Why So Much Trinity Bashing?

[YoursTrue]

I was brought to believe this, but it simply is not even close to being true.

I appreciate your reference, but I have examined as much as possible the writings of scientists regarding evidence of the history of mankind and find it wanting, but that is because I have come to question the statements by scientists as to certain things and see vast ranges of time periods.

 

[YoursTrue]

Uh huh. Good comment. Thank you.

(You're welcome.)

 

[YoursTrue]

Right but it's because he claimed no historian and no scholar would say this. It's not for reading it all, it's a demonstration that this is commonly known info in scholarship.
They just don't make B- movies and stand on street corners preaching about it.

Scientists do debate with one another though over findings and what they mean. Don't they.

 

[YoursTrue]

I myself try to make my comments short and sweet, because I don't think anybody bothers reading mine.

I wouldn't say that, When a response gets long and tedious and there is no way to research what the scientist or writer is basing conclusions on I tend to lose interest.

 

[metis]

I appreciate your reference, but I have examined as much as possible the writings of scientists regarding evidence of the history of mankind and find it wanting, but that is because I have come to question the statements by scientists as to certain things and see vast ranges of time periods.

So, the myriads of overwhelming evidence that life forms have evolved over millions and billions of years doesn't matter?

 

[YoursTrue]

P.S. @walt Some here have stated they trust what scientists say because they're well educated. So in other words, they accept what a scientist says because he says it if it fits in with his conceived notion.

 

[metis]

P.S. @walt Some here have stated they trust what scientists say because they're well educated. So in other words, they accept what a scientist says because he says it if it fits in with his conceived notion.

That is simply not at all how scientists and science works, and no serious scientist does what you claim above.

 

[YoursTrue]

So, the myriads of overwhelming evidence that life forms have evolved over millions and billions of years doesn't matter?

Again, for one thing, there are no videos of changes incrementally within specific organisms within a group. Realizing that video technology has only come about within the past several decades and the claim would be that there is not enough time to see any change, such as from fish to "Tiktaalik," I wonder if scientists say fish are evolving today to save themselves, I.e, survival of the fittest or natural selection. What do you think? Could it be so that some fish are still evolving to other forms of organisms?

 

[metis]

Again, for one thing, there are no videos of changes incrementally within specific organisms within a group

How can a video today capture millions or billions of years of evolution?

 

[YoursTrue]

That is simply not at all how scientists and science works, and no serious scientist does what you claim above.

I didn't say all scientists, I said some here on the message board who believe in religion because of culture and evolution at the same time, claiming the Bible is (ok, @shunydragon didn't say the Bible was a pack of myths, but made sure to say it has myths in it without delineating which myths they are) based historically on what archaeologists have said, and thus somehow not delineating why they are in a form of religion except to say it makes them feel good, I guess. So that is the dichotomy one faces.

 

[YoursTrue]

How can a video today capture millions or billions of years of evolution?

Of course. But that would be proof, wouldn't it.

 

[walt]

P.S. @walt Some here have stated they trust what scientists say because they're well educated. So in other words, they accept what a scientist says because he says it if it fits in with his conceived notion.

We have two main bronchi in your right and left lungs that divide and branch off into smaller segments, like tree branches. At the end of your bronchi, the alveoli exchange oxygen and carbon dioxide.There are 300 million alveoli in (each) lung.

Who designed and made the lungs, that we need to breathe in our first breath, in the first second of life? We all need complete lungs, bloodstream, heart, nervous system and brain and many other vital organs In the first second of life, even 10 minutes later, would be too long waiting!

God loved everyone so very much before we were even born, and continues to love us.

Even after a billion years would cream and sugar ever get into your coffee cup all by itself? No! Don't you think for a person to begin to believe in evolution, they must first believe, that each step happens all by itself.

Humans can build a robotic assembly line to make automobiles, and all kinds of things get done all by themselves, because a human with intelligence designed and built the robotic assembly line.

Evolution does not give credit to anyone being responsible for designing or making anything, every bit of it happens all by itself!

Think about it if there was only one organ first the heart, would the heart survive, waiting for the bloodstream to evolve? Would not all the vital organs need to exist all at the same exact time for each organ's survival? The lungs, bloodstream, heart, nervous system, brain and other vital organs all need to be present, all at the same time in order for any of the organs to survive the next few hours!

