Who do YOU say Jesus is?

[Saint Frankenstein]

An executed criminal and narcissistic cult leader that had a mythology created around him when his devastated followers didn't want to accept that he was a failure. Then they became really good at peddling their nonsense to the gullible and uneducated underclass, eventually becoming powerful enough to play the political game and strongarm their way into power, taking over the Empire and forcing their creed on much of the world over the centuries.

 

[rrobs]

I don't believe there is evidence to support that view.

I'm pretty sure you are a Christian and therefore have some regard for scriptural evidence. But, I don't know, there are a lot of different brands of Christians these days, so maybe there are some that don't believe the Bible. Anyway, I'm going to assume you do give them credence, so maybe you can tell me how Romans does not say exactly what I said, that Jesus got us out of the mess Adam got us into.

Rom 5:12-21,

12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
15 But not as the offence, so also [is] the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, [which is] by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
16 And not as [it was] by one that sinned, [so is] the gift: for the judgment [was] by one to condemnation, but the free gift [is] of many offences unto justification.
17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore as by the offence of one [judgment came] upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one [the free gift came] upon all men unto justification of life.
19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
​

Take care...

 

[Twilight Hue]

I believe I haven't seen any evidence of that.

It has gotten the attention of a few Scholars who are looking at it.
Primarily
Joseph Atwill.

The Flavian Signature provides an abridged version of the theory.

 

[JustWondering]

If Ralph really believed he could fly and breath fire he absolutely could. Jesus once said that if someone told a mountain to jump in the ocean, and believed in their innermost being that it would, then it would. The simple reason nobody has done that is because we've all been taught our whole lives that such a thing is impossible, and therefore that is what we believe. Nonetheless, God said we could. I also like to say, "are you going to believe God or your own two eyes?" Well, I can't deny that my eyes often hold more sway than God's word. It's just the human condition, including me, but that doesn't negate what Jesus said about believing.

If you really studied and understood for yourself what the scriptures said, I guarantee you would see them as the most logical and sane thing going. I suspect most of your scriptural knowledge comes from hearsay and your own supposition. It's the five senses world that's batty and makes little to no logical sense.

There are and have been plenty of people who believed things that were contrary to reality with all their heart and guess what? They didn't change reality. They may have gotten a trip to a mental institution but they didn't change reality. This is one reason I think certain religions are dangerous and detrimental to mankind. They encourage authoritarianism and magical thinking.

 

[blü 2]

I don't know of any examples of moving mountains into the sea.

But as far as I'm aware, there isn't even an authenticated example of someone lifting a ton of concrete just by belief, of someone levitating a cherry just by belief. Do you know of any?

If you don't, that would at the least demonstrate that we have no reason to think that the statement You can physically alter reality just by wishing, independently of the rules of physics, just by wishing is true, no?

As you may know, Jesus grew up in Galilee. It seems they didn't think very much of him. They very well may have thought him to be an illegitimate child, a major taboo in their culture.

There'd be no reason to think Mark's Jesus is illegitimate. The Jesuses of Matthew and Luke, being the product of divine insemination, would (were that true) be illegitimate by any standard.

In any case there is an interesting observation in the scriptures concerning the people in his home town.
Matt 13:58,

And he (Jesus) did not many mighty works there (Galilee) because of their unbelief.​

We skeptics would immediately think of eg Uri Geller, or astrologers, or anyone else whose act lets them down under scrutiny. After all, people believed in magic back then. Not everyone does, these, days. The result, either way, appears to be zero authenticated cases.

 

[rrobs]

But as far as I'm aware, there isn't even an authenticated example of someone lifting a ton of concrete just by belief, of someone levitating a cherry just by belief. Do you know of any?

If you don't, that would at the least demonstrate that we have no reason to think that the statement You can physically alter reality just by wishing, independently of the rules of physics, just by wishing is true, no?
There'd be no reason to think Mark's Jesus is illegitimate. The Jesuses of Matthew and Luke, being the product of divine insemination, would (were that true) be illegitimate by any standard.
We skeptics would immediately think of eg Uri Geller, or astrologers, or anyone else whose act lets them down under scrutiny. After all, people believed in magic back then. Not everyone does, these, days. The result, either way, appears to be zero authenticated cases.

All I did was quote what Jesus said. As I've said a few times now, I think the reason nobody has moved a mountain is because nobody believes they can. The teaching we all got from an infant is simply too strong to overcome. We are overly reliant on our five senses. I think it telling that the first thing that happened to Adam and Eve after disobeying God was that their eyes were opened. They began to get their ideas of reality based upon what they saw. They must have gotten their ideas some other way before that. Whatever it was, maybe that is the realm in which nothing is impossible to anyone who believes in what we now consider impossible, e.g. moving a mountain or a cherry.

