Why So Much Trinity Bashing?

[Dimi95]

Please drop the false fallacy you are mis-using. You actually said "they can't understand it.Nobody can" that means we don't know.
You cannot get your specific magic being from that.

Again , you asserting delusion.
Ad hominem

No because there isn't any. You have been misled by crappy apologetics.

No actually i questioned it myself as someone who did not belive in God.

You thinking that is some kind of crappy is irrelevant.

The big bang is a change of state of the universe, not an explosion.

Ofc , why would i think otherwise?

We do not know if there are infinite big bangs, a multi verse, we do not know.

Ofc , but we have the Laws of this Universe.
We have this information that at some point all started.

We also know that everything in this Universe has a Cause.We also know where Cause stops in Infinite regression.
Only If It is 'Uncaused'.

We don't say it is therefore eternal universe , we don't know anything else beyond this universe.

It does not make The Quran any more true and same for your book.

So just because Quran and everything you mentioned is not true Christ is not true?

You need also to understand that you do straw-man on my position since i am an Eastern Orthodox.
I don't belive in 'Sola Scriptuta'.
You confused me with Protestant.

Is there a point here? Dever has demonstrated the Biblical narrative is false.

William Dever: From the beginnings of what we call biblical archeology, perhaps 150 years ago, scholars, mostly western scholars, have attempted to use archeological data to prove the Bible. And for a long time it was thought to work. [William Foxwell] Albright, the great father of our discipline, often spoke of the "archeological revolution." Well, the revolution has come but not in the way that Albright thought. The truth of the matter today is that archeology raises more questions about the historicity of the Hebrew Bible and even the New Testament than it provides answers, and that's very disturbing to some people.

Genesis is Mesopotamian, Exodus didn't happen as written, Moses is a literary construct. The kingdom was much smaller and more:

NOVA | The Bible's Buried Secrets | Archeology of the Hebrew Bible | PBS

In this article, archaeologist and biblical scholar William Dever discusses how archeology can offer vivid insights into the biblical world.

www.pbs.org

Again Absence of Evidence is Evidence of Absence..

If Y could be either true or false if X is true, then 'the truth of X implies the truth of Y' would mean nothing. The truth of X would still allow Y to be either true or false.

Look , maybe you don't understand why there is no other evidence.Maybe you eon't understand how much of the evidence was lost and destroyed.

Dever: One of the first efforts of biblical archeology in the last century was to prove the historicity of the patriarchs, to locate them in a particular period in the archeological history. Today I think most archeologists would argue that there is no direct archeological proof that Abraham, for instance, ever lived. We do know a lot about pastoral nomads, we know about the Amorites' migrations from Mesopotamia to Canaan, and it's possible to see in that an Abraham-like figure somewhere around 1800 B.C.E. But there's no direct connection.

You see this consistency of "Absence of Evidence is Evidence of Absence" ?

Also in myth writing a character is what the name means. Abraham means "father of many". It's a myth.

So Democracy is a myth?

That one is a stretch. A man named Abraham would not mean magic is real. Muhammad is actually a real person as well.

Yes , he is and i know quite a bit about him.

Semitic tribes of the time used to prefix their names with the term banū ("sons of"), so it is hypothesized that the Raham called themselves Banu Raham ......Furthermore, many interpreted blood ties between tribe members as common descent from an eponymous ancestor (i.e., one who gave the tribe its name), rather than as the result of intra-tribal ties. The name of this eponymous mythical ancestor was constructed with the patronymic (prefix) Abū ("father"), followed by the name of the tribe; in the case of the Raham, it would have been Abu Raham, later to become Ab-raham, Abraham.

Ofc , they knew not better.
From roots of words we have language today.Or do you think that human language did not evolved?

Abraham's Journey from Ur to Harran could be explained as a retrospective reflection of the story of the return of the Jews from the Babylonian exile. Indeed, Israel Finkelstein suggested that the oldest Abraham traditions originated in the Iron Age (monarchic period) and that they contained an autochthonous hero story as the oldest mentions of Abraham outside the book of Genesis (Ezekiel 33 and Isaiah 51) do not depend on Genesis 12–26, do not have there indication of a Mesopotamian origin of Abraham, and present only two main themes of the Abraham narrative in Genesis: land and offspring.

So Finkelstein suggests it's a myth they picked up. He is the author of Bible Unearthed, one of the best OT books for historical scholarship.

We will see however what time will give us after finding up what may be hidden.

The genealogy proof from both Arabs and Jews who were the Progeny from Ishmael and Isaac is another irrefutable proofs since they come from different opposite sources who agree on almost everything of Abraham, except debating who was the son of sacrifice..

 

[Muffled]

If you read Fransescas new book you can see examples that Yahweh is exactly the same as all Near Eastern Gods, fights the same monsters, same stories, speaks the same, is described the same.

Francesca Stavrakopoulou Discusses Her Latest Book,










3:15 Yahweh is the same as older gods. Anthropormorphic, dynamic, colorful, emotional, vivid, changeable, masculine, real body parts. In "God: An Anatomy" Francesca explains the Hebrew text is very explicit in this.






Genesis 1:26 God said let US make humankind in our image






Job 1:6 One day the heavenly beings came to present themselves before the Lord and Satan also came among themLeviticus 3:5 Aarons sons sacrificed, pleasing aroma to the Lord.






