I Just Proved That Jesus Is A False Messiah In Less Than 5 Minutes

[Five Solas]

What assumptions?



Pleased do.



Claims of truth by many diverse conflicting beliefs by fallible humans clearly make you claims questionable. You have presented nothing that would indicate your claims are in any way better than the many others that disagree with you.



There is no verifiable provenance that date the Bible texts as original to dates claimed, and abundant evence that many of the historical events in the Bible are not true for example Noah's flood.

Interesting. You make truth claims... You claim to know the truth then??
Your presupposition of finding the truth is false. I e it will logically lead to false conclusions. So, before we can discuss anything I need to know that you know what the truth is and how we can know the truth.
Again, your presupposition that only things that van be objectively verified is true is false. Objective observation does not create truth.

 

[shunyadragon]

Interesting. You make truth claims... You claim to know the truth then??

No, I do not make truth cl aims.

Your presupposition of finding the truth is false. I e it will logically lead to false conclusions. So, before we can discuss anything I need to know that you know what the truth is and how we can know the truth.

That is more a question fro you as to how you find the truth, since the different religions and divisions of religions have different beliefs as to what is truth and how we find it.

My view is from the fallible human perspective we do not find 'absolute truth' we find knowledge and as more discoveries and information is found over time our knowledge advances,

Again, your presupposition that only things that van be objectively verified is true is false. Objective observation does not create truth.

No, things that can be objectively verified are only conditionally true until further information changes the conclusions. For example: Newtonian physics was incorporated and replaced by Einstein's Physics:.which evolved into Quantum Mechanics Physics.

The ultimate 'Truth; ;.ile;y exists, but beyond falible human comprehension. If God exists it is with God. If God does not exist it is with the ultimate nature of our physical existence,

 

[Five Solas]

What assumptions?


Is reality objective or subjective?
#AGICHATThe Future of Reality










Is reality objective or subjective?
#AGICHATThe Future of Reality

1
/
36



Tim
Jan '19





The benefit of asking the big questions 27 is that sometimes you can use reasoned logic to answer them. There are a few big questions that I’ve successfully answered to my satisfaction, and I don’t expect my answers to change with the passage of time.

One of those big questions is whether this reality is objective or subjective.

Before we can dive into this question though we should define exactly what we mean by Objective / Subjective reality.

Objective Reality

A reality that completely exists independent of any conscious entity to observe it.

Subjective Reality

The perception of all things, concepts, and "truths" in the universe differs between individuals: we all live in different worlds, each of which may have things in common, because of our unique perspectives on our worlds.






As it is well known, subjective reality is “subject” to an elaborate set of filters, any one of which can modify a perception of that reality; sensory apparatus (e.g. the rods and cones in our eyes), sensory processing (e.g. the visual cortex), higher level brain function, and psychological factors (e.g. expectations). As such, what one person experiences is always different than what any other person experiences, but usually in subtle ways.

Fundamentally, one cannot prove the existence of an objective reality. We can only infer its properties through observations, which of course, are subjective. However, it may be possible to prove that objective reality doesn’t exist, if, for example, it can be shown that the properties inferred via a particular observer fundamentally contradict properties inferred via another observer. But even then those inferences may be hopelessly subjective. Suppose person A sees a car as red and person B sees the same car as green. We can’t conclude that there is no objective reality because person B could simply have an unusual filter somewh
Pleased do.



Claims of truth by many diverse conflicting beliefs by fallible humans clearly make you claims questionable. You have presented nothing that would indicate your claims are in any way better than the many others that disagree with you.



There is no verifiable provenance that date the Bible texts as original to dates claimed, and abundant evence that many of the historical events in the Bible are not true for example Noah's flood.

What assumptions?



Pleased do.



Claims of truth by many diverse conflicting beliefs by fallible humans clearly make you claims questionable. You have presented nothing that would indicate your claims are in any way better than the many others that disagree with you.



There is no verifiable provenance that date the Bible texts as original to dates claimed, and abundant evence that many of the historical events in the Bible are not true for example Noah's flood.

No, I do not make truth cl aims.



That is more a question fro you as to how you find the truth, since the different religions and divisions of religions have different beliefs as to what is truth and how we find it.

My view is from the fallible human perspective we do not find 'absolute truth' we find knowledge and as more discoveries and information is found over time our knowledge advances,




No, things that can be objectively verified are only conditionally true until further information changes the conclusions. For example: Newtonian physics was incorporated and replaced by Einstein's Physics:.which evolved into Quantum Mechanics Physics.

