TEG Posted September 10, 2019 Author Share Posted September 10, 2019 Peter’s sermons in the book of Acts: Jesus was elevated to the right hand of god after his resurrection. The gospel of Mark: Jesus became the son of god at his baptism. The gospels of Matthew and Luke: Jesus was the son of god at his birth. The gospel of John, and some of the epistles: Jesus was pre-existent, creator, god, etc. Christians call it “progressive revelation.” In any other context it is called “making it up as you go along.” 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted September 10, 2019 Super Moderator Share Posted September 10, 2019 3 hours ago, Weezer said: If he actually existed, I don't think he ever saw himself as God. 30 I and my Father are one. 31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. John 10 It's pretty clear that jesus saw himself as god. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+10&version=KJV&interface=amp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TEG Posted September 10, 2019 Author Share Posted September 10, 2019 That’s the gospel of John; just sayin’ . . . . The fact that someone was an incarnate god would be important enough for ANY biographer to make clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator LogicalFallacy Posted September 10, 2019 Moderator Share Posted September 10, 2019 59 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said: 30 I and my Father are one. 31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. John 10 It's pretty clear that jesus saw himself as god. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+10&version=KJV&interface=amp 50 minutes ago, TEG said: That’s the gospel of John; just sayin’ . . . . The fact that someone was an incarnate god would be important enough for ANY biographer to make clear. TEG is correct. Scholars will point out the marked difference between the later gospel of John and the earlier synoptic gospels. To my memory Jesus doesn't directly refer to himself as being one with the father in Matthew, Mark or Luke. It's a later evolution of Jesus becoming God. https://ehrmanblog.org/did-jesus-call-himself-god/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted September 10, 2019 Share Posted September 10, 2019 I don't remember whether it was Ehrman or Carrier who made the suggestion that the New Testament should be read in the order of the individual books' dates of writing and not in the order presented in the Bible itself. The former is chronological. The later is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted September 11, 2019 Super Moderator Share Posted September 11, 2019 "The bible says it. I believe it. That settles it." 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TEG Posted September 11, 2019 Author Share Posted September 11, 2019 This is one of those protective mechanisms of christianity. “Interpret scripture with scripture.” Since the bible is god’s word, it is all one piece, and if two sources seem to conflict, they have to be “harmonized.” We can’t acknowledge the fact that three of the four gospel writers failed to mention the earth-shattering fact that Jesus was god incarnate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator LogicalFallacy Posted September 11, 2019 Moderator Share Posted September 11, 2019 23 minutes ago, TEG said: “Interpret scripture with scripture.” Also known among the better educated as circular reasoning. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TruthSeeker0 Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 On 9/7/2019 at 1:14 PM, OrdinaryClay said: What game is that? You really think I post here to enhance my belief, ahh .... that's a weird belief. Clearly you know nothing about othering people who think differently to reinforce one's own beliefs then. Hence the need to call people here sad. You're not actually interested in dialogue and your words are revealing. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
◊ Weezer ◊ Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 A thought that crossed my mind early on in the de-conversion process, was why the Bible had different versions of some stories. That didn't make sense if God wanted to give a clear, consistent message. It began to chip away at the idea of an inerrant bible. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
◊ Weezer ◊ Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 If Ordinaryclay keeps hanging around here, some of our thinking may begin to soak into his brain. Maybe his unconscious mind is trying to lead him astray?? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