What if a few vital organs were formed, but either the bloodstream, the brain and the lungs had not evolved yet, how many hours would the first few organs survive? Without all the vital organs fully formed at the same time? That's why they are called vital organs, all the vital organs must be fully complete, and working properly in order for any of the organs to survive! And what else is needed for life to continue to exist?

 

[YoursTrue]

So, the myriads of overwhelming evidence that life forms have evolved over millions and billions of years doesn't matter?

It's not that it doesn't matter. I don't know how it happened as scientists say it did. I can't use the word 'proof,' but when I do it's in the sense of showing undoubtedly that life evolved as scientists say it did (by natural selection or survival of the fittest).

 

[YoursTrue]

We have two main bronchi in your right and left lungs that divide and branch off into smaller segments, like tree branches. At the end of your bronchi, the alveoli exchange oxygen and carbon dioxide.There are 300 million alveoli in (each) lung.

Who designed and made the lungs, that we need to breathe in our first breath, in the first second of life? We all need complete lungs, bloodstream, heart, nervous system and brain and many other vital organs In the first second of life, even 10 minutes later, would be too long waiting!

God loved everyone so very much before we were even born, and continues to love us.

Even after a billion years would cream and sugar ever get into your coffee cup all by itself? No! Don't you think for a person to begin to believe in evolution, they must first believe, that each step happens all by itself.

True. But that's how I see it now.

Humans can build a robotic assembly line to make automobiles, and all kinds of things get done all by themselves, because a human with intelligence designed and built the robotic assembly line.

Evolution does not give credit to anyone being responsible for designing or making anything, every bit of it happens all by itself!

Think about it if there was only one organ first the heart, would the heart survive, waiting for the bloodstream to evolve? Would not all the vital organs need to exist all at the same exact time for each organ's survival? The lungs, bloodstream, heart, nervous system, brain and other vital organs all need to be present, all at the same time in order for any of the organs to survive the next few hours!

Very good points. Thank you, Walt.

 

[joelr]

Scientists do debate with one another though over findings and what they mean. Don't they.

Sometimes.
Historians do as well. There is no debate that the NT is influenced by Hellenism in historical scholarship.
Even apologetic works will admit it, such as:

Encyclopaedia Biblica : a critical dictionary of the literary, political, and religious history, the archaeology, geography, and natural history of the Bible

by Cheyne, T. K. (Thomas Kelly), 1841-1915; Black, J. Sutherland (John Sutherland), 1846-1923

"We must conclude with the following guarded thesis. There is in the circle of ideas in the NT, in addition to what is new, and what is taken over from Judaism, much that is Greek ; but whether this is adopted directly from the Greek or borrowed from the Alexandrians, who indeed aimed at a complete fusion of Hellenism and Judaism, is, in the most important cases, not to be determined ; and primitive Christianity as a whole stands considerably nearer to the Hebrew world than to the Greek."

Christianity
Antioch was a chief center of early Christianity during Roman times

Antioch on the Orontes


The city was also the main center of Hellenistic Judaism at the end of the Second Temple period. Antioch was part of the pentarchy and was called "the cradle of Christianity" as a result of its longevity and the pivotal role that it played in the emergence of early Christianity.[5] The Christian New Testament asserts that the name "Christian" first emerged in Antioch.[6]


[5] "The mixture of Roman, Greek, and Jewish elements admirably adapted Antioch for the great part it played in the early history of Christianity. The city was the cradle of the church." — "Antioch," Encyclopaedia Biblica, Vol. I, p. 186


But these are apologists. Historians are 100%.




But if you look at Dr Tabor's work it's clear that personal salvation, a soul that goes right to Heaven and so on, is Greek and not Hebrew.
In fact still today sometimes at Christian funerals you will hear "his soul is now with Jesus". Then later, when the casket is lowered into the ground, "he lies here and awaits the final bodily resurrection".

That is mixing up the Hellenism with the Persian myth of an end times battle and all followers resurrect in new physical bodies on earth and live in paradise.

