Why So Much Trinity Bashing?

[Sargonski]

But these ‘Gods’ were not real!!! It was MEN, HUMANS, pulling the strings… CLAIMING that the laws, the demands, the acts associated with the world events, the directives of the priests… were from this ‘God’ or that God.

The God of the Jews PROVED Himself against such ‘other Gods’ time and time again.

The God of the Jews didn't prove anything .. I think you mean God of the Israelites .. but no worries .. except for the fact that Lord YHWH lost a number of battles against those other Gods .. as both the Bible and Biblical archaeology tells us.

 

[Muffled]

Yes, we will have different viewpoint… and I am fine with that.

I believe I can help you see the truth.

 

[Muffled]

Where does Jesus say that He is not good?

He doesn't. It is a misinterpretation.

 

[Soapy]

The "Blessed One" is the Living God.
Look at the verse below. Jesus is declaring with His own mouth that He is the Son of the living God.
Matthew 16:16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by My Father in heaven.…

Brian2, what’s your desperation… Jesus did not say those words EVER with his own mouth.

What you are saying is that he CONCURRED.., he CONFIRMED…, he Held himself open to agreement. But he did not SPEAK the words like: ‘I am the Son of God’!

He says, ‘YOU HAVE SAID SO!’

No one I’d saying that Jesus wasn’t the Son of God. My question… read it… my question was ‘Did Jesus ever say those words HIMSELF!!’

The reason I made the point was that Jesus did a similar thing with Pontius Pilate, where Pilate asked if he was ‘King of the Jews’… You might have missed his answer thinking Jesus said, ‘Yes, I am [king of the jews]’ but Jesus did not say that, He said, ‘You, yourself have said so!’.

The nearest we have is when Jesus says:

• Why do you say I blaspheme when I say that God is my Father?’

So WHO did call Jesus, ‘The Son of God’… explicitly?

Now, contrast that with Jesus ACTUALLY MOUTHING, ‘You will see The Son of Man coming with the clouds’…

• ‘The term, Son of man, is used by Jesus 80 times as a way to refer to himself (32 times in Matthew; 14 times in Mark; 26 times in Luke; and 10 times in a qualitatively different way from the Synoptic Gospels in John). In all these texts Jesus is the speaker;’ (Extract from Google search)

Know this, or remember this:

• “ALL WHO ARE LED BY THE SPIRIT OF GOD ARE [SONS] OF GOD” (Romans 8:14)

Do you get it now?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Never said it did.

So sorry, I got our discussion confused with another discussion, in which the person was chiding me for seeing a Gentile doctor rather than a Jewish doctor. My apologies.

 

[YoursTrue]

But these ‘Gods’ were not real!!! It was MEN, HUMANS, pulling the strings… CLAIMING that the laws, the demands, the acts associated with the world events, the directives of the priests… were from this ‘God’ or that God.

The God of the Jews PROVED Himself against such ‘other Gods’ time and time again.

All religious groups claim a deity as their God and Gods in order to make sense (to them) of what and why things happen in the world. It’s quite easy in a naive society to make outlandish INCONSISTENT claims with reasoning that anything that goes wrong from a ‘Command’ from a ‘God’ is because the affected person of persons didn’t do what the ‘God’ told them to do.

We have already read that the Egyptians ‘wizards’ imitated, with dark arts, some of the acts of Moses… how easy would it be to trick the nation in any way on instructions from their ‘God’ (likely Pharoah, himself in the background!!)

Remember what the devil offered Jesus in the wilderness if he (Jesus) would do one act of worship toward him, right?

 

[YoursTrue]

So sorry, I got our discussion confused with another discussion, in which the person was chiding me for seeing a Gentile doctor rather than a Jewish doctor. My apologies.

OK, I did a little chuckle about that. Because I'm wondering if the other poster thinks you're not supposed to do that?
Thank you for clarifying.

 

[YoursTrue]

There have been numerous such finds, and they date back as far as around 40,000 b.p. Analysis involves different methodologies, thus experts in various fields have studied them.

I would like to know specifically what it was they analyzed.

 

[YoursTrue]

There have been numerous such finds, and they date back as far as around 40,000 b.p. Analysis involves different methodologies, thus experts in various fields have studied them.

P.S. I know there are different dating methods. I am not contesting that in particular. What I want to know first of all is what was tested.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

OK, I did a little chuckle about that. Because I'm wondering if the other poster thinks you're not supposed to do that?
Thank you for clarifying.

Honestly, he was not making a whole lot of sense. He seemed to begin with the assumption that I went only to Jewish doctors. I informed him, No I see a Gentile doctor, and that I didn't think this was important. He then began berating me for seeing a non-Jewish doctor as if I were doing something wrong. I just don't get it. I told him the ONLY thing a person need be concerned about is whether their doctor is qualified for their specialty, and not religion or ethnicity. The conversation has me utterly baffled.

You meet the strangest people in these forums!

 

[YoursTrue]

Honestly, he was not making a whole lot of sense. He seemed to begin with the assumption that I went only to Jewish doctors. I informed him, No I see a Gentile doctor, and that I didn't think this was important. He then began berating me for seeing a non-Jewish doctor as if I were doing something wrong. I just don't get it. I told him the ONLY thing a person need be concerned about is whether their doctor is qualified for their specialty, and not religion or ethnicity. The conversation has me utterly baffled.

You meet the strangest people in these forums!

You never know who you'll meet on the internet. Gotta be careful anyway, even in real (outside) life. Some people delight in expressing strange ideas.

