What would it take for you to NOT believe in God?

[Soapy]

You have a bur under your saddle.

No sir, I stated a query which is quite acceptable if truth were required. No one knows if indeed it was Moses and Elijah. No evidence is presented at any time. No representation is given as to who the two persons were. No purpose is shown even as to what the transfiguration was even meant to be.

Moses and Elijah, some claim, represented the law and the prophets.. but why wasn’t Abraham there also, representing Faith? Or David, representing kingship.

 

[Kenny]

No sir, I stated a query which is quite acceptable if truth were required. No one knows if indeed it was Moses and Elijah. No evidence is presented at any time. No representation is given as to who the two persons were. No purpose is shown even as to what the transfiguration was even meant to be.

Moses and Elijah, some claim, represented the law and the prophets.. but why wasn’t Abraham there also, representing Faith? Or David, representing kingship.

Strictly your opinion in as much as Matthew, Mark, Luke, James, John and Peter would disagree. 3 by personal experience and 3 by repeating what the other 3 said.

Purpose was clearly stated in Luke 9:31 Who appeared in glory, and spake of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem.

 

[Soapy]

Strictly your opinion in as much as Matthew, Mark, Luke, James, John and Peter would disagree. 3 by personal experience and 3 by repeating what the other 3 said.

Purpose was clearly stated in Luke 9:31 Who appeared in glory, and spake of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem.

What? Don’t you know much of what is written in Matthew Mark and Luke WERE COPIED ... how are you arguing when you dont know this!!!!??

Checkimg back, Peter even thought the two were HUMANS who needed a tent to go into... He thought that Spirits needed housing!!!

The purpose for the transfiguration is not for our edification. It adds nothing to our understanding of the spiritual aspect - it’s not something we needed to know of. It’s just an event that is significant for JESUS.

It is ONLY a SUGGESTION that it was concerning Jesus’ up-and-coming death. We see that later on Jesus AGONISED over dying and the awefullness of it so much so that he ‘sweated blood’... sweating blood is proveable!!! Stress that is so high can push blood through the skin - and certainly weak blood vessel can burst under high stress. Moreover, Jesus even faultered by asking his Father, YHWH, if they salvation could be carried out in a different way than it was to be with him... but then abjured the thought saying: ‘Not my way but yours’.

If you can find the evidence, please enlighten me as to what the purpose of the transfiguration was concerning and in what way it affects our understanding of Jesus and the scriptures.

 

[Kenny]

What? Don’t you know much of what is written in Matthew Mark and Luke WERE COPIED ... how are you arguing when you dont know this!!!!??

Matt 17 And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart, 2 And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light. 3 And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him. 4 Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias. 5 While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.

Mark 9:2 And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them. 3 And his raiment became shining, exceeding white as snow; so as no fuller on earth can white them.4 And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus. 5 And Peter answered and said to Jesus, Master, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.

Luke 9: 28 And it came to pass about an eight days after these sayings, he took Peter and John and James, and went up into a mountain to pray.29 And as he prayed, the fashion of his countenance was altered, and his raiment was white and glistering.30 And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias: 31 Who appeared in glory, and spake of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem.

Doesn't look like they copied this one. - so your point is mute.

Checkimg back, Peter even thought the two were HUMANS who needed a tent to go into... He thought that Spirits needed housing!!!

Personal interpretation - and a bad one at that.

The purpose for the transfiguration is not for our edification. It adds nothing to our understanding of the spiritual aspect - it’s not something we needed to know of. It’s just an event that is significant for JESUS.

\
Apparently Jesus doesn't agree with you.

It is ONLY a SUGGESTION that it was concerning Jesus’ up-and-coming death. We see that later on Jesus AGONISED over dying and the awefullness of it so much so that he ‘sweated blood’... sweating blood is proveable!!! Stress that is so high can push blood through the skin - and certainly weak blood vessel can burst under high stress. Moreover, Jesus even faultered by asking his Father, YHWH, if they salvation could be carried out in a different way than it was to be with him... but then abjured the thought saying: ‘Not my way but yours’.

Irrelevant and immaterial to what they talked about.

 

[Soapy]

Matt 17 And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart, 2 And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light. 3 And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him. 4 Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias. 5 While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.