I have not found any historian who disagrees with this, it's too obvious. Even Justin Martyr, the first apologist said Jesus is just like all the Greek demigods, healing, miracles, he blames it on the devil.


Chapter 69. The devil, since he emulates the truth, has invented fables about Bacchus, Hercules, and Æsculapius

Justin: Be well assured, then, Trypho, that I am established in the knowledge of and faith in the Scriptures by those counterfeits which he who is called the devil is said to have performed among the Greeks; just as some were wrought by the Magi in Egypt, and others by the false prophets in Elijah's days. For when they tell that Bacchus, son of Jupiter, was begotten by [Jupiter's] intercourse with Semele, and that he was the discoverer of the vine; and when they relate, that being torn in pieces, and having died, he rose again, and ascended to heaven; and when they introduce wine into his mysteries, do I not perceive that [the devil] has imitated the prophecy announced by the patriarch Jacob, and recorded by Moses? And when they tell that Hercules was strong, and travelled over all the world, and was begotten by Jove of Alcmene, and ascended to heaven when he died, do I not perceive that the Scripture which speaks of Christ, 'strong as a giant to run his race,' has been in like manner imitated? And when he [the devil] brings forward Æsculapius as the raiser of the dead and healer of all diseases, may I not say that in this matter likewise he has imitated the prophecies about Christ? But since I have not quoted to you such Scripture as tells that Christ will do these things, I must necessarily remind you of one such: from which you can understand, how that to those destitute of a knowledge of God, I mean the Gentiles, who, 'having eyes, saw not, and having a heart, understood not,' worshipping the images of wood, [how even to them] Scripture prophesied that they would renounce these [vanities], and hope in this Christ. It is thus written:


And having raised the dead, and causing them to live, by His deeds He compelled the men who lived at that time to recognise Him. But though they saw such works, they asserted it was magical art. For they dared to call Him a magician, and a deceiver of the people. Yet He wrought such works, and persuaded those who were [destined to] believe in Him; for even if any one be labouring under a defect of body, yet be an observer of the doctrines delivered by Him, He shall raise him up at His second advent perfectly sound, after He has made him immortal, and incorruptible, and free from grief.


Chapter 70. So also the mysteries of Mithras are distorted from the prophecies of Daniel and Isaiah


And when I hear, Trypho, that Perseus was begotten of a virgin, I understand that the deceiving serpent counterfeited also this.




Interesting that Justin mentions there were people who calling it fake. See, people knew. It wasn't like everyone was all in and believed the same story. 50% of the 2nd century were Gnostics.

 

[joelr]

We have two main bronchi in your right and left lungs that divide and branch off into smaller segments, like tree branches. At the end of your bronchi, the alveoli exchange oxygen and carbon dioxide.There are 300 million alveoli in (each) lung.

Who designed and made the lungs, that we need to breathe in our first breath, in the first second of life? We all need complete lungs, bloodstream, heart, nervous system and brain and many other vital organs In the first second of life, even 10 minutes later, would be too long waiting!

We have lungs because our direct ancestor Heidelbergensis had them and so did mammals all the way back. The first organisms breathed in arsenic and had very simple systems that converted this to energy. Over billions of years it becomes more complex.
But simple questions like this show you don't even care to actually study evolution, you just hear words from non-expert creationists and think they form an argument.

Why not learn about evolution and then try to debunk it. It's like trying to debunk Christianity and saying, "well I don't see any big throne is the sky with god sitting in it?". Not a good place to start.

God loved everyone so very much before we were even born, and continues to love us.

Prove it.

Even after a billion years would cream and sugar ever get into your coffee cup all by itself? No! Don't you think for a person to begin to believe in evolution, they must first believe, that each step happens all by itself.

So you are actually comparing living organisms to fat and rocks? Not just a living organism, entire populations, who do have genes that mutate, we can demonstrate this fact. So obviously, if some natural pressure is killing a species, one might be born with a way to not die from this pressure and it will pass on the mutated genes. If the pressure is too much, they all die. 99% of ALL SPECIES are gone.
Fossils show, we do mutate into new species over time, or go extinct.

Another bad argument.

Hey guess what, my house will never build itself, so evolution must not be true?