The ultimate 'Truth; ;.ile;y exists, but beyond falible human comprehension. If God exists it is with God. If God does not exist it is with the ultimate nature of our physical existence,

You're getting closer.
However, you claimed that the flood definitely did not occur, that is a truth claim.

 

[shunyadragon]

You're getting closer.
However, you claimed that the flood definitely did not occur, that is a truth claim.

No that is NOT a truth claim. This is based on the FACTS that there is absolutely NO evidence that the Noah flood ever took place. Thatus simple factual science. The earth and all the strata of the earth has been studied in great detail and no evidence has been found. Of course, like if flying pigs in purple tuxedos playing pianos are found to be real, there is evidence found in the future it may be reconsidered a possibility in the future. I already clearly and specifically stated that ALL knowledge of science is conditional on the discovery of new information, but some things clearly approach the limits of what is possible.

Please use the English language properly in terns of what is 'Truth claims. .

 

[shunyadragon]

You're getting closer.
However, you claimed that the flood definitely did not occur, that is a truth claim.

Your post was confusing anf not clear hard to read. It is not a matter of whether reality id objective or subjective, magic tricks aside, Objectivity and subjectivity are clearly and defined. Lets not throw up blue smoke and mirrors and deal with reality

 

[Jolly]

No. In Judaism the term Moshiach (one who is anointed) refers to a high priest or a king. There have been many of those biblically speaking. There was one who is called "anointed" who was not actually anointed with the oil that was compounded in the desert but who was still a king. And there were kings and high priests who, because of the exigencies of the moment or the historical context, were not anointed at all.

There is no explicit discussion of a future messiah in the written texts but there is an explicit set of discussions about the eternal nature of the Davidic dynasty of kings. So the future Davidic leader, a king, would be anointed like other kings were. Someone who is not a king, or not a high priest would not be called an anointed person.

Drawing a distinction between annoiting with oil by men and those claimed to be annoited by God directly- which would be the claim Jesus made. Or as with Elisha and Elijah.

Cyrus is also called Gods annoited - without any oil poured on his head. I debate that this Cyrus is in anyway the Persian King and actually references a prophet.

There is also Isaiah 61 which clearly states a direct annoiting of a Prophet by God.

We also see in Zachariah the annoited holy ones- who are spiritual in nature.

And ofcourse all temple instruments were annoited.

So we see from the scriptures Prophets, priests, kings, utensils and even spiritual beings held as annoited.

Ergo your claim that annoiting only relates to kings and Priests is mistaken.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The Christian church unapologetically confirms:
We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father; God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God; begotten not made, one in being with the Father.

Pre-human heavenly Jesus was 'begotten ' ( only begotten Son...in the heavens before God sent Jesus to earth)
God's Being is from everlasting ( meaning No beginning for Creator God - see Psalms 90:2 )
So, God as Creator existed 'before' the beginning of anything. else - Revelation 4:11.
Whereas, pre-human heavenly Jesus was "IN" the beginning but Not ' before ' the beginning as his God was.
Even the resurrected ascended-to-heaven Jesus still thinks he has a God over him at Revelation 3:12

 

[URAVIP2ME]

..........It still is a fact of scripture it describes a tritheistic belief in the three Gods in one God. Nonetheless each of the three Gods have distinct separate identity..

God's spirit (Psalms 104:30) is Not a person.
God's spirit is a neuter "it" according to Numbers 11:17,25.
In Greek grammar rules a neuter can be presented in male gender but that does Not make a neuter a non-neuter.
In English we speak of a car or a ship as a 'she' but we know they remain a neuter "it".

Jesus instructed as to who to worship at John 4:23-24.
Jesus gives credit to his God as being Creator - Revelation 4:11
Even resurrected heavenly Jesus still thinks he as a God over him according to Revelation 3:12

 

[shunyadragon]

God's spirit (Psalms 104:30) is Not a person.
God's spirit is a neuter "it" according to Numbers 11:17,25.
In Greek grammar rules a neuter can be presented in male gender but that does Not make a neuter a non-neuter.
In English we speak of a car or a ship as a 'she' but we know they remain a neuter "it".