The guy that was largely responsible for teaching me the scriptures used to say God's word is true even if it never comes to pass. Read Hebrews 11 to see a bunch of guys who believed God's promises to them even though they never saw them fulfilled. Paul goes on to say that someday they will be raised from the dead and at that time all those promises will absolutely come to pass.

Take care...

 

[rrobs]

But as far as I'm aware, there isn't even an authenticated example of someone lifting a ton of concrete just by belief, of someone levitating a cherry just by belief. Do you know of any?

If you don't, that would at the least demonstrate that we have no reason to think that the statement You can physically alter reality just by wishing, independently of the rules of physics, just by wishing is true, no?
There'd be no reason to think Mark's Jesus is illegitimate. The Jesuses of Matthew and Luke, being the product of divine insemination, would (were that true) be illegitimate by any standard.
We skeptics would immediately think of eg Uri Geller, or astrologers, or anyone else whose act lets them down under scrutiny. After all, people believed in magic back then. Not everyone does, these, days. The result, either way, appears to be zero authenticated cases.

Are you at all skeptical about skepticism?

 

[blü 2]

All I did was quote what Jesus said. As I've said a few times now, I think the reason nobody has moved a mountain is because nobody believes they can. The teaching we all got from an infant is simply too strong to overcome. We are overly reliant on our five senses.

But look at the record. Using our five senses, we move mountains, concrete, cherries, whatever we like, all day every day. As against that, using wishes, we have zero moved mountains, concrete, cherries at all, even after a couple of millennia. If there's an error here, surely it would be by those favoring wishes, no?

I think it telling that the first thing that happened to Adam and Eve after disobeying God was that their eyes were opened. They began to get their ideas of reality based upon what they saw.

As I think I mentioned, that looks like a metaphor for adolescence to me, nothing more. They became aware of their sexual nature as their hormones cut in.

They must have gotten their ideas some other way before that.

On my analogy, from their [actual] parents, symbolized by God.

Whatever it was, maybe that is the realm in which nothing is impossible to anyone who believes in what we now consider impossible, e.g. moving a mountain or a cherry.

We can move mountains and levitate cherries in our dreams, of course. Perhaps it's best understood as an aspirational tale ─ you can be whatever you want, sort of thing (assuming you know what you want, that is).

The guy that was largely responsible for teaching me the scriptures used to say God's word is true even if it never comes to pass.

Did he never suggest that you take biblical passages and test their truth in reality rather than assume it? That's the outlook that gives skepticism its power.

Take care...

Thanks. And you.

 

[blü 2]

Are you at all skeptical about skepticism?

Of course. The moment something comes along that can better answer the question, 'What's true in reality?' I'll be onto it in a flash!

 

[Oeste]

Then you refused to follow your own Little Johnny to where this automatically leads ─ what is √(Ghost/[Jesus-God]) ?

I’m at a total loss to understand what you’re talking about since the equation doesn’t require division or a square root to solve.

After all, if you can multiply, you can divide,

You can also make a jelly sandwich. We simply add it to the left side of the equation and balance it with some peanut butter on the right.

You can do a number of things with equations. I’m just not seeing the point in doing so.

and if you can divide you can extract roots. And I've only asked you for the square root, not the (5i+13)th root.

Why are you dead set on changing the equation? If Johnny has 7 apples and someone gives him twice more, are you going to solve by multiplying by two or are you going to tell me “when you multiply you can also divide” and then dive into square roots???

Your response is nonsensical.

The Trinity doctrine has no “divisions” Blü. The exclusion of any divisor is explicitly stated and inherent in the doctrine. It can be clearly expressed with the formula 1 x 1 x 1 = 1.

There are distinctions, but no divisions. That’s why there are no fractions. The distinctions are expressed on the left side of the equation. The result of these distinctions is expressed on the right. To properly express the doctrine as an equation we need to keep in mind what the doctrine actually states, not what you wish or would like it to state. This holds true for any word problem one might tackle. It's universal.

We keep fidelity to the problem and the equation by paying strict attention to the doctrine. Unfortunately, this does not mean we can take Zeus and Odin, any arithmetic symbol we’d like to work with, and then throw them into the doctrine and ask ourselves what to do with the resulting mess. If they are excluded by definition in the doctrine, they are excluded from the equation. If there is something in the equation, it should also appear in the doctrine. It’s as simple as that. If I describe a car you’re not going to direct me to a house plant.