Humans can build a robotic assembly line to make automobiles, and all kinds of things get done all by themselves, because a human with intelligence designed and built the robotic assembly line.

And over millions of years mutations in genes can change species all through natural processes.

Evolution does not give credit to anyone being responsible for designing or making anything, every bit of it happens all by itself!

Because it does happen naturally. Like the solar system, the galaxy, the planet, the cluster of galaxies, the sun, weather, seasons, all through natural process.

Think about it if there was only one organ first the heart, would the heart survive, waiting for the bloodstream to evolve? Would not all the vital organs need to exist all at the same exact time for each organ's survival? The lungs, bloodstream, heart, nervous system, brain and other vital organs all need to be present, all at the same time in order for any of the organs to survive the next few hours!

This cannot be an actual argument? All of these organs evolved over billions of years from simple life. You just cannot fathom deep time, you seem to think a heart evolves first? Why? A heart is a muscle, which evolved slowly as a means to move, it pumps blood which evolved over time as a way to transport nutrients and other important chemicals. You can pick up a book and learn the understood history of the heart, it evolves in tandem with other systems.

What if a few vital organs were formed, but either the bloodstream, the brain and the lungs had not evolved yet, how many hours would the first few organs survive? Without all the vital organs fully formed at the same time? That's why they are called vital organs, all the vital organs must be fully complete, and working properly in order for any of the organs to survive! And what else is needed for life to continue to exist?

The body, in all animals, is a system. It evolved as a system. Right, it would not work without all of it in place. That is what evolution predicts, you are confirming evolution.

And NO, vital organs do not need be "complete". They need to be able to keep the organism alive. In earlier animnals they were less complex. Vision in the early organisms was just a patch of skin that was sensitive to photons, later it improved. The eye evolved in 6 different lines.
The heart is one of the leading causes of death. Why? Because as long as it lasts long enough to get you to reproduce and raise children it's done its job. And we see that.


All of your evolution questions have answers. Listen to educator Forest Valkai, he teaches biology and evolution to creationists:

https://www.youtube.com/@RenegadeScienceTeacher/videos

Even if evolution was false, it doesn't mean Krishna or Vishnu is the creator. Or Yahweh. Those are still myths.

 

[joelr]

I wouldn't say that, When a response gets long and tedious and there is no way to research what the scientist or writer is basing conclusions on I tend to lose interest.

The information is from the top specialists, they also provide the sources if one wants to go ahead and get the source. Otherwise it's just the conclusions for now. We can assume the experts know something about their field, so you get a summary and can choose to follow up. It's not a big deal. It's also not for any one person. If you can't do long posts, don't. If you don't want to learn about a topic, don't.

The Dr Tabor video is full of references and sources. If I just made these claims, people would say I made them up and was nonsense. Or it was just one fringe scholar.
You totally failed to take into account the post I was responding to was full of one line accusations, so I dealt with them.

 

[Dimi95]

Uh, no. Thor is a fictional character. If a group claimed he actually was real I would say he isn't. Same for Jesus?

Well , Jesus was real.
Don't you know that?

You can change "Thor" to The Quran, Mormon Bible, Lord Krishna, all things billions of people claim are real and are not. Same for Jesus.

No , still wrong.

What we know is what people claimed to witness.You chose not to accept that since you think that scientific observations are neccessary.I understand that.

So the question is , Can you be Rational without being scientific?

Right and you do not believe in Krishna, Muhammad's revelations, Joseph Smith's revelations, Brahman, fro the same reasons.

Well , i know a lot about Muhammad's revelations and i have a reason to reject that belief.
However i know nothing about Krishna , so if knowing nothing is 'not beliving' , then OK.

No evidence to warrant belief.

Really?
Can a belief without proof be true?

The Bible is even worse for evidence.

I think that this is consequence of you misunderstand the term 'belief'.

The Quran is closer.

Birmingham Quran dates very close to the life of Muhammad.

The Mormon Bible is about the same.

Did not read it , so no comment.

Jesus supposedly died 30 AD.

33 AD

Mark is written first around 70 AD.

No Mark is written earlier , do you want me to show you how is that possible?

Incredibly fictive and re-writes many myths.

Ok , I understand now why you took the consensus of schollars.
However Rationality in History does not require consensus neccessary.

