Scripture for Trinitarians

[The Grand Nudger]

Tristos "chess with a pigeon" applies.

[DeistPaladin]

They got softhearted and called jesus a prophet,

I'd say they were politically savvy in doing so.

In fact, they did to Jesus EXACTLY what the early Christians did to the followers of John the Baptist.

The followers of John the Baptist didn't (and still don't) think he was some kind of self-effacing forerunner of Jesus, having come only to proclaim that he was coming. They thought JtB WAS the messiah. These followers, called Mandeans, were rivals of the early Christian church. The Christians prevailed by assimilating JtB into their faith. The Muslims were trying the same approach.

---

Tristos "chess with a pigeon" applies.

At least I got a great new signature quote out of this thread.

[The Grand Nudger]

Absolutely a great move. Assimilation has worked extremely well when two faiths come into contact with each other (for the winner at least). Besides, there isn't any faith that can't be shoehorned into another because none of them have any hard evidence for anyone to bring up and raise an objection with from within. If the mythos machine is smooth enough it's flawless.

[Cinjin]

Absolutely a great move. Assimilation has worked extremely well when two faiths come into contact with each other (for the winner at least). Besides, there isn't any faith that can't be shoehorned into another because none of them have any hard evidence for anyone to bring up and raise an objection with from within. If the mythos machine is smooth enough it's flawless.

add to the shoehorn a charismatic man who can convince people that "god" spoke to him and you've got religious gold. Hell, you can make Allah, Jesus' brother if you can just sell it as a revelation.

[Minimalist]

but the core testimony remains according to scholars:

Bible scholars desperate to save face for their asinine religion, amigo. In the 3d century, the xtian writer Origen made specific reference to Book XVIII of Antiquities of the Jews ( he correctly mentioned a John the Baptist reference ) in Contra Celsus Book I, 47. He also acknowledges that Josephus did not believe in Jesus as "the christ" which directly contradicts what Eusebius later concocted and moreover Origen goes on to attribute the fall of Jerusalem to the murder of "James the Just" rather than to jews killing the godboy himself...which seems like a rather idiotic way to go about it.

The simple fact is that these "scholars" do not have a single reference to any watered down version in pre-Eusebian literature to base this conclusion upon. All we know is that Origen, writing 75 years before Eusebius, knows fuck all about it and says the opposite.

I understand your desperation to accept the word of any moron who tells you what you want to hear and if you want to con yourself be my guest. But the rest of us are on to you.


Remember, in 1762, Bishop Warburton, called the TF a "rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too."

[lucent]

yep ... right back around the circle.

At some point you just have to say, "I've listened to enough pseudo-intellectual diarrhea. You have nothing to offer." and then walk away.



...or go right back 'round the circle.

Quite correct. He's generating fucktardery faster than I have the energy or patience to debunk. Much as I compulsively try to reason with the unreasonable, I'm seeing the futility in having a discussion with someone who doesn't understand that:

1. A Pat Robertson staged and edited propaganda piece is not a credible testimony.
2. You can't be AWOL from a commander that is omniscient (no chance to be absent from someone who can see everywhere) and omnipotent (no chance to escape the commander's authority).
3. Saying "I'm having my cake and eating it too" is an admission of believing an absurdity just because you want something both ways.

That said, for the benefit of the other readers, I will focus on the topic of the OP and post the conflict of scripture and why they came up with this contrived word salad known as The Trinity.

OT Yahweh says "I forbid you to have an intercessor:

Exodus 20:3 (First Commandment) Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Isaiah 43:10-12 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour. I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I am God.

Yahweh makes it clear through the OT that he is a jealous god who interacts personally with his followers ("speaking face to face as one speaks to a friend") who needs no intercessor and who delegates the role of judge or savior to no one! Often, the crime that would cause him to bring plagues and invaders to Israel would be idolatry or turning to other gods.

Now compare this jealous attention hungry god to the one of the NT, who requires you to have an intercessor:

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

So how do you reconcile the two? Say Jesus is God. So who is Jesus praying to, talking to, being subordinate to? Well, that's when Jesus is not God. And so the mental gymnastics commence.

