Gospels’ Errors: There is no son of God or Trinity.

[Repox]

If you do not accept the NT, that is your problem, not mine. Clear scriptures in the OT shows that God has a son as given to you. Proverbs cannot be refuted.

John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him .
Matthew 16:16: And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.


Ex 33:17-23, And Jehovah said unto Moses, I will do this thing also that thou hast spoken; for thou hast found favor in my sight, and I know thee by name. 18And he said, Show me, I pray thee, thy glory. 19 . . . 20And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for man shall not see me and live.​

Here in Exodus it is clearly said that if we see God then we die; this means that God can show himself to us so that we see him. Since we die when doing it, he doesn't show himself.

If you reject Proverbs, you show yourself to reject clear scripture:"Who hath established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is his son’s name?"
This cannot be anyone but God! None but God establishes the ends of the earth.

ps 2:
1 Why do the nations rage, And the peoples meditate a vain thing? 2 The kings of the earth set themselves, And the rulers take counsel together, Against Jehovah, and against his anointed, saying , 3 Let us break their bonds asunder, And cast away their cords from us. 4 He that sitteth in the heavens will laugh: The Lord will have them in derision. 5 Then will he speak unto them in his wrath, And vex them in his sore displeasure: 6 Yet I have set my king Upon my holy hill of Zion.
7 I will tell of the decree: Jehovah said unto me, Thou art my son; This day have I begotten thee.

So, your claim that God doesn't have a son is contradicted by scripture OT and NT.

Again, I do not care what others believe, I just provided you with what you said you didn't think existed in the OT. If you still hold to your claim, that is fine with me. Sin is forgiven by means of Jesus and baptism into him:

About Messiah, we read:

10 Yet it pleased Jehovah to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of Jehovah shall prosper in his hand. 11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by the knowledge of himself shall my righteous servant justify many; and he shall bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he poured out his soul unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors: yet he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
​

If you do not accept the NT, that is your problem, not mine. Clear scriptures in the OT shows that God has a son as given to you. Proverbs cannot be refuted.

John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him .
Matthew 16:16: And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.


Ex 33:17-23, And Jehovah said unto Moses, I will do this thing also that thou hast spoken; for thou hast found favor in my sight, and I know thee by name. 18And he said, Show me, I pray thee, thy glory. 19 . . . 20And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for man shall not see me and live.​

Here in Exodus it is clearly said that if we see God then we die; this means that God can show himself to us so that we see him. Since we die when doing it, he doesn't show himself.

If you reject Proverbs, you show yourself to reject clear scripture:"Who hath established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is his son’s name?"
This cannot be anyone but God! None but God establishes the ends of the earth.

ps 2:
1 Why do the nations rage, And the peoples meditate a vain thing? 2 The kings of the earth set themselves, And the rulers take counsel together, Against Jehovah, and against his anointed, saying , 3 Let us break their bonds asunder, And cast away their cords from us. 4 He that sitteth in the heavens will laugh: The Lord will have them in derision. 5 Then will he speak unto them in his wrath, And vex them in his sore displeasure: 6 Yet I have set my king Upon my holy hill of Zion.
7 I will tell of the decree: Jehovah said unto me, Thou art my son; This day have I begotten thee.

So, your claim that God doesn't have a son is contradicted by scripture OT and NT.

Again, I do not care what others believe, I just provided you with what you said you didn't think existed in the OT. If you still hold to your claim, that is fine with me. Sin is forgiven by means of Jesus and baptism into him:

About Messiah, we read:

10 Yet it pleased Jehovah to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of Jehovah shall prosper in his hand. 11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by the knowledge of himself shall my righteous servant justify many; and he shall bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he poured out his soul unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors: yet he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

​

​

​

You use NT scripture when I have disputed those gospels. They were written 45 to 60 years after Jesus was murdered by men who were not eyewitnesses to Jesus. They made up romantic stories to promote a new religion.

You keep making the same mistake, you take things out of context and then pretend there are different meanings for those verses, different than what the author intended. As an example, In Psalm 1:7 the verse is about the author of the verse claiming himself to be the son. It is obvious if you read the entire chapter. The verse says, "He said to me, "you are my son." It is about the author of the verse. You have not presented one literal interpretation in the OT for the son of God.

