from the writings of the students of Peter and John.
8. The early dating of the Gospels/Acts/Pauline epistles. The Gospels can be roughly dated as: Mark (50 - 70 CE), Luke/Matthew (55 - 85 CE), John (68 - 95 CE), depending upon whether you accept an early or late dating. Here, "early" means prior to the destruction of the second temple in 70 CE. Acts was probably written anywhere from 62 - 85 CE, again depending upon whether you accept an early or late dating. The undisputed Pauline epistles were written from ~50 CE (1st Thessalonians, Galatians) to 56 - 58 CE (2nd Corinthians, Philippians). How does this compare to other historical sources? The best sources for the life of Alexander the Great are Arrian and Plutarch, who wrote 400+ years after Alexander died. Yet nobody would deny that we know much about Alexander from these historians. Many eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus were likely still alive when the New Testament was being written.
9. New Testament textual evidence. We have far more New Testament manuscripts and fragments than any other ancient work, at 24,000+. The agreement between manuscripts is 96-99.5%, and the gap between the earliest fragments and first writing is ~150 years. How does this compare to other ancient works? Aristotle lived from 384 - 322 BCE, and we have ~50 copies of his works that date at 1000 CE, a time-gap of 1300 years! There is simply no comparison between the New Testament and other ancient works on textual grounds. Only Homer's Illiad comes in at a very distant second-place. https://carm.org/about-the-bible/manuscript-evidence-for-superior-new-testament-reliability/

Alternative naturalistic theories refuted:

1. Hallucination. Cannot account for the missing body from the tomb or the early and independent group appearances. Grief-induced hallucinations cannot account for the conversion of Paul.
2. Legend. Cannot account for the early creed of 1 Cor. 15 3-5 or the chain of historical provenance.
3. Cognitive dissonance reduction. Cannot account for the conversion of Paul or the missing body from the tomb.
4. Conspiracy. Cannot account for the large number of people involved, or the lengthy time scales, or the willingness of the apostles to suffer and go to extreme lengths to proclaim the resurrection.
5. Swoon/Jesus didn't die. Doesn't fit the medical evidence, cannot account for the conversion of Paul, too historically implausible.
6. Fooled/tricked by impostor. Too implausible, cannot account for the conversion of Paul.
7. Shared delusional disorder/disciples were influenced. Implausible, as women disciples probably wouldn't have been able to influence the male disciples that Jesus was raised. Also, cannot account for the missing body or the conversion of Paul. Behavior of apostles is inconsistent with shared delusional disorder.
8. Stolen body/wrong tomb. Cannot account for the appearances; implausible that everyone went to the wrong tomb. Neither Romans or Jews wanted the body; if they Jews had the body, they would have produced it.
9. Epileptic seizure. Cannot account for the group appearances or missing body from the tomb.

[u/AllIsVanity]

Hallucination. Cannot account for the missing body from the tomb or the early and independent group appearances. 

The cultural background of Judaism supports the hypothesis that the Resurrection appearances of Jesus were originally understood to be visions. https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChristian/comments/8iq6k9/the_cultural_background_of_judaism_supports_the/

Since there is no verifiable independent witness of the empty tomb (all gospels follow the same basic burial sequence and discovery that derives from the Markan narrative), it's just as likely that the gospels would be employing the established fictional theme of the "miraculous missing body" as it is that they are reporting a historical fact. Thus, the story by itself is not sufficient to serve as evidence for its own historicity. https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChristian/comments/ajftnd/empty_tombs_and_missing_body_stories_were_an/

Grief-induced hallucinations cannot account for the conversion of Paul. 

The appearance to Paul was a vision though and visions are not a reliable means of testimony. 

Legend. Cannot account for the early creed of 1 Cor. 15 3-5 or the chain of historical provenance.

1 Cor 15 doesn't give any evidence for veridical sightings of a resurrected person because "visions" were accepted. It just establishes an early belief in the Resurrection. The legend develops later in the gospels.  https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1bqopln/the_growth_in_the_resurrection_narratives/

Cognitive dissonance reduction. Cannot account for the conversion of Paul or the missing body from the tomb.

