Is Yahweh A Liar? Yes, He Is. I Can Prove It.

Trailblazer · Mar 21, 2021

Truthseeker9 said:
Jesus' name is above every name, and that name to me is the name of God, that is, all of the attributes of God. That's my metaphorical interpretation, which is only my own. The same is true of every Prophet of God.

Jesus is Lord, and every Prophet is Lord, they are all the same reflection of God.

I am okay with those interpretations, I just do not believe that ONLY Jesus was Lord.
Jesus' name was above every other name during His Dispensation, but not forever.

Truthseeker9 said:
What you say about Jesus being a humble servant of God is also true, He is so humble and self-effacing that God revealed Himself through Him. We learn from the Book of Certitude that we can say Jesus is God as He is a representation of God on earth and Jesus is a servant of God.

Yes, I know that, and that is in Gleanings as well.

“Were any of the all-embracing Manifestations of God to declare: “I am God,” He, verily, speaketh the truth, and no doubt attacheth thereto. For it hath been repeatedly demonstrated that through their Revelation, their attributes and names, the Revelation of God, His names and His attributes, are made manifest in the world....... And were any of them to voice the utterance, “I am the Messenger of God,” He, also, speaketh the truth, the indubitable truth ..........For they are all but one person, one soul, one spirit, one being, one revelation. They are all the manifestation of the “Beginning” and the “End,” the “First” and the “Last,” the “Seen” and the “Hidden”—all of which pertain to Him Who is the Innermost Spirit of Spirits and Eternal Essence of Essences. And were they to say, “We are the Servants of God,” this also is a manifest and indisputable fact. For they have been made manifest in the uttermost state of servitude, a servitude the like of which no man can possibly attain. Thus in moments in which these Essences of Being were deep immersed beneath the oceans of ancient and everlasting holiness, or when they soared to the loftiest summits of Divine mysteries, they claimed their utterances to be the Voice of Divinity, the Call of God Himself.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 54-55

Truthseeker9 said:
I'm not sure about the part about Jesus given authority to rule over heaven and earth. The Manifestations of God seem to have a kind of omnipotence to do what they want.

They do have great power, but I do not think that Manifestations of God are omnipotent; only God is omnipotent.

Truthseeker · Mar 21, 2021

Trailblazer said:
I am okay with those interpretations, I just do not believe that ONLY Jesus was Lord.
Jesus' name was above every other name during His Dispensation, but not forever.

Jesus name means "the Lord is Salvation" when I Iooked that up just now. To me, that's forever.

Trailblazer · Mar 21, 2021

Truthseeker9 said:
Jesus name means "the Lord is Salvation" when I Iooked that up just now. To me, that's forever.

Baha'u'llah's name means the Glory of God. To me, that's forever.

I do not know what there has to be a competition. They each had a mission from God. Jesus came to confer salvation upon humanity and Baha'u'llah came to bring what humanity will need to build the Kingdom of God on earth.

Truthseeker · Mar 21, 2021

Trailblazer said:
Baha'u'llah's name means the Glory of God. To me, that's forever.

I do not know what there has to be a competition. They each had a mission from God. Jesus came to confer salvation upon humanity and Baha'u'llah came to bring what humanity will need to build the Kingdom of God on earth.

I'm not suggesting a competition. the Lord(God or Jesus according to your taste) is Salvation and this truth lasts forever. Okay, good night, that's enough for today. I'm not sure if what I am doing with you is helping. Time to take a shower, snuggle or whatever with Sara and work on an answer for my Shi'i Islam class later tonight. I suppose I'll also see what transpired in the NCAA basketball tournament today, and look at some news, which I haven't gotten around to yet today. I am getting gradually less interested in sports as time goes by, which is a sign of detachment I think.

Redemptionsong · Mar 22, 2021

Subduction Zone said:
No one is ignoring reliable history.

And a Christian can be a historian, if he can be honest. If history tells you that part of the Bible is not true then a Christian has to adapt. And I use apologist as a derogatory term because I have never seen an honest one.

Here is a simple test for you, reliable history shows that Luke's Nativity is made up. How do you deal with that?

I'd like to hear your evidence.

Subduction Zone · Mar 22, 2021

Redemptionsong said:
I'd like to hear your evidence.

For what?

Redemptionsong · Mar 22, 2021

Subduction Zone said:
For what?

You said, 'reliable history shows that Luke's nativity is made up'.

Can you show me the 'reliable history' that contradicts the words of Luke?