As for the verses you have posted about the Messiah, there are about the plight of Israel and as they have suffered for the sins of humankind. Jews are surrogates for humankind, as their plight is manifested, so will they suffer. As for Psalm 2, I already covered this verse with you. Remember, I stated, RE: Psalms 2:6,7. It is “obvious,” it is about the author of the verse, he is the son.. “He said to me, You are my Son, today I have become your Father.” (Psalm 2:7). It would be best if you found other verses. Evidently, you can do nothing but repeat the same verses with "figurative interpretations."

As I have stated, NT gospel scripture is inauthentic, it represents strong biases of Jesus movement leaders, who were not eyewitnesses to Jesus.

There is no verse in the OT where the Lord God says he has a son. You are taking meanings out of context as I have demonstrated. If there is no son of God, there is no Christianity. So be it. Why would God lie to His chosen people by giving them His Commandments and then guide them on their paths with false promises? Why would God lie and then give them Israel as He promised?

 

[Grandliseur]

You use NT scripture when I have disputed those gospels. They were written 45 to 60 years after Jesus was murdered by men who were not eyewitnesses to Jesus. They made up romantic stories to promote a new religion.

You keep making the same mistake, you take things out of context and then pretend there are different meanings for those verses, different than what the author intended. As an example, In Psalm 1:7 the verse is about the author of the verse claiming himself to be the son. It is obvious if you read the entire chapter. The verse says, "He said to me, "you are my son." It is about the author of the verse. You have not presented one literal interpretation in the OT for the son of God.

As for the verses you have posted about the Messiah, there are about the plight of Israel and as they have suffered for the sins of humankind. Jews are surrogates for humankind, as their plight is manifested, so will they suffer. As for Psalm 2, I already covered this verse with you. Remember, I stated, RE: Psalms 2:6,7. It is “obvious,” it is about the author of the verse, he is the son.. “He said to me, You are my Son, today I have become your Father.” (Psalm 2:7). It would be best if you found other verses. Evidently, you can do nothing by repeat the same verses with "figurative interpretations."

As I have stated, NT gospel scripture is inauthentic, it represents strong biases of Jesus movement leaders, who were not eyewitnesses to Jesus, and

There is no verse in the OT where the Lord God says he has a son. You are taking meanings out of context as I have demonstrated. If there is no son of God, there is no Christianity. So be it. Why would God lie to His chosen people by giving them His Commandments and then guide them on their paths with false promise? Why would God lie and then give them Israel as He promised?

Yes, I do. You have your beliefs and I have mine. I have shown you that 'son of God' exist in the OT.

Apart from this we share not any opinion, obviously. You have your opinion on the OT scriptures. I cannot change your opinion. So, end of story.

The scriptures I gave you from the OT cannot be disputed, yet you do. Thus our discussion ends. Your claims are rejected. Your not accepting Proverbs and Isaiah is simply not acceptable. They are crystal clear; yet, you reject them. Your problem, not mine.

 

[Repox]

Yes, I do. You have your beliefs and I have mine. I have shown you that 'son of God' exist in the OT.

Apart from this we share not any opinion, obviously. You have your opinion on the OT scriptures. I cannot change your opinion. So, end of story.

The scriptures I gave you from the OT cannot be disputed, yet you do. Thus our discussion ends. Your claims are rejected. Your not accepting Proverbs and Isaiah is simply not acceptable. They are crystal clear; yet, you reject them. Your problem, not mine.

You have not been honest. Your claim for son of God in the OT is based on figurative interpretations. Anyone can see your argument has weak evidence.

 

[Magus]

According to Genesis 6:2 , the 'Giants' are the sons of God whom went upon the daughters of Adam , they were 3 of them, 3 sons of Adam, 3 sons of Noah, 3 sons of Anak, 3 sons of Terah, 3 children of Amram, Hermes Trismegistus, Jesus and 2 others were crucified.

Trinity is a repeated theme in the Bible .

