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

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.

I do not mean any disrespect, but the word "revelation" is a very negative one to me -- and not just because Revelation is such a negative book of the Bible.

Can you see the problem? So many religious figures have had "revelations," and yet they've all been different. Not just different, but all over the map. What do you suppose makes your revelations more correct -- more representative of what God thinks/does/wants -- than Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, Gautama, Baha'u'llah, Joseph Smith, the list goes on and on.

To those of us watching all these "revelations" from the outside, the only thing we can suppose is that either God is hopelessly schizophrenic, or all of these "revelations" are the products of people's own minds.

I opt for the latter.

 

[Repox]

I do not mean any disrespect, but the word "revelation" is a very negative one to me -- and not just because Revelation is such a negative book of the Bible.

Can you see the problem? So many religious figures have had "revelations," and yet they've all been different. Not just different, but all over the map. What do you suppose makes your revelations more correct -- more representative of what God thinks/does/wants -- than Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, Gautama, Baha'u'llah, Joseph Smith, the list goes on and on.

To those of us watching all these "revelations" from the outside, the only thing we can suppose is that either God is hopelessly schizophrenic, or all of these "revelations" are the products of people's own minds.

I opt for the latter.

Yes, I see the problem. I just post what I know out of interest. I don't think God is crazy, there are just so many people, and they need outlets. I don't think it matters, there may be no salvation. Just ignore postings and take long naps. ha. ha. I do think there is a consistent story for God and His purpose. Others, however, will not agree with me. I guess you might call it a religious free market. Who is right?

 

[DavidFirth]

Prove it.

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

Prove what? That you dismissed the truth because you don't like it? You prove it quite well all by yourself.

 

[McBell]

Prove what? That you dismissed the truth because you don't like it? You prove it quite well all by yourself.

You have not established what I dismiss as bull **** is anything other than bull ****.

In fact, you merely reinforce it is nothing but bull **** with the above nonsense.

 

[Muffled]

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.

I believe scholarly research is often flawed. It often involves the machinations of the mind.

And why would we need to when we have the information we need?

I believe I do not lie on here but I might tell my wife she looks good.

I believe that is a myth.

I don't believe it has ever happened.

I believe history is often flawed and we do not need that support.

 

[Muffled]

• 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.

I believe carpenters from Nazareth don't make front page news.

 

[Muffled]

You have not established what I dismiss as bull **** is anything other than bull ****.

In fact, you merely reinforce it is nothing but bull **** with the above nonsense.

I believe Jesus says He is one with the father and that is not bull because it is in the Bible and the Bible is the word of God and the Holy Spirit affirms it.

 

[Repox]

I believe scholarly research is often flawed. It often involves the machinations of the mind.

And why would we need to when we have the information we need?

I believe I do not lie on here but I might tell my wife she looks good.

I believe that is a myth.

I don't believe it has ever happened.

I believe history is often flawed and we do not need that support.

In defense of scholarship, what is the substitute? How do you verify stories? Everyone lies, some more than others, so stories must be verified. In the academic world, articles are checked by scholars to determine authenticity. Otherwise, there would be no means for planting seeds for new ideas, pioneering research, or making contributions to knowledge.

Regardless of your criticism of scholarship, it is better than people telling stories without confirmation. Oh, oh, if scholars were allowed to investigated Disneyland stories, there would be no fairyland for kids. How sad.

How about law? If evidence was not fact checked by lawyers for presentation in court, trails would be circus, a lot of fun but no justice. .