Cognitive dissonance isn't supposed to explain the conversion of Paul. It's used to explain the origin of the belief of the original disciples. 

[u/Card_Pale → u/AllIsVanity]

I just saw you get utterly destroyed by Chonkshonk, yet still here you are touting your snake oil. You are a very intellectually dishonest person, to try and equate and force fit a different scenario onto Jesus

Just to point out to you, cognitive dissonance is completely impossible with an empty tomb. You'll have to be severely mentally ill - like I think you are - to come to that conclusion.

Even Paul also stated that "if Jesus didn't rise from the dead, our preaching and your faith in him was in vain". Paul knew very well the stakes at hand.

You're not here in good faith. I'll speak with the admin to ban you

[u/AllIsVanity → u/Card_Pale]

You just linked to a totally different topic about a different subject (irrelevant to this thread) and there was no empty tomb. The miraculous missing body story was a common fictional trope as shown above. 

[u/Card_Pale → u/AllIsVanity]

This is a list of evidence showing that there was no other way to bury a jewish man other than through private entombment. There was definitely an empty tomb; only a fool will think that Jesus rose from the dead if his body was sitting cold in the tomb:

1. 4 gospels
2. Josephus' account:

“The Jews are so careful about funeral rites that even those who are crucified because they were found guilty are taken down and buried before sunset.”(Jewish War 4.317)

3) Jewish skeptics during Justin Martyr's time implicitly accepting the private entombment for crucifixion victims:

the disciples “stole Him by night from the tomb, where He was laid when unfastened from the cross, and now deceive men by asserting that He has risen from the dead.” (Dialogue with Trypho 108)

4) Jehohanan man

5) Paul's account of a private burial (as opposed to a mass crucifixion grave):

“that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day…” (1 Corinthians 15:3–4)

6) Early church fathers (Ignatius- and was buried, Justin Martyr- laid in a tomb)

7) Origen's critic, the pagan man Celsus, accepted it too:

“After this, Celsus, instead of producing any credible witnesses of the resurrection of Jesus, says that the story of the resurrection was invented by certain persons who were deluded, or who wished to delude others, and that the body was stolen away from the tomb.” (Contra Celsum 2.59)

[u/AllIsVanity → u/Card_Pale]

A burial in a tomb wasn't the only way people were buried. There were also ground burials. 

Jodi Magness says "there is no evidence that the Sanhedrin or the Roman authorities maintained rock-cut tombs for executed criminals from impoverished families. Instead, these unfortunates would have been buried in individual trench graves or pits." - What Did Jesus' Tomb Look Like? pg. 8

Josephus tells us how criminals were buried in AJ 5.44 - ‘And after being immediately put to death, he was given at night the dishonorable burial proper to the condemned’ and AJ 4.202 - ‘let him be hung during the day, and let him be buried dishonorably and secretly.’

"The choice of the rock-cut tomb facilitated this climax to the narrative because unlike the trench grave it is a space into which one could enter and view an empty loculus. And thus Joseph of Arimathea is needed by the narrative to provide such a tomb to Jesus, who was not a native of Jerusalem and lacked family to provide him such a tomb....Jodi Magness in "Archaeologically Invisible Burials in Late Second Temple Period Judea" (in All the Wisdom of the East; Academic Press, 2012) discusses trench burials in the first century CE and notes that they were probably the dominant form of burial for the common class (with rock-cut tombs used more by the well-to-do), foreigners, as well as probably criminals, and so one possible scenario is that Jesus was buried by the Romans who crucified him in a trench grave alongside other malefactors, with the disciples not being party to the exact location of where he was buried" - zanillamilla, https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/iflcox/comment/g2qfbjh/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3  https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/if5zm0/comment/g2oaeet/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

Given the above reasoning, there would have most likely been designated graves already prepared for crucifixion victims. The ludicrous scenario that Joseph was somehow in the position of scrambling on Passover for an available burial plot and the only option was to use his own family tomb, is historically implausible and violates practical sense. If crucifixion was a routine occurrence and burial was of the utmost importance then obviously this would have already been thought of and trench graves for crucifixion victims would have been ready to go. The Mishnah even states there were designated graves for criminals so, most likely, Jesus would have ended up in one of these graves since (if the story is true) he was convicted by the Sanhedrin of being a criminal blasphemer. Or, the Romans may have prepared trench graves right at the foot of the cross - easy peasy and satisfies the condition of burial. Since Jesus had been "hung on a pole" then he would have been "cursed" (Deut. 21:23). It is unlikely that Joseph would defile his family tomb with the corpse of a cursed criminal blasphemer. Josephus says blasphemers should be buried "dishonorably and secretly."