I agree God is spirit

Jesus instructed as to who to worship at John 4:23-24.
Jesus gives credit to his God as being Creator - Revelation 4:11
Even resurrected heavenly Jesus still thinks he as a God over him according to Revelation. It is called the Trinity 3:12

. . . . but the NT describes God as three distinct persons with different identities It is called the Trinity,

 

[Five Solas]

Your post was confusing anf not clear hard to read. It is not a matter of whether reality id objective or subjective, magic tricks aside, Objectivity and subjectivity are clearly and defined. Lets not throw up blue smoke and mirrors and deal with reality

There you make exactly same mistake again. What a pity. You do not practice what you preach. You still do not grasp what constitutes proof of truth. You cannot be a scientist.

 

[shunyadragon]

There you make the exact same mistake again. What a pity. You do not practice what you preach. You still do not grasp what constitutes proof of truth. You cannot be a scientist.

Empty post. You still have not responded to the previous posts. It is a fact that science does not deal in proofs nor [proof of truth." Science deals with the falsification of theories and hypotheses to increase the knowledge of our physical existence.

Please answer 'What constitutes proof of Truth? By the way in Logic truth is not the subject of proof.

References please concerning what is the 'proof of truth,' and not assertions and opinions.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I agree God is spirit
. . . . but the NT describes God as three distinct persons with different identities It is called the Trinity,

What NT verse do you have in mind ____________

 

[rational experiences]

Father's advice.

Your brother a theist for machine science is lifes destroyer.

Lie. Life. Exact meaning no life.

Says I theme cosmic first owning no God earth reasons in my theory.

As a theist I cannot use a natural term by thesis a four sea son cross on earth. In a one of science. A fixed reaction.

New machine model is earth based just a machine doesn't in natural terms own anything else.

He themes our biologies owned atmosphere but cannot apply his thesis by earths own sea son cross. Four season change by ices presence saviour.

So he says I'll give life's bio saviour to my machine thesis. In reality he means no ice body.

Instead he takes his theme lying to cold blooded Iiving dinosaurs life no ice no sea son cross to thesis intent.

Humans made aware make movies saying science man is trying to place living human lie on earth with dinosaurs themed living with our life.

Dinosaurs living had no saviour ice.

As they were cold blooded.

His mind says if I include ice biologies saviour I cannot actually thesis. Status to control own just by a machines reaction.

As ice isn't a part of my thesis.

Immaculate is. More than likely ice was on earth then too as no light heat above existed.

Is lying.

Mountains are above as below. Deep crevasses are pretend V mountains where a flood goes over them also.

As above so below.

Man theist said in Egyptian first science Jesus terms never even existed.

Jesus was a new science cause.

Just as Jesus returned was gods caused future a falling burning Satan asteroid.

Jesus event in past a God cause four day earthquake referenced exact.

I never knew it was machine science.

Men quote how would a man know how evil he would consciusly become. He did know. He gave us warnings man consciousness would not inherit end of times 2012.

As he said Jesus life sacrifice will return

The 2012 was calculated in Mayan moses terms. Long count.... Not Romes new science causes.

End of sun time stated no nuclear above fallout returned. Moses law was exact.

Rome ignored the warning's created a New prophecy.

As it's a story about using correct human consciousness via bio health and a healthy spiritual psyche.

So no nuclear agreement would have been mind notified. Then chosen to follow man's fall again.

As it began again year 1901 Russia's hit.

If you say codes.
1000 years is one day. Christ teaching.

Leaves meaning of 1 to 1.

90.

Should be our lived age span.

Most humans no longer reach that age span as the future atmosphere no longer exists. It's being depleted.

The teaching says just barely surviving. As humans life heavenly sacrificed.

As it's real.

Hence we need a new order legal review of natural life versus the science community. Just as notified.

 

[shunyadragon]

What NT verse do you have in mind ____________

Matt. 28 Verses 19 to 20
[19] Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

There are more verses that elevate Jesus to the station of an incarnate manifestation of God and the agent of Creation, we can go into this further. Yes, the doctrine of the Trinity is controversial, and opponents of the Trinity can cite their side of the scripture. Nonetheless, the New Testament was compiled edited, and redacted by the Greek and Roman Church Fathers that concluded that the Trinity is the reality of God and the relationship with Creation.

Yes, the Tanakh contains no references that may be interpreted as God is a Trinitarian God without first relying on the references in the NT.

I am a Baha'i and reject the Trinity and the claim of the exclusiveness and uniqueness claim of Christianity in the relationship with humanity and Creation. All the ancient religions make exclusive tribal claims for their relationship with God or God(s), which reflects a cultural view of God and is irrational and illogical, culturally egocentric, and contrary to the relationship of a universal Creator God undefinable from any one cultural belief.