Uses ring structure, chiasmus, triadic inversions, and is one big parable with a character who teaches in parables, it couldn't be more fiction.

The Gospels are different , I understand that.
What you don't understand probably is they don't need to be identical in narrative.It would be more suspicious to me if they were , however.

It's also a Hellenistic savior demigod which was trending.

No , no connection there , regardless of what Atheist Archeologist have to say.
Jesus deals with Judaism , not with Hellada..

The Roman historian Tacitus (55 CE - 120 CE) in his ‘The Annals of Tacitus’ - The Reign of Nero - The Christians Accused - - refers to Jesus as ‘Chresto’. I. N. R. I. sign was nailed to the cross of Jesus - in Latin: Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum (Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews).

This is evidence of straw man on mainstream Christianity which is

The entire NT is a Hellenistic document.

Demonstrated here

Before I start with historical scholars, let's go with a huge apologetic work of scholarship.

Apologetic work is irrelevant with History.

I will continue answering the other parts maybe later or the next days.

 

[Dimi95]

Encyclopaedia Biblica : a critical dictionary of the literary, political, and religious history, the archaeology, geography, and natural history of the Bible
by Cheyne, T. K. (Thomas Kelly), 1841-1915; Black, J. Sutherland (John Sutherland), 1846-1923

Encyclopaedia Biblica : a critical dictionary of the literary, political, and religious history, the archaeology, geography, and natural history of the Bible : Cheyne, T. K. (Thomas Kelly), 1841-1915 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet

Vol. 2

archive.org

"

We must conclude with the following guarded thesis. There is in the circle of ideas in the NT, in addition to what is new, and what is taken over from Judaism, much that is Greek

So we have conflict between sets of ideas.

"In 336 B.C., Alexander the Great became the leader of the Greek kingdom of Macedonia. By the time he died 13 years later, Alexander had built an empire that stretched from Greece all the way to India. That brief but thorough empire-building campaign changed the world: It spread Greek ideas and culture from the Eastern Mediterranean to Asia.

Historians call this era the 'Hellenistic period.' (The word 'Hellenistic' comes from the word Hellazein, which means 'to speak Greek or identify with the Greeks.')
It lasted from the death of Alexander in 323 B.C. until 31 B.C. , when Roman troops conquered the last of the territories that the Macedonian king had once ruled."

"It ended with the death of Cleopatra VII
Cleopatra VII Thea Philopator (Koinē Greek: Κλεοπάτρα Θεά Φιλοπάτωρ[note 5] lit. Cleopatra 'father-loving goddess'; 70/69 BC – 10 August 30 BC) was Queen of the Ptolemaic Kingdom of Egypt from 51 to 30 BC, and its last active ruler. A member of the Ptolemaic dynasty, she was a descendant of its founder Ptolemy I Soter, a Macedonian Greek general and companion of Alexander the Great.After the death of Cleopatra, Egypt became a province of the Roman Empire, marking the end of the last Hellenistic-period state in the Mediterranean and of the age that had lasted since the reign of Alexander (336–323 BC).Her first language was Koine Greek, and she was the only known Ptolemaic ruler to learn the Egyptian language."

Cleopatra - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

So it is pretty obvious what we should talk , the life and death of Alexandar the Great and Cleopatra the last queen in that region and not some demigods.
Also the between the two events

I mean , that is how we know to trace Hellenism , right?

; but whether this is adopted directly from the Greek or borrowed from the Alexandrians, who indeed aimed at a complete fusion of Hellenism and Judaism, is, in the most important cases, not to be determined ; and primitive Christianity as a whole stands considerably nearer to the Hebrew world than to the Greek."

Ofc but Hellenism had it's role in it.We know for example where democracy came from - Athens.
So apart from Salvation and demigods , we have Democracy.

Democracy (from Ancient Greek: δημοκρατία, romanized: dēmokratía, dēmos 'people' and kratos 'rule') is a system of government in which state power is vested in the people or the general population of a state.

Democracy means : 'people' - 'rule'

That is how we are able to communicate better.Because of 'roots of words'.That is how language evolved.

