Why So Much Trinity Bashing?

[IndigoChild5559]

Thank you! I did look at the website and will continue, if I can, to pursue the questions I have. Not about the dating process, but the materials that were tested as for determining the age of the art work. Shalom.

Good night, my friend.

 

[metis]

I would like to know specifically what it was they analyzed.

The main attraction were the cave paintings, but there's much more than just that. Maybe google it.

 

[metis]

You meet the strangest people in these forums!

Gotta mirror?

 

[metis]

I think Yours wants to know what the specific testing methods were. My guess is that he doubts the technology and will attack the methods if told what they are.

Quite possibly.

Shabbat shalom to you and yours.

 

[YoursTrue]

The main attraction were the cave paintings, but there's much more than just that. Maybe google it.

Well, it is interesting. But from what I read so far, the paintings themselves are not dated by technical means, rather the calcite over them is. And that is partially what my question is. They figure the paintings must be order than the calcite covering them, and I can understand how they might figure that, but I'd have to look further into it. Such as what makes them think the calcite is older than the painting just because it was covering over the painting? Maybe the elements in the formation were older but had nothing to do with the date of the painting, even considering it dripped after the painting. Oh well...I'll try to follow it up...time is a bit strained.
@metis -- sorry, I just read my post again and see I misspelled something. The researchers figured the paintings must be OLDER (not order) than the calcite covering them. But to me, that is also a question.

 

[YoursTrue]

Quite possibly.

Shabbat shalom to you and yours.

Not true. I am not doubting the methods -- and I am surprised after conversations with @IndigoChild5559 that is how this is being surmised, not too happy about the take on this, completely misconstrued which makes me wonder ... about ... the recognition of some when coming to conclusions. (Oh well, thanks, it's been an interesting discussion).

 

[YoursTrue]

Good night, my friend.

Hi there, @IndigoChild5559. Not sure how you came up with the conclusion from my posts that I question now the dating processes. I must say I'm a little disappointed in your analysis of my questions. But anyway, have a good day.

 

[walt]

A person that believes in the Trinity has scriptures to support this belief.

A person that believes Jesus is really God's son has scriptures too.

What would happen if a person collected the scriptures from both persons and drew a new conclusion based on including all the scriptures from both people? A Conclusion based on the scriptures from both sides?

Websites say it is essential to believe in the Holy Trinity. Did Jesus or an Apostle ever say this? Or that 3 are one God all equal and co-eternal?

Is anyone interested in just collecting these scriptures and drawing their own conclusion from them? And sharing with us the conclusion they came up with?

 

[metis]

Well, it is interesting. But from what I read so far, the paintings themselves are not dated by technical means, rather the calcite over them is. And that is partially what my question is. They figure the paintings must be order than the calcite covering them, and I can understand how they might figure that, but I'd have to look further into it. Such as what makes them think the calcite is older than the painting just because it was covering over the painting? Maybe the elements in the formation were older but had nothing to do with the date of the painting, even considering it dripped after the painting. Oh well...I'll try to follow it up...time is a bit strained.
@metis -- sorry, I just read my post again and see I misspelled something. The researchers figured the paintings must be OLDER (not order) than the calcite covering them. But to me, that is also a question.

Unless one is a research scientist looking for details, it really doesn't make much difference one way or the other. I'm an anthropologist, but we have to ship out some of the research to scientists in different areas for their expertise. I have some knowledge of the various techniques used as that was part of my education, but an expert I am not.

 

[YoursTrue]

Unless one is a research scientist looking for details, it really doesn't make much difference one way or the other. I'm an anthropologist, but we have to ship out some of the research to scientists in different areas for their expertise. I have some knowledge of the various techniques used as that was part of my education, but an expert I am not.

I understand. And because of the information about drippings in caves I guess in some of them over the paintings, the entire age factor is in question, at least in my mind. But then some people here obviously believe the estimates of those considered experts as if they are right because they are educated in the subject. Maybe. And that is not to say they have examined the particular subject in question of the details. Furthermore, I used to work for publishing companies and see yes, how they are going for the money in deciding what to publish. They don't have research teams to check out facts and figures of authors, but in many cases put their trust in two things: the background of the author, and the idea that the information (book or publication) will sell.

 

[YoursTrue]

A person that believes in the Trinity has scriptures to support this belief.

A person that believes Jesus is really God's son has scriptures too.

What would happen if a person collected the scriptures from both persons and drew a new conclusion based on including all the scriptures from both people? A Conclusion based on the scriptures from both sides?

Websites say it is essential to believe in the Holy Trinity. Did Jesus or an Apostle ever say this? Or that 3 are one God all equal and co-eternal?

Is anyone interested in just collecting these scriptures and drawing their own conclusion from them? And sharing with us the conclusion they came up with?