IF God exists God is not a Hebrew, Christian, Islamic, Vedic, Zoroastrian or whatever ancient God or God(s) of the past. God would be the 'Source' of all of our physical existence, and the relationship with ALL of humanity since the first human knew of their relationship with the 'Source' sone call God(s) by many different names. From the universal perspective, the different diverse and conflicting divisions of religions are a fallible human view of God,

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Matt. 28 Verses 19 to 20
[19] Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
There are more verses that elevate Jesus to the station of an incarnate manifestation of God and the agent of Creation, we can go into this further. Yes, the doctrine of the Trinity is controversial, and opponents of the Trinity can cite their side of the scripture. Nonetheless, the New Testament was compiled edited, and redacted by the Greek and Roman Church Fathers that concluded that the Trinity is the reality of God and the relationship with Creation.
Yes, the Tanakh contains no references that may be interpreted as God is a Trinitarian God without first relying on the references in the NT.
I am a Baha'i and reject the Trinity and the claim of the exclusiveness and uniqueness claim of Christianity in the relationship with humanity and Creation. All the ancient religions make exclusive tribal claims for their relationship with God or God(s), which reflects a cultural view of God and is irrational and illogical, culturally egocentric, and contrary to the relationship of a universal Creator God undefinable from any one cultural belief.
IF God exists God is not a Hebrew, Christian, Islamic, Vedic, Zoroastrian or whatever ancient God or God(s) of the past. God would be the 'Source' of all of our physical existence, and the relationship with ALL of humanity since the first human knew of their relationship with the 'Source' ones call God(s) by many different names. From the universal perspective, the different diverse and conflicting divisions of religions are a fallible human view of God,

We use the expression ' in the name of the law ' and we know the law is Not a person.
God's sends forth Not Himself, but sends His spirit to accomplish something according to Psalms 104:30.
I find the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) stand for only one name for the God of the Bible.
The name that Jesus manifested and Jesus will make known - John 17:6; John 17:26

 

[shunyadragon]

We use the expression ' in the name of the law ' and we know the law is Not a person.

This is the use of ENGLISH in Law and occasionally in other contexts today, but this is not the case Biblically in the NT.

God sends forth Not Himself, but sends His spirit to accomplish something according to Psalms 104:30.
I find the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) stand for only one name for the God of the Bible.
The name that Jesus manifested and Jesus will make known - John 17:6; John 17:26

The Trinitarians do not propose that God sends himself. Jesus Christ the Son of God exists eternally with God seated on the right hand of the throne. Jesus is the One who Creates in the Name of God the Father

I would to a certain extent agree, but God as the 'Soruce' from the more universal perspective as a Bahai, but neither you nor the Church Fathers compiled, edited, and redacted the NT in terms of an understanding of a Trinitarian God. Both views can be justified by a selective citation, but both remain a limited cultural view of God and God's relationship to humanity from a universal perspective.

The Tanakh nor the NTlack the provenance of well-documented originals as many claim. They are not historical documents, but narratives set in history and the culture of the time. Like the scripture of all ancient religions, they have no or very limited knowledge of science nor the world outside their culture. This is the reason there are so many diverse conflicting divisions among the ancient religions and nor relate to the contemporary diverse world and science. These are just some of the reasons that neither the Trinitarians nor your beliefs can take the high ground, You just disagree taking past each other from a subjective' religious perspective.

 

[rational experiences]

Men said. All advices as a human.

Being told advice. Is not a God telling you whilst you get created by that God.

A theory said by a man is how I believe I was created. O beginning with God earth then how it changed its heavens.....Yet the bible makes no such statements.

The biblical two evidences as a history by man was about using conversion of mass as sciences attacked our life. A testimonial. Lived. At the bio age of the human as a book writer of human explained sayings.

Claiming as an adult when my bio age was about age 33 to 40. Has nothing to do with any other status.

So you said I understand what I caused. My DNA nation no longer owns our origin parents of everyone's parent DNA. By nation we were bio converted.

Barely survived and nearly bodily changed into a beast. As your statement of human life body owning lesser DNA.

As ice and earths gases equals the type of nature garden.

Sea life in water mass no connection. Breathing differently.

Fresh water life in water mass no connection ...breathing differently.

To holy water stretched oxygenated exact. Ours.

A human lived with new animal beasts after ice age is exact presence. Same as today. Exact.

Evidence all dinosaurs extinct.

As it's scientists who compare a humans life to a beast in nature not said as the testimonial.