No, that is part of the Gospels which looks to be myth. No history supports that
However, Mormonism has witnesses to the golden plates, Sai Baba has MILLIONS of witnesses in the 1900's to miracles. Do you find either compelling? Probably not.

I explained already what i think of something i don't know.
Again your strawman

In case you don't know the Gospels are anonymous and non-eyewitness, the internal and external evidence is compiled here:

Why Scholars Doubt the Traditional Authors of the Gospels

So i will tell you what is not logical to me.
Why did no one mentioned how Paul and Peter died since the Gospels were written after 70AD.It could however culminated their ministry , right?

Why Scholars Doubt the Traditional Authors of the Gospels » Internet Infidels

The traditional authors of the canonical Gospels—Matthew the tax collector, Mark the attendant of Peter, Luke the attendant of Paul, and John the son of Zebedee—are not held to be the Gospels' actual authors by the majority of mainstream New Testament scholars. Christian apologists nevertheless...

infidels.org

The NIV has a cover page to Matthew that also mentions this. You cannot hide from the fact that the Greek original says "Kata Evangelion" or "as told to be by...." in the titles.

Kata - indicating reversal, opposition, degeneration, etc
Etymology: from Greek kata-, from kata. In compound words borrowed from Greek, kata- means: down (catabolism), away, off (catalectic), against (category), according to (catholic), and thoroughly (catalogue)

kata - WordReference.com Dictionary of English

kata - WordReference English dictionary, questions, discussion and forums. All Free.

www.wordreference.com

Evangelion refers to the gospel in Christianity, translated from the Greek word εὐαγγέλιον (euangélion, Latin: evangelium) meaning "Good News". Evangelion may also refer to: Gospel account. Gospel Book.

So now we have 'Good news' evolving in another term 'evengelion'.

So i would like you to explain how is 'told to be by...' valid?

First Letter of Clement, a letter to the Christian church in Corinth from the church of Rome, traditionally ascribed to and almost certainly written by St. Clement I of Rome circa 96 CE. An important piece of patristic literature by an Apostolic Father, it is extant in a 2nd-century Latin translation, which is possibly the oldest surviving Latin Christian work. Regarded as Scripture by many 3rd- and 4th-century Christians, it was transmitted in manuscripts with a sermon known as the Second Letter of Clement, written circa 125–140 by an unknown author. See also Clementine literature.

Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History, 4.23.11) states that Rome sent two letters to Corinth—the first was Clement’s letter and the second was from the Roman bishop Soter (AD 166-174). Jefford writes, 'A few scholars think it is possible that this letter incorporated the homily that is now identified as 2 Clement…. Since both texts were known to have come from Rome, it would have been easy to associate the two writings as letters from Clement without further suspicion.'

As usual, it's people who heard about Mark's story.

Which is written according to many schollars in 70 AD and suspicously absent again is Peter' death.

 

[Dimi95]

Cool, link to a paper. But this is an actual fallacy. Personal incredulity does not prove any supernatural folk tale.

Rationality does not neccessary rely only on external observations.

Affirming the consequent otherwise known as a converse error-is a logical fallacy that involves taking a true statement and assuming the converse form would be true as well. Formally, we can represent this fallacy as follows: If X is the case-then Y is also the case. Y is true, so X must be as well.

So in the same way i can say to you that this is an argument of personal credulity.

Rationality however comes from Irrationality,and mind comes from matter.

So it is more convincing to me the Biblical narrative , 'In the begining was the Logos,Principle' translated as 'In the begining was the Word'

When you don't understand something, it means you don't understand it.

Yes , but that does not mean you should stop trying to,or?

A natural cause can be found out at a later date.

Ofc , Evolution followed by Abiogenesis.
I can belive that life evolved,really i can , but what i can't belive is that it came on its own.

Or it could be Krishna, Allah, Thor, Scientology aliens or fairies. Or is it just the one thing (special pleading)

You see know how you mirepresent my views?
You assert that are all false based on scientific method.

So again , we are going to this circle of questions?

Is scientific method neccessary when we talk about Rationality?
Is that your criteria?

Because it's God of the gaps and if it's probably isn't Krishna than you have no business claiming it's Jesus because both are equally as fictive.

Well , as i said many times , i don't know Krishna.

So i can note that yoir main problem is belief and not God.