◊ Weezer ◊ Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 20 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said: 30 I and my Father are one. 31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. John 10 It's pretty clear that jesus saw himself as god. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+10&version=KJV&interface=amp I can see your point if you only look at the Bible. My conclusions about Jesus came after reading the Gnostic Gospels, and discovering that Jesus wasn't officially declared "divine" until 325 AD at the Council of Nicaea. The church tried to destroy the Gnostics because they didn't support his divinity. It has been years since I did the study, but if I remember correctly, some believe the Gnostics may have won the "battle" if it hadn't been for Roman support of divinity, which eventually helped them remain in power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted September 12, 2019 Share Posted September 12, 2019 14 hours ago, Weezer said: I can see your point if you only look at the Bible. My conclusions about Jesus came after reading the Gnostic Gospels, and discovering that Jesus wasn't officially declared "divine" until 325 AD at the Council of Nicaea. The church tried to destroy the Gnostics because they didn't support his divinity. It has been years since I did the study, but if I remember correctly, some believe the Gnostics may have won the "battle" if it hadn't been for Roman support of divinity, which eventually helped them remain in power. I believe the Arian's supported an idea of different divinities. Like a greater and lessor divinities. Since jesus would have been a created being (the father and son being of different "stuff") he was still divine but lessor so than the father. The opposing view was they were the same "stuff" and, as such, they would have been equally divine. It's hard to know what xianity did, or didn't do, for the Romans. I know xians love to say that it saved the empire but who's to say? Perhaps a cult, like the one to Sol Invictus or something of that sort, would have flourished and Rome would have done even better? Or without a state religion they could have done equally well? We can only speculate. mwc 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TruthSeeker0 Posted September 12, 2019 Share Posted September 12, 2019 15 hours ago, mwc said: I believe the Arian's supported an idea of different divinities. Like a greater and lessor divinities. Since jesus would have been a created being (the father and son being of different "stuff") he was still divine but lessor so than the father. The opposing view was they were the same "stuff" and, as such, they would have been equally divine. It's hard to know what xianity did, or didn't do, for the Romans. I know xians love to say that it saved the empire but who's to say? Perhaps a cult, like the one to Sol Invictus or something of that sort, would have flourished and Rome would have done even better? Or without a state religion they could have done equally well? We can only speculate. mwc Doesn't it just kill you that we have things like politics, in the US in particular, and a hell of a lot of people still believing what amounts to myth, because a bunch of powerful people met hundreds of years ago and decided what actually happened thousands of years before that? It's really mind blowing. Being out of the cult, it never ceases to amaze and sadden me. But it does make sense when I consider that Christianity affords people the status of being "special" or "chosen". Me? I'm ok with being mere stardust. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted September 13, 2019 Share Posted September 13, 2019 8 hours ago, TruthSeeker0 said: Doesn't it just kill you that we have things like politics, in the US in particular, and a hell of a lot of people still believing what amounts to myth, because a bunch of powerful people met hundreds of years ago and decided what actually happened thousands of years before that? It's really mind blowing. Being out of the cult, it never ceases to amaze and sadden me. But it does make sense when I consider that Christianity affords people the status of being "special" or "chosen". Me? I'm ok with being mere stardust. I like that this council "proved" something through its vote somehow. We'll forget about the others councils and unrest that followed. We'll also forget about other things that were decided in the same way but are considered totally wrong and/or evil. It's essentially like one big conspiracy theory. What I mean is people who don't like things like global warming will point out how you can't trust some agency, like NASA or whatever, and then point right to NASA documents to prove their point. The whole agency is corrupt, except, right here where they're being very truthful and I need this as the basis as my silly argument. The Catholic Church is totally corrupt and everything they do is the antithesis of the one true religion, except, for this right here which is what I need for my silly beliefs. mwc 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted September 15, 2019 Share Posted September 15, 2019 contradiction On 9/7/2019 at 3:38 PM, Weezer said: Google the HADZA TRIBE. No supreme being, no war, an egalitarian society that has evidently existed for thousands of years with no Jesus, or any other "god" man to lead them. Living peacefully with respect for each other, and life in general, is rational, logical thinking that wise men are capable of figuring out. Do a thorough study of this tribe and see if you find a contradiction to your theory. Sorry. I did investigate and they have all kinds of spiritual beliefs. So your proof by contradiction failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted September 15, 2019 Share Posted September 15, 2019 On 9/8/2019 at 2:53 PM, Joshpantera said: Smarter than judeo-christian contradictory nonsense. At least they call something infinite, eternal, transcendent and immanent and then follow through with the