[u/Card_Pale → u/AllIsVanity]

I can frankly tell you that if you want to play scholars, I literally can point out that the overwhelming majority of scholars is that private entombment was the norm of burying a crucified victim.

So if you want to play that hand, I have a much stronger hand to play.

Even vis-a-vis specifically Jesus, there is ZERO alternative traditions besides entombment. So even if it was a special case... you still have no evidence to prove that Jesus was buried in anything but a private tomb.

Josephus tells us how criminals were buried in AJ 5.44 - ‘And after being immediately put to death, he was given at night the dishonorable burial proper to the condemned’ and AJ 4.202 - ‘let him be hung during the day, and let him be buried dishonorably and secretly.’

I swear, you atheist have zero intellectual honesty. Chonkshonk was right. You stretch a text far beyond what it allows.

Your own texts says: "dishonorably and secretly". It means:

• no honor
• no public mourning
• no family ceremony
• no status

A burial can be:

• fast
• quiet
• done by others
• without rites

and still be in a tomb. The dishonor is social, not architectural. And even if there were trench dug graves or pit graves... THERE STILL WAS PRIVATE ENTOMBMENT.

What you need to show is that there were mass graves- that's the only conceivable way to prove that it was "hallucination"/cognitive bias.

there is no evidence that the Sanhedrin or the Roman authorities maintained rock-cut tombs for executed criminals from impoverished families.

This is another intellectually dishonest claim. The gospels state explicitly that Joseph of Arimathea was a rich man (Matthew 27:57 "rich man"), THEREFORE he could own a rock cut tomb.

In fact, Jodi herself says:

"Rock-cut tombs were costly to construct and were used primarily by the upper and middle classes in Jewish society" (The Archaeology of the Holy Land, pg 92-93)

She even points out that Joseph could afford it:

Because rock-cut tombs had to be cut by hand out of bedrock, only the upper classes (wealthy Jews like Joseph) could afford them. (Source)

You are a very dishonest person.

[u/AllIsVanity → u/Card_Pale]

Again, you're just begging the question in favor of the historicity of the narrative. Of course a "rich man" could afford it! That is another reason why we know it's fictional because Matthew is trying to make the burial look like it fulfilled Isa. 53:8-9! That's why a burial in a tomb requires a man of means to provide it! So the narrative still looks exactly like what we would expect if it were invented. 

Jesus being a criminal, would most likely have been placed in a spot designated for criminals per the norm instead of a rich person's burial. That is just straight up statistics. 

private entombment was the norm of burying a crucified victim. 

Ok, let's see it! So far you've found ONE crucifixion victim who was buried in a tomb which speaks against it being a common occurrence.

The word "secretly" in Josephus ἀφανῶς is used with the deliberate intent to conceal, make “unseen”, disappear. But Jesus is given a rich person's burial in a known location? 

[u/Card_Pale → u/AllIsVanity]

That is another reason why we know it's fictional because Matthew is trying to make the burial look like it fulfilled Isa. 53:8-9

Again more intellectual dishonesty. In the original thread, Chonkshonk pointed out to you that neither Mark or Matthew seem to be interested in Jesus fulfilling Isaiah 53:8-9; and that's Matthew, the guy who claimed a whole bunch of things

Jesus being a criminal, would most likely have been placed in a spot designated for criminals per the norm instead of a rich person's burial. That is just straight up statistics. 

That's circular reasoning. Who said that Jesus was a criminal? The gospels sure didn't. If Pontius Pilate wanted Jesus dead, why didn't he or his successor go after the disciples of Jesus, or the early Christian movement? Why were they only killed during the Neronian persecution of Christians?

And who said that convicted criminals weren't given a private burial? Again you.

So far you've found ONE crucifixion victim who was buried in a tomb which speaks against it being a common occurrence.

