• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Who do YOU say Jesus is?

Spartan

Well-Known Member
If you believe the things attributed to Jesus have any credibility, you obviously don't have a questioning mind.

Nuts. I've got over forty years of study and research into the Gospels.

Tell you what - show me one (1, just your best ONE) person, place, or event in the Gospels that has been shown to be false. Cite the pertinent scripture #'s and your evidence to support your conclusion.
 

JJ50

Well-Known Member
Nuts. I've got over forty years of study and research into the Gospels.

Tell you what - show me one (1, just your best ONE) person, place, or event in the Gospels that has been shown to be false. Cite the pertinent scripture #'s and your evidence to support your conclusion.

Only 40 years, dear, dear! I have been questioning the gospels much longer than that. If a thing isn't credible, either the person who states it to be so is lying, or exaggerating.
 

Marcion

gopa of humanity's controversial Taraka Brahma
Sorry, but the New Testament was not "the Bible" for several hundred years after the events in the life of Christ. The Gospels and Epistles were actually over two dozen independent manuscripts, written by multiple individuals, floating around separate communities and countries. The "Gospels" were separate, independent, historical manuscripts - INDEPENDENT CONFIRMATIONS.

So do try to have some discernment about your claims so they sound credible, which they don't at the present time.

The Christian gospel stories are neither 'historical manuscripts' nor are they 'independent' of each other.
Whatever made you think that they were?
It seems you are making claims that are not supported by theological scholarship.
 

Spartan

Well-Known Member
Only 40 years, dear, dear! I have been questioning the gospels much longer than that. If a thing isn't credible, either the person who states it to be so is lying, or exaggerating.
So, you're unable to back up your claim with evidence. Write me again when you have something. Until then don't bother.
 

Spartan

Well-Known Member
The Christian gospel stories are neither 'historical manuscripts' nor are they 'independent' of each other.
Whatever made you think that they were?
It seems you are making claims that are not supported by theological scholarship.

Whatever made you think the events in the Gospels were not historical?
 

Marcion

gopa of humanity's controversial Taraka Brahma
Whatever made you think the events in the Gospels were not historical?
Reading theological scholarship. The proof that it is not historical and that the authors were copying from earlier versions is overwhelming. So, you have nothing else to stand on here than blind faith. Please do not pretend it is anything else than that.
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
For anyone who believes this is a logical deduction we can derive from a reasonable exploration of the Trinity, I have an exercise for you:

Trisha is a substitute school teacher in a private Unitarian school which vehemently denies the Trinity. Today she has a bowl of apples to help illustrate math to her class.

She notices a problem on the black board and decides to demonstrate a solution with some apples she brought in for the class.


“Let’s break a large problem into a smaller problem.

For 3 x 3” she says “we can start by taking out 3 apples. But we multiply by 3, so we need to take out these 3 apples 3 times.” She shows 9 apples on the table. "But we’re not finished, because we also need to multiply what we have another 3 times, so we start with the 9 apples and we take those 3 times." She then pulls out another group of 9, and still another group until she reaches 27 apples. “So 3 x 3 x 3 is equal to 27, or 27 apples. As she replaces the apples she turns to the class and asks: Does everyone understand?”

Her students nod enthusiastically, assuring her they do.

She does the same for 2 x 2 x 2, starting with 2 apples, then taking another group for 4, and then another group of 4 until she has 8 apples on the table. She’s about to offer the apples to the class when little Johnny, who sits in the back raises his hand and asks “What about the 1’s?”

For one 1 x 1 x 1, Johnny’s teacher pulls out one apple. “If we multiply one apple by one apple, it is one apple, and if we multiply it again by one it is still one apple”.

“That’s not quite right!”, little Johnny exclaims. “You have one apple, but now it’s three times as big as it was before.”

“Illustrate” says the teacher.

With that, Johnny gets up, grabs some tape, and proceeds to the front of the class. "We tape all 3 apples together. So we have one apple, just like you said Mrs. Trish but now it's 3 times as big." Putting the finishing touches to his masterpiece he adds “This is your solution, and not that Trinitarian nonsense you were trying to teach us before.” The class nods approvingly as Johnny takes his seat.


Given the argument you’ve just presented, I see you and @rrobs siding with Johnny. If not, please discuss how you might present the apple so that Johnny and the rest of the class don’t see 1 x 1 x 1 apple as a single apple that’s now 3 times as big.