Subduction Zone · Mar 22, 2021

Redemptionsong said:
You said, 'reliable history shows that Luke's nativity is made up'.

Can you show me the 'reliable history' that contradicts the words of Luke?

Yes. But this confirms that you really do not understand enough history to use the history argument.

Luke screwed up because he has a ten years pregnancy for Mary.. He has her with child during the reign of Herod the Great. He has the Nativity occur during the Census of Quirinius. Jesus was probably born in Nazareth. Luke needed an excuse to get him to Bethlehem to get born so he concocted a fictitious story.Luke was written about seventy years after the census so getting the date wrong is not that surprising.

leroy · Mar 22, 2021

Subduction Zone said:
The lack of evidence. The self contradictions with other parts of the Bible. Paul appears to rate his understanding of Jesus higher than that of the disciples. It makes it rather hard to decide which, if any of them have valid claims.

The main reason that Paul is not reliable is that he fails the burden of proof.

Ok and , ignoring miracles, what does it take for Paul to be reliable according to your standards?

Relying on verifiable history is not evidence for Paul. At best it can only be evidence against Paul if he gets facts wrong. Any person from that time should get historical facts right. Do you not understand the Spiderman fallacy yet?

Unlike Paul, The author of Spiderman was not intending to report real history,

leroy · Mar 22, 2021

SeekingAllTruth said:
How do you know that Luke was written before acts? What's your secular textual evidence for any of this? There's no conclusive proof that any of the NT was written prior to the 2nd century, much less 70 CE. It's all just conjecture based on traditions. You know this, leroy. We've had this conversation before. You make these grand sweeping pronouncements and then when Subduction or I or anybody asks you to produce proof for them you hem and haw but offer nothing to support your pronouncements.

There's no conclusive proof

Back to your main issue, you are raising the bar unrealistically to high, there is no conclusive proof for anything in ancient history,

The only claim that I am making is that dating Luke before the 70s is based on arguments and proper methodology, it is not like Christians simply invented the dare to fit their agenda.

There's no conclusive proof that any of the NT was written prior to the 2nd century,

The quantity and quality of accurate historical details in Acts makes it evident that whoever wrote the book ether lived during the mid 1 century or was a very talented and very well informed historian from the second century … in ether case the book is good reliable historical document.

leroy · Mar 22, 2021

Subduction Zone said:
Yes. But this confirms that you really do not understand enough history to use the history argument.

Luke screwed up because he has a ten years pregnancy for Mary.. He has her with child during the reign of Herod the Great. He has the Nativity occur during the Census of Quirinius. Jesus was probably born in Nazareth. Luke needed an excuse to get him to Bethlehem to get born so he concocted a fictitious story.Luke was written about seventy years after the census so getting the date wrong is not that surprising.

Getting one date wrong is not a big deal, all ancient historians made mistakes,

the historical inaccuracies within the gospels acts and Paul are few and insignificant compared to the overwhelming congruence.

leroy · Mar 22, 2021

Subduction Zone said:
Not necessarily. Paul supposedly died in Rome. If the author stayed in Jewish territory the news may never had gotten back to him. If you are going to use Wikipedia you should look at why your date is rejected today:

Again it seems to be a case of raising the bar unrealistically too high, obviously I am not saying that the author of Acts would necessarily know about the death of Paul, but this author knew a lot of stuff about Paul, so it’s probable that he would also know about the death of Paul.

The most probable date for its composition is around AD 80–110, and there is evidence that it was still being revised well into the 2nd century.[9]

Granted I accept the 80 AD date all I am saying is that there are arguments that suggest an earlier date

Ultimately the date is not that relevant for me, I accept acts as reliable because its fool of historical details that are known to be correct and that only a witness or someone with accept to proper sources would have known

Subduction Zone · Mar 22, 2021

leroy said:
Again it seems to be a case of raising the bar unrealistically too high, obviously I am not saying that the author of Acts would necessarily know about the death of Paul, but this author knew a lot of stuff about Paul, so it’s probable that he would also know about the death of Paul.

How is the bar being raised too high? You keep using bogus arguments to try to support your claims and those are simply shown to be without a logical basics.

Granted I accept the 80 AD date all I am saying is that there are arguments that suggest an earlier date

Apparently not very good ones since modern scholars do not accept those dates. I wish that there not so many apologetics sites out there since they pollute the web so badly it is hard to find scholastic articles about the topic that are readily available.

Ultimately the date is not that relevant for me, I accept acts as reliable because its fool of historical details that are known to be correct and that only a witness or someone with accept to proper sources would have known

Yet the author made a huge error in Luke. That puts his whole story under a bit of suspicion.