The only reason I see for divide is if you needed proof that 1 x 1 x 1 = 1, and hopefully we don’t need to provide you with that.

Because, as I showed you, and as you've confirmed by not providing the answer to my sum, it's a false analogy.

Your statement contradicts itself. You correctly concluded that the equation did not result in an apple that was 3 times as large but now you want to “sum” God to arrive at a result that is 3 times that explicitly stated in the doctrine. That’s like a teacher giving you a problem that starts “If Johnny has 7 apples…” and you interjecting to say “No, he had 14!”

It's not unlike the Jewish concept of the ruach ('breath') being a manifestation of God rather than a distinct entity.

What the Jews thought of ruach (‘breath’) we may think of as spirit, but I’m going from memory and would have to get back to you on that.

But the Trinity doctrine expressly denies both the fractions notion and the One God notion.

No fractions, true, but we certainly agree there is but one God in 3 distinctive triune “persons” or hypostases. The distinctive persons are expressed by the left side of the 1 x 1 x 1 = 1 equation and the result is 1 God (not 3) on the right. That’s essentially what the doctrine states. That is, until you’ve added, subtracted and edited it to say something it doesn’t.

We can make any doctrine say anything we want if we do that.

It’s bad enough correcting misconceptions about the Trinity, but it’s frustrating arguing against phantom concepts and constructs the Doctrine never even mentions. IMO, the most effective argument skeptics and Unitarians have against the Trinity is to blatantly misstate or mischaracterize it in some way.

More accurately, it's a revealed nonsense, which is what 'mystery in the strict sense, as I told you before, but will again refresh your memory:

[The Trinity] doctrine is held to be a mystery in the strict sense, in that it can neither be known by unaided reason apart from revelation, nor cogently demonstrated by reason after it has been revealed.

─ Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, under 'Trinity'.

The online Catholic Encyclopedia, under 'Trinity' and 'Mystery', agrees.​

​

Again I ask, what do you find so difficult about this? As I told you before, but will again refresh your memory:

Things "beyond our reason" are not by necessity unreasonable. I can talk to a squirrel, explain my tax return to him, show him my tax return, even stuff the Return down his home in the tree, and the squirrel is not going to understand my tax return.

My tax return is simply unreasonable to the squirrel, even after my revelation, because it’s beyond the grasp of “squirrel reasoning”. It does not make my tax return unreasonable in and of itself. Likewise there are things of God that are beyond “human reasoning”. He has a certain reasoning, we have a certain reasoning, and the squirrel has a certain reasoning.​

The Trinity isn't revealed in the NT. It's devised as a solution to a question debated in Early Church politics of the 3rd and 4th centuries. It didn't exist in Jesus' day.

Next you’ll argue “bible” doesn’t appear in the NT, and that our “bible” is a construct that didn’t exist earlier…it was simply the church’s solution to a growing debate on what was canon and what was not. It didn't exist in Jesus' day.

I suppose you'd want to argue that 100%x100%x100%=1,000,000%=10,000 gods. no?

Certainly not. The equation is nonsensical and highly unbalanced to say the least.

What substance is that, exactly? How can we distinguish it from 'person'?

Look at the LEFT side of the equation. The right side shows the result. When we multiply 1 x 1 we do not grab two apples from the bowl because when we multiply by 1 we are not multiplying two separate apples!

Same with 1x1x1… we demonstrate by grabbing one apple from the bowl, not three because it is the same apple multiplied by itself. It does not become larger and it does not branch off into additional apples. It’s all the same apple, but each one is distinctive (not additional) apple as illustrated by the left side.

Look, if I ask you to hand me the 1 x 1 in the corner, will you hand me two boards? What if I ask for the 1 x 1 x 1? Will you now hand me 3? When I point to a single board in the corner, will you tell me the request doesn’t make any sense? That I’m being illogical?

Of course not! You give me ONE board that is 1x1x1, not 3 separate boards! Yet you insist we’d have 3 Gods here. Why?

The 1x1x1 shows the DISTINCTIONS of this ONE board. With the board the distinctions are height, length and width.

The Trinity doctrine espouses a TRIUNE and not a “TRIPLE” God. So we do not add up or sum Gods. Each hypostasis (person) is a distinction of the ONE God much like the ONE board mentioned earlier. The distinctions are not dimensions in the form of height, length and width, but they are distinctions of person…Jesus, Father and Spirit.