 

[Grandliseur]

You have not been honest. Your claim for son of God in the OT is based on figurative interpretations. Anyone can see your argument has weak evidence.

Your argument is not accepted. That is all.
If you cannot admit what is obvious, in just an excerpt ". . .

Who has established all the ends of the earth?
What is his name, and what is his son's name?
"​

that this clearly cannot, cannot, be anyone but God and his son. Then your logic and mine are at opposite ends, and this conversation is not doing me or you any good. The same goes for some of the other scriptures given.

So, there is no reason to keep this going. Enjoy your beliefs. I have my own.

 

[Repox]

There are significant implications for Jesus being God and not the son of God. In verses about the coming of the Messiah in the Old Testament, one would think it would be a very important event. Well, it was important; it was about God coming into the world as a man. Unfortunately, humans couldn't understand the truth. They made up incredible stories about Jesus being a sacrificial lamb, just like good old Jewish sacrifices to the OT Lord. God came into the world as Jesus to give testimony to his chosen people.

God is not responsible for the mistakes of humans. "Humans have free will." How can there be so many different religions. Was it God's intention for men to have many theologies? I don't think so. God's one and only religion is Judaism. Humans, however, are not satisfied with God's religion, they need to fulfill "creative urges." God put his truth in the minds of men; he even came into the world to tell them face to face about Himself. However, humans choose to make up stories to legitimize their egos instead of giving God all of the glory. It is the same old story; humans prefer their egos to God's power, glory and holiness. Humans find so many ways to glorify themselves: "the holy spirit told me so, I am God's holy one, the founders of my church are God's holy ones, I do the will of God because I am chosen by Him, pray to God and you will do his holy will (my will be done).” The list is very long for how humans glorify themselves. Perhaps, the ship will sink. If humans would acknowledge the will of God, rather than interpreting self-desires, then, perhaps they would have real relationships with God.

 

[Repox]

Everyone should read Jesus Before The Gospels by Bart D. Ehrman. It explains how the four gospels evolved, from rumors and story telling to gospel writing. None of the gospel authors were eyewitnesses, knew eyewitnesses, where Jewish, lived near Galilee where Jesus preached, spoke Hebrew, wrote Hebrew, or had known a follower of Jesus. And yet, they wrote as if they knew Jesus and all of his disciples. Facts are a hard thing, eventually they come around and bit you. Ehrman's book is an excellent presentation of academic studies from psychology, anthropology, and sociology about memory, nature of group memories, and oral traditions. The four gospels were written (first by Mark and ending with John) from about 65 to 110 CE. by men who gathered information from earlier gospels, rumors, oral traditions, and local Christian groups, not from eyewitnesses or other first hand sources. By the time stories got to them, facts, and, most notably, narratives about Jesus had changed in so many different ways as to seriously question the real story about Jesus.

Based on gospel stories about Jesus, it is clear that the gospel authors were Anti-Semitic. The gospels were written to blame Jews for the death of Jesus, and there is a lot of criticism in all four gospels of Jewish authorities, Judaism, and Jewish traditions. Also, the gospels portray Pontius Pilate as cooperating with the accusers of Jesus to blame Jews for his death. If you read history, Pilate was a cruel and uncompromising Roman ruler, he would not have negotiated with Jewish authorities to murder Jesus.
Everyone should read Jesus Before The Gospels by Bart D. Ehrman. It explains how the four gospels evolved, from rumors and story telling to gospel writing. None of the gospel authors were eyewitnesses, knew eyewitnesses, where Jewish, lived near Galilee where Jesus preached, spoke Hebrew, wrote Hebrew, or had known a follower of Jesus. And yet, they wrote as if they knew Jesus and all of his disciples. Facts are a hard thing, eventually they come around and bit you. Ehrman's book is an excellent presentation of academic studies from psychology, anthropology, and sociology about memory, nature of group memories, and oral traditions. The four gospels were written (first by Mark and ending with John) from about 65 to 110 CE. by men who gathered information from earlier gospels, rumors, oral traditions, and local Christian groups, not from eyewitnesses or other first hand sources. By the time stories got to them, facts, and, most notably, narratives about Jesus had changed in so many different ways as to seriously question the real story about Jesus.

