Christians

[Ryft]

If I believe in the evangelical God, I am still Christian regardless of your beliefs.

Irrelevant. His beliefs or my beliefs, that is not what defines whether you're a Christian or not. And so far as I'm aware, no one in this thread has ever said, "I am the one who defines the term 'Christian'." So your objection flopped to the ground for want of a target. Whether or not someone is a Christian is a matter of how the term itself is defined; if what they believe contravenes the most basic definition of the term, then they are not a Christian. Look again at my atheist example. If someone admits belief in God while claiming to be an atheist, then what he believes contravenes the most basic definition of atheist; that is, he is not an atheist. Whether or not someone is a Christian does not depend on what I believe, but rather on what that person himself believes and whether it contravenes or is consistent with the most basic definition of Christian—a definition that preexists me, you, Statler and so forth by thousands of years.

Oh yes [the Trinity is polytheism], since they can operate independently.

Polytheism is defined as multiple gods. (Try to keep in mind what the "-theism" part means.) Ergo, the Trinity is not polytheism since it is not three gods. The Trinity is three persons constituting one God, and one God constitutes monotheism. You might be confused about this doctrine and that is fair enough, but please do not substitute your confusion for Christian doctrine, which has been held long before you ever arrived.

[Epimethean]

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.

[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.

[Darth]

Can't the argument be made for hinduism being monotheistic in that case, they're all aspects of one, supreme god...?
It's not monotheistic if you have a) a Three part god and b) A supreme being of evil.
I thought revelations said it was 7 aspects or spirits or something somewhere.

2nd page of thread, "Jesus nailed the human condition" a pun?

"When I make bold assertions I am asked to provide evidence to support them, I'd expect you to do the same."
vs
"God was consistent in His revelation, scripture is God’s revelation and it is available for anyone who wants to read it. "
The bible is consistent? HA! thread should have been over on page 2.

Also: "Scripture is God's revelation" Evidence?

The bible is consistent? What happened to judas after the betrayal? Where was jesus born? When? Who was told by angels? When was he crucified? Who found the tomb (hint, different gospels will have different answers. These are fundamental parts of the story of jesus!)? The creation story, the great flood, which left tones of evide- oh wait. Honour you're mother and father vs hate your mother and father. Thou shalt not X. Go and Do X. Omnibenevolence vs Yahweh the Malevolent's kill count (and Isiah 45:7) Omnibenevolence vs all the other atrocities condoned/comitted by Yahweh the malevolent. Satan = evil vs Satan's kill count. God and Satan being enemies vs being competitive, but cordial, in job. Children being guilty of the sins of their father. God sacrificing himself, in the form of his son, who was himself, who, as the father, he conceived with a young woman, after telling this plan to a)Mary, b)Joesph, through an angel (Would have been too awkward to deliver the news personally I guess), to himself, in order to appease himself, for a) a (entirely metaphorical?) crime that, being omniscient, he knew would happen and set to happen in the first place, or b) for shits n giggles; so that a loophole could be created, by himself, in a law that he himself created, that stated that nobody could get into heaven unless this loophole was created? How many animals on the ark?

Your god is a bloodthirsty tyrant, a despicable monster who is worthy of no worship. His holy book is inconsistent dribble. His followers can't agree on even the simplest things, despite 'divine' revelation. The attributes associated with him are inconsistent with his portrayal in his book, and with each other. But ah well, if judges 1:19 is to be believed (and it is apparently) he's no threat, lets see how he likes our 'chariots of iron' in the year 2011!

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.

Are you implying that those two WEREN'T Christians? http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/biographies/5b28/1 his bio. PRESIDENT OF THE BAPTIST UNION OF NZ! /facepalm

on the other guy: well I type his full name into google and conservapedia is the seccond website listed, this should be good...

Seems there's a lot of misinformation about this bloke. might take a while...

[DeistPaladin]

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

Chapter and verse on the exclusivity of what powers YHWH possesses. The OT is unclear as to whether or not Yahweh is the only god there is. Angels, demigods, and holy spirits could well be with us even unto the end of an age. Some of the early versions of Christianity had different ideas of what Jesus was and allowed for the idea that he could be either another deity or a demigod. And the verse says nothing about being uncreated. I give you credit for originally but no cigar. Try again?

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.

It's true that apologists are constantly trying to move the date closer and closer to the time of the alleged Jesus but the relatively less sleazy ones will admit that 70 CE is the earliest since chapter 13 names the destruction of the temple.

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.

