Board index

by **Conga** » Thu Apr 04, 2019 3:03 pm

> The discussion at hand is Trinitarian claims, not the definition of baptism (though I disagree with what you are saying about that, also. But that's another discussion).

Apostles letters confirms that there were people right after Jesus rested his soul claimed he was son of god as trinity and Church and people who claimed the same to Ezra did. Trinity as defined doesn't exist in Gospels, because if it were to be true, Jesus would explain it, but he didn't

and the key word pulled around is baptism. Really. Because along with spirit, father, lord, slave, proselytize et al these words are pushed to edges. The corruption of meaning is tahreef, this is what Jesus talked in Gospels too.

> share a singular identity.

We are talking about a non-Greek language, the "and" means:

And of Greek is not the same as the other and which had been turned into sound by Jesus.

> We learn that the Word was eternally preexistent, personal, and divine.

Word isn't Jesus, the word is God's decree or rookh/spirit.

> First of all, you're admitting that your statement (" there is a Hebrew version of the Gospels that predates the Greek versions") is false. Secondly, your paragraph here has nothing to do with that subject. What's the point you're making?

Jesus delivered the Gospels in one language, yet he was able to be taken seriously by Jewish scholars because they would accept only Hebrew as God's language of revelation.

Jesus was able discuss from Midrash serious and make remarks from there, because he was supported by Gabriel constantly who delivered all these texts to previous newsbearers and gave the clue. Baqara 2:87, ruh'ul qudoos, mean "sacred spirit" literally. Gabriel is revered with that title throughout Quran.

> This is true, but the many religions on the planet show how widely and harshly God's revelation has been distorted. i think there's good evidence that Christianity is the true religion.

If there were to be multiple gods and their control over a certain part of realm then these gods' creations would fight with eachother along with gods, over ultimate control over realm.

If God wanted to have a son, He is able to pick out one for Himself, humans cannot set a son to Him. Jesus is son set for God

If God wanted to have a spouse or fun, He is able to create one at His level, which would open doors for us to not to know a thing about this.

If God needs a spouse or partner it means He has an equivalent, He is Exalted from having a partner.

> God did send Jesus as Messiah, and the New Testament is the last book and the record of Jesus's revelation to the world. Hebrews 1.2 mentions Isa as God's final revelation humanity, and Revelation 22.18 adds that a person will be accursed for adding to what the New Testament has said (also for taking anything away from the NT).

John 16:7. Jesus left and the other "guy" came already.

> Your link pertains to several scholars' opinions of Paul as a Herodian (a view that is not widely held), but is meaningless as support of your contention that "God gave the same common core of religion since the first man." The author even admits, "Though these matters are hardly capable of proof, and we have, in fact, proved nothing..."

Paul didn't have circumcision and wasn't a proper Jew. That work underlines, he was a Herodean elite with purpose of twisting the Jesus' teachings.

Jesus wasn't able to leave Judea, neither her mother Mary, because none of them were Roman citizens, yet Paul lived and wandered to Rome, exchanged with Emperor and visited all those holy sites of pagan places, then he helped to muddle the Christian teachings with Mithraism, which had wine-bread, Easter, Christmas/rebirth, all saints/halloween rituals.

What is displayed as Christianity is reformed version of Mithraism.

by **jimwalton** » Thu Apr 04, 2019 3:04 pm

> Apostles letters confirms that there were people right after Jesus rested his soul claimed he was son of god as trinity and Church and people who claimed the same to Ezra did.

You are correct that Paul's letters affirm the Trinity of God and the deity of Jesus, as do the Gospel accounts written shortly thereafter. There is never a time in Christian theology or practice when Jesus was not regarded as divine and when God was not regarded as a Trinity.

"and people who claimed the same to Ezra did." What does this even mean?

> Trinity as defined doesn't exist in Gospels, because if it were to be true, Jesus would explain it, but he didn't

You have this fact wrong. I already showed you evidence contrary to this, which tells me you're not giving regard to what I've shown you from the Bible. Jesus did claim He was divine, and He claimed He was part of the Godhead, and the Gospels teach the Trinity. We've already covered this ground.

> and the key word pulled around is baptism. Really. Because along with spirit, father, lord, slave, proselytize et al these words are pushed to edges.