Subduction Zone · Mar 22, 2021

leroy said:
Ok and , ignoring miracles, what does it take for Paul to be reliable according to your standards?

Of course you have to "ignore miracles" since when investigated they fail. It would be nice if there was some actual evidence that supported his claims. All of the support seems to come only from people that had to swear that they believed his works. Secular support would help make his case. Do you have any?

Unlike Paul, The author of Spiderman was not intending to report real history,

That is only because we are wiser now. That does not mean that you did not make a Spiderman error.

Subduction Zone · Mar 22, 2021

leroy said:
Getting one date wrong is not a big deal, all ancient historians made mistakes,

It is if you use it to justify a key part of a myth. And of course it is not just the date that is wrong. So is the entire trip to Bethlehem. It indicates that the author either made stuff up or did not know enough to recognize when people were telling him nonsense.

the historical inaccuracies within the gospels acts and Paul are few and insignificant compared to the overwhelming congruence.

That is because he did not make that many claims that could be checked with history. Remember that Paul's beliefs were based upon a person that he never saw himself. And yet he thought that he knew Jesus better than the disciples.

leroy · Mar 22, 2021

Subduction Zone said:
How is the bar being raised too high? You keep using bogus arguments to try to support your claims and those are simply shown to be without a logical basics.

Asking for 100% certainty in historical claims is raising the bar unrealistically to high

Yet the author made a huge error in Luke. That puts his whole story under a bit of suspicion.

Again historians don’t drop a document just because the author made a mistake with one date

leroy · Mar 22, 2021

Subduction Zone said:
Of course you have to "ignore miracles" since when investigated they fail. It would be nice if there was some actual evidence that supported his claims. All of the support seems to come only from people that had to swear that they believed his works. Secular support would help make his case. Do you have any?

That is only because we are wiser now. That does not mean that you did not make a Spiderman error.

Talking specifically about the claim that Jesus was buried…

Paul knew James and the disciples

James and the disciples where likely to know what happened to Jesus body

Therefore Paul was in a position to know what happened to Jesus’s body ……… why isn’t this good enough evidence for you?

SeekingAllTruth · Mar 22, 2021

leroy said:
Back to your main issue, you are raising the bar unrealistically to high, there is no conclusive proof for anything in ancient history,

The only claim that I am making is that dating Luke before the 70s is based on arguments and proper methodology, it is not like Christians simply invented the dare to fit their agenda.

The quantity and quality of accurate historical details in Acts makes it evident that whoever wrote the book ether lived during the mid 1 century or was a very talented and very well informed historian from the second century … in ether case the book is good reliable historical document.

Let's take a look at what the experts say:

"....a decade-long study on the biblical book of Acts carried out by the Acts Seminar, a collaborative research effort led by scholars affiliated with the Westar Institute. The Acts Seminar scholars set out to answer the questions, “When was Acts written? What historically can Acts tell us about Christian origins?”

The Acts Seminar concluded that Acts was written around 115 CE and used literary models like Homer for inspiration, even exact words and phrases from popular stories."

Did you get that? Act is a fictional novel based on the letters of Paul.

When Was Acts Written? Not in the First Century. - Westar Institute

Subduction Zone · Mar 22, 2021

leroy said:
Asking for 100% certainty in historical claims is raising the bar unrealistically to high

I did not do that. It is gross errors that disqualify people.

Again historians don’t drop a document just because the author made a mistake with one date

It was not just one mistake and the mistake indicates that either the author lied, and if that is the case that will cause a person to be dropped, or has rather poor judgement. It does hurt a person's claims when a major point is wrong.

Subduction Zone · Mar 22, 2021

leroy said:
Talking specifically about the claim that Jesus was buried…

Paul knew James and the disciples

James and the disciples where likely to know what happened to Jesus body

Therefore Paul was in a position to know what happened to Jesus’s body ……… why isn’t this good enough evidence for you?

And the reason that needs to be supported much better than it has been is because that was not the norm for Roman executions. If it was a Jewish execution this would have happened, but part of the punishment of Roman crucifixions, which this was, was for the body to be left on the cross. Why didn't anyone marvel at the Romans allowing Jesus to be taken down in the first place? This is a problem that needs an answer.

Is Yahweh A Liar? Yes, He Is. I Can Prove It.

Veteran Member

Non-debating member when I can help myself

Veteran Member

Non-debating member when I can help myself

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member