15:35


Ain Dara temple - footprints of Yahweh walking in to the holy of holies. Gods lived in temples.


Not unique to Jerusalem.


18:15


Jacob wrestled with God, forced him to bless him and God renamed him Israel.


Genesis 32:24-30


Similar to Mesopotamian deities.






By John 1:18 the theology has changed and “no one has seen God”.






Genesis 18:16-17, 20-22 God appears to Abraham as a normal man with 2 other men who are also divine beings. God is also mulling over if he should tell Abraham what he is about to do.


Exodus 24:9-11 Moses, Arron etc, saw God



It doesn't say "otherwise", it's just another mystery religion, all Hellenistic, the last one. Every nation the Greeks invaded caused the religion to change into a mystery religion. A supreme God with a son/daughter savior demigod providing salvation to members.


This was a trend.



No, no, no, Savior demigods, salvation that is personal, the soul belongs in heaven, the Logos, a communal meal, cosmopolitinism and much more is all Hellenism. They don't announce this in church, you have to educate yourself on the scholarship.


-During the period of the Second Temple (c.515 BC – 70 AD), the Hebrew people lived under the rule of first the Persian Achaemenid Empire, then the Greek kingdoms of the Diadochi, and finally the Roman Empire.[47] Their culture was profoundly influenced by those of the peoples who ruled them.[47] Consequently, their views on existence after death were profoundly shaped by the ideas of the Persians, Greeks, and Romans.[48][49] The idea of the immortality of the soul is derived from Greek philosophy[49] and the idea of the resurrection of the dead is derived from Persian cosmology.[49] By the early first century AD, these two seemingly incompatible ideas were often conflated by Hebrew thinkers.[49] The Hebrews also inherited from the Persians, Greeks, and Romans the idea that the human soul originates in the divine realm and seeks to return there.[47] The idea that a human soul belongs in Heaven and that Earth is merely a temporary abode in which the soul is tested to prove its worthiness became increasingly popular during the Hellenistic period (323 – 31 BC).[40] Gradually, some Hebrews began to adopt the idea of Heaven as the eternal home of the righteous dead.[40]


(Sanders)




whttps://www.worldhistory.org/article/94/the-hellenistic-world-the-world-of-alexander-the-g/


Hellenistic thought is evident in the narratives which make up the books of the Bible as the Hebrew Scriptures were revised and canonized during the Second Temple Period (c.515 BCE-70 CE), the latter part of which was during the Hellenic Period of the region. The gospels and epistles of the Christian New Testament were written in Greek and draw on Greek philosophy and religion as, for example, in the first chapter of the Gospel of John in which the word becomes flesh, a Platonic concept.

I believe Yahweh speaks differently from other people and is unique and recognizable.

 

[Dimi95]

I just now noticed you already have some of these scholars, you didn't explain why they don't apply to Jesus, they are in fact older, Christian scholarship says the NT is Hellenistic, Dr Tabor and others demonstrate distinct borrowings, which I demonstrated and you failed to even try to explain. You just went right to denial.
So you are now just trolling and do not care at all about what is true.

This is again you trying to speak in my name.
Please avoid that in the future..

You think that one needs naturalistic observance of evidence for justification and i don't.What's the problem with that?

If you want to talk about Hellenism first maybe you should read 'Alexander The Great' by Robin Lane Fox.Seriously , it is the ultimate guide to this legendary conqeror.

Hellenism is way more then you think it is.

 

[joelr]

Well , Jesus was real.
Don't you know that?

Muhammad has real revelations, don't you know that? Claims.

No , still wrong.

What we know is what people claimed to witness.You chose not to accept that since you think that scientific observations are neccessary.I understand that.

So the question is , Can you be Rational without being scientific?

And yet you probably don't accept the claims of thge Quran, Hindu scripture, Scientology, Bahai.......so your special pleading is just one big fallacy.

I don't need scientific evidence, just reasonable evidence to support the claim, same as you with Krsihna and Zeus and Moroni giving Smith revelations.

Well , i know a lot about Muhammad's revelations and i have a reason to reject that belief.
However i know nothing about Krishna , so if knowing nothing is 'not beliving' , then OK.

I bet the reason is also one that Jesus can be rejected for.

Yet I GAVE more than enough evidence he is a Persian and Hellenistic savior deity. Fiction.

We can keep going as well.

Really?
Can a belief without proof be true?

Sure, but like Mormonism, you don't believe it without sufficient evidence.

I think that this is consequence of you misunderstand the term 'belief'.

Belief without evidence isn't warranted. Especially in things that look like myth.

Birmingham Quran dates very close to the life of Muhammad.


Did not read it , so no comment.


33 AD

None of this adds to any point.

No Mark is written earlier , do you want me to show you how is that possible?

Being "possible" doesn't make it true. The thousands of PhD in historical studies have made a case with endless evidence. write a paper, get it peer-reviewed and then link it to me when it's in a journal.

Ok , I understand now why you took the consensus of schollars.
However Rationality in History does not require consensus neccessary.

It's still written like a myth and uses older myth.

The Gospels are different , I understand that.
What you don't understand probably is they don't need to be identical in narrative.It would be more suspicious to me if they were , however.