I don't know what you mean by "and the key word pulled around is baptism." Please explain. And then you say these words (you mention 5) were "pushed to the edges." What does that mean?

It's true that the New Testament fills out the meaning of "baptism" to include more than the OT. OT washings were almost always for those of the already-believing community. Other than that, OT baptism was baptism of proselytes: Gentiles becoming Jews. In the Intertestamental period, Judaism had a baptism of purification. But John used baptism to symbolize an individual's repentance from sin, or their return to the covenant. It also introduced a powerful Messianic awakening. For the Church baptism became a way of identifying with Christ in his death and in portraying resurrection to a new life. But I don't know what you mean by these terms being "pushed to the edges."

> We are talking about a non Greek language, the "and" means:

You have this fact wrong. The NT was written in Greek. We are definitely talking about the Greek language.

> then "fullstop" "comma" means the "and" later also

I don't know you mean by this list. There are no commas in the English text; there are no commas in the Greek text. "And" doesn't mean "later." Matthew uses "name" in the singular, indicating the Father, Son, and Spirit share a single identity, as I said.

The end of Matthew 28.19: τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος. The καὶ serves as a conjunction putting the three (Father, Son, and Spirit) in the same category, on the same level, a common biblical practice, particularly when speaking of the Father and the Son. It puts the three of them on the same plane.

> And of Greek is not the same as the other and which had been turned into sound by Jesus.

I don't know what you mean by this.

> Word isn't Jesus, the word is God's decree or rookh/spirit.

You have this fact wrong. John 1.14 confirms that the Word became flesh and lived among the people. He is not just ru'ah, but σὰρξ (sarx): flesh. Not just a man (*anthropos*) or a body (*soma*), but flesh: human, man in the fullest sense, with a human nature along with a divine one (John 1.1).

> Jesus delivered the Gospels in one language, yet he was able to be taken seriously by Jewish scholars because they would accept only Hebrew as God's language of revelation.

As far as we know, Jesus spoke primarily in Aramaic, and we are certain about the fact that the Gospels were written in Greek.

> Jesus was able discuss from Midrash serious and make remarks from there, because he was supported by Gabriel constantly who delivered all these texts to previous newsbearers and gave the clue.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to manufacture your own facts. Jesus didn't discuss Midrash; there were no midrash until centuries after Jesus was on Earth. There is nothing in the Bible or in the Qur'an about Gabriel constantly delivering texts to Jesus.

> If there were to be multiple gods

There are not multiple gods. There is only one God. That is the theology of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity.

> If God wanted to have a son, He is able to pick out one for Himself, humans cannot set a son to Him. Jesus is son set for God

Jesus was God's son from eternity (John 8.58; 17.5). He didn't have to be picked or created. Jesus was always one of the Persons of the Godhead.

> If God wanted to have a spouse or fun, He is able to create one at His level

God is not able to have a spouse. God is non-gendered. He is not male or female. God cannot create a spouse, just as God cannot go against His own word or self-contradict His character.

> John 16:7. Jesus left and the other "guy" came already.

The "Counselor" of Jn. 16.7 is the Holy Spirit (John 14.26).

> Paul didn't have circumcision and wasn't a proper Jew.

You have this fact wrong. First of all, this has nothing to do with the conversation (another red herring). Second of all, Paul was circumcised (Philippians 3.4-5).

> Jesus wasn't able to leave Judea

Another fact you have wrong. Jesus was born in Galilee, not Judea, and traveled several times back and forth from Judea to Galilee (Matthew 4.12, 23; 26.32, to name just a few).

> neither her mother Mary

We know nothing of Mary's travels. Tradition says she lived in Ephesus in her later years. You can't make up your own facts.

> then he helped to muddle the Christian teachings with Mithraism, which had wine-bread, Easter, Christmas/rebirth, all saints/halloween rituals. What is displayed as Christianity is reformed version of Mithraism.