Based on gospel stories about Jesus, it is clear that the gospel authors were Anti-Semitic. The gospels were written to blame Jews for the death of Jesus, and there is a lot of criticism in all four gospels of Jewish authorities, Judaism, and Jewish traditions. Also, the gospels portray Pontius Pilate as cooperating with the accusers of Jesus to blame Jews for his death. If you read history, Pilate was a cruel and uncompromising Roman ruler, he would not have negotiated with Jewish authorities to murder Jesus.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

There so many "holy" men one doesn't know what to do. The big contradiction is God's chosen people (Judaism) and the "newer" religion (Christianity), it really makes one's head spin, ha. ha.
I don't think God is insane, he began with His religion, and then "creative" religious fanatics began "their" religion. I think Jesus was the Messiah mentioned in the OT. What blows off the cover for Christianity is the real story about the four NT gospels, it was a really messy way establishing a new religion. What we have are good reasons for Anti-Semitism. Jesus was Jewish, not gentile. God (Jesus) came to give testimony to Jews. It is the same old story, people get it mixed up when words don't come out the way they want. To sort out the confusion, they rewrite the story to make it more appealing.

The absolutely fascinating thing to me is that you refute just about everything that seeks to establish a basis for the Christian religion ("Jesus as the Messiah"), and at the very same time say "I think Jesus was the Messiah."

Why?

 

[Repox]

The absolutely fascinating thing to me is that you refute just about everything that seeks to establish a basis for the Christian religion ("Jesus as the Messiah"), and at the very same time say "I think Jesus was the Messiah."

Why?

Why don't you do some research, it would give you a better understanding into the "historical Jesus." If you like, I can post scholarly references. If you had read what I have posted, you would discover that I have stated Jesus is God, and the Messiah. What I refute is Jesus as the son of God.

Everyone should read Jesus Before The Gospels by Bart D. Ehrman. It explains how the four gospels evolved, from rumors and story telling to gospel writing. None of the gospel authors were eyewitnesses, knew eyewitnesses, where Jewish, lived near Galilee where Jesus preached, spoke Hebrew, wrote Hebrew, or had known a follower of Jesus. And yet, they wrote as if they knew Jesus and all of his disciples. Facts are a hard thing, eventually they come around and bit you. Ehrman's book is an excellent presentation of academic studies from psychology, anthropology, and sociology about memory, nature of group memories, and oral traditions. The four gospels were written (first by Mark and ending with John) from about 65 to 110 CE. by men who gathered information from earlier gospels, rumors, oral traditions, and local Christian groups, not from eyewitnesses or other first hand sources. By the time stories got to them, facts, and, most notably, narratives about Jesus had changed in so many different ways as to seriously question the real story about Jesus.

Based on gospel stories about Jesus, it is clear that the gospel authors were Anti-Semitic. The gospels were written to blame Jews for the death of Jesus, and there is a lot of criticism in all four gospels of Jewish authorities, Judaism, and Jewish traditions. Also, the gospels portray Pontius Pilate as cooperating with the accusers of Jesus to blame Jews for his death. If you read history, Pilate was a cruel and uncompromising Roman ruler, he would not have negotiated with Jewish authorities to murder Jesus.

 

[pearl]

None of the gospel authors were eyewitnesses, knew eyewitnesses, where Jewish, lived near Galilea where Jesus preached, spoke Hebrew, wrote Hebrew, or had known a follower of Jesus. And yet, they wrote as if they know Jesus and all of his disciples. Facts are a hard thing,

I agree with much you have written but a word of caution about assuming what is 'fact'. Even the most learned scholars will admit the most they can posit after consideration of the evidence is a hypothesis. As far as eyewitnesses accounts are concerned, the only question is of John, the only Gospel who names himself as author. There is the possibility that the Gospel presents the apostle's eyewitness penned later by a scribe of a johannine school.

 

[pearl]

It is most important to realize that what is going on in all of this scholarly research is a reconstruction. Inconsistencies within the Gospels enable the construction of a number of plausible scenarios. In the final stage of Gospel formation the narratives about Jesus are shaped by the situations, concerns and insights of the Gospel writers themselves.