Ring structure, chiasmus, intervallic triads are NEVER USED outside of fiction. This is markers of myth0making. Using a trending myth, personal Greek savior deities.

No , no connection there , regardless of what Atheist Archeologist have to say.
Jesus deals with Judaism , not with Hellada..

You are not worth talking to. Tacitus has nothing to do with the mountains of evidence from scholars showing the NT is clearly influenced by Hellenistic savior demigods.
You are just using denial.

The Roman historian Tacitus (55 CE - 120 CE) in his ‘The Annals of Tacitus’ - The Reign of Nero - The Christians Accused - - refers to Jesus as ‘Chresto’. I. N. R. I. sign was nailed to the cross of Jesus - in Latin: Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum (Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews).

This is evidence of straw man on mainstream Christianity which is

Tacitus called Christianity a harmless superstition. Mark still wrote the story using Greek and other myths.

Demonstrated here

Yes, I have demonstrated the NT looks to be a borrowing of Hellenism.

Apologetic work is irrelevant with History.

I will continue answering the other parts maybe later or the next days.

The only thing that claims these stories are anything but total mythology is APOLOGETICS.

All history shows it's a folk story. SO if you write off apologetics, you have nothing.


But what is evident is you didn't explain WHY apologetics is relevant? You are just making word-salad claims with no meaning at this point.
Seems like you just write the opposite of what I say, but without evidence or reason.

So What About Hannibal, Then? • Richard Carrier Blogs

This kind of argument has been tried again and again and again. I’ve discussed every one. (See Okay, So What about the Historicity of Spartacus?) It’s always of this form: P1. We should not doubt [x] existed. P2. The evidence for Jesus is better than for [x]. P3. The same standards of evidence...

www.richardcarrier.info

All mainstream scholars agree Jesus as demigod is a mythical savior deity. They all agree the Gospels are myths about him. They simply conclude that those myths contain some kernels of fact, and that Jesus was originally not a flying, magic-wielding supergod. But they agree the super-Jesus, the only Jesus about whom we have any accounts at all, didn’t exist. They think some mundane Jesus did, who was dressed up with those legends and beliefs later. But that still admits he belongs to a reference class that the Hannibals of the world do not: that of mythically-attested savior gods who speak to their followers in dreams and visions. So we actually need more evidence for Jesus than we have for Hannibal, to be sure Jesus isn’t just like all other mythical savior gods, who also had amazing stories about them set on earth history, and who also appeared to people in dreams and visions—yet never plausibly existed.

 

[joelr]

So we have conflict between sets of ideas.


I mean , that is how we know to trace Hellenism , right?

No. The mystery religions continued to have an influence into Christianity as it picked up ALL of the theology. Resurrecting savior deities, who get members into heaven, eating a piece of tye deity, specfic baptism, eucharist, Logos and much more.
The NT is a Jewish version of Judaism mixed with trending Hellenism.

The Religious Context of Early Christianity
A Guide to Graeco-Roman Religions
HANS-JOSEF KLAUCK
Professor of New Testament Exegesis, University of Munich, Germany


The Hellenistic mystery cults play a decisive role in the argumentation of the representatives of the school of the history of religions (see the Introduction, above), in two ways. First, they postulate a genetic derivation of the Christian sacraments from the quasi-sacramental rites of the mystery cults (initiation, washings, anointings, sacred meals); they see the Chrisrian sacraments as having no basis in the message of Jesus and in Palestinian biblical Judaism, but rather as the outcome of a process of Hellenisation which is evaluated as a lapse from the original purity of the gospel, whether this is dated (with Heitmuller) already before Paul, or (with Harnack: see p. 148, n. 49) only outside the New Testament itself in the second century. Secondly, it is further argued (see Bruckner) that the myth of the dying and rising again of a divinity, which lies at the centre of each cult, was a significant influence on earliest Christianity's image of Christ, which drifted off into myth.

Ofc but Hellenism had it's role in it.We know for example where democracy came from - Athens.
So apart from Salvation and demigods , we have Democracy.

Democracy (from Ancient Greek: δημοκρατία, romanized: dēmokratía, dēmos 'people' and kratos 'rule') is a system of government in which state power is vested in the people or the general population of a state.

Democracy means : 'people' - 'rule'

That is how we are able to communicate better.Because of 'roots of words'.That is how language evolved.

Oh, that's funny, I thought you just said "Apologetic work is irrelevant with History."
Which is what you are now using??

This work is an apologetic work, which you dismissed, but is also apologetics.

What real historians say is more like:

"

Every cult is based on its own divine myth, which narrates what happens to a god; in most cases, he has to take a path of suffering and wandering, but this often leads to victory at the end. The rite depicts this path in abbreviated form and thus makes it possible for the initiand to be taken up into the story of the god, to share in his labours and above all in his victory. Thus there comes into being a ritual participation which contains the perspective of winning salvation (awrqpia). The hope for salvation can be innerworldly, looking for protection from life's many tribulations, e.g. sickness, poverty, dangers on journey, and death; but it can also look for something better in the life after death. It always involves an intensification of vitality and of life expectation, to be achieved through participation in the indestructible life of a god (cf in general terms Burkert 11: mysteries 'aimed at a change of mind through experience of the sacred'). "



Which is EXACTLY WHAT THE NT IS. A mythology.