necessary implications. Where as judeo-christians make the same claims about god then proceed head long into contradicting their own claims. That's pretty stupid from my view. Really? Now you've piqued my interest. Please, please explain this "infinite, eternal, transcendent and immanent" coherency you think eastern mysticism demonstrates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted September 15, 2019 Share Posted September 15, 2019 On 9/8/2019 at 2:56 PM, TheRedneckProfessor said: I support this claim by pointing out that Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Rastafarianism, and Santeria all exist, among other forms of spiritual outlooks. Variety demonstrates an absence of universality. They all have spiritual foundations. Your demonstration failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted September 15, 2019 Share Posted September 15, 2019 On 9/8/2019 at 5:31 PM, midniterider said: Whoa, that's scary. Glad I'm neither of those things Could you describe the atheist/materialist pillar of spirituality? So what are you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted September 15, 2019 Share Posted September 15, 2019 On 9/8/2019 at 5:40 PM, midniterider said: I dont think sending your creations to hell because they behave the way you programmed them to behave is very smart. We have free will. If you are making a positive claim that we have no free will then please provide support for such a claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted September 15, 2019 Share Posted September 15, 2019 On 9/8/2019 at 6:04 PM, LogicalFallacy said: You have to be shitting me. After me giving you what standards I'd expect, only for you to reject them, and I suggest you offer your definitions so we can agree on them, you have the cheek to ask TRP for his definitions. For what - so you can turn around and tell him that he doesn't understand shit? Talk about playing a foul game. I thought clarity was important on this site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted September 15, 2019 Share Posted September 15, 2019 On 9/8/2019 at 6:21 PM, LogicalFallacy said: You have a nice little game going on here. You asked me what I'd accept. I told you, you said I didn't understand so I suggested you define and see if that's acceptable. Now you are off pointing to legal definitions without bothering to actually provide them. I would say no I don't accept legal definitions because I am not familiar with them. I will accept scientific definitions. If they happen to be the same as legal definitions then yahoo. If not, then too bad. I'm trying to honestly have a conversation while you are beating around the proverbial burning bush. Like our ex friend LuthAMF, whenever someone asks you to back a claim you deflect, then tell them their understanding is wrong. Different poster, same shit. That being said, let me try again. Definitions: Fact (Scientific) an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final) Evidence the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid (In science this is supporting a particular Theory or Hypothesis over any others) If you don't agree with the definitions no use continuing because I'm not going to accept your claim am I? If you agree to those definitions then fire away with supporting your claim, which was "There's an adversary. satan deceives people into believing things that are more utilitarian for their life at the moment. . " As I said you don't understand evidence. You are trapped inside the world of the internet atheist sideshow. I asked you to provide evidence here and you did not. It's because your definitions are broken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted September 15, 2019 Share Posted September 15, 2019 On 9/8/2019 at 10:06 PM, midniterider said: Christians come here and expect us to just accept without question the bullshit that they present. lol. 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 New American Standard Bible (NASB) 3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator LogicalFallacy Posted September 15, 2019 Moderator Share Posted September 15, 2019 2 minutes ago, OrdinaryClay said: It's because your definitions are broken. Those were not my definitions. They were straight from scientific resources that can be found on the internet. We seem to have an impasse. You refuse to give me your definitions yet say my ones, which are widely accepted, are wrong. So what now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted September 15, 2019 Share Posted September 15, 2019 On 9/9/2019 at 12:52 PM, Weezer said: In the course of my religious study, which eventually led to deconverting, I did a pretty extensive study of the information available on life and teachings of Jesus. It is interesting that so many of the "Christians" that attempt to argue their case here, do NOT display the respectful, loving characteristics attributed to Jesus. Did you use a Bible in your course? John the baptist said ... "But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?" Mat 3:7 Christ said of John the Baptist ... "Truly I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist! Yet the one who is [a]least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he." Mat 11:11 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now