Bart Ehrman. And you can "feel" whatever you like but Christian ties to the OT are shaky at best. Matthew lies his ass off on all the supposed "fulfillment of prophecy" that Jesus is supposed to have made but cross-referencing his claims with the OT itself exposes the fraud.

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

Read Bart Ehrman, Robert Price or any other non-apologist source on the actual history of Christianity. I don't have the time to give you the full dissertation.

Please stop calling it mythology, that’s nothing more than a question begging epithet and it’s rather annoying.

It's called "calling it what it is" and no apologies for my not tip-toeing around your beliefs that the Bible is anything more than mythology.

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.

Yes, I know at some point Homer says "sing in me Muse" Let's see. *flip flip flip* It was somewhere in this story. Hmmmm *flip flip flip* Ah, here is is... THE FIRST SENTENCE OF THE STORY.

Inspired by Holy Spirit = claim to divine inspiration.
Inspired by Muse = claim to divine inspiration.
No special pleading please.

[Epimethean]

μῆνιν ἄειδε θεά

Beautiful!

"Wrath" is the first word, importantly so.

[Ryft]

Sorry, but when a god has three separate and distinct aspects who cohere at removes from one another, it is polytheistic.

[emphasis mine]

I have witnessed some extraordinary mental gymnastics here over the years but I cannot even imagine the sort required to argue that "a god" constitutes polytheism. Statler beat me to the punch when he said, "You just proved his point." When you are reduced to stating that "a god" constitutes polytheism, it would seem the confusion is indeed yours.

Can't the argument be made for Hinduism being monotheistic, in that they're all aspects of one supreme god?

Such an argument would not be valid, since it would be conflating two different traditions. Popular Hinduism is comprised of the belief in many finite personal gods (over 300 million gods and goddesses). That is polytheistic. But then there is philosophical Hinduism, which is quite distinct in that it is comprised of the belief in the one, infinite, impersonal reality, Brahman (not to be confused with the Hindu personal god Brahma of the Brahmin caste); all the numerous supposed gods are in fact aspects of this overall Infinite Reality. That is pantheistic (for Brahman is not even supposed as a deity, but rather as an encompassing undifferentiated reality of which everything is a part). Conflating these two traditions is an invalid move.

It's not monotheistic if you have a three-part god and a supreme being of evil.

First, if a god has three parts, then this is monotheism. A god means one god; ergo, monotheism (Gk. monos + theos). Second, it is different from biblical or Christian monotheism, as early in church history it was denounced as heresy the idea that the Father, Son, and Spirit each represented a part of God. Third, if by the "supreme being of evil" you are referring to Satan, then that is a created angel. The Scriptures are clear that none are by nature gods except God alone (i.e., angels may be gods by human worship but not by their own nature).

If Judges 1:19 is to be believed (and apparently it is), he's no threat. Let's see how he likes our "chariots of iron" in the year 2011!

Apparently someone did not read past the first chapter. This is why proof-texting is always an epic fail. "Sisera gathered together his nine hundred iron chariots ... the LORD routed Sisera and all his chariots ..." (chapter 14).

[Darth]

*with 10,00 loyal men at a different place and time (of their choosing), after having punished the Isrealites (yet again) with 20 years of harsh (even by the bibles standards aparently) occupation. Why couldn't it be done the first time? (Because they had chariots of iron, that's the only answer given).

[DeistPaladin]

I have witnessed some extraordinary mental gymnastics here over the years but I cannot even imagine the sort required to argue that "a god" constitutes polytheism. Statler beat me to the punch when he said, "You just proved his point." When you are reduced to stating that "a god" constitutes polytheism, it would seem the confusion is indeed yours.

I laughed when I read this, trying to take in the overwhelming irony of a Christian defending the concept of the Trinity (and citing arguments presented by Statler to boot) accusing a skeptic of "mental gymnastics". You've done some textbook projection here before, Ryft, but this one takes the cake.

Yes, Ryft, you claim to believe in "one god". The part you gloss over is that this "one god" is composed of three separate beings. That's where the polytheism part comes in. It's not the "one god" that's polytheistic. It's the "three separate beings" part. Essentially, Trinitarian Christianity is unique among religions in that it is both monotheistic and polytheistic at the same time. Anyone who seriously tries to defend this concept should not bandy around accusations of "mental gymnastics" and "confusion".

[Epimethean]

BINGO

It's not one god. It is three. Saying they are three but of one essence is like saying that a grandfather, father and son are actually one person.

Utter rubbish.