I explained already what i think of something i don't know.
Again your strawman

Not a strawman. But since you are so sure. Please now explain the methodology you use to determine teh revelations in your religion are true and other are not. Historical claims will not help without support from many other sources at the same tie. Yet the world says nothing during the time of Jesus. But, since it's a strawman, what is your methodology to determine your folk tales are actually true?

So i will tell you what is not logical to me.
Why did no one mentioned how Paul and Peter died since the Gospels were written after 70AD.It could however culminated their ministry , right?

First, you did not answer to one single internal or external evidence of how we know the Gospels are anonymous?
Paul is not, why did you mention Paul? 2nd Peter is a forgery? Please accept the Gospels are anonymous, non-eyewitness documents or explain away all the evidence with alternate theories, sources, proof and so on.

Kata - indicating reversal, opposition, degeneration, etc
Etymology: from Greek kata-, from kata. In compound words borrowed from Greek, kata- means: down (catabolism), away, off (catalectic), against (category), according to (catholic), and thoroughly (catalogue)

kata - WordReference.com Dictionary of English

kata - WordReference English dictionary, questions, discussion and forums. All Free.

www.wordreference.com

Evangelion refers to the gospel in Christianity, translated from the Greek word εὐαγγέλιον (euangélion, Latin: evangelium) meaning "Good News". Evangelion may also refer to: Gospel account. Gospel Book.

So now we have 'Good news' evolving in another term 'evengelion'.

So i would like you to explain how is 'told to be by...' valid?

This is taught by Bruce Metzger, the leading specialist in the Greek translations of the Gospels.



The specific wording of the Gospel titles also suggests that the portion bearing their names was a later addition. The κατα (“according to”) preposition supplements the word ευαγγελιον (“gospel”). This word for “gospel” was implicitly connected with Jesus, meaning that the full title was το ευαγγελιον Ιησου Χριστου (“The Gospel of Jesus Christ”), with the additional preposition κατα (“according to”) used to distinguish specific gospels by their individual names. Before there were multiple gospels written, however, this addition would have been unnecessary. In fact, many scholars argue that the opening line of the Gospel of Mark (1:1) probably functioned as the original title of the text:


Here, we already have a problem with the traditional authors of the Gospels. The titles that come down in our manuscripts of the Gospels do not even explicitly claim Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John as their authors. Instead, the Gospels have an abnormal title convention, where they instead use the Greek preposition κατα, meaning “according to” or “handed down from,” followed by the traditional names. For example, the Gospel of Matthew is titled ευαγγελιον κατα Μαθθαιον (“The Gospel according to Matthew”). This is problematic, from the beginning, in that the earliest title traditions already use a grammatical construction to distance themselves from an explicit claim to authorship. Instead, the titles operate more as placeholder names, where the Gospels have been “handed down” by church traditions affixed to names of figures in the early church, rather than the author being clearly identified.[2] In the case of Tacitus, none of our surviving titles or references says that the Annals or Histories were written “according to Tacitus” or “handed down from Tacitus.” Instead, we have a clear attribution to Tacitus in one case, and only ambivalent attributions in the titles of the Gospels.[3]


Furthermore, it is not even clear that the Gospels’ abnormal titles were originally placed in the first manuscript copies. We do not have the autograph manuscript (i.e., the first manuscript written) of any literary work from antiquity, but for the Gospels, the earliest manuscripts that we possess have grammatical variations in their title conventions. This divergence in form suggests that, unlike the body of the text (which mostly remains consistent in transmission), the Gospels’ manuscript titles were not a fixed or original feature of the text itself.[4] As textual criticism expert Bart Ehrman (Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, pp. 249-250) points out:

A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament - by Bruce M. Metzger (Author)​

Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History, 4.23.11) states that Rome sent two letters to Corinth—the first was Clement’s letter and the second was from the Roman bishop Soter (AD 166-174). Jefford writes, 'A few scholars think it is possible that this letter incorporated the homily that is now identified as 2 Clement…. Since both texts were known to have come from Rome, it would have been easy to associate the two writings as letters from Clement without further suspicion.'


Which is written according to many schollars in 70 AD and suspicously absent again is Peter' death.

Eusebius ????? A man who lived late 2nd century? We don't know who wrote that:

"While 2 Clement is traditionally attributed to Clement of Rome, most scholars believe that it was written by an anonymous author between 95–140 CE. The author was neither Clement of Rome nor the author of 1 Clement. "

After Mark was written.

 

[joelr]

Rationality does not neccessary rely only on external observations.

Mormonism and Islam can use that excuse as well. Special pleading.

Affirming the consequent otherwise known as a converse error-is a logical fallacy that involves taking a true statement and assuming the converse form would be true as well. Formally, we can represent this fallacy as follows: If X is the case-then Y is also the case. Y is true, so X must be as well.

So in the same way i can say to you that this is an argument of personal credulity.

Rationality however comes from Irrationality,and mind comes from matter.

So it is more convincing to me the Biblical narrative , 'In the begining was the Logos,Principle' translated as 'In the begining was the Word'

'Great then you are automatically wrong.

First I am not arguing from my ignorance but from massive evidence.

Next the Logos is a direct lift from Platonic theology.