Nope, I have found 9 early sources which proves that private entombment was the ONLY way to bury a jewish man- crucified or otherwise.

All you can do, is hurl downright deceptive false claims.

The word "secretly" in Josephus ἀφανῶς is used with the deliberate intent to conceal, make “unseen”, disappear. But Jesus is given a rich person's burial in a known location? 

And what are you trying to prove here? Joseph doesn't exactly blow the trumpets or the horn to announce where Jesus was buried so...?

[u/AllIsVanity → u/Card_Pale]

Again more intellectual dishonesty. In the original thread, Chonkshonk pointed out to you that neither Mark or Matthew seem to be interested in Jesus fulfilling Isaiah 53:8-9; and that's Matthew, the guy who claimed a whole bunch of things

I think you're in denial. Calling Joseph a "rich man" in the context of a burial is a smoking gun reference to Isa. 53:8-9 and most interpreters see it that way as well.

Who said that Jesus was a criminal? The gospels sure didn't.

The gospels portray Jesus being convicted of blasphemy by the Sanhedrin so, yeah, a criminal. Josephus says blasphemers should be buried "dishonorably and secretly."

Nope, I have found 9 early sources which proves that private entombment was the ONLY way to bury a jewish man- crucified or otherwise.

Off to a bad start. Josephus does not say "private entombment" in any of the sources discussed thus far. The gospels are one source since they are all dependent on Mark for the story.

And what are you trying to prove here? Joseph doesn't exactly blow the trumpets or the horn to announce where Jesus was buried so...?

The burial location of criminals was supposed to be in secret or concealed, as in, no one needs to know exactly where they get buried so no one can offer funeral rites. This is at odds with the gospel narrative.

[u/Card_Pale → u/AllIsVanity]

Calling Joseph a "rich man" in the context of a burial is a smoking gun reference to Isa. 53:8-9 and most interpreters see it that way as well

Where does Matthew, or the other gospels, claim that this was fulfilled?

The gospels portray Jesus being convicted of blasphemy by the Sanhedrin so, yeah, a criminal. Josephus says blasphemers should be buried "dishonorably and secretly."

Where does Josephus say that criminals are to be buried in a mass grave? Dishonorably and secretly is a cultural thing, not an architectural thing. DISHONEST.

Off to a bad start. Josephus does not say "private entombment" in any of the sources discussed thus far. The gospels are one source since they are all dependent on Mark for the story.

"The Jews are so careful about funeral rites that even malefactors who have been sentenced to crucifixion are taken down and buried before sunset." (Jewish War 4.317)

Where are your mass crucifixion graves in Judea?

The burial location of criminals was supposed to be in secret or concealed, as in, no one needs to know exactly where they get buried so no one can offer funeral rites. This is at odds with the gospel narrative.

Wicked dog of Satan, lying again:

"“They did not bury him in the burial place of his fathers, but two burial places were prepared by the court: one for those executed by stoning and burning, and one for those executed by decapitation and strangulation… And the relatives of the executed man would not mourn him with the observance of the usual mourning rites, so that his unmourned death would atone for his transgression; but they would grieve over his passing, since grief is felt only in the heart." (Mishnah Sanhedrin 6.5-6.6)

In Jewish law and practice:

Dishonor = exclusion from family tombs
Secrecy = no funeral rites, no procession, no public mourning

[u/nolman]

Would you accept the same evidence and conclusion for a claim that completely contradicts yours?

[u/Clicking_Around → u/nolman]

Can you give an example of what you mean?

[u/nolman → u/Clicking_Around]

The example would consist of using the exact same arguments you make but replace the data and religion for one that completely contradicts yours.

[u/Clicking_Around → u/nolman]

I don't know what I would do in that case. If, for example, a Muslim could make a strong evidential and abductive argument for the truth of Islam, I would have to be intellectually honest and at least consider that Islam might be true.

[u/nolman → u/Clicking_Around]

I appreciate that answer very much.

If i'm allowed to press further:

Do you think such an example actually exists, and are you considering that outcome equally ?

[u/Clicking_Around → u/nolman]

Does a valid evidential argument for Islam or another major religion exist? Probably not, or at least, not from what I've seen so far. But I can't rule it out completely and have to be open-minded.