So yes God is beyond our comprehension but the doctrine itself is not. There are many Trinitarians on this board who do not struggle with the concept as much as you seem to do, something they would not be true if the doctrine were as incomprehensible as you claim. The term Trinity can be used to (incompletely) describe God or the doctrine. But God is not the doctrine and the doctrine is not God so there is no need to obfuscate or conflate the two as you’ve done here.

It’s apparent you prefer a God you comprehend but that is not the Christian God. For a comprehensible God you can do what the Greeks and Romans did and create your own.

God reaches down to reveal Himself to man; man does not reach up into the heavens to reveal God. As such, it’s brazenly obvious there are going to be things about Him that neither you nor I understand. If that’s not true for whatever deity you espouse then by my book your deity is not God, but simply a God or vague concept you’ve made, most likely in your own image.

This is where I pointed out last time that because the Trinity doctrine denies that 1+1+1=3,

The Trinity doctrine doesn’t deny 1+1+1 = 3 but it most assuredly denies 3 Gods. That much is pretty basic from any honest reading of the doctrine. The idea of 3 Gods in the Trinity appears to be a concept championed by the Cults and advantaged by the skeptics as some sort of grand rationale for their disbelief.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[blü 2]

I’m at a total loss to understand what you’re talking about since the equation doesn’t require division or a square root to solve.

I pointed out that multiplication implies division eg 1/3 = 1 x .333', and that this is all you need to extract roots of a real number. And you say the persons of the trinity are multipliable entities. So my question legitimately follows from your example, as a natural reductio ad absurdum for your false analogy.

It’s bad enough correcting misconceptions about the Trinity,

Which brings us back to the question I asked you.

I've shown you why the Trinity doctrine is "a mystery in the strict sense in that it can neither be known by unaided human reason apart from revelation nor cogently demonstrated by reason after it has been revealed."

You have simply asserted that what I said was wrong, and used the definition of 'mystery' instead of the definition of 'mystery in the strict sense'. As a result you simply haven't offered any credible alternative explanation of what, exactly, "can neither be known by unaided human reason apart from revelation nor cogently demonstrated by reason after it has been revealed" ─ nor pointed to any difference between such a thing and a nonsense.

Things "beyond our reason" are not by necessity unreasonable.

Of course they are. They're not accessible to reason, and neither is the Trinity doctrine. And even if they were, the Trinity doctrine still would not be.

My tax return is simply unreasonable to the squirrel,

That's not a false analogy ─ it's not an analogy at all. You have no way of communicating your ideas to the squirrel, and no way of knowing whether, if you could, the squirrel would at some level have a concept of the idea or not eg a tally plus a compulsory sharing.

Next you’ll argue “bible” doesn’t appear in the NT, and that our “bible” is a construct that didn’t exist earlier…

If it did, it couldn't refer to the NT, since the NT didn't exist as such when the books &c of the NT were written.

It didn't exist in Jesus' day.

There's still a live question whether Jesus existed in Jesus' day. An historical Jesus isn't necessary to explain the NT ─ stories could do it, and a great deal of it is manifestly fiction, however piously intended.

The Trinity doctrine espouses a TRIUNE and not a “TRIPLE” God. So we do not add up or sum Gods.

Simply point to the part of the doctrine that "can neither be known by unaided human reason apart from revelation nor cogently demonstrated by reason after it has been revealed" and differs from what I said.

 

[Marcion]

Scholarship as always been at odds with the scriptures.

Not at odds with the scriptures, but at odds with the naive religious interpretation or acceptance of those scriptures by (still) ignorant believers.

 

[Oeste]

I’m at a total loss to understand what you’re talking about since the equation doesn’t require division or a square root to solve.

I pointed out that multiplication implies division eg 1/3 = 1 x .333', and that this is all you need to extract roots of a real number. And you say the persons of the trinity are multipliable entities. So my question legitimately follows from your example, as a natural reductio ad absurdum for your false analogy.

This is nonsense Blü. The problem doesn’t call for division and it certainly doesn’t call for square roots.

Look, Johnny has an apple. Susan gives him another apple. Let us know how many apples Johnny has and please advise us when you start dividing and taking square roots.

This problem no more calls for division than the Trinity. We can't throw the kitchen sink into an a problem or equation that doesn’t call for it and then hope the reader gets confused...it's absurd.

I've shown you why the Trinity doctrine is "a mystery in the strict sense in that it can neither be known by unaided human reason apart from revelation nor cogently demonstrated by reason after it has been revealed."

You have simply asserted that what I said was wrong, and used the definition of 'mystery' instead of the definition of 'mystery in the strict sense'.