Once you've done this I think you just may be able to explain the Trinity doctrine's math accurately and logically to yourselves and a lot of our work here will be done.
I think comparing what the teacher said to the trinity is like comparing apples to oranges. :)
 

Spartan

Well-Known Member
Reading theological scholarship. The proof that it is not historical and that the authors were copying from earlier versions is overwhelming. So, you have nothing else to stand on here than blind faith. Please do not pretend it is anything else than that.

<facepalm>

Show me one (1, just your best ONE) person, place, or event in the Gospels that has been shown to be false. Cite the pertinent scripture #'s and your evidence to support your conclusion.
 

Marcion

gopa of humanity's controversial Taraka Brahma
<facepalm>

Show me one (1, just your best ONE) person, place, or event in the Gospels that has been shown to be false. Cite the pertinent scripture #'s and your evidence to support your conclusion.
Scholarship does not work that way I'm affraid.
It is you that has to cite a single scripture with the evidence that it is historical and has no dependence on earlier scriptures.

If you cannot do that, you have to admit to your blind faith in that piece of fundamentalist dogma.
I do not have a problem with blind faith or fundamentalism.
But that is not MY Jesus, I prefer the REAL one.
 

Spartan

Well-Known Member
Scholarship does not work that way I'm affraid.
It is you that has to cite a single scripture with the evidence that it is historical and has no dependence on earlier scriptures.

If you cannot do that, you have to admit to your blind faith in that piece of fundamentalist dogma.
I do not have a problem with blind faith or fundamentalism.
But that is not MY Jesus, I prefer the REAL one.

OK, so you can't back up your claim that the Gospels are not historical.

But to help you see the light that they are, here's some recommended reading for you:

"The Historical Jesus," by scholar Dr. Gary Habermas;
"New Evidence that Demands a Verdict," by former skeptic Josh McDowell;
"The Case for Christ," by Lee Strobel," and
"The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus," by Dr. Gary Habermas.

Have you read any of those? If not, why not?
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
<facepalm>

Show me one (1, just your best ONE) person, place, or event in the Gospels that has been shown to be false. Cite the pertinent scripture #'s and your evidence to support your conclusion.
You are right my friend! With careful examination there are no places where the Gospels are false. The scriptures are perfect, the only perfect thing in this imperfect world.

2Tim 3:16,

All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
This is a simple deceleration the book makes about itself. That means that the Gospels were not written by a group of men who included what they thought ought to be included. Every word they wrote was inspired by God.

When it comes to the Gospels many people take similar events as being the same event. If there is any discrepancy they immediately assume the different authors didn't see that same event the same way. It never occurs to them that the different writers may in fact be writing about entirely different, albeit similar, events.

A good example is the people who were crucified with Jesus. In one of the Gospels it says that both reviled Jesus whereas in another it says only one reviled him and the other stuck up for him. Well, immediately it is assumed that there is a big contradiction in the scriptures and that 2 Timothy 3:16 is not true. But here is what really happened. There were actually 4 crucified with Jesus, not two. Forget the pictures! The scriptures say four, not two.

Two were malefactors and two were thieves. Malefactors and thieves are not the same thing. You can read that two were led with Jesus to the cross and the other two came quite a bit later. Why did the soldiers break the legs of the first and then the second before they came to Jesus? Did the break one guy's legs, go past Jesus, break the other guy's legs, and then come back to Jesus? That makes no sense. No, there were two people on either side of Jesus so the broke the legs of two guys and then came to Jesus. That makes way more sense. There is more to this but I forget the details right off the top of my head.

Anyway, it is wrong to assume that two similar events are one event that the two writers wrote about with their own thoughts. They were inspired by God to write what they wrote. None of it was their own idea or interpretation.

There is not one single so-called contradiction in the Gospels that can not be explained one way or the other. It is shoddy scholarship to simply assume the 4 writers couldn't get their story right.

God bless...
 

Marcion

gopa of humanity's controversial Taraka Brahma
OK, so you can't back up your claim that the Gospels are not historical.

But to help you see the light that they are, here's some recommended reading for you:

"The Historical Jesus," by scholar Dr. Gary Habermas;
"New Evidence that Demands a Verdict," by former skeptic Josh McDowell;
"The Case for Christ," by Lee Strobel," and
"The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus," by Dr. Gary Habermas.

Have you read any of those? If not, why not?