Plato and Christianity

38:30 Origen a Neo-Platonist uses Plato’s One. A perfect unity, indivisible, incorporeal, transcending all things material. The Logos (Christ) is the creative principle that permeates the created universe


59:30
In some sense Christianity is taking Greco-Roman moral philosophy and theology and delivering it to the masses, even though they are unaware

Yes , but that does not mean you should stop trying to,or?

For you I think it does. I post good scholarship on Hellenism and instead of understanding it you use denial. Again, you are special pleading for your religion only.

Ofc , Evolution followed by Abiogenesis.
I can belive that life evolved,really i can , but what i can't belive is that it came on its own.

Your incredulity doesn't mean magic. It means you don't know.

The studies on self replicating compounds had come very far, the layman just isn't aware.

You see know how you mirepresent my views?
You assert that are all false based on scientific method.

I didn't use science to show Thor doesn't exist. It's basic probability. The supernatural has never been demonstrated, religions are mostly mythology, they look to be borrowed stories, what you would expect to see is what we see. Basic logic.
You want to special plead, Islam wants to special plead, you all want normal rules for everything except the story you bought into without good evidence.
Can't help you there.

So again , we are going to this circle of questions?

Is scientific method neccessary when we talk about Rationality?
Is that your criteria?

Again, special pleading. You don't use the scientific method for every other story, you know it isn't true because bad evidence. Your also has terrible evidence. It's clearly a syncretic myth. You are trying to word-salad your way around this fact.

There is a man in AU with a ministry claiming to be Jesus. You don't believe him, Islam, Hinduism, Mormonism, for the same reasons we all don't. Nothing to do with science.
When good evidence is presented we might believe. You have to hide from the fact that you don't have good evidence for the story you accepted. You cannot make all these claims and then reject thousands of supernatural stories outside of the one you buy into.
It's just special pleading.

Well , as i said many times , i don't know Krishna.

Is the excuse you keep running to. He came and gave revelations to a Prince. He wants a personal relationship with you. Same thing different religion.

So i can note that yoir main problem is belief and not God.

There is no evidence of any god.

There is no reason to believe in any god.

All religions are syncretic mythologies with definitive evidence they are re-writes of older stories. When religious you avoid these truths like the plague.
And when you examine the literature we see it's written as fiction:


"First of all, before even identifying or examining these literary constructs, allegories, and prospective elements of myth, we can already see by reading the Gospels that they fail to show any substantive content of being actual researched histories. Nowhere in the Gospels do they ever name their sources of information, nor do they read as eye witness testimonies (nor do they identify themselves as such), nor is it mentioned why any sources used would be accurate to rely upon. The authors never discuss any historical method used, nor do they acknowledge how some contents may be less accurate than others, nor do they mention alternate possibilities of the events given the limited information they had from their sources. They never express amazement or any degree of rational skepticism no matter how implausible an event within the story may be — something we would expect from any rational historian (even one living in antiquity).
So we can see a large number of literary sources that Mark merely re-wrote for his fiction, a large number of parallels with other sources, many strange coincidences and other implausibilities, and most impressively several intricately crafted literary structures (some interwoven into others and/or several layers in complexity) and other literary devices that obviously served some overall literary purpose that Mark was trying to accomplish. It’s easy to see why Mark would have to invent the various narrative materials that he did (hence the numerous historical implausibilities) in order to get the literary structure he wanted to work successfully. There were indeed more elements of myth than those listed in this post, but I think these were the most telling and some of the most impressive ones found within Mark’s Gospel. In the next part of this series, I will be discussing some of the elements of the Gospel According to Matthew as mentioned in Carrier’s analysis."

 

[joelr]

Again , you asserting delusion.
Ad hominem

If we don't know, than we don't know, that isn't ad-hom, it's basic logic.

No actually i questioned it myself as someone who did not belive in God.

You thinking that is some kind of crappy is irrelevant.

Ok show me an apologetic that isn't "crappy".

Ofc , but we have the Laws of this Universe.

Not laws, we have mathematical descriptions of process. We don't know if they could be different.

We have this information that at some point all started.

We also know that everything in this Universe has a Cause.We also know where Cause stops in Infinite regression.
Only If It is 'Uncaused'.

The change of state had a cause, we don't know what. Does not need be a being. Fire sometimes starts through unconscious process. A big bang may happen also from natural process.

We don't say it is therefore eternal universe , we don't know anything else beyond this universe.

Exactly, so we don't have evidence for any gods.

So just because Quran and everything you mentioned is not true Christ is not true?

You need also to understand that you do straw-man on my position since i am an Eastern Orthodox.
I don't belive in 'Sola Scriptuta'.
You confused me with Protestant.

I don't care. The point is you use fallacies, poor logic, special pleading and methods that could just as easily be used by Islam or any other religion. They do not work. You need a methodology to demonstrate why your is true and others are false. A good methodology. If you say "the book says so". Well, so does their book. So that fails. You have revelations. So did they. The reason there is nothing is because religions are made up by people from claims, all equally as unbelievable. So you need apologetics, which they also have.

Now true things, like the elements, need ZERO of these. Every nation who has scientists can do the experiments and arrive at the same conclusions. No apologetics. No "maybe my science is the true one, I don't know about the others (already a suspicious claim because it suggests blindly following something before you got evidence), so I cannot say.

Again Absence of Evidence is Evidence of Absence..