Mark 9:2 And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them. 3 And his raiment became shining, exceeding white as snow; so as no fuller on earth can white them.4 And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus. 5 And Peter answered and said to Jesus, Master, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.

Luke 9: 28 And it came to pass about an eight days after these sayings, he took Peter and John and James, and went up into a mountain to pray.29 And as he prayed, the fashion of his countenance was altered, and his raiment was white and glistering.30 And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias: 31 Who appeared in glory, and spake of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem.

Doesn't look like they copied this one. - so your point is mute.

Personal interpretation - and a bad one at that.
\
Apparently Jesus doesn't agree with you.

Irrelevant and immaterial to what they talked about.

I notice you do what most disingenuous posters do... when responding to a truth you just come back with micro responses (‘That’s not true’, ‘It’s only what you say’, ‘Jesus doesn’t think so’....).

It’s a rare thing to find a response from ones like you that contain anything of sense or credible substance.

I asked for evidence of Moses and Elijah and up to now you have not presented a single point outside of, ‘Its written in the verse’... (or such!)

Now you are saying that Jesus explained the transfiguration... Well, please show me the verse and I will believe you... I am asking ...

I am willing to accept that Jesus explained the transfiguration if you show me the chapter and verse (... Thomas...!) I mean like, from the horses mouth: remember that it was Peter, John and James ONLY who went up with Jesus AND Jesus told them to tell no one until after his resurrection.

So I ask you why didn’t Mark write about the reason... nor Matthew, nor James, nor Peter, nor John...??
Where are their testimony of the reason for the great event with two dead persons from thousands of years which are supposedly recognised BY SIGHT!!

 

[Kenny]

I notice you do what most disingenuous posters do... when responding to a truth you just come back with micro responses (‘That’s not true’, ‘It’s only what you say’, ‘Jesus doesn’t think so’....).

Fallacy - I responded within context of what we were talking about.

It’s a rare thing to find a response from ones like you that contain anything of sense or credible substance.

Fallacy - comparing me with others (with no quote) - personal opinion on your side (you haven't presented anything credible either.

I asked for evidence of Moses and Elijah and up to now you have not presented a single point outside of, ‘Its written in the verse’... (or such!)

Moving goal post. Since when did you ask for verification outside of what was written?

Now you are saying that Jesus explained the transfiguration... Well, please show me the verse and I will believe you... I am asking ...

Moving goal post - your statement was "No purpose is shown even as to what the transfiguration was even meant to be."#141 no "explaining the transfiguration".

As you can see, Soapy, you position is all washed up. You move goal posts, you invent positions, you give no credible evidence to your position other that "I said so", you deny the witnesses of three people in three different accounts (where you erroneously said they copied each other), you demean the posters (an overused fallacy) et al.

So...

Now that I have seen that you aren't a serious posters, I bid you a "shalom" moment for you Have a great day.!

 

[Soapy]

Fallacy - I responded within context of what we were talking about.



Fallacy - comparing me with others (with no quote) - personal opinion on your side (you haven't presented anything credible either.



Moving goal post. Since when did you ask for verification outside of what was written?



Moving goal post - your statement was "No purpose is shown even as to what the transfiguration was even meant to be."#141 no "explaining the transfiguration".

As you can see, Soapy, you position is all washed up. You move goal posts, you invent positions, you give no credible evidence to your position other that "I said so", you deny the witnesses of three people in three different accounts (where you erroneously said they copied each other), you demean the posters (an overused fallacy) et al.

So...

Now that I have seen that you aren't a serious posters, I bid you a "shalom" moment for you Have a great day.!

And so it goes on with the same disingenuousness. This is exactly what I find when such posters cannot answer to what is asked of them... they sling mud... run up the mountain and throw rocks back down trying to cover their opponents.

The whole of what I asked was presented as a question to you... I do not need to present ‘evidence’... it is for YOU to do so.... and you cannot.

As such you are likened to someone being interviewed and when you realise you cannot respond with genuineness you try to turn the questions back onto the interviewer.... sadly, it doesn’t work with me... and do you accuse ME of not presenting evidence.....

1. WHAT EVIDENCE should I produce AS THE INTERVIEWER that JESUS DIDNT explain the transfiguration ((This is called “proving a negative” - the last ditch efforts of disingenuousness!)
   