I once read something by a fundamentalist Christian, it was pure apologetics, not true scholarship.
A bit like reading far-fetched conspiracy theories on the internet.
If it makes you happy, that is all that matters.
I prefer real scholarship to apologetics.
You still haven't come up with one text of which you can prove to me that it is historical and does not depend on other texts. You will have to do better than this to convince me.
There is no rational discussion possible with people of a fundamentalist bent.
Only very rarely do such people turn around and face facts.
 
Last edited:

Spartan

Well-Known Member
I prefer real scholarship to apologetics.

The ones I presented by Habermas are real scholarship.

You still haven't come up with one text of which you can prove to me that it is historical and does not depend on other texts. You will have to do better than this to convince me.
There is no rational discussion possible with people of a fundamentalist bent.
Only very rarely do such people turn around and face facts.

The historical record of the Gospels has been around for millennia. Skeptics like you have made about as much of a dent in them as a tack hammer on the pyramids of Egypt.

If the Gospels were such a pile of manure as you probably think, it should be very easy to dispel them. But you don't even have one example, though I've asked you for one. That's a big, big indictment of your brand of scholarship.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
You're right, two thrones.
But what about the poor Holy Spirt's throne. Doesn't the other parts of God care about about that part? What? Does that even make any sense? Why, no it doesn't!
Sure looks like Jesus isn't the one God spoken of in 1 Corinthians 8:6. Could it be that he is the Son of God?
Take care...
I find Jesus told who he is at John 10:36.
That was the perfect opportunity for Jesus to answer that he is God if that was the case.
You also, take care....
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Towards the end of Revelation, Jesus said he's the Alpha and Omega. That's God.
I find the title Alpha and Omega is found three (3) times in Revelation.
The King James Version of Rev. 1:11 however does Not receive support in the oldest Greek manuscripts.
Such as: the Alexandrine, Sinaitic, and the Codex Ephraeimrescriptus.

I find people have used the Alpha and Omega to say the Bible contradicts itself.
But upon reading the very first verse of Revelation it shows that the Revelation was given originally or first by God.
By God and ' through ' Jesus Christ. So, at times God is speaking and at times Jesus is speaking.
Revelation 22:7-9, thus at Revelation 1:8 it has the application to Almighty God.
Whereas, Jesus is titled 'Mighty God' at Isaiah 9:6 (Jesus from Heaven is Divine because his God sent him to Earth)
If we compare Revelation 21:6 with Matthew 25:40 and Hebrews 2:10-12 it is Not Jesus speaking.
God does Not have any ' brothers ' (nor sisters) because He is Father.
Whereas, Jesus has equal ' brothers ' or adopted joint heirs (includes 'sisters') from his Father for him.
Jesus refers to his ' brothers ' Not as being his sons, thus the Speaker is the God of Jesus.
At that final mention at Revelation 22:13 shows a number of persons speaking at Revelation 22:8-9.
The angel speaks to John. At verse 16 I find applies to Jesus, Verse 17 A is noted as the spirit and the bride.
The one speaking at the end of verse 20 is manifestly John himself.
The Alpha and Omega of verse 12-15 is comparable to Isaiah 26:21 and Malachi 3:1-6.
That is because of a joint coming for judgement on the part of both God and His 'Messenger of the Covenant'.
Any thoughts about Isaiah 44:6 ___________
 

Oeste

Well-Known Member
Jesus says, to take a few stark examples
Luke 18:19 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.”​
I think we’ve already seen how this verse went. As to the others, Christ has a dual nature. He is 100% man and 100% God. You seem to forget Christ is man one moment, then forget Christ is God the other depending on the convenience of the amnesia. Any of these verses can be easily answered by remembering he is both. You don’t have to believe that Blü, but it's very clear what scripture and the doctrine state.


And not once, not anywhere, does Jesus say, "I am God" ─

He does as @Spartan has shown you time and time again, but there’s no getting through to you guys, is there? If the Jews had been able to stone Jesus for blasphemy, you would still not believe Jesus is God. Instead, you would simply forget that he was also man, and ask “Why did he die if he was God?”!

There's no getting through to you guys, is there. It's GOT to say there's a Trinity, even if the Trinity idea didn't exist back then, even if it's not only an incoherent doctrine but admittedly so, even if it leaves Jesus saying 'Me, me, why have I forsaken me?' and being his own father, and so on.

Jesus is praying to the Father, not himself. Why do you present arguments we do not believe as if we do? Your argument is properly presented to a Modalist, not a Trinitarian.

If only you were there to explain that to the Jews!