If Y could be either true or false if X is true, then 'the truth of X implies the truth of Y' would mean nothing. The truth of X would still allow Y to be either true or false.

Look , maybe you don't understand why there is no other evidence.Maybe you eon't understand how much of the evidence was lost and destroyed.

No we have plenty of scripture that doesn't match real life.
We have plenty of scripture we have confirmed is forged (see Ehrman, Forgery and Counterforgery, a scholarly work on Biblical forgery)

we have the Dead Sea Scrolls, with older variants of OT stories. One Isaiah has 26,00 variations. Entire paragraphs were removed from the current version.

We have definitive evidence of Mesopotamian myths used in Genesis.
Many examples of Persian myth borrowed into the OT and Jewish belief.
Many examples of Hellenistic savior religions and can see clearly the Gospels are a Jewish version of Greek mythology.

You see this consistency of "Absence of Evidence is Evidence of Absence" ?

Nope, if you read Thomas Thompson's book you will see massive evidence.

But, in the 1970s, new arguments concerning Israel's past and the biblical texts challenged these views; these arguments can be found in Thomas L. Thompson's The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives (1974),[62] and John Van Seters' Abraham in History and Tradition (1975).[63] Thompson, a literary scholar, based his argument on archaeology and ancient texts. His thesis centered on the lack of compelling evidence that the patriarchs lived in the 2nd millennium BCE, and noted how certain biblical texts reflected first millennium conditions and concerns. Van Seters examined the patriarchal stories and argued that their names, social milieu, and messages strongly suggested that they were Iron Age creations.[64] Van Seters' and Thompson's works were a paradigm shift in biblical scholarship and archaeology, which gradually led scholars to no longer consider the patriarchal narratives as historical.[65] Some conservative scholars attempted to defend the Patriarchal narratives in the following years, but this has not found acceptance among scholars.[66][67] By the beginning of the 21st century, archaeologists had stopped trying to recover any context that would make Abraham, Isaac or Jacob credible historical figures.[

So Democracy is a myth?

The character is the myth, his name means father of a multitude and that is his purpose in the story.
Mythmaking 101. Early Israel was not a democracy.

Ofc , they knew not better.
From roots of words we have language today.Or do you think that human language did not evolved?

Point? Not really. Genesis was written around 600 BCE. Abraham was the mythical founder.

The Genesis creation narrative is the creation myth[a] of both Judaism and Christianity.[
The authors of the Hebrew creation narrative borrowed themes from Mesopotamian mythology, but adapted them to their unique belief in one God.
Scholarly writings frequently refer to Genesis as myth, for while the author of Genesis 1–11 "demythologised" his narrative by removing the Babylonian myths and those elements which did not fit with his own faith, it remains a myth in the sense of being a story of origins.[7]

Hamilton, Victor P (1990). The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1–17. New International Commentary on the Old Testament (NICOT).

We will see however what time will give us after finding up what may be hidden.

The genealogy proof from both Arabs and Jews who were the Progeny from Ishmael and Isaac is another irrefutable proofs since they come from different opposite sources who agree on almost everything of Abraham, except debating who was the son of sacrifice..

That is extremely bad logic.

Jews and Arabs agree on an ancient mythology. In the 7th century? That means it's true? That is " irrefutable proofs"???????


Cool well Hinduism is 4 sects who all believe that Brahman is the supreme God. Must be "irrefutable truth?"

They are ancient people who bought into a myth?

But you don't even understand the connection, you seem to think this provides some sort of evidence? That is some serious confirmation bias at play. The Arabs were very interested in Ancient Greek science, which was stored in Christian churchs basements.
So they were exposed to the OT as well and formed a new sect that combined the OT, Greek science, Persian myth (Iran) and local folklore.
That is why they bought into the OT. Has nothing to do with truth. The suggestion is ludicrous, irrefutable proof? Your standards of truth are simply not there whatsoever.

Hey the Arabs said the OT is true, wow, irrefutable proof!!!!!!!


YET, they got the Jesus stuff wrong.....LOL, IRREFUTABLE TRUTH when it matches what you want, but when it comes to their ideas about Jesus, well they got that wrong. But the OT, no way, iffefutable!!!!!! Wow.

 

[joelr]

I believe Yahweh speaks differently from other people and is unique and recognizable.

Cool which scripture are you studying in the original language that competed with Yahweh? Because Professor Stavrakopoulou studies this and has an entire book demonstrating Yahweh is exactly the same. In fact all of the stories seem to have earlier version in older cultures with different gods.

Francesca Stavrakopoulou PhD
9:30
The idea that the Israelite religion was extraordinary and different from religions of surrounding religions and cultures and this deity is somehow different and extraordinary and so this deity is wholly unlike all other deities in Southeast Asia. Historically this is not the case. Nothing unusual or extraordinary about Yahweh.



Francesca Stavrakopoulou Discusses Her Latest Book,

3:15 Yahweh is the same as older Greek gods. Anthropormorphic, dynamic, colorful, emotional, vivid, changeable, masculine, real body parts. In "God: An Anatomy" Francesca explains the Hebrew text is very explicit in this.

 

[joelr]

This is again you trying to speak in my name.
Please avoid that in the future..

You think that one needs naturalistic observance of evidence for justification and i don't.What's the problem with that?