2. WHAT EVIDENCE should I produce AS THE INTERVIEWER that I am not moving the goalposts (I was clarifying what I wanted you to answer because you kept saying, ‘Can’t you read what is in the verse?’ (Paraphrased) when, in fact, only one Apostle spoke of a reason... and none that were ACTUALLY THERE wrote of it)
   
3. WHAT EVIDENCE should I produce AS THE INTERVIEWER that comparing your to others is NOT A BAD THING. (Do you think you are unique in your manner of debating... do you think you invented the evasion technique when you are caught with your pants down?? ... yes... you like many others realise you are caught out ...

You started out confident that you had all the answers (‘read what’s written... what don’t you see that the disciples wrote...!’... ‘Mary said.... ‘ [irrelevant]’ (Paraphrased)) but after a few exchanges of posts you realise that all maybe not quite as you thought. You could not find the evidence you thought was ‘obvious’ and also you realised exactly that NONE of the apostles who were ACTUALLY WITH JESUS reported what you claimed was ‘evidence’... so where did THE ONE APOSTLE (who was NOT PRESENT) get his information.....

I ALSO STATED that I was NOT DISBELIEVING but just requested EVIDENCE.... I don’t see how that constitutes a none genuine poster...

My goodness, I see the never ending posts in the forum that go on and on and on in a tight circle of debate that has no way out because the opponents have no evidence and perhaps are actually arguing counter to each other due to different definitions of critical words (like “God” and “Godhead”, and ‘Word [of God]’)... I don’t see you running away from those opponents...
Why? Why aren’t you calling them ‘none genuine posters’... is it because it’s a happy endless cyclic dispute to be in ignorance... BUT the truth CLOSES a dispute?

 

[Kenny]

And so it goes on with the same disingenuousness. This is exactly what I find when such posters cannot answer to what is asked of them... they sling mud... run up the mountain and throw rocks back down trying to cover their opponents.

The whole of what I asked was presented as a question to you... I do not need to present ‘evidence’... it is for YOU to do so.... and you cannot.

As such you are likened to someone being interviewed and when you realise you cannot respond with genuineness you try to turn the questions back onto the interviewer.... sadly, it doesn’t work with me... and do you accuse ME of not presenting evidence.....

1. WHAT EVIDENCE should I produce AS THE INTERVIEWER that JESUS DIDNT explain the transfiguration ((This is called “proving a negative” - the last ditch efforts of disingenuousness!)
   
2. WHAT EVIDENCE should I produce AS THE INTERVIEWER that I am not moving the goalposts (I was clarifying what I wanted you to answer because you kept saying, ‘Can’t you read what is in the verse?’ (Paraphrased) when, in fact, only one Apostle spoke of a reason... and none that were ACTUALLY THERE wrote of it)
   
3. WHAT EVIDENCE should I produce AS THE INTERVIEWER that comparing your to others is NOT A BAD THING. (Do you think you are unique in your manner of debating... do you think you invented the evasion technique when you are caught with your pants down?? ... yes... you like many others realise you are caught out ...

You started out confident that you had all the answers (‘read what’s written... what don’t you see that the disciples wrote...!’... ‘Mary said.... ‘ [irrelevant]’ (Paraphrased)) but after a few exchanges of posts you realise that all maybe not quite as you thought. You could not find the evidence you thought was ‘obvious’ and also you realised exactly that NONE of the apostles who were ACTUALLY WITH JESUS reported what you claimed was ‘evidence’... so where did THE ONE APOSTLE (who was NOT PRESENT) get his information.....

I ALSO STATED that I was NOT DISBELIEVING but just requested EVIDENCE.... I don’t see how that constitutes a none genuine poster...

My goodness, I see the never ending posts in the forum that go on and on and on in a tight circle of debate that has no way out because the opponents have no evidence and perhaps are actually arguing counter to each other due to different definitions of critical words (like “God” and “Godhead”, and ‘Word [of God]’)... I don’t see you running away from those opponents...
Why? Why aren’t you calling them ‘none genuine posters’... is it because it’s a happy endless cyclic dispute to be in ignorance... BUT the truth CLOSES a dispute?

Again, when you have no logic in your reasoning, and then continue on, it is no wonder that posts goes on and on.

In the end, one either believes what was written or one doesn't.

You can postulate your own opinion, but it would be in direct opposition to what was written.