As a result you simply haven't offered any credible alternative explanation of what, exactly, "can neither be known by unaided human reason apart from revelation nor cogently demonstrated by reason after it has been revealed" ─ nor pointed to any difference between such a thing and a nonsense.

God is still a mystery to us even after the revelation of Christ. He is a mystery in the strict sense. You’re not only asking for "credible alternative explanations" to prove the Trinity, you’re asking for "credible alternative explanations" to prove God, both of which you view as nonsense.

I think we’ve been through that one before.

Things "beyond our reason" are not by necessity unreasonable.

Of course they are. They're not accessible to reason, and neither is the Trinity doctrine.

They’re not accessible to human reasoning, which does not mean they are beyond God’s.

You present two unproven premises:

1. There is nothing beyond human reasoning and
2. If there is it must be unreasonable.

Both of which are nonsense. It is simply arrogance and vanity to think that reality is somehow defined or limited to the scope of human experience.

As an aside, I'm not aware of any reputable scientist who would allege of such a thing.

My tax return is simply unreasonable to the squirrel,

There's still a live question whether Jesus existed in Jesus' day. An historical Jesus isn't necessary to explain the NT ─ stories could do it, and a great deal of it is manifestly fiction, however piously intended.

Fantastic claims require even more fantastic evidence. Since over 1 billion people already believe in the NT Jesus and even more believe in a historical Jesus it appears our work is nearly done. I guess you and the skeptics have your work cut out for you.

Simply point to the part of the doctrine that "can neither be known by unaided human reason apart from revelation nor cogently demonstrated by reason after it has been revealed" and differs from what I said.

You do not believe in God, Jesus, or scripture. It’s all nonsense to you, so of course you wouldn’t believe any scripture given you, let alone any doctrine based on them. In fact, you don’t even believe any of the scripture you’ve posted to me.

But the point here is not to convince you because you’re not going to believe anything you think based on nonsense, like scripture. Rather it’s to take advantage of the fact you ask good questions which in turn allows Trinitarians to correctly explain sound doctrine, including that of the Trinity and why it’s survived over 2,000 years of skeptics and cultism.

Of course, the skeptics have been around longer, so I realize you may be trying to do the same.

 

[rrobs]

Not at odds with the scriptures, but at odds with the naive religious interpretation or acceptance of those scriptures by (still) ignorant believers.

I suppose I was being overly broad in my statement. I was thinking specifically of the scholarship (even in many Bible colleges) that does not say that the Bible is the inspired written word and will of God, that it is the words of men.

It's interesting that it is usually (though not always) those who don't believe in the scriptures who call those who do ignorant and naive. I think it shows way more tolerance on the part of believers that they usually (though not always) don't make such sweeping accusations against non-believers. And isn't one of the things non-believers don't like about believers judgment? And yet those same non-believers have no qualms about making sweeping judgments about the believer's mental state. Does hypocrisy come to mind?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Do you have evidence Jesus' words have been embellished? If so I'd like to see it.

It's just a question of likelyness

Don't bother. I answered his question and gave him what he requested, and he ran from it without answering or even acknowledging that he had seen it. I pointed this out to him, and he ignored that as well.

He's a bad-faith poster. Don't expect him to do his part. This is the kind of person one appropriately talks at and about, not to. When I comment on his posts, it is not with the expectation that he will engage in discussion, but rather to contradict him where I think that is appropriate.

You haven't even read them (Habermas' "The Historical Jesus"; "The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus")

It's Christian apologetics. Why would we read that? It's already been explained to you - and you ignored that as well - that Christian apologists are not trusted, and know nothing that is true that isn't also known by non-Christians. If he has no non-apologist source, he has nothing.

show me ONE (1, just your best ONE) example of a person, place, or event in the Gospels that has been shown to be fictitious? Cite the pertinent scripture and your evidence. Until you can do that, your claim that the Gospels are not historical cannot be taken seriously.

You've misplaced the burden of proof. Nobody needs to demonstrate that scripture is fiction. If you can't prove that it isn't, it can justifiably be ignored.

Nevertheless, much of the Christian Bible has been shown to be false. It's not even a discussion point outside of Sunday schools.

the Bible has already concluded that in the end times there will be a falling away from the faith: "Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion (the falling away from the faith) comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction." - 2 Thessalonians 2:3

What an amazing prophecy! Who could ever foresee a new religion attracting enemies?

"superstition"? You haven't done your homework.

No, it's you that hasn't done his due dilligence. Where's your case? All I've seen are your claims and unsupported religious beliefs.