No doubt the rocks they picked up to stone Jesus for blasphemy would have been dropped immediately.
Ah, God is easily frightened! How could I fail to see that!

Frightened? What bible are you reading from?? Can you cite the verse or are you once again creating your own biblical narrative?

Now if something can't be known by reason, or shown to be correct by reason once it's known, what would be an appropriate name for that something? Beyond a doubt, 'an unreasonable thing'. 'A nonsense' would fit too. So would 'an incoherent thing'.

This entire paragraph you've presented above is an unreasonable, nonsense or "incoherent thing".

Things "beyond our reason" are not by necessity unreasonable. I can talk to a squirrel, explain my tax return to him, show him my tax return, even stuff the Return down his home in the tree, and the squirrel is not going to understand my tax return.

My tax return is simply unreasonable to the squirrel, even after my revelation, because it’s beyond the grasp of “squirrel reasoning”. It does not make my tax return unreasonable in and of itself. Likewise there are things of God that are beyond “human reasoning”. He has a certain reasoning, we have a certain reasoning, and the squirrel has a certain reasoning.What do you find so difficult about this??

What scripture is that, given that the Trinity is nowhere mentioned in the NT and Jesus expressly and repeatedly denies he's God?

Scripture? As in single scripture? You mean scripture(s) as in plural don’t you? You must have missed the 160 verses we gave you before. Here ‘s a link to them again.

Give me just one place in the NT where Jesus says, "I am God". I've given you five above where Jesus says "I am not God". (Don't give quotes like, "I am" or "I am Alpha and Omega" or "I am Mr Ed the Talking Horse" ─ We're looking for where Jesus says, "I am God".

You are too funny Blü! I can see the conversation now:

ScreenCap170.jpg

You would not have believed Moses even though the Jews did, and you certainly do not believe Jesus even though the Jews did, at least in this particular instance. You are a skeptic Blu. It doesn’t really matter what Moses says, Jesus says, or scripture says because you don’t believe scripture at all.

So when God says I AM, and Moses says I AM sent me, and Jesus says I AM there are no dots or connections to make, no exegesis, no hermeneutics, but simply random verses to be taken in isolation so that another incongruous argument to be made.

It'd be very difficult, since they have no clear idea what God is, and even less if we require God to be real, to have objective existence. Not that I do, but then that's not my problem.

But it is the problem nevertheless. If you don’t believe scripture then you’re not going to believe any scripture I cite you. Why ask for things you're going to dismiss as rubbish anyways?

My Theory of Everything starts with three assumptions. I have to assume them, since they have in common that they can't be demonstrated to be correct without the prior assumption that they are correct.

Here’s what you've just told us: Blu has a theory that has 3 assumptions . These 3 assumptions have a common theme, but none of them can be demonstrated to be correct UNLESS we presume they were correct to begin with.

That looks suspiciously like a an argument for circular logic.

But let's test this hypothesis anyways...wait...you just stated they can't be demonstrated to be correct without the prior assumption they are correct" which of course eliminates any unbiased testing of your hypothesis altogether.

Let's continue

  1. That a world exists external to the self;
  2. That our senses are capable of informing us of that world.
  3. That reason is a valid tool.
Well now, this is interesting! Let's take it one step at a time, shall we?

1. That a world exists external to the self;

What is “self”? Do you mean soul? How did you objectively test for it?

2. That our senses are capable of informing us of that world.

Your conception of the world appears to be one that is SUBJECT to our senses. There is nothing, anywhere that suggests this universe, or any other universe, is subject to human senses or testing. The whole idea is a vanity. In classic Blü parlance, it’s “a nonsense”.


3. That reason is a valid tool.

What do you mean by “reason”? Are you referring to observation and/or logic as a tool? Is your assumption based on a premise that all things have an inherent logic? If so how do you explain humans? That all things are observable? Then tell us about our future!

It seems to me that by posting here you demonstrate that you agree with the first two.

Here's what I think about the first two:

A. I’m just as confused about what you mean by “self” as you appear to be when I talk about “spirit”.

B. I believe , like you, that our senses can correctly inform us about our world but there are limits. I think it a mistake to believe we are ever fully informed about our world. In our fallen state our senses are simply not capable of acknowledging all that goes around us. Ditto for our sense of self. So it’s not just the external world we do not see in its entirety, but our own internal world as well.

If you disagree with the third, now would be a good time to say so.