Again you use pretense to run away from the debate.

1. of course it is edited, it is partly a dramatization..its obvious now you haven't watched it. your dishonesty here is repugnant.
2. there are two camps, the lord and satans, and you can go from one to the other..that is what is metaphorically referred to..the obtuseness of your point here can scarcely be measured.
3. saying "having the cake and eating it too" is stating that God can be 1 and 3 at the same time. i don't believe it because i want to believe it, i believe it because i intrinsically understand the conception..it's difficult to relate, but it is not incomprehensible..if you read my reply to stimbo you would see that

You are intellectually dishonest..most of your replies have been *very* selective and avoid the tough questions and the real answers. You're content with a superficial explanation for your beliefs, and you have admitted that behind all your criticism is rage, which makes you irrational, unreasonable, 100 percent biased and closed minded. You are everything that you accuse me of being, and you don't even realize it.

---

but the core testimony remains according to scholars:

Bible scholars desperate to save face for their asinine religion, amigo. In the 3d century, the xtian writer Origen made specific reference to Book XVIII of Antiquities of the Jews ( he correctly mentioned a John the Baptist reference ) in Contra Celsus Book I, 47. He also acknowledges that Josephus did not believe in Jesus as "the christ" which directly contradicts what Eusebius later concocted and moreover Origen goes on to attribute the fall of Jerusalem to the murder of "James the Just" rather than to jews killing the godboy himself...which seems like a rather idiotic way to go about it.

The simple fact is that these "scholars" do not have a single reference to any watered down version in pre-Eusebian literature to base this conclusion upon. All we know is that Origen, writing 75 years before Eusebius, knows fuck all about it and says the opposite.

I understand your desperation to accept the word of any moron who tells you what you want to hear and if you want to con yourself be my guest. But the rest of us are on to you.


Remember, in 1762, Bishop Warburton, called the TF a "rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too."

So you're going back on your statement now that there aren't any first century references to Jesus, and are now just saying they are unconvincing. The fact is Jesus is better attested to than anyone in that period, and it's only your admitted bias which blinds you. If you followed the standards of evidence that historians and scholars use, there would be no doubt Jesus is a real person. If you say what we have isn't enough evidence, then you'll have to throw out at least 3/4's of what we know about history as unreliable. Even Richard Dawkins admitted Jesus was a real person, and that's someone who has made it his lifes work to destroy Christianity.

[Cinjin]

So you're going back on your statement now that there aren't any first century references to Jesus, and are now just saying they are unconvincing. The fact is Jesus is better attested to than anyone in that period, and it's only your admitted bias which blinds you. If you followed the standards of evidence that historians and scholars use, there would be no doubt Jesus is a real person. If you say what we have isn't enough evidence, then you'll have to throw out at least 3/4's of what we know about history as unreliable. Even Richard Dawkins admitted Jesus was a real person, and that's someone who has made it his lifes work to destroy Christianity.

The fact that jesus did or did not exist changes nothing. Much like the star in the east or a huge flood changes nothing. None of those things are proven to have happened and yet if you could prove them, it would only mean that someone recorded a heavily-embellished story that they heard third-hand based on a true event that had absolutely nothing to do with the supernatural acts of an angry desert god.



If he even existed, he was more than likely delusional or a con man feeding off the messiah frenzy of the time period.

[DeistPaladin]

I think this discussion has run its course as much as it can with you, Luna. But if you do wish to defend Christianity against deism, you're welcome to pick up the gauntlet that A-Theist had to drop in the debate section.

I'll let Min school you on the history but just be warned he doesn't suffer fucktards as easily as I do.

[The Grand Nudger]

Why should he, why should anyone, if Lucent wants to shit on the time Min spent learning this stuff Min could open and close with "Fuck you you silly little retard" and be completely justified. It's not like this information is some state secret.

[DeistPaladin]

Why should he

It would be fun to watch.