Pontius Pilate, effectively appointed Caiaphas as high priest. Pilate could remove an uncooperative priest by refusing to give him the sacred vestments worn to enter the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur. Since Caiaphas remained high priest during Pilate's entire tenure as prefect, it seems clear that they had a good working relationship.

 

[Repox]

Why don't you do some research, it would give you a better understanding into the "historical Jesus." If you like, I can post scholarly references.

It is most important to realize that what is going on in all of this scholarly research is a reconstruction. Inconsistencies within the Gospels enable the construction of a number of plausible scenarios. In the final stage of Gospel formation the narratives about Jesus are shaped by the situations, concerns and insights of the Gospel writers themselves.

Pontius Pilate, effectively appointed Caiaphas as high priest. Pilate could remove an uncooperative priest by refusing to give him the sacred vestments worn to enter the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur. Since Caiaphas remained high priest during Pilate's entire tenure as prefect, it seems clear that they had a good working relationship.

Yes, it appears as if the gospel writers were lacking first hand information, such as eyewitnesses and other forms of verification of Jesus narratives. I am particularly interested in son of God stories. There is no direct evidence, but indirect evidence suggests those stories evolved over time. Because stories were not written down until many years later, rumors and oral tradition played a big part.

What I learned about Pontius Pilate is he did not appear to be the cooperative type. There is no record of him releasing prisoners to Jewish subjects once a year. Apparently, he never released a prisoner.

In my opinion, the strong Anti-Semitism of the gospels has contributed to problems for Jews for hundreds of years. It is unlikely Jesus, who was Jewish, would have said those things about his family, friends or country. The strong bias may be attributed to the gospel authors not being Jewish. Living away from Jewish communities, they assumed Anti-Semitic attitudes found in the Roman Empire.

 

[pearl]

There is no direct evidence, but indirect evidence suggests those stories evolved over time.

And these stories reflect the theology of the Evangelists themselves. If the early Christians were expecting the parousia in their lifetime they had no reason to write a gospel for future generations. According to Rudolph Bultmann, probably the father of demythologizing the NT, two predominating cultural influences which shaped each New Testament document: [a] the historical Jesus dressed in the mythical garb of the Gnostic "heavenly redeemer"

What I learned about Pontius Pilate is he did not appear to be the cooperative type. There is no record of him releasing prisoners to Jewish subjects once a year. Apparently, he never released a prisoner.{QUOTE}

Passover is the time for celebrating the festival of freedom from foreign domination and thousands of Jewish pilgrims would have come from all over the Mediterranean and if
Jesus caused a disturbance in the Temple after his arrival, this would certainly alarm both Jewish and Roman authorities: a Galilean troublemaker might be planning to start a Passover riot.

In my opinion, the strong Anti-Semitism of the gospels has contributed to problems for Jews for hundreds of years.

Absolutely! I fully believe that is the reason the whole world pretty much turned a deaf ear to the cries from the death camps. But the evangelists write from their life situation. By this time Christians had been excommunicated from the Temple and cursed as heretics. Loosing the umbrella of protection the Jews enjoyed from Roman persecution, they now faced persecution. In the earlier gospels it is the Jewish aristocracy who are the enemies, and finally all Jews.

 

[Muffled]

None of the gospels preceding the four NT gospels make mention of a single "Jesus story" or narrative written by NT authors. Nor do we find a single “Jesus story” in any historical documents or references. Those prior books or references are about "Jesus sayings." NT Gospel authors created those narratives. It is also interesting to learn about early church leaders. In order to promote the four gospels, they destroyed as many of those early gospels they could find. Fortunately, a few of those gospels escaped destruction; they question the legitimacy of the four NT gospels.

What if Jesus was God, and not the son of God? Most of the NT would be false; it would be a conglomeration of misguided and irrelevant verses. Assuming there is no son of God, the Trinity would also be false. What a "holy" predicament!

I believe the predicament is that you believe that nonsense.

 

[Repox]

I believe the predicament is that you believe that nonsense.