So it seems that some would equate Jesus with the Father as if they were one and the same plus being equal, but the scriptures deem otherwise. If one puts on the proper reading glasses.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I understand. And because of the information about drippings in caves I guess in some of them over the paintings, the entire age factor is in question, at least in my mind. But then some people here obviously believe the estimates of those considered experts as if they are right because they are educated in the subject. Maybe. And that is not to say they have examined the particular subject in question of the details. Furthermore, I used to work for publishing companies and see yes, how they are going for the money in deciding what to publish. They don't have research teams to check out facts and figures of authors, but in many cases put their trust in two things: the background of the author, and the idea that the information (book or publication) will sell.

Can you explain to me why you think dating the Calcite brings the age into question? It seem like basic common sense, that if the Calcite has formed OVER the paintings, that this necessarily means that the painting must be older than the calcite.

 

[YoursTrue]

Can you explain to me why you think dating the Calcite brings the age into question? It seem like basic common sense, that if the Calcite has formed OVER the paintings, that this necessarily means that the painting must be older than the calcite.

Not to be rude, but I think, because of the situations regarding some of your comments both towards me and about me that I will refrain from explaining any more to you right now about what I wonder about. Perhaps the future will reveal more. Hope you have a good night.

 

[Brian2]

A person that believes in the Trinity has scriptures to support this belief.

A person that believes Jesus is really God's son has scriptures too.

What would happen if a person collected the scriptures from both persons and drew a new conclusion based on including all the scriptures from both people? A Conclusion based on the scriptures from both sides?

Websites say it is essential to believe in the Holy Trinity. Did Jesus or an Apostle ever say this? Or that 3 are one God all equal and co-eternal?

Is anyone interested in just collecting these scriptures and drawing their own conclusion from them? And sharing with us the conclusion they came up with?

My conclusion is that Jesus is the Son of God (Psalm 2:7) and did not ever come into existence, begine to exist, iow was always in existence (John 1:3)

 

[YoursTrue]

interesting point about Richard Dawkins and religion -- can be said of some here: He has also said that he is a "secular Christian"--in his words, "in the same sense as secular Jews have a feeling for nostalgia and ceremonies." Hmm, very interesting...Jew/Christian - whatever -(Wikipedia)

 

[YoursTrue]

My conclusion is that Jesus is the Son of God (Psalm 2:7) and did not ever come into existence, begine to exist, iow was always in existence (John 1:3)

One would have to investigate, look at, understand and examine the various translations of John 1:3.

 

[walt]

My conclusion is that Jesus is the Son of God (Psalm 2:7) and did not ever come into existence, begine to exist, iow was always in existence (John 1:3)

I agree with you saying Jesus is God's son.

Jesus is called God's son before birth, as a young child, at his baptism, at the transfiguration and again at his resurrection.

- He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. --before born a Human.
- “Out of Egypt I called my son.” --As a young child.
- “You are my Son, the beloved; I have approved you.” --Jesus baptism
- “This is my Son, the one who has been chosen. Listen to him.” --At The Transfiguration.
- And again: “I will become his father, and he will become my son”? --At Resurrection. Hebrews 1:5, Psalm 2:7, Acts 13:33, Romans 1:4

Before Jesus was even born as a human:
You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, --Luke 1:31-32 NIV

When Jesus was a young child:
him.” 14 So Joseph got up and by night took along the young child and the child’s mother and went into Egypt. 15 He stayed there until the death of Herod. This fulfilled what was spoken by Jehovah* through his prophet, saying: “Out of Egypt I called my son.” --Matt. 2:15 NIV

At Jesus baptism:
And a voice came out of the heavens: “You are my Son, the beloved; I have approved you.” --Mark 1:11

At The Transfiguration:
Then a voice came out of the cloud, saying: “This is my Son, the one who has been chosen. Listen to him.” --Luke 9:35

Jesus is declared God's son at his resurrection:
but who with power was declared God’s Son according to the spirit of holiness by means of resurrection from the dead—yes, Jesus Christ our Lord.
--Romans 1:4

I will proclaim the Lord’s decree: He said to me, “You are my son; today I have become your father. --Psalm 2:7

For example, to which one of the angels did God ever say: “You are my son; today I have become your father”? And again: “I will become his father, and he will become my son”? --Hebrews 1:5

God has completely fulfilled it to us, their children, by resurrecting Jesus; just as it is written in the second psalm: ‘You are my son; today I have become your father.’ --Acts 13:33

 

[joelr]

Has nothing to do with the data , since we know that the language may be Hebrew, Canaanite, Phoenician or Moabite.

However most probably man considered other man to be also God in ancient times.

Like for example , Anubis

There is a 5,070-year-old Egyptian wooden tablet that was used as a tag attached to goods shipped. The legend on the tablet is the address of the recipient or sender of the goods. It has nothing to do with religion or religious texts.