If you want to talk about Hellenism first maybe you should read 'Alexander The Great' by Robin Lane Fox.Seriously , it is the ultimate guide to this legendary conqeror.

Hellenism is way more then you think it is.

No, it's denial, and you are doing it right now AGAIN.
Alexander The Great isn't Hellenistic religion. He was a leader. The religions continued on with the same theology up to the NT. The apologists admitted it clearly.
The Historians could not have laid it out more direct. It's not a Jewish theology, it's Greek.

They are clear with this. You continue to trick yourself with this "Alexander The Great is the only source". There is also the religions, which centered in Antioch, same place as Christianity and we see it all flow into the NT.
Dr Tabor explains the changes from the OT and the updated views it brought. JZ Smith gave a summary of the theology and examples.
Petra Pakken showed 4 trends seen in Hellenistic religion, all 4 are in the NT.
Carrier listed all the common features of savior deities, all found in Jesus. How hard is this? Yet, like the Wizard in Oz, you are like "don't look behind this curtain here, look over there at this warrior leader, nothing to see here....."
Still not enough? Ok?



HELLENISTIC IDEAS OF SALVATION IN THE LIGHT OF ANCIENT ANTHROPOLOGY


PAUL WENDLAND
University of Gattingen, Germany



Christian and Hellenistic ideas of redemption cannot be sharply separated.


The deity's resurrection from the dead gives to the initiates, who see their own destiny prefigured in his adventures, hope of a life after death.


The consciousness of estranecment between man and God, and a longing to bridge this chasm, are fundamental to all religions of redemption. In the development of antiquity from the sixth century B.c. on, this type of thought, for which the way is already pared in the older elements of popular faith, confronts us a definite and vigorously increasing religious movement. Reformers, prophets, and puritans propagate a profounder piety, which often mystic in character. The ecstatic Dionysus religion becomes the most important factor in this development. In this religion t common people, the poor and the needy, directly attain a more profound and personal relation to the deity. The believer loses his individual consciousness in enthusiasm and receives the divinity into himself. In moments of orgiastic ecstasy he experiences the ultimate goal of his existence, abiding fellowship with the god, who, as redeemer and savior will free him through death from the finiteness, the suffering, and the exigencies of the earthly life. Orphism sets forth this religious experience in a mystic theology which exerts a strong influence upon Pindar and Empedocles, for example, and which suggested to Plato his magnificent treatise on the dest of the soul.
which grow out of the syncretism of the time. These sources acquaint us with the prevailing religious tendencies of antiquity in its declining period. Purification and rebirth, mystical union of the believer with the deity and the hope of bliss in the future world, revelation and charismatic endowment which essentially constitute redemption-these are the motives dominating the rites, sacraments, faith, and teaching of this syncretism. As enjoined in the liturgy of the Phrygian mysteries.

wThe relationship of Christianity to Hellenism appears closer in the Ephesian letter. Here Christ is the supreme power of the entire spirit-world, exalting believers above the bondage of the inferior spirits into his upper kingdom (1: 18-22). Christians must struggle with these spirits, among whom the sKoopoipdrope6 (astral spirits) are named. In like manner from the second century on Christ is more frequently extolled as a deliverer from the power of fate.' When Ignatius regards Christ's work as the communication of ryv^oaR and &0c9apria, and the Eucharist as food of immortality, he, like the author of the Fourth Gospel, shows the influence of Greek mysticism. Irenaeus' realistic doctrine of redemption also has, in common with Greek mysticism, the fundamental notions of deification, abolition of death, imperishability, and gnosis.





It doesn't matter if books on Alexander veer into different or older Greek religious practices. Dr Tabor and others study the stuff that influenced Christianity. There was a specific version of Hellenism that was for people more into religion and wanted personal salvation. Alexander may not have even been into this movement?
The Jesus character is a Jewish remake of one of these savior demigods.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Can't speak for non-Trinitarian Christians, but as an outsider with a familiarity with the history of the church and evolution of Christian theology, I'd venture a few reasons:

1. its simply unnecessary, from a devotional point of view- one doesn't need any trinity to speak/pray to God or participate in a religious community, worship services, etc

2. it is logically and philosophically problematic, the theologians who invented it designed it to be paradoxical.. but here's the thing- there are no true paradoxes. So in terms of the logic/philosophy of it, something in the traditional Trinitarian account needs to give just for it ti be logically self-consistent.

3. it reeks of paganism, despite theologians attempts to downplay this. If they say there are divine persons who are non-identical to God, you're opening yourself to accusations of proliferating deities no matter what sorts of sophisticated theological gymnastics you have to justify it

 

[metis]

3. it reeks of paganism, despite theologians attempts to downplay this. If they say there are divine persons who are non-identical to God, you're opening yourself to accusations of proliferating deities no matter what sorts of sophisticated theological gymnastics you have to justify it

Not really, as the Trinitarian concept has been around for many centuries, and it actually does make sense when one uses "essence" to explain Jesus' and the Holy Spirit's relationship to God.

However, with me it's a moot point.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Not really, as the Trinitarian concept has been around for many centuries, and it actually does make sense when one uses "essence" to explain Jesus' and the Holy Spirit's relationship to God.

However, with me it's a moot point.