Another fact you have wrong. The comparisons of Mithraism (of Zoroastrianism) and Jesus (Christianity) involve a number of problems, such as the fact that Mithras was not said to live as a man, that the various supposed connections appear in different variants of Mithraism from different times and places, and that many of these similarities arose after the time of Christ when Mithraism began to infiltrate the Roman Empire. Probably the most often cited of these is that Mithras was supposed to have been born on December 25th. Existing Mithraic literature makes no mention of this date, however. The date became that on which the birth of Christ was celebrated only when Christians sought to combat the influence of Mithraism and the Roman Saturnalia (December 21st, the winter solstice) on new believers in the fourth century. The story of the virgin birth of Mithras may even have arisen after the time of Christ as the mystery cult became increasingly syncretistic and took on elements of Christian teaching. It was Mithraism that, in the 2nd century AD (despite starting in around 400 BC), aligned itself with solar monotheism.

If anything, Mithraism copied Christianity and not the other way around. Solid information about Mithraism is difficult to come by. Almost everything we know about it we infer from their iconography. In many and various ways, there is very little in common between Christianity and Mithraism.

by **Excited Guy** » Thu Apr 04, 2019 3:44 pm

>> only true if we had no reason to expect evidence if the claim was true
> There is actually no hard evidence to discredit anything in the Bible.

there is also no hard evidence to discredit the existence of harry potter. just because j.k.rowling says she made him up doesnt make it so, by that line of reasoning. by an honest look at history, the complete lack of any evidence for the exodus shows that it didnt happen because evidence would be available if it did, the same for a global flood wiping out all but a tiny group of maybe 20 people, the same for the dead walking in jerusalem during the time of roman rule, the order of creation in genesis is all wrong,... there's lots for which the evidence shows the bible is clearly false

>>theres no evidence of an exodus
> The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

it absolutely is if we had a good reason to expect to have evidence if something existed. if i tell you theres a bear in your room, you look around and cant see one, then the absence of evidence for a bear in your room is evidence for the absence of a bear in your room.

> Much of the record of the exodus (Ex. 1-14 bears out many many elements very accurate to the era, situation, politics, geography, and culture

theres no "record" of the exodus, theres a narrative in a founding myth of a people. by the same token, the "record" of spiderman bears out very accurate descriptions of new york - which is true, but tells you nothing about whether the actual narrative ever happened

> I wouldn't expect a group of poverty-stricken slaves wandering in the desert, livings in makeshift tents or whatever, who take everything with them, to leave much behind for an archaeologist to find.

i would expect to find evidence if something between 10% and 25% of the population of africa at the time left egypt within less than a year after every first born of the country died magically within the same night.

> In other words, (1) what Exodus records that is confirmable is accurate history

which is completely irrelevant details to what the story is about - and its not true, given the exodus itself never occurred

> (2) there are good reasons we may not have evidence of the Exodus event

not as far as i can tell. the reasons you list arent "good" reasons why we wouldnt be finding evidence of a humongous event like the exodus.

> (3) there is no hard evidence to show that the Bible records anything false.

even if that was true, which it isnt - see the global flood or the order of creation - it would be utterly irrelevant given that 1) the rational position isnt to accept national myths as history without evidence for the claims they make, and more relevantly 2) the supernatural claims it makes discard it immediately as a credible source of history

>> how does this not require that the hittites are people described in the biblical narratives?
> What I'm saying is that (1) the information the Bible has about the Hittites is confirmable accurate, and (2) it's information that could not have been known in the period of the exile.

again, how does that not require that the people described in the bible are the historical people of the hittites?

>> i think the moses of the bible is a pretty decisively mythological figure
> Well, what's your evidence? I gave you a long list substantiating Moses's authorship of the Pentateuch

i felt i was very clear why i didnt think what you gave was a "substantiating" of some moses' authorship of the so-called books of moses. you cant claim someone was an author of something without first demonstrating he existed, which nothing you said did.

> If you have a counter claim...

maybe your problem is with rationality, not history: the traditional attribution of the books to some "moses" is not evidence that that happened, its another claim that needs demonstration.

>>sure there is, the complete lack of any historical evidence for a moses ever existing.
> That's where you're ignoring the evidence we have. The Bible gives us many evidences of a historical Moses.

the bible is not evidence for the claims in it. that we can corroborate some of the descriptions of the context it is set in does not do anything to validate the narrative as historical. new york exists, spiderman does not.

> Douglas Petrovich gives us questionable evidence from archaeology.

"questionable" seems generous in that case, and even if it was convincing evidence for anything, it would not be evidence for the claim that the person he identifies as moses ever had anything to do with writing the so-called books of moses.

