Religion, Scripture and logical thinking

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Correction: The opposite USED to be true, but then science came along and showed that oral retellings AREN'T trustworthy. You can't trump science with ancient beliefs.

So then we toss out all recorded history prior to the invention of the printing press?

a reply to: JUhrman

Well that's fine and all, I understood you perfectly. I just wanted to flesh out the point a bit more clearly.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Akragon

Nah... Being a jew he would have known better then to call a man God...

That's why they were nearly all murdered by the Jews. Christianity was blasphemy to them.

And we aren't talking about Victorian culture, we are talking about 1st century Jewish culture. For a Jew to call someone "the Lord" (definite article specific), it was calling that person YHWH of the OT.

I disagree...

Lord is still subservient to God...

AND there is even a subservient version of god in the OT... Matthew and all of his followers KNEW specifically that he was not calling himself God in the flesh... that was a much latter embellishment...

So your argument falls flat rather quickly

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Correction: The opposite USED to be true, but then science came along and showed that oral retellings AREN'T trustworthy. You can't trump science with ancient beliefs.

So then we toss out all recorded history prior to the invention of the printing press?

Well MOST of recorded history doesn't claim to see men that can walk on water, heal the disabled, and have a man ascend into the clouds. So it is a BIG difference to call into question the writings of say Alexander the Great talking about another army he fought versus someone talking about supernatural events.

In fact, all the tales about supernatural events from ancient history are called mythology. And that is because they are scientifically impossible. But that mythology used to be believed as truth at one point. Well your bible is the same as those myths in credibility. If you can see why I'd call the Odyssey mythology, you should be able to make the same connection with the bible. That is if you are intellectually honest about vetting your sources.

Also, you can corroborate the claims of most of recorded history through different accounts from different people, artifacts from that time, official records, etc. You are presenting a fallacy in that history is just the retelling of people's memoirs.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

my statement reflects their position, so that's not a deception.

Even if you are going with the extreme minority of scholars you claimed that

the latest dating methods and equipment the later dates of some of these fragments are being moved up in time to earlier in the 1st century, not later.

That is what is called a lie. Latest dating methods have not moved the fragments to earlier times. You are ignoring the latest dating methods because they tell the exact opposite of what you claim.

Two words come to mind. False witness.

a reply to: Akragon

I'm pretty sure Jesus was smart enough to never say something like that plainly

This blasphemy was most likely the only excuse they could find to get rid of a mystic telling people they don't need organized religions

It's ironic that he became the focus of one, but God seems to love irony sooo...

a reply to: Grimpachi

Even if you are going with the extreme minority of scholars you claimed that

First of all your assumption is an arbitrary conjecture. Secondly, your premise is an appeal to numbers fallacy.

Two words come to mind. False witness.

Then you are ignorant to the scanning electron microscope Carston Theidie used to arrive at his date of 7Q5. Your ignorance of his conclusions and methodology are not a deceptive statement on my part. That's just plain rude.

wait are you saying jesus never claimed to be god in the flesh, or led anyone to believe such?

a reply to: Akragon

Matthew and all of his followers KNEW specifically that he was not calling himself God in the flesh...

So then what is your conclusion as to why the Jews went on a murder spree of the apostles for teaching blasphemies according to them?

a reply to: JUhrman

This blasphemy was most likely the only excuse they could find to get rid of a mystic telling people they don't need organized religions

He didn't say that, He condemned Pharisaical Judaism which elevated tradition to the level of and exceeding the Law and Prophets.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Akragon

Nah... Being a jew he would have known better then to call a man God...

That's why they were nearly all murdered by the Jews. Christianity was blasphemy to them.

And we aren't talking about Victorian culture, we are talking about 1st century Jewish culture. For a Jew to call someone "the Lord" (definite article specific), it was calling that person YHWH of the OT.

I disagree...

Lord is still subservient to God...

AND there is even a subservient version of god in the OT... Matthew and all of his followers KNEW specifically that he was not calling himself God in the flesh... that was a much latter embellishment...

So your argument falls flat rather quickly

wait are you saying jesus never claimed to be god in the flesh, or led anyone to believe such?

That is exactly what im saying...

John Claimed he was God in the flesh... Jesus only refered to himself to be the son of God... which was and always has been subservient to God.... Even has he said in his own words... The Father is greater then I

For various reasons the later groups that would become "Christian" started claiming he was God, but Jesus did not ever make that claim

And Before all you Christians start using the old "he said I AM" claim... HE was saying he was the "essence" of God... Not God in the flesh

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Akragon

Matthew and all of his followers KNEW specifically that he was not calling himself God in the flesh...

So then what is your conclusion as to why the Jews went on a murder spree of the apostles for teaching blasphemies according to them?

I already stated that reason clearly... To them any association with God is blasphemy...

They were confused back then... and they're still confused to this day...

Jesus knew better... His followers were still confused Jews, and that can be clearly shown within the gospels...

He was always amazed that they didn't have a clue what he was talking about... and that was because they were raised in that religion... which has been confused since its beginning

a reply to: Akragon

I think you are confused. Jesus demonstrated His deity numerous times. He read the hearts of men, turned water into wine, healed the sick, fed thousands with a couple fish and pieces of bread, raised the dead, walked on water, commanded the animals (fish), commanded the storms of nature to stop, demonstrated his power over demons and forgave sin.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Christians are almost as atheist as I am, I just lack belief in one more god than they do.

a reply to: Akragon

The Father is greater then I

So to you that statement means He was not God? That Him saying His Father was "greater" meant He was less than God?

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Akragon

I think you are confused. Jesus demonstrated His deity numerous times. He read the hearts of men, turned water into wine, healed the sick, fed thousands with a couple fish and pieces of bread, raised the dead, walked on water, commanded the animals (fish), commanded the storms of nature to stop, demonstrated his power over demons and forgave sin.

Yes he did... or at least that is the claim of the gospels...

the problem with that is that he attributed all his power to his Father... and did nothing of himself...

Interesting how his God status falls apart with a bit of critical examination eh...

So to you that statement means He was not God? That Him saying His Father was "greater" meant He was less than God?

You should know your own creeds brother...

they state he is equal... co equal to the Father, which is a blatant lie... but most Christians don't realise that...

HE is the son of God, not God in the flesh.... always subservient to the Father...

a reply to: NOTurTypical

There are still people who seem to posses paranormal abilities to this day. Does it means they are god in the flesh too?

a reply to: Jim Scott

Evolution is not hard science, with testable facts.

Except it is.

Hard science proves that the Earth is very young.

Except it doesn't. Not even close. All of the "facts" that you just posted show a profound misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the actual science.

Just sayin.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

If I claim 'God is in me and I am in God' do you understand this as 'I am God?' Because that's what any mystic would say.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

That everything spontaneously came from NOTHING in one cosmic cataclysm

Except that's not what the Big Bang theory states. That's a strawman argument that has no basis in science.