Scholars once said the earth is flat.

But the Bible didn't. Not when you really dig into it.

Actually, it did - but you'd have to read it unencumbered by a faith-based confirmation bias to see it. The earth is described as having edges and corners, of being immovable and mounted on pillars and encased in a dome like a snow globe. I'd be glad to provide supporting scripture, but somehow, I get the feeling that you don't make decisions on these matter using evidence.

Depending on the scholar, Biblical scholarship is awesome. Have you read these from a top scholar?
"The Historical Jesus," by scholar Dr. Gary Habermas;
"The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus," by Dr. Gary Habermas.

Once again, why should any of us make the effort to acquire and read these books, books that you can't be bothered to summarize or present the best arguments from. Apologetics is simply rejected for the reasons already presented to you and ignored by you, apparently in the hopes that it would just go away.

The historical record of multiple, independent individuals says Jesus was indeed supernatural.

Hearsay rejected for lack of supporting physical evidence.

And where has physics / science ever proven that God and the supernatural do not and cannot exist?

Science has never proven that gods, leprechauns, and vampires do not exist. The rational skeptic's criteria for belief are much higher than yours.

You should do your homework on the historical Jesus. Here's a few books to start with:

"The Historical Jesus," by scholar Dr. Gary Habermas;

"New Evidence that Demands a Verdict," by former skeptic Josh McDowell;

"Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics," by Dr. Norman Geisler;

"The Case for Christ," by Lee Strobel," and

"The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus," by Dr. Gary Habermas.

More Christian apologetics. Why is that all that you have to offer? Are there no impartial investigators agreeing with these people? If not, why not? If so, why aren't you citing them instead?

 

[rrobs]

Actually, it did - but you'd have to read it unencumbered by a faith-based confirmation bias to see it. The earth is described as having edges and corners, of being immovable and mounted on pillars and encased in a dome like a snow globe. I'd be glad to provide supporting scripture, but somehow, I get the feeling that you don't make decisions on these matter using evidence.

You think you understand Genesis from the eyes of a Middle Eastern man who lived 4,000 years ago? I'm thinking you've never even thought about that, let alone taken the time and effort to do so. Somehow I don't think think they would have understood a thing Steven Hawking said (who, by the way, didn't understand a thing God said).

 

[blü 2]

This is nonsense Blü. The problem doesn’t call for division and it certainly doesn’t call for square roots.

At last! You realize that my mathematical question is what I said it was, a reductio ad absurdum of your 1x1x1 analogy. Yes, nonsense indeed! But nonsense that follows directly from what you said.

God is still a mystery to us even after the revelation of Christ. He is a mystery in the strict sense. You’re not only asking for "credible alternative explanations" to prove the Trinity, you’re asking for "credible alternative explanations" to prove God, both of which you view as nonsense.

Then we're here.

I can explain why the Trinity doctrine is 'a mystery in the strict sense' as the churches call it.

And you can't.

So why not, as a Trinitarian, set out to understand your own theology?

And to digest the undoubted historical fact that no Trinity doctrine existed at the time the NT was written or for centuries after, with the result that nothing in the NT supports it. Read a reliable history of the evolution of the doctrine in the third and fourth centuries.

And explain, at least to yourself, why Jesus constantly denies he's God, and never claims to be God, and says that the Father is the only true god, and the god that Jesus worships.

And work out for yourself whether Jesus would really have said, Me, me, why have I forsaken me? And whether he's really his own father.

TIP: avoid apologists. They're salesmen, hired defense counsel, there to argue that black is white or white is black according as how they see the need. Instead, put the question, 'What's true in reality?' at the center of your enquiries, and approach the matter skeptically and with an open and enquiring mind.

Nothing in that will stop you being a Trinitarian if that's what you want to be. But you will no longer wish to claim that the NT supports that position.

 

[Spartan]

Don't bother. I answered his question and gave him what he requested, and he ran from it without answering or even acknowledging that he had seen it. I pointed this out to him, and he ignored that as well.

Ignored what? Show me what I allegedly ignored.

He's a bad-faith poster. Don't expect him to do his part. This is the kind of person one appropriately talks at and about, not to. When I comment on his posts, it is not with the expectation that he will engage in discussion, but rather to contradict him where I think that is appropriate.

That's nonsense. So far you're not being specific.

It's Christian apologetics. Why would we read that? It's already been explained to you - and you ignored that as well - that Christian apologists are not trusted, and know nothing that is true that isn't also known by non-Christians. If he has no non-apologist source, he has nothing.