> If you have a counter claim, I expect to see some rebuttal evidence, not just a statement. "Pretty decisively" doesn't cut it.

the story goes that he came to egypt, magically plagued the country culminating in the death of every first born of the nation in a single night, then he uprooted a population so vast that it would've constituted anywhere between 10% and 25% of the continent of africa at the time, taking them from egypt to wander through a tiny desert for 40 years, and not a shred of archeological evidence is to find for any of those events. thats the bear in your room that you look around and cant see.

> Again, as is always true, an absence of historical or documentary evidence doesn't prove something to be untrue.

the absence of a 100km crater centered in the middle of manhattan proves that in the last 100000 years, no meteorite crashes there to cause such a crater. the absence of evidence of a bear in your room proves that there is no bear in your room. absence of evidence is absolutely evidence of absence if the thing existing would produce evidence

>> so far, youve said nothing that suggests thats true; none of this:
> It all suggests the possibility of truth.

even if every piece of evidence you listed was decisive, how would any of them or all of them together suggest that its possible that someone can magically kill the firstborns of egypt in a single night? that a huge people can wander through the desert for 40 years and live off magic bread they find on the ground daily, being led by a pillar of fire and cloud? even if all the naturalistic claims of the bible were historically accurate, the supernatural ones would still be completely unbelievable until someone demonstrates anything magical to be even possible in the reality we inhabit, which they would have to do by doing something clearly supernatural

> Where the lack is in ANY refutation evidence coming from you.

do you not understand how the burden of proof works? or how a rational approach to weighing historical evidence works? if some texts tell us that someone built a house, had children, became wealthy, and ruled a small fiefdom, we know thats possible because we see things of the sort happening all the time, so we may may proceed with the working assumption that theres something to that. if a text tells us that all the firstborns of egypt were killed magically within a single night before a huge population started wandering the desert for 40 years, being fed by magic during the time and lead by a magical pillar of fire and clouds, then it doesnt much matter whether the text also accurately describes any of the places those people visited during their magical journey; london exists, so does kings cross station, but that does nothing to substantiate the existence of platform 9 3/4, or magic.

> > spiderman comics frequently refer to peter parker being spiderman. does that mean there is a peter parker that can shoot webs from his hands, or any peter parker at all? myths arent evidence that theyre true.
> Of course not, but similarity between the Spiderman comics would lead us to a common author.

it wouldnt. the fact that we know who spiderman is written by shows it. there are gigantic bodies of texts that are written by completely disparate groups of people (the huge works of legislation that modern nations are built on, some franchises of fiction - to one of which spiderman belongs) that are similar enough in style and focused on so closely related narratives that one might falsely conclude based on those that they are produced by the same author.

> > why would there not be references to that if they were all following the same mythological tradition?
> When it comes down to evidence, we have a biblical record FILLED with historically accurate information, along with much information that is unconformable.

the exodus is historically accurate? the flood killing everything on the planet except a few people? the origins of mankind from a single pair made from clay, without parents? the completely flawed order of creation in genesis? that flies as "historically accurate information" in your book?

also, that did nothing to answer the question: why would the internal references you cite as evidence for historicity be missing from a mythological tradition?

> In rebuttal, we have NO evidence that it's merely mythological tradition. Again, that's an opinion of yours with no evidence to support it.

all the magic in it doesnt somehow suggest to you that what the narrative is focused on might not be all that historical?

by **jimwalton** » Thu Apr 04, 2019 3:47 pm

> there is also no hard evidence to discredit the existence of harry potter.

Sure there is. Talk to J.K. Rowling. It's easy to discover that Harry Potter is fictional.

> just because j.k.rowling says she made him up doesnt make it so

Of course it does. The honest testimony of the author makes it so.

> by an honest look at history, the complete lack of any evidence for the exodus shows that it didnt happen because evidence would be available if it did

As I said, there is not a "complete lack of any evidence for the exodus." It's just not true. Many elements of the exodus story have been proved to be true. There was a city called Pi-Ramesses built by a slave population. There were many Semitic people groups in Egypt at the time. There is a slave village at Deir el-Medina, confirming a large slave population. A 4-room Israelite house has been discovered in Egypt. Semites ruled Egypt for a time as the Hyksos. The Ramesside family originated in the NE Delta and came to the throne through the office of the vizierate, the pharaoh’s prime minister and chief justice. The Ramessides certainly had some Asiatic roots. And many more. There are plenty of evidences of the plausible veracity of the narrative.