 

[Soapy]

Again, when you have no logic in your reasoning, and then continue on, it is no wonder that posts goes on and on.

In the end, one either believes what was written or one doesn't.

You can postulate your own opinion, but it would be in direct opposition to what was written.

Wow, did you know I could have been persecuted and even burned to death for telling the truth that trinity is a fallacy:

An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture - Wikipedia.

So you say we shouldn’t ever question what we read....!!!??

 

[Kenny]

Wow, did you know I could have been persecuted and even burned to death for telling the truth that trinity is a fallacy:

An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture - Wikipedia.

So you say we shouldn’t ever question what we read....!!!??

Certainly I logically question what I read. More often than not, I put my beliefs in the strainer of God's words and I throw out my wrong thinking.

You could also be put to death for translating the Bible, being a Christian Believer, not being a Christian believer, for being Jewish, and if Muslim for being a homosexual et al. So I fail to see the relevance.

 

[Soapy]

Certainly I logically question what I read. More often than not, I put my beliefs in the strainer of God's words and I throw out my wrong thinking.

You could also be put to death for translating the Bible, being a Christian Believer, not being a Christian believer, for being Jewish, and if Muslim for being a homosexual et al. So I fail to see the relevance.

Of course you FAIL TO SEE the relevance...

You admit that you:

• “Certainly [] logically question what [you] read.”

Yet only a post or two (and three and four) back you were telling me that I should just believe what I read... duh!!!

You said:

• “You can postulate your own opinion, but it would be in direct opposition to what was written.”

In actual fact I didn’t ‘postulate’ an opinion that was in direct opposition to what was written. What I ‘postulated’ was that there was no EVIDENCE GIVEN as to WHO THE TWO SPIRIT PERSONS SEEN WITH JESUS WERE.

In no way was that ‘postulating an opinion in opposition to what was written’... it was doing EXACTLY what you yourself NOW ADMIT:

• “[] I logically question what I read.“

Also, only ONE Apostle claimed a reason for the appearance AND THAT APOSTLE was NOT one that was on the mountain with Jesus... indeed, the three apostles WITH JESUS did not report any such reason...

ISNT THAT WORTH QUESTIONING?

Isn’t that ‘LOGICALLY QUESTIONABLE’?

Again, I STATED a few times that I was not DISBELIEVING the verses... rather, I was ‘logically questioning’ for the seeking of evidence.

You say in one breath that I shouldn’t be questioning and then admit that you do question...!!!

 

[Kenny]

• “[] I logically question what I read.“

Also, only ONE Apostle claimed a reason for the appearance AND THAT APOSTLE was NOT one that was on the mountain with Jesus... indeed, the three apostles WITH JESUS did not report any such reason...

ISNT THAT WORTH QUESTIONING?

Isn’t that ‘LOGICALLY QUESTIONABLE’?

Again, I STATED a few times that I was not DISBELIEVING the verses... rather, I was ‘logically questioning’ for the seeking of evidence.

You say in one breath that I shouldn’t be questioning and then admit that you do question...!!!

I'm answering the only one that has any merit.

Yes, you can question it. But your answer to the question is "It wasn't Moses or Elijah". Based on what? What logic?

Yet, it is written, "Let everything be established by a witness of 2 or 3". And we have three people declared (not wondering if - but declaring) it was Moses and Elijah. And it was obviously important enough to write it. Where did they get their info from?

Can you address these questions?

So, who holds the logic here?

Maybe your should let the word of God change your position?

EDITTED

 

[Soapy]

I'm answering the only one that has any merit.

Yes, you can question it. But your answer to the question is "It wasn't Moses or Elijah". Based on what? What logic?

Yet, it is written, "Let everything be established by a witness of 2 or 3". And we have three people declared (not wondering if - but declaring) it was Moses and Elijah. And it was obviously important enough to write it. Where did they get their info from?

Can you address these questions?

So, who holds the logic here?

Maybe your should let the word of God change your position?

EDITTED

Oh my giddy aunt... please... I challenge you right here to produce the claim I made that ‘It was not Moses and Elijah’

I don’t mean an edited partial statement... I mean the actual statement of the claim...

Just to cut you some slack I will state again that only ever questioned...’How it was known that the two seen with Jesus were Moses and Elijah?’