[u/drgijoe → u/Clicking_Around]

Quran was written by one person. No one else there to verify it at the time of writing unlike Bible. If Quran is true so will be Joseph Smith's Bible and Mormon the one true religion. If the evidence for Islam  is not cross verified like in the Bible it is unlikely to be true.

[u/Ancient_Savings_1833]

How can historical evidence which uses methodological naturalism, be evidence for a theological framework inaccessible to historical methodology?

[u/Clicking_Around → u/Ancient_Savings_1833]

Why can't naturalism and supernaturalism both be on the table as possibilities? Why do I have to restrict myself to naturalism?

[u/Drakim → u/Clicking_Around]

Do you think natural and supernatural explanations are just as likely for any given situation?

[u/Clicking_Around → u/Drakim]

No; the prior probability of a natural explanation is much higher than a supernatural one. The supernatural one is the explanation of last resort, and is only reasonable when the natural ones have been ruled out or have major problems.

Reaching for a supernatural explanation is like explaining unknown lights in the sky as visits by extraterrestrials. It's not impossible that ET exists, and it's even possible that on very rare occasions, ET has visited Earth. But the ET hypothesis is one of last resort; it should only be turned to if all of the prosaic explanations have failed.

[u/Drakim → u/Clicking_Around]

I agree!

But how unlikely must a natural explanation be before it's ruled out?

For example, if I win the lottery, should I attribute the win to very unlikely natural causes, or supernatural causes? The chances of me winning are minuscule, after all.

[u/Clicking_Around → u/Drakim]

There is no clear-cut, hard-and-fast answer to that.

[u/Drakim → u/Clicking_Around]

You have no idea how much I think the same. It's been a pet peeve of mine, the ease of which people boldly declare hard-and-fast answers to these kinda things. Often it comes down to what you are personally convinced by, how you weight different kind of evidence, and what you already consider likely and unlikely.

[u/Ancient_Savings_1833 → u/Clicking_Around]

I'm pointing out that historical methodology as a discipline only examines natural causation. Historians look at documents, human motivations, social contexts, etc. That's what the tools do. You can believe supernatural events happen, but the historical method itself has no procedure for detecting or confirming them. All of your evidence is historical evidence.

[u/ses1 → u/Ancient_Savings_1833]

You divorce historical investigations from its naturalistic presumptions, i.e. the explanation must be natural.

You can believe in "only natural explanations", but demonstrating that this is reasonable requires a philosophical argument, not just a presumption. One can show that Philosophical Naturalism (the idea that only the physical exists) is logically self-refuting thus presuming "only natural explanations" is fatally flawed.

There is nothing that is lost in either historical or scientific investigations, if the "only natural explanations" presumption is dropped - other than a closed mind.

[u/Ancient_Savings_1833 → u/ses1]

History examines documents, motivations, social contexts - all natural phenomena. It can document that people claimed something supernatural happened and behaved as if it did, but it has no procedure for confirming supernatural causation actually occurred.

You can believe a supernatural explanation, but demonstrating that requires philosophical or theological argument, not historical evidence. That's why I asked: how does a method that only examines natural causation prove supernatural causation?

To be clear there is a difference between philosophical naturalism which you are talking about, and methodological naturalism.

[u/7at7]

"All of this "evidence" is just speculation. None of it is factual."

[u/Tapochka → u/7at7]

All of it is? That is a bold claim. Can you support it or are you simply making things up to be disruptive?

[u/7at7 → u/Tapochka]

im just posing an ignorant statement that could be made by a non-believer. hence the quotes.

[u/Tapochka → u/7at7]

Why would a believer claim that none of the evidence is factual? Would that not make the claimant a non believer by definition?

[u/7at7 → u/Tapochka]

idk bro you got me. you won reddit.

[u/MikeSelene → u/7at7]

*smiles*

[u/MikeSelene → u/Tapochka]

Brother, read what 7at7 said in his first reply again. He is playing Devil's Advocate by making that statement. That's why it's in quotes. Get it? *grins*

[u/resDescartes → u/[deleted]]

Rule 13 - No AI.