How would you POSSIBLY KNOW IT CAN'T BE TRUSTED since you haven't read it??? Once again, you're not making any sense.

You've misplaced the burden of proof. Nobody needs to demonstrate that scripture is fiction. If you can't prove that it isn't, it can justifiably be ignored. Nevertheless, much of the Christian Bible has been shown to be false. It's not even a discussion point outside of Sunday schools.

See? This is where you RUN from providing an example. I believe my question was asking you to show me any person, place, or event in the Gospels that has been shown to be false? Where's your answer? You say scripture is fiction but you're totally inept at providing an example from the Gospels. And you say I run from answering? Where's your example (scripture #) and evidence???

The earth is described as having edges and corners, of being immovable and mounted on pillars and encased in a dome like a snow globe. I'd be glad to provide supporting scripture, but somehow, I get the feeling that you don't make decisions on these matter using evidence.

And the sun RISES in the east, right? Instead of the earth spinning on its axis.

You need to do a study on symbolism in Genesis. Also, here's an article you should read about your so-called "corners": What does the Bible mean when it refers to the corners of the earth?

Once again, why should any of us make the effort to acquire and read these books, books that you can't be bothered to summarize or present the best arguments from. Apologetics is simply rejected for the reasons already presented to you and ignored by you, apparently in the hopes that it would just go away.

You continue to make up excuses for why you don't read the very books that will turn your twisted theology on its ear. Which is why you have so many unfounded beliefs.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Ignored what? Show me what I allegedly ignored.

This is the second or third time I've brought it up. It goes back to the first several posts of this thread. I told you who Jesus was to me : "Jesus, to me, was probably a historical character, that is, was an actual person rather than a purely fictional one, who served as the central figure of a future religion, and whose words have been embellished to include various words and supernatural acts to suggest divinity."

You responded, "Do you have evidence Jesus' words have been embellished? If so I'd like to see it."

I gave you a detailed answer, and you didn't acknowledge it. @sayak83 commented on it, asked me a question about the post, after which I expanded on the topic. Still no comment from you even though you had left several posts during that time. I mentioned the matter to you, and still no acknowledgement.

That's when I began criticizing your discourse etiquette, bringing up the courtroom analogy, and the defendant who refuses to address the prosecutors argument. I gave up on you.

Did you miss all of that? I doubt it. I think that you were just being rude. How could you have missed so many posts in a thread you started. This is the kind of thing I was referring to when I said to another poster that you hadn't done your part.

How would you POSSIBLY KNOW IT CAN'T BE TRUSTED since you haven't read it???

I explained that to you already twice. there is nothing that is true that is known only to Christian apologists. If they happen to have anything in any of their books or essays that is correct, the same information will be available on multiple neutral websites with no religious agenda. Refer to those resources if they exist, If they don't, then I'm not interested.

In a nutshell, Christian apologists have a terrible reputation for honesty, which I illustrated twice (chromosome dropout apologetics and an apocryphal Patrick Henry quote).

Did you see none of what I wrote about Christian apologetics, and why its rejected out of hand? If you had an opinion about that, that would have been the time to have expressed it. Once again, you chose to make no comment, your prerogative, and once again, that ship has sailed.

It's not really possible to have a discussion with somebody who doesn't answer responses, and I am no longer looking for one or expecting one with you. I am merely responding to some of your comments as they appear.

This is where you RUN from providing an example.

You're demanding my cooperation now? I'm no more interested in cooperating with you about your requests of me than you have been in mine. As I noted, the nature of our relationship changed with your choice to request information and then ignore it and the reminder that you hadn't answered.

I'm not willing to supply you information on demand any longer. You haven't been a good-faith discussant.

It is easy to name multiple areas of the Bible that have been shown to be wrong. I'm sure that you can discover what they are on your own.

I believe my question was asking you to show me any person, place, or event in the Gospels that has been shown to be false? Where's your answer?

Where's my answer? I have none for you for the reasons just given.

It's also an irrelevant question. The skeptic has no duty to disprove the claims of others. The believer has the burden of proof if he wishes to be believed by others.

If you want to do a little research yourself, compare the Gospels. They contradict one another, guaranteeing that where they contradict, at least one is wrong. For example, what were Jesus' last words uttered before death? Different Gospels give different answers. I'll get you started : John 19:30 and Luke 23:46

You say scripture is fiction

I say that much of it is fiction.

You need to do a study on symbolism in Genesis.

The Christian Bible is not authoritative with me. I don't turn to it for science, history, or moral instruction, so I don't need to study it.

here's an article you should read about your so-called "corners": What does the Bible mean when it refers to the corners of the earth?