I asked if there was EVIDENCE to the effect.

You could produce no EVIDENCE but alluded only to the wording and firmed that such wording alone should serve as such EVIDENCE...

And so we are back to the Status Quo.

Your offer of one of the apostles claiming the reason for the transfiguration (which I also requested) is tenuous at the most seeing that that Apostle was not present on the mountain with Jesus ... and NONE of the three that were there ever wrote of reason for it...

AGAIN, I stated that I was NOT DISBELIEVING but just SEEKING EVIDENCE of such reasoning.

I DID POSTULATE that, given the mentioning of John the Baptist, why could it not have been he... or Abraham... or David??

This postulate is just so - if ... IF ... that had been offered by an Apostle then the general would equally have accepted it as a reasoning : Abraham representing FAITH; and David representing KINGSHIP.

At the end of the day, both claims (postulates) are equally non-evidential because there is nothing in them that affects mankind nor spirit kind of concern to us.

And, of course, I’m happy to know that the trinitarian crew didn’t leap on their soapbox and claim the two were the Father and the Holy Spirit, representing the trinity God!!!

But just produce the evidence you accuse me of: to wit, that I claimed the two were not Moses and Elijah??

I warrant you cannot....!

 

[Soapy]

Yet, it is written, "Let everything be established by a witness of 2 or 3". And we have three people declared (not wondering if - but declaring) it was Moses and Elijah. And it was obviously important enough to write it. Where did they get their info from?

I nearly missed this... please say who the two or three witnesses are...!

Are you speaking of Peter, James, and John, who were the three witnesses to the transfiguration?

 

[Kenny]

I nearly missed this... please say who the two or three witnesses are...!

Are you speaking of Peter, James, and John, who were the three witnesses to the transfiguration?

No....

Three people who said "Yes, Peter, James and John did say this"

 

[Soapy]

No....

Three people who said "Yes, Peter, James and John did say this"

I don’t understand what you mean by ‘Three people who said....’ about the eyewitnesses.

Are you saying that there are three eyewitnesses to the three eyewitnesses who were with Jesus on the mountain...?

Is that what ‘eyewitnesses’ mean?

Moreover, weren’t Matthew, Mark, and Luke, controversially copied from each other (not sure which was copied from which!). So, in fact, much of what is written, is ‘eyewitness’ of ‘eyewitness’ of ‘eyewitness’....?

Nah, KenS... the ‘eyewitnesses’ were Peter, James, and John, according to the gospel chapter and verse that mentions the transfiguration three and the witness three.

((isn’t a ‘witness to a witness’ anecdotal?))

 

[Kenny]

I don’t understand what you mean by ‘Three people who said....’ about the eyewitnesses.

Are you saying that there are three eyewitnesses to the three eyewitnesses who were with Jesus on the mountain...?

Is that what ‘eyewitnesses’ mean?

Moreover, weren’t Matthew, Mark, and Luke, controversially copied from each other (not sure which was copied from which!). So, in fact, much of what is written, is ‘eyewitness’ of ‘eyewitness’ of ‘eyewitness’....?

Nah, KenS... the ‘eyewitnesses’ were Peter, James, and John, according to the gospel chapter and verse that mentions the transfiguration three and the witness three.

((isn’t a ‘witness to a witness’ anecdotal?))

I'm sorry Soapy, tired of the merry-go-round.

Have a great day.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What is close minded in having no doubt in the teaching and once spiritual teacher?
The one I doubt is my self and my own ability to enlighten to the teaching.

The very definition of closed-minded is that your mind is closed to any potential evidence or data that might be brought up in the future which might require you to rethink the things you believe today.

So saying upfront that "nothing will ever ever ever" make you change your mind, is textbook closed-mindedness.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I can't imagine (nor do I want to) what circumstance would cause me to become that hopeless.

Do you think all atheists think they are hopeless?


Well, I'm an atheist, and that certainly isn't a word that I'ld use to describe myself or my state of mind.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You want to be nonexistent?

I was nonexistant for a good 13.7 billion years and I can't really say that it bothered me.
Would I like to live much longer then the few decades most of us get on this planet? Sure.

I also would like to have a billion dollars, bullet proof skin, regen superpowers, etc...

But my life seems better served by living in, and accepting, reality as it is.