.

The legend on the tablet reads: “[To/from] The judge Anubis in the Mesquet chamber of judge’s gown, administrator of Horus’ enclosure".

Legend of the tablett:



Here is only shown a passage in a religious text (The Book of the Dead) that refers to the judge god Anubis in the judgment hall of the Osirian after-death judgment as "Administrator of the god's enclosure".

The term 'Horus' meant 'Lord' and so did the word 'god'. The :enclosure' was actually a Human Breeding Grounds Institution established and operated by the king (the Lord). The real-life judgment (assessment for social classification) of the offspring produced in the human breeding grounds of the king, was transformed, by the ancient Egyptian theologians, into the Last Judgment of what they taught to be potentially after-death judgment … which the ancient Greek philosophers copied.

In the same way, we can say that 'Judge Anubis' was a real person who was attributing social ranks to youngsters born and raised in human breeding grounds, was presented as an immaterial god who was judging the dead.

Yes. religion is syncretic, ideas are passed on, we see this in Judaism and Christianity as well. Not sure what point you are making.
The earliest indication of the Israelites is from 1200 BCE.

William Dever :
Dever: No Egyptian text mentions the Israelites except the famous inscription of Merneptah dated to about 1206 B.C.E. But those Israelites were in Canaan; they are not in Egypt, and nothing is said about them escaping from Egypt.

Q: Tell us more about the Merneptah inscription. Why is it so famous?

Dever: It's the earliest reference we have to the Israelites. The victory stele of Pharaoh Merneptah, the son of Ramesses II, mentions a list of peoples and city-states in Canaan, and among them are the Israelites. And it's interesting that the other entities, the other ethnic groups, are described as nascent states, but the Israelites are described as "a people." They have not yet reached a level of state organization.

So the Egyptians, a little before 1200 B.C.E., know of a group of people somewhere in the central highlands—a loosely affiliated tribal confederation, if you will—called "Israelites." These are our Israelites. So this is a priceless inscription.

The Hebrews are ancestors of the Jews, who originally came from modern-day Iraq.

Hebrews and Israelites are basically the same. I am aware of this. The first known mention is 1200 BCE.

Actaually , you are wrong.
We don't know exactly , but we know that it may be Hebrew, Canaanite, Phoenician or Moabite.

"May be"? So I'm not wrong, we don't know. Like I said.

That is because ancient Levant was mainly polytheistic belief based society.
One thing to note that in those polytheistic religion , YHWH was considered a lesser God.

But we see that lasser God YHWH speaking in Genesis narrative.

First, no, early Israelites were also polytheistic. Yahweh was under EL and given Israel as his inheritance.

Yahweh is not speaking in Genesis, it's a story about Yahweh speaking using Mesopotamian stories and upgraded for a new myth.



FRANCESCA STAVRAKOPOULOU on the Bible, Jesus, death threats, Asherah,

47:40 Many temple sites found figurines of a common goddess Ashera.
Most scholars now agree we should probably consider Ashera to have been Yahweh’s consort.


Who Was Baal?

1:11:51 West Semitic Pantheon, El is supreme


1:12:02 Later Yahweh absorbs El and his story and takes his wife Ashera as a consort

Considered by polytheistic Canaan.

Then you have YHWH in Biblical narrative totally oposite and in different role.

No, this is early Israel as I have said. Archaeologists have found thousands of fertility goddess figurines at sites like Taanach.

The Biblical version was a later invention, 600 BCE.

True , but irrelevant

The funny thing is that you have a very strange appearance of a man called Yeshua who considered himself to be that YHWH.

What's funny is it happens after the Hellenistic Greeks occupy Israel and is the same thing that happened in every nation occupied by the Greeks.
Jesus represents is what was trending at the time, Greek Hellenism - savior demigods, salvation for souls which belong in an afterlife, much has been written on this in scholarship.

This is valid , np.

Dr Baden is the expert in Hellenistic religion, as is J.Z. Smith. Christianity is Hellenism blended with Judaism. The Persian influence came during the 2nd Temple Period.

-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, Wright)

 

[joelr]

And a god of war. According to BAR, he was a deity in the southern Arabian Peninsula that probably was brought up to eretz Israel by Jewish traders.

Yes that also. Early scripture paints him as a warrior.

Exodus 15:3:

Yahweh is a man of war;

Yahweh is his name.

Isaiah 42:13:

Yahweh goes forth like a mighty man;

like a man of war(s) he stirs up his fury.

Zephaniah 3:17: Yahweh, your God, is in your midst,

a warrior who gives victory.

Psalm 24:8:

Who is the King of Glory?

Yahweh, strong and mighty;

Yahweh, mighty in battle.

 

[Brian2]

One would have to investigate, look at, understand and examine the various translations of John 1:3.

John 1:3 (New World Translation) All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.