Christians

[Statler Waldorf]

Sorry, but when a god has three separate and distinct aspects who cohere at removes from one another, it is polytheistic. Apologists can go on as they wish, but this confusion is not mine. There is no reference to it in the Bible, and it was for this BS that Arius was exiled. It makes zero sense and I will continue to mock its inanity.

BTW, I think YOU should try to keep in mind what the theism means. I'm just fine with Greek.

You just proved his point, you admitted that we are dealing with only one God here, which by definition is monotheism. You shouldn’t redefine the English language for the purpose of the debate

---

---

Yes, because the example you provided does nothing of the kind. Do you want to try again or do you care to explain why that verse suggests that Jesus is one with Yahweh?

---

It links Jesus with being eternal and uncreated, which is an attribute that only Yahweh possesses.

---

I've never heard of any controversy regarding the order of authorship and I'm going by Christian apologist assertions.

---

Biblical scholars are constantly revising the order of books and when they were written. Some believe Mark is the oldest book, having been written before 53 A.D.- others discount this.

---

Point flew over your head.

At Nicaea, Marcionism was a major contender but it failed only because it had no appeal to antiquity. It was a new religion. Christianity needed the OT to gain the legitimacy that the Romans felt antiquity provided.

---

Not sure where you get this information, but I feel Christianity’s ties to the Old Testament are far too complex and intriguing to just be mere fabrications in order to gain favor from the Romans.

---

Actually, the motives of those at Nicaea and prior to it are documented. Do a little digging and you may find there was no "original church" that Protestants like to dream about but many different Christianities.

---

Sorry, I don’t have the time to do research that you should have provided when you made the original assertion.

---

Mythology is not evidence. If the whole world said otherwise, it would not make it so. Christians agree when we're discussing the claims of other religions. The Iliad is not held up as historical documentation on the existence of Zeus.

---

Please stop calling it mythology, that’s nothing more than a question begging epithet and it’s rather annoying. Does the Iliad claim to be true or divinely inspired? If so, I was not aware of this; either way though that is not the reason I do not believe its claims to be true.

---

I wouldn't be surprised if most of the "historians" you claim accept mythology as "evidence" are Christian apologists.

---

Yes because these guys are really Christian Apologists…

“"Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy, [he] should be placed along with the very greatest of historians."
- Sir William Ramsey, World Renown Archeologist

“"For accuracy of detail, and for evocation of atmosphere, Luke stands, in fact, with Thucydides. The Acts of the Apostles is not shoddy product of pious imagining, but a trustworthy record...it was the spadework of archaeology which first revealed the truth."
- E.M. Blaiklock, Professor of classics at Auckland University

So stop pretending like it is only Christians who value the accounts written by the historian Luke.