Beasts terms not accepted.

Moses review said. Life was sacrificed and stopped by void womb vacuum too. Holy mother of God...science term only.

In the future only a wandering cold star will pass earth. We won't theory star fall ever again.

Hence one day cooling earth will support ice masses body return the sacrificed body removed he said. The saviour was ice.

Pressures will change. Space womb will cause a rebirth of fixed held holy water mass returned to life and oxygenated.

We will cell heal inside that body mass given back and regain lost bio cells able to regenerate. By new mass presence known.

Was exact. No man is God teachings for humans.

To those historic humans evil science had been stopped by a God act. Science teaching of earth mass as mess I AH....mass plus heavens change.

Messiah term. By breaths oxygenation....in fresh water...in sea water...in our water. Three holy bodies.

Stated. Weren't lying. They understood evolution on earth.

Only men scientists as theists lie. Want with greed included are the reasons to lie.

Is how we get life destroyed on earth. As life is only natural and not anothers human theory.

So not only were you told don't theory beasts. You were told no man is a God body.

Science says I will update my machine model it won't be dangerous is lying.

O earths position as pressure is God. No machine exists in cosmic pressures by law. No machine is a God.

React gods mass pressure then changed is instant.

 

[Five Solas]

Empty post. You still have not responded to the previous posts. It is a fact that science does not deal in proofs nor [proof of truth." Science deals with the falsification of theories and hypotheses to increase the knowledge of our physical existence.

You claim to be strong on science but do not understand the scientific method.

Science does not claim that something is true because it had been proven by science.
I.e. proof does not create truth. Science does not claim that.

Something is true because it is true - full stop. It can sometime be proven sometimes not but the fact remains.

What we can say is that we find something hard to believe and would prefer to see proof first before I believe it. That is a healthy approach. But it could well be true although one doubt it.

You say that religious claims, including that of Christianity, is not true because it had not been proven. That kind of sweeping statement is ridiculous for many reasons - also if you apply the scientific method or empiricism. It is a statement that makes no sense and is not worth responding to.

We all know that the dividing line is faith in God. Those who do not believe cannot accept any biblical claims. Full stop.

 

[Five Solas]

Pre-human heavenly Jesus was 'begotten ' ( only begotten Son...in the heavens before God sent Jesus to earth)
God's Being is from everlasting ( meaning No beginning for Creator God - see Psalms 90:2 )
So, God as Creator existed 'before' the beginning of anything. else - Revelation 4:11.
Whereas, pre-human heavenly Jesus was "IN" the beginning but Not ' before ' the beginning as his God was.
Even the resurrected ascended-to-heaven Jesus still thinks he has a God over him at Revelation 3:12

Sorry, what is your point? Do you disagree with the Christian creeds or are you giving more information?

 

[shunyadragon]

You claim to be strong on science but do not understand the scientific method.

Science does not claim that something is true because it had been proven by science.
I.e. proof does not create truth. Science does not claim that.

You DO NOT understand the Scientific Methods. I am a scientist, and I have studied and used scientific methods in college and in the field as a geologist and soil scientist for over 50 years.

Something is true because it is true - full stop. It can sometime be proven sometimes not but the fact remains.

The above is so circular it bites you in the butt. Something is not necessarily 'true,' because it claims to be' true.'

What we can say is that we find something hard to believe and would prefer to see proof first before I believe it. That is a healthy approach. But it could well be true although one doubt it.

You say that religious claims, including that of Christianity, is not true because it had not been proven. That kind of sweeping statement is ridiculous for many reasons - also if you apply the scientific method or empiricism. It is a statement that makes no sense and is not worth responding to.

We all know that the dividing line is faith in God. Those who do not believe cannot accept any biblical claims. Full stop.

NO, I never stated anything remotely like the bold above. You need to reread my posts. cite me properly and get yourself n education in science and scientific methods.


Unbelievable misrepresentation of my posts and the Scientific Methods. I have NEVER used the statement that something is NOT TRUE, because it was not proven(?) by science.

In science 'predictable objective verifiable evidence' are considered 'true' facts, but hypotheses and theories may be only falsified, subject to change, and considered false if more evidence is found.

Absolutely no 'predictable objective verifiable evidence' supporting Noah's Arc nor the flood has been found after over a hundred years of scientific research and search for evidence. Therefore there is no scientific basis for considering the existence of such a flood and Noah's Arc. as based on 'facts.'

SCIENCE DOES NOT PROVE ANYTHING.