No orphan links, thank you - orphan because they are not offered in support of an argument, but in lieu of one. I've lost count of how many times in the past I read and responded to such a link to the one posting it only to discover that whoever left the orphan link didn't actually read it himself, or read it but misunderstood it and now can't rebut the rebuttal to the piece, or the paragraphs I responded to on RF weren't the part of interest to the link poster.

Please make your own argument, and support it with a link if need be, or expect your link to not be opened or your topic discussed.

Here are multiple images of biblical cosmology, all showing a flat earth, stationary as Judeo-Christian cosmologists envisioned it after reading their Bibles.

You continue to make up excuses for why you don't read the very books that will turn your twisted theology on its ear.

I've also explained to you, also apparently in vain, why you need to cite mutually acceptable sources. One last time : Christian apologists are not acceptable for reasons already given. If there is no neutral scholarship on the same subject coming from academia, then the apologetics are just more tortured and twisted arguments trying to convince others of what can only be believed by faith. There is no argument for resurrection, for example, only the claim. I don't need to read any book to know that I there can be no evidence of a resurrection that allegedly occurred millennia ago, even if it actually happened.

Also, I'm not interested in researching religious claims because I'm not terribly interested in theology. My interests there are limited to the history of the Bible and the history of Christianity, not what adherents believe. I am uninterested in arguments about whether baptism should be by immersion or sprinkling, or whether one prays to saints or not.

Finally, religion has nothing to offer a person who is content without it, so there is no reason for such a person to research the claims of the faithful regarding how much it has done for them. As I told another poster recently, one who had claimed that she had been thinking about suicide before her religious conversion and rescue, that's great that her faith could do that for her, but what did she have to say to people who have no such need - people navigating life happily with no god belief or religion?

She thought that I was missing out. I told her that I was grateful to have my needs met without religion. The analogy I gave her was that it's great that people who need corrective lenses to see properly have access to them, and that they make their lives so much better, but that doesn't mean that I'm going out and getting myself a pair. That doesn't mean that they would help me or make my life better. My vision is fine without them, and there is nothing enviable about needing glasses or benefiting from a religious belief

 

[Spartan]

This is the second or third time I've brought it up. It goes back to the first several posts of this thread. I told you who Jesus was to me : "Jesus, to me, was probably a historical character, that is, was an actual person rather than a purely fictional one, who served as the central figure of a future religion, and whose words have been embellished to include various words and supernatural acts to suggest divinity."

You responded, "Do you have evidence Jesus' words have been embellished? If so I'd like to see it."

I gave you a detailed answer, and you didn't acknowledge it. @sayak83 commented on it, asked me a question about the post, after which I expanded on the topic. Still no comment from you even though you had left several posts during that time. I mentioned the matter to you, and still no acknowledgement.

What you had in your post is a THEORY (vs. EVIDENCE) that certain Gospel writers copied others. I asked for evidence, and evidence that the Gospel writers EMBELLISHED the words of Jesus. I didn't see any EVIDENCE of that in your post - just claims and theories. Do you understand the difference?

As for common material in the Gospels, it didn't need to be copied. So your mythical Q or other sources are superfluous. No doubt after Jesus' resurrection they all sat around campfires and talked - with Jesus, the SOURCE - about all that occurred during his ministry. Perhaps they took notes on parchment. IN ADDITION, if you want a common SOURCE, it's God (Jesus and the Holy Spirit). As is written in John 14:26: "But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."

Piece of cake (for all except the unfounded anti-supernaturalists).

In a nutshell, Christian apologists have a terrible reputation for honesty, which I illustrated twice (chromosome dropout apologetics and an apocryphal Patrick Henry quote).

I'll take the word of various conservative scholars over the left-wing theological nonsense you and charlatans like Richard Carrier tend to put out (example above).

If you want to do a little research yourself, compare the Gospels. They contradict one another, guaranteeing that where they contradict, at least one is wrong. For example, what were Jesus' last words uttered before death? Different Gospels give different answers. I'll get you started : John 19:30 and Luke 23:46

Could well be that both were uttered. John heard one thing, Luke was told another. Perhaps there was a commotion or a wailing of woman and John didn't hear the last part of what Luke reported. Doesn't mean either one is lying. And both confirm Jesus death on the cross, so liberal "Swoon theories" are out!

AND, ALL FOUR GOSPEL WRITERS CONFIRM THE RESURRECTION. So when they all agree on something, you STILL won't believe it.