C. You would have to go into a bit more detail as to what you mean by “reason”. As humans, we give “reasons” for many things not all of which are reasonable.

The rest is a matter of exploring, describing and seeking to explain what exists in the world external to the self ─ objective reality, nature, the realm of the physical sciences.

All of which is subject to bias. You didn’t explain how we test or eliminate it.

And the way to do this is by reasoned enquiry. With the physical sciences this takes the form of scientific method.

Much like a squirrel’s ability to make inquiry into its universe is limited by the capacity of its brain our ability for inquiry is likewise limited. Why this is not immediately obvious to everyone is beyond me, but I believe there's a large element of vanity involved.

This also gives rise to our concept of truth. A statement is true to the extent that it conforms with / corresponds to / accurately describes objective reality. Since science proceeds by empiricism and induction, none of its conclusions is ever absolute, simply the best opinion for the time being. There are no absolutes outside this sentence.

Science is subject to human bias and interpretation. It is limited by our perceptions…our ability to visualize, see, hear, smell, taste, touch or understand. I see nothing in “objective reality” that tells us this reality is subject to human perception. IMO, it’s simply a vain indulgence.

You, by contrast, have no definition of God appropriate to a real god, one sufficient to allow us to tell whether any real candidate is God or not.

It sounds like you’re telling me I don’t have a definition for God you're not prepared to disagree with. Ain’t that the truth!!

You don't even have a definition of 'godness', the real quality a real god has and nothing else does.

Sure I do. Look at Job 38:4-7. If anything you "objectively" test can raise its hand when asked this question, then that raised hand is God.

If you did, I could test this keyboard I'm using and determine whether it's God or not; but you don't, so I'll never know.

I have a keyboard too, Blü.

When science comes up with a device that, notwithstanding our own bias and limitations, can tell us "what is" and "what is not", please let me know.

Meanwhile the only place that God is known to exist is as a concept, a thing imagined that has no objective counterpart, in individual brains.

Perhaps in your brain Blü, but not in mine. I'm sure when you finish constructing your device it can tell us which brain's reality is "objectively" real.

But if that's wrong, please supply me with those definitions. It might alter my relationship with this keyboard forever.

I think we can just go back to Assumption 1, above, where you talked about "Self'. Free that (John 8:31-32; Romans 8: 6:11) and your keyboard will follow.
 

Oeste

Well-Known Member
So if X = (Jesus + Father) / Ghost

what's the square root of X?

Talk me through it, step by step.

I think comparing what the teacher said to the trinity is like comparing apples to oranges. :)


Interesting answers!

As to Blu's answer, I'm not sure where he derived the formula X= (Jesus + Father) / Ghost from the example I gave.

As to Rrobs, the teacher says nothing about the Trinity.

Let's shorten the exercise and see if we have any other anti-Trinitarian takers.

chalkboard-generator-poster4.jpg

You have a bowl of Apples and the equation 1x1x1 on the board. Little Johnny illustrates the equation by taking one apple out of the bowl, then taking two more, taping them together resulting in an apple that is 3 times as big as the original.

Demonstrate to Johnny, using the apples, why he is correct or incorrect. Remember, the teacher was illustrating an equation, not demonstrating the Trinity. That's something little Johnny accused her of doing, and I find it extremely interesting that both Blu and Rrobs present arguments that do the same.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
As to Blu's answer, I'm not sure where he derived the formula X= (Jesus + Father) / Ghost from the example I gave.
Your post made it clear that the persons of the Trinity were mathematical objects amendable not only to addition (which brings with it subtraction) but to multiplication (which brings with it division). Why stop there? Why not powers eg God to the power of Ghost, or extraction of roots eg the 13th root of Jesus?

I'm actually pointing out that your mathematical argument entails such nonsense.
You have a bowl of Apples and the equation 1x1x1 on the board. Little Johnny illustrates the equation by taking one apple out of the bowl, then taking two more, taping them together resulting in an apple that is 3 times as big as the original.
No he doesn't. He may end up with apple pulp whose mass is the sum of three apples, but three apples' worth of pulp is not three apples.

Nor, since we're talking about the Trinity doctrine, is one apple 100% of either three apples or of three apples' worth of pulp. By contrast, each of the persons of the Trinity, Father, Jesus, Ghost, is 100% of God. That's why the doctrine is incoherent.

That's to say, your argument from analogy is a false analogy. A Trinity 'person' has highly relevant qualities that neither a real person nor an apple possess.
 
Last edited:
Top