> the same for a global flood wiping out all but a tiny group of maybe 20 people

The Flood wasn't global. I thought we already covered this, but maybe that was with a different respondent.

> the same for the dead walking in jerusalem during the time of roman rule

Boy, you're just TOSSING out things now. The story of the resurrection of saints in Jerusalem at the crucifixion/resurrection weekend merits much better discussion than a toss off. I'd be glad to discuss it, but your post already presses the maximum allowable, so my replies may also. I'll choose to table this discussion for now, but we can pick it up later.

> the order of creation in genesis is all wrong

Another toss-out. I'll just say briefly that Genesis 1 is about how God ordered the cosmos to function as His temple, not about the material manufacture of it. But that's a much longer discussion. We'll have to have it in a different conversation.
there's lots for which the evidence shows the bible is clearly false

In other words, none of your alleged "evidence" holds water when examined. The Bible has never been shown to be false.

> if i tell you theres a bear in your room, you look around and cant see one, then the absence of evidence for a bear in your room is evidence for the absence of a bear in your room.

Once I was in Costa Rica, hiking on a trail in a national forest, when an agouti walked across the road and disappeared in the underbrush. Is my absence of evidence (it was too fast for me to get a picture) evidence that it didn't happen? Of course not.

> theres a narrative in a founding myth of a people

Prove it's a myth. Since there is evidence of Semitic groups in Egypt, of Semitic rulers in Egypt, of large slave populations in Egypt, of cities built by those slave populations, etc., the evidence actually lends itself more to the credibility of the text than to a mythological interpretation.

> i would expect to find evidence if something between 10% and 25% of the population of africa

Whoa, Nellie. The Israelites numbered about 25,000 individuals. If there were 10-25% of the population of Africa, they would not have been afraid of the Egyptians or of the Egyptian army.

> the supernatural claims it makes discard it immediately as a credible source of history

So you have a prejudicial bias against supernaturalism that motivates you to reject any account that includes it? On what basis could you reject supernaturalism except that you decided ahead of time it's not possible? That's just circular reasoning: It's not possible because I don't believe it's possible.

> again, how does that not require that the people described in the bible are the historical people of the hittites?

The people described in the Bible ARE the historical people of the Hittites. We have no problem here. The Bible conforms to what we know from archaeology.

> i felt i was very clear why i didnt think what you gave was a "substantiating" of some moses' authorship of the so-called books of moses.

You weren't clear, and you didn't give any rebuttal evidence. As far as I've seen, you have nothing except "I don't believe it."

> maybe your problem is with rationality, not history: the traditional attribution of the books to some "moses" is not evidence that that happened, its another claim that needs demonstration.

My "problem" is neither with rationality nor history. Since we have uncontested acclamation from ancient days that Moses wrote those books, and the only contest comes now, 3000 years later, with little evidence to substantiate the position, the weight of evidence stands in favor of Mosaic authorship, especially since many other factors (similar themes, ancient texts, ancients terms, ancient cultural understandings) all point to the same era and a single writer.

> the bible is not evidence for the claims in it.

The Bible has a tremendous amount of confirmable historical evidence in it, so much so that there is little reason to doubt its historical claims. The Bible has been corroborated over and over. That it's in the Bible actually speaks to a greater chance of historicity, particularly since there's not a single piece of contrary evidence.

> the story goes that he came to egypt, magically plagued...

You're sort-a maybe close, but not so. He didn't magically plague anything. The death of every firstborn is hyperbole, just as some of the other plagues had been (consistent literary interpretation). There were only about 25,000 people, not 10-25% of the population of Africa. It changes your case quite a bit to look at the situation realistically rather than erecting a straw man.

> how would any of them or all of them together suggest that its possible that someone can magically kill the firstborns of egypt in a single night?

Because God is real. Unless, of course, you have a prejudicial bias against the existence of God also. It's altogether possible that your presuppositions are controlling the way you look at evidence, causing you to disregard large chunks of it based on your bias.

> do you not understand how the burden of proof works?