Most of what I believe is based on scholarly research. Sadly, most Christians don't do research. My motto is "most people lie, some more than others." The gospels are full of myths which can be easily debunked. If you check historical records, you don't find much support for truth in the four gospels.

 

[DavidFirth]

dismissed as bull **** then.

You dismised the truth long ago.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Why don't you do some research, it would give you a better understanding into the "historical Jesus." If you like, I can post scholarly references. If you had read what I have posted, you would discover that I have stated Jesus is God, and the Messiah. What I refute is Jesus as the son of God.

Everyone should read Jesus Before The Gospels by Bart D. Ehrman. It explains how the four gospels evolved, from rumors and story telling to gospel writing. None of the gospel authors were eyewitnesses, knew eyewitnesses, where Jewish, lived near Galilee where Jesus preached, spoke Hebrew, wrote Hebrew, or had known a follower of Jesus. And yet, they wrote as if they knew Jesus and all of his disciples. Facts are a hard thing, eventually they come around and bit you. Ehrman's book is an excellent presentation of academic studies from psychology, anthropology, and sociology about memory, nature of group memories, and oral traditions. The four gospels were written (first by Mark and ending with John) from about 65 to 110 CE. by men who gathered information from earlier gospels, rumors, oral traditions, and local Christian groups, not from eyewitnesses or other first hand sources. By the time stories got to them, facts, and, most notably, narratives about Jesus had changed in so many different ways as to seriously question the real story about Jesus.

Based on gospel stories about Jesus, it is clear that the gospel authors were Anti-Semitic. The gospels were written to blame Jews for the death of Jesus, and there is a lot of criticism in all four gospels of Jewish authorities, Judaism, and Jewish traditions. Also, the gospels portray Pontius Pilate as cooperating with the accusers of Jesus to blame Jews for his death. If you read history, Pilate was a cruel and uncompromising Roman ruler, he would not have negotiated with Jewish authorities to murder Jesus.

What, do you suppose I do no research -- that I have not read (and re-read) every book that Ehrman has written (along with scores of other authors), and still have all those books immediately available? That would be incorrect -- I have done and still do.

My point was, you have stated you go along with the refutation of everything in the Gospels that are supposed to make Jesus into both God and the Son of God and the Messiah, and have yet still decided -- for no actual reason you can give, that he was 2 out of those 3 things -- Messiah and God, but not the Son.

Show me your evidence for those two claims.

 

[Repox]

What, do you suppose I do no research -- that I have not read (and re-read) every book that Ehrman has written (along with scores of other authors), and still have all those books immediately available? That would be incorrect -- I have done and still do.

My point was, you have stated you go along with the refutation of everything in the Gospels that are supposed to make Jesus into both God and the Son of God and the Messiah, and have yet still decided -- for no actual reason you can give, that he was 2 out of those 3 things -- Messiah and God, but not the Son.

Show me your evidence for those two claims.

Based on the history of the four gospels, there is no reason, at least not based on historical evidence, for believing in their validity. On this forum I have posted dreams I've had about God, Satan, heaven, and Jesus. From what I know from my dreams, Jesus was God, and not the son of God. Inasmuch as you can't prove revelations, I have no evidence. However, no one in the religious community has proof for their beliefs. Also, we have no empirical evidence for supernatural beings as portrayed in the Bible, unless you accept what the prophets said. If you want evidence, turn to science or law.

Based on what I know, I am certain Jesus was God, and God is a duality. Also, it appears as if the Messiah as mentioned in the OT is Jesus.

As a scholar, I continue to research the Bible. My revelations have guided me on topics to pursue. Following my revelations, I have researched several topics, and lo and beyond I have found interesting and profound information about them. Ehrman's books are particularly insightful for an understanding of the four gospels and Paul.

 

[Repox]

• It is possible that God came into the world as the man Jesus. Therefore, he had no childhood or youth. There are no historical records for Joseph and Mary. What you find are what early church leaders and gospel authors wrote.

 

[McBell]

You dismised the truth long ago.

Prove it.

Ah, but alas you cannot.
Thus the reason it is dismissed as bull ****.