 

[YoursTrue]

Honestly, he was not making a whole lot of sense. He seemed to begin with the assumption that I went only to Jewish doctors. I informed him, No I see a Gentile doctor, and that I didn't think this was important. He then began berating me for seeing a non-Jewish doctor as if I were doing something wrong. I just don't get it. I told him the ONLY thing a person need be concerned about is whether their doctor is qualified for their specialty, and not religion or ethnicity. The conversation has me utterly baffled.

You meet the strangest people in these forums!

Maybe he was truly surprised, though.

 

[YoursTrue]

Or, it (“-im”) can also indicate a superlative aspect, as when the Philistines honored their god Dagon, at Judges 16:23.
(He was no multiple god, to them. They just thought he was the best, so the word Elohim was used.)

Exactly. God of gods. The supreme, exalted true One.

 

[Soapy]

Remember what the devil offered Jesus in the wilderness if he (Jesus) would do one act of worship toward him, right?

The devil knew that Jesus was destined to inherit the rulership over creation when he, Jesus, fulfilled the task that God set him. The devil also knew that Jesus would die a gruesome death as part of that task…

The devil is a STEWARDING Angel creation - this means that he sits as ‘God’ (the Ruler… the one who rules ‘is God’… the CONTEXT is ‘of the creation’) over creation WHILE THE REAL INTENDED KING IS NOT IN OFFICE. I think many people here and in the world do not understand, maybe do not want to understand, what a Steward does, a placeholder, a stand in. Plus, they cannot stomach the reality that Satan was anything at all except a malicious Spirit - they forget that Satan was ‘a Glorious’ Angel, the most powerful, the most wise, the most intelligent angel in Heaven (but it was this very things that brought him low in the end - Pride!!!)

The devil offered Jesus the Rulership so as to avoid the pain and suffering that Jesus knew he would be suffering, and the pain of death when he took on the Sin of Adam… which would separate him from God, ‘ABBA - his spiritual Father’.

But Jesus knew this was wrong. So he quoted his defence from that which was written: ‘You must only worship the Lord, your God’.

How funny, then, that Trinitarians claim that this saying meant that Jesus was saying man must only worship him, Jesus Christ!!!!??? It was clear that Jesus was saying what was always known and was true; the only God, the Father, and Him alone, must be worshipped. How did that suddenly mean that Jesus was saying man should worship another man? Answer, because when the truth is shown to a trinitarian, the trinitarian must appeal to Satan to find a way of turning truth into a lie and maintaining the idea that Jesus is almighty God…. Almighty God who is tempted by what He already owns?????

 

[YoursTrue]

There have been numerous such finds, and they date back as far as around 40,000 b.p. Analysis involves different methodologies, thus experts in various fields have studied them.

I'd have to not only look carefully at the methods and results, but ask how and what.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

There have been numerous such finds, and they date back as far as around 40,000 b.p. Analysis involves different methodologies, thus experts in various fields have studied them.

I think Yours wants to know what the specific testing methods were. My guess is that he doubts the technology and will attack the methods if told what they are.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I'd have to not only look carefully at the methods and results, but ask how and what.

I'm out of my league here, and can only report what I find online (which in all honesty you could have looked for yourself if you were truly interested). I have seen references to the fact that multiple dating methods were used. If more than one method is providing the same general time frame, that sounds like it is pretty solid. I also found the following, that there is a new technique which dates calcite radiometrically. The paintings apparently have calcite deposits on top of them, which would mean they would have to be older than the calcite:

In the last decade, a new method to date cave art was developed: Uranium series dating. It is based on another radioactive isotope and it works, in general terms, as Radiocarbon does, but it dates calcite. Calcification is the geological process that occurs in caves creating stalagmites and stalactites, but it also appears on the walls, sometimes growing over the drawings and engravings. And that is where the samples are taken from. The date obtained is for the calcite, not for the art but we know that the underlying drawing must be older than this. In theory, it gives us the latest possible date that any depiction might have been made before it was covered by calcite – but can only be used for art affected in this way.

The dating game. How do we know the age of Palaeolithic cave art? - SRUK/CERU

Cave art is one of the first expressions of human symbolic behaviour. It has been described as one of our trade marks as Anatomically Modern Humans (Homo sapiens) and it is something that, up to days ago, defined us as a species. However, we recently learned that Neanderthals had some kind of...

sruk.org.uk

 

[YoursTrue]

I think Yours wants to know what the specific testing methods were. My guess is that he doubts the technology and will attack the methods if told what they are.

No, it's not the testing methods in particular. It is what exactly was tested. Then the how. Thanks, though, for trying to help.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

No, it's not the testing methods in particular. It is what exactly was tested. Then the how. Thanks, though, for trying to help.

In addition to the dating of the calcite deposits covering the painting, apparently some work has been done dating the actual pigment. Sometimes they can do this and sometimes they can't, since only organic materials can be dated with C14. And, well, some paints are made from plants, and other paints are made from crushed rocks.

Okay that's the end of my googling. Hope it was helpful to you. Remember you are completely free to pursue your own research into this.

 

[YoursTrue]

In addition to the dating of the calcite deposits covering the painting, apparently some work has been done dating the actual pigment. Sometimes they can do this and sometimes they can't, since only organic materials can be dated with C14. And, well, some paints are made from plants, and other paints are made from crushed rocks.

Okay that's the end of my googling. Hope it was helpful to you. Remember you are completely free to pursue your own research into this.

Thank you! I did look at the website and will continue, if I can, to pursue the questions I have. Not about the dating process, but the materials that were tested as for determining the age of the art work. Shalom.