Of course I do. I understand perfectly well. What you don't seem to realize is that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. It's a logical fallacy to presume that a lack of evidence proves the negative. In a court case, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff. But in a debate, the burden of proof lies with any party making a claim.

> the exodus is historically accurate?

The exodus is unproved, but large blocks of the Exodus narrative have been corroborated as historically, culturally, geographically, cultically, and geo-politically accurate. There are more reasons to lean towards historical accuracy than towards fiction or mythology, unless, of course, you have a prejudicial bias skewing the way you look at everything about it.

> the flood killing everything on the planet except a few people?

No, the flood was not global, but that's another discussion.

> the origins of mankind from a single pair made from clay, without parents?

No, the clay signifies the mortality of humanity, not their material manufacture, but that's another discussion.

> the completely flawed order of creation in genesis?

No, the text is about how God ordered the cosmos to function, not about its material manufacture, but that's another discussion.

> why would the internal references you cite as evidence for historicity be missing from a mythological tradition?

Because the ancient mythologies have virtually no intersection with history. Have you read the Atrahasis Epic or the Enuma Elish? They are clearly not historical in the sense of recording events on Earth.

> all the magic in it doesnt somehow suggest to you that what the narrative is focused on might not be all that historical?

There's your prejudicial bias and circular reasoning showing again. The only reason you discard it is because you decided beforehand that it was impossible.

by **Excited Guy** » Sun Apr 07, 2019 3:41 pm

>>the same for the dead walking in jerusalem during the time of roman rule
> Boy, you're just TOSSING out things now. The story of the resurrection of saints in Jerusalem at the crucifixion/resurrection weekend merits much better discussion than a toss off.

and

>>how would any of them or all of them together suggest that its possible that someone can magically kill the firstborns of egypt in a single night?
> Because God is real.

and

>> all the magic in it doesnt somehow suggest to you that what the narrative is focused on might not be all that historical?
> There's your prejudicial bias and circular reasoning showing again. The only reason you discard it is because you decided beforehand that it was impossible.

and

> >theres a narrative in a founding myth of a people
> Prove it's a myth.

there's a lot else i would respond to in your comment, but seeing that youre outright defending magic as worthy of being taken seriously by historical scholarship, i dont expect there would be any value to that.

by **jimwalton** » Sun Apr 07, 2019 3:50 pm

You are failing to distinguish between magic and miracle. Magic is sleight of hand meant to trick the eye and deceive the audience into thinking something that has happened that really hasn't happened at all. Miracle, by contrast, is a supernatural exception to the regularity and predictability of the universe, and therefore it is not a common occurrence. Your failure to distinguish between the two causes you to relegate the supernatural and metaphysical events recorded in Scripture as either illusion, deceit, gullibility, or superstition. But, frankly, if God does exist, His ability to work within the regularity and predictability of nature to create an exception (something science also sees on occasion) should not be a surprise. I am sorry to hear that your mind is closed to all the evidence and that your prejudicial bias rules out events outside of the realm of science. If we're going to pursue every avenue of knowledge and seek to understand every occurrence whether or not it fits into our paradigms, we can't be so closed minded. I'm willing to discuss these things if you want, but not as toss-offs. A serious discussion warrants more than a one-sentence dismissal.

by **Excited Guy** » Mon Apr 08, 2019 12:53 pm

> You are failing to distinguish between magic and miracle.

im not, harry potter's magic is indistinguishable from the magic in the bible on the level that matters here. unless youd like to agree that the magic in the bible proves that those parts are ahistorical, i see no point in resuming the conversation

by **jimwalton** » Mon Apr 08, 2019 1:03 pm

Harry Potter: They transform themselves to look like different people by drinking potions, they make things levitate, they disarm their opponents by moving the other wand with a spell, there are magical objects (like a mirror), they ride on brooms, they torture each other with bad spells, they time travel, they have potions to make people fall in love, and their wands illuminate.

The Bible: Jesus heals the lame, gives sight to the blind, and heals all sorts of diseases, and he brings the dead back to life. Jesus turns water to wine and multiplies bread. Jesus walks on water.