I'm just giving some common reasons for criticizing it (some I agree with and some I do not). But I don't think the conceptual issues with the Trinity can simply be waved away by invoking "essence", no.

 

[walt]

I'm just giving some common reasons for criticizing it (some I agree with and some I do not). But I don't think the conceptual issues with the Trinity can simply be waved away by invoking "essence", no.

I agree with you,
My thing is this, is the Trinity possible, sure it's possible, Jesus gives all kinds of instructions on how to love one another, love your neighbor, do unto others like you want them to do to you, pray for those who hate you, turn the other cheek, Even love your enemies.

People that believe in the Trinity, say the Trinity is Essential! What I think is Essential and Very Important is when Jesus gives us Instructions like the many Instructions he gives about Love of neighbor and to love God with our whole heart, mind, soul and strength. This is Essential.

Jesus never gives instructions, that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are one God, Co-equal and Co-eternal with each other. Shouldn't we be spending our time on what Jesus actually told us to do, like loving one another and loving Our Heavenly Father.

Shouldn't Jesus' Instructions be Essential and Very Important? Not something he never bothered to tell us to believe.

 

[Comradio251]

I've noticed on RF there are a lot of heretical (that's the technical term) Christians who disbelieve in the Trinity.

Why?

We've had the creeds since Late Antiquity (Apostolic, Nicaean, Athanasian) and they all include the Trinity, especially the latter, which is all about it. These creeds are regularly read in churches and have been for hundreds of years. If the Trinity were so easily disproven, why would it have held out and been accepted by the orthodox Christians? Why spend so much time fighting the Arians? And why, I'm sorry to ask, is it almost always Protestants? Do you think you know something that everybody in the early orthodox Church failed to grasp?

Why is there so much of this around lately? How do you explain how Jesus is God without the Trinity?

How do you explain the worship of Christ?

And why is it treated in such a light manner?

If you read the Gospels, there are plenty of reasons why Jesus cannot be God. But one piece of hard evidence comes from,

1 timothy 2:5-6 (NIV)
For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all people.


Jesus is the son of God who is sinless and is the mediator between God and the sinful mankind. So, of course, Jesus is separate from mankind but it's also stated in this verse that he's not God. A mediator is neither party in which he's mediating for. He's just the son of God. Trinitarians are at a loss with this verse alone.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I agree with you,
My thing is this, is the Trinity possible, sure it's possible

Is it possible? I'm not certain. The logical and conceptual incoherencies seem to run pretty deep here. What I'm curious is, what do people get out of the notion of the Trinity that they wouldn't get with just God and Jesus and God's work in the world?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Is it possible? I'm not certain. The logical and conceptual incoherencies seem to run pretty deep here. What I'm curious is, what do people get out of the notion of the Trinity that they wouldn't get with just God and Jesus and God's work in the world?

Best book on the development of Trinitarianism is called "When Jesus Became God" by Rabbi Richard Rubenstein. If I could sum up what I learned...

The idea that Jesus is deity goes back almost to the beginning of Christianity. Although I do not believe that the original Nazarenes bought into this, certainly Paul had a high view of Jesus, and easily passed it on to his very Hellenized audience. Over the next several hundred years, you had various ways this was managed. For example, in the second century, most Christians were modelists (meaning one God had three modes of being). The conflict between the different views came to a head in the 4th century. The idea was, if Jesus is God, how exactly can he be God without ending up having more than one god? Trinitarianism answers that question. Does it do so coherently? Not in my opinion. But nevertheless, the view of "One God, three persons" became orthodoxy.

As a result of this doctrine, Christians could say "I have a God that loves me so much he died for me." I'm Jewish, and don't believe that, but even I can see the appeal of such an idea.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Best book on the development of Trinitarianism is called "When Jesus Became God" by Rabbi Richard Rubenstein. If I could sum up what I learned...

The idea that Jesus is deity goes back almost to the beginning of Christianity. Although I do not believe that the original Nazarenes bought into this, certainly Paul had a high view of Jesus, and easily passed it on to his very Hellenized audience. Over the next several hundred years, you had various ways this was managed. For example, in the second century, most Christians were modelists (meaning one God had three modes of being). The conflict between the different views came to a head in the 4th century. The idea was, if Jesus is God, how exactly can he be God without ending up having more than one god? Trinitarianism answers that question. Does it do so coherently? Not in my opinion. But nevertheless, the view of "One God, three persons" became orthodoxy.

As a result of this doctrine, Christians could say "I have a God that loves me so much he died for me." I'm Jewish, and don't believe that, but even I can see the appeal of such an idea.

I mean, I'm familiar with the history and development of the concept of the Trinity. I just don't think, on a conceptual or theological level, it ever added up. People went along with it, and it is very popular... but that doesn't make it correct.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I mean, I'm familiar with the history and development of the concept of the Trinity. I just don't think, on a conceptual or theological level, it ever added up. People went along with it, and it is very popular... but that doesn't make it correct.

Of course.

 

[metis]

I'm just giving some common reasons for criticizing it (some I agree with and some I do not). But I don't think the conceptual issues with the Trinity can simply be waved away by invoking "essence", no.

Within the Nicene Creed there is an inconsistency to try and bring the Arians in.

As far as "essence" is concerned, the Council used it to decree that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are of the essence of God, thus they're related but not exactly the same.