Harry Potter is fictional witchcraft; Jesus is helping people. I can easily see the difference. And I would never agree that the miracles prove those parts of the Bible to be ahistorical. (1) There's nothing in science that tells us miracles are impossible. The only way to prove miracles are impossible is if you assume it from the beginning, which is both prejudicial bias and circular reasoning. (2) If there really is a God who is the creator of nature and omnipotent, miracles are easy to explain. Unless you assume from the beginning that God doesn't exist, which is also both prejudicial bias and circular reasoning.

So if you want to be biased and circular in your reasoning, if you claim to be able to prove an unprovable case, and if you can't see clear distinctions between fictional magic and divine miracles, I see no point in resuming the conversation.

by **Conga** » Mon Apr 08, 2019 1:15 pm

Quran calls followers of Gospels to Gospels and Torah. You take Paul's letters to heart and use Torah and Gospels for your purpose.

God isn't like what is said by 28K denominations of Christianity. He explained His verses Himself and He decreed on Christians what they believed in, the division.

Because if there were to be multiple deities as you pray or name, then there would be fights between deities and their creation. God cannot be defined like in ecumenical councils, and "son of god" is a term still used in languages.

Christians start with Mithraism, because it didn't pop up all of a sudden, Mihtraism existed in different forms but repurposed. Midrash series existed but it wasn't available to public.

You prefer to look at one side and deny the reality, like monotheist people living in Roman Empire, Christianity had to declare everybody polytheist so that they could legalise their atrocities, as Jews did the same with Moses' atrocity miracle of death of first born.

by **jimwalton** » Mon Apr 08, 2019 1:19 pm

> Quran calls followers of Gospels to Gospels and Torah. You take Paul's letters to heart and use Torah and Gospels for your purpose.

You're obviously right that the Qur'an treats the Gospels and Torah as sacred writings. We use every scholarly mechanism to interpret them well, as Muslims do the Qur'an, the Injil, and the Hadith.

> God isn't like what is said by 28K denominations of Christianity. He explained His verses Himself and He decreed on Christians what they believed in, the division.

God is a God of diversity. The denominations show that God is able to work in any context, any culture, any language, and with various emphases. If we were all the eye, where would the sense of hearing be? Instead, God has made us all different, and our diversity is a strength.

> Because if there were to be multiple deities as you pray or name, then there would be fights between deities and their creation.

That's why Christianity is decidedly trinitarian monotheistic. There is perfect harmony between the 3 Persons of God's unified essence.

> Christians start with Mithraism, because it didn't pop up all of a sudden, Mihtraism existed in different forms but repurposed. Midrash series existed but it wasn't available to public.

1. Christianity and Mithraism have little in common.
2. There is no evidence that Christianity arose from Mithraism. A few points of similarity (among a much greater contrast in most beliefs) do not prove derivation.
3. We know very little about Mithraistic theology except from their iconography, and so to claim that Christianity derived from Mithraism is an unjustified stretch.

> You prefer to look at one side and deny the reality, like monotheist people living in Roman Empire, Christianity had to declare everybody polytheist so that they could legalise their atrocities, as Jews did the same with Moses' atrocity miracle of death of first born.

You are creating your own revisionist history to conform to your presuppositions. The reality is that Christianity has always been trinitarian. They have never been polytheist. They didn't commit atrocities during their first millennium (it was only when a corrupt Roman Catholic Church became politically entangled from about 1000-1500 that that branch of the Church was corrupt and legalized atrocities. We repudiate their corruption.)

And if we want to talk about atrocities, we could mention the slaughter of millions of people by Islamic armies from the 700s well into the 1400s as well. While the atrocities perpetrated by Christians is in contrast to the teachings of the Bible, those committed by the Muslims conform to the teachings of the Qur'an and its over 100 verses to fight, kill, torture, rape, pillage and conquer the Kafir in the name of Allah.

Board index ‹ Christianity

Re: Zoroaster should be an old testament prophet and is part

Re: Zoroaster should be an old testament prophet and is part

Re: Zoroaster should be an old testament prophet and is part

Re: Zoroaster should be an old testament prophet and is part

Re: Zoroaster should be an old testament prophet and is part

Re: Zoroaster should be an old testament prophet and is part

Re: Zoroaster should be an old testament prophet and is part

Re: Zoroaster should be an old testament prophet and is part

Re: Zoroaster should be an old testament prophet and is part

Re: Zoroaster should be an old testament prophet and is part

Who is online