Revelation 17...???

a reply to: NOTurTypical
At first glance, your questions seem to me to be as insincere as some of the questions the Pharisees asked Jesus to entrap him in his speech. Or the accusers of Michael Servetus asked him before they sent him off to have him burned at the stake by loyal Trinitarian executioners.
Your challenge or test is at 4:31 in the video below in a slightly different form (my answer as well if you insist, see Michael Servetus' response):

Note the misusage of the word "deity" when they mean "divinity" by the Unitarians who made that video above at the end, they do it too.

Here's a more interesting test. Matthew 7:13,14:

“Go in through the narrow gate, because broad is the gate and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are going in through it; 14 whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are finding it.

The numbers below are in millions.
Major religious groups - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

Christianity: 2,200
Islam: 1,600
Hinduism: 1,100
Chinese folk religion: 754 — 1,000
Buddhism: 488 — 535

Guess what the majority of those hold to and (some of them) teach? Doctrines that grew out of Babylonian philosophy, examples have been given previously and include the immortality of the soul and what is taught about Hell (but that is by no means all of it).

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Even Jesus says that those the Father gave to Him no man can pluck me out of His hand. If I can pluck myself out of His hand that make Him a false teacher. And clearly Jesus isn't one.

Which Jesus? The one in the Gospel of John (whatever anonymous person wrote it) ?

I no longer accept an anonymous writer's account as authoritative over me. It isn't clear that Jesus was not a false prophet (whatever that even means). I disagree with sayings attributed to him quite often. Have for years. Only now I feel no need to pretend to agree with said sayings.

The ideas of another person, self imposed into your own thinking in order to agree with someone when no real agreement exists are unclean foreign demons which should be exorcised by one's own authority. Failure to exorcise foreign demons (someone else's ideas) leads to psychotic break.

On topic: " Rev16:13Then I saw three impure spirits that looked like frogs; they came out of the mouth of the dragon, out of the mouth of the beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet. 14They are demonic spirits that perform signs, and they go out to the kings of the whole world, to gather them for the battle on the great day of God Almighty."

Edit to add

This discussion should probably go to a thread specifically dealing with Blaspheming the Holy Ghost where it would be on topic.

a reply to: whereislogic

"Son of the Eternal God"

Denial of the deity of Christ, makes Jesus a created being from YHWH.

Angels are "sons of God", in Hebrew they're called "Bene haElohim" (Sons of God)

a reply to: pthena


Okay, fair enough.

a reply to: NOTurTypical
Jesus is the divine firstborn* son of the eternal God, whose name is Jehovah, he's also a witness of him (Revelation 1:5: "...faithful witness...") and Jesus is a deity/god (divine being) himself (John 1:1).
* = Colossians 1:15: "firstborn OF creation". Did I over-emphasize that? That's because I don't want to go into details but there's a big deception going on with the word "over" in newer bible translations, you probably don't want to look at all the evidence in the videos anyway...

Not a "co-creator" as described below (there are more mistakes in the video but these are minor):

I noticed you avoiding to use the name Jehovah, may what's discussed in the videos below have anything to do with that?


My point regarding Revelation 1:5 is mentioned in the video below towards the end in slightly more detail (rather than just reminding people of it as I did above), many other more important things are discussed:

This video contains some details regarding what I said about Jesus being a god in the latter halve of the video (the 2nd example):

This video relates to the first halve of the video above (the 1st example of a Trinitarian argument that is used deceptively):

Summing up a bunch of what I said or alluded to in this thread (mostly concerning the Trinity and Pagan philosophy, but also regarding people like Michael Servetus):







And on and on it goes, the channel DefendingYHWH also has plenty of videos about Colossians 1:15 and the sneaky change from "of" to "over". Oh btw, if I would get a logical, sensible, reasonable or honest response to the content in those videos and especially the most crucial points (rather than cherry-picking something else) from a Trinitarian, that might be an experience I've not yet experienced on ATS, I'm not sure. A lot of the videos above have been used in my commentary and threads I referred to earlier. Then not all at once.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Maybe he thought there was more money writing against the hand that fed him for those many years .Sometimes even a traitor can be convinced to turn ....Maybe it the money ,but it sure is not the fame from his peers .

Uhm, Bart Erhman isn't a liar. He didn't make up the facts that he's sharing with us. It's true that we have been lied to by the Church. The gospels are not written by the people whose names are titled. The gospels have been manipulated by the "Church".

a reply to: windword

It's true that we have been lied to by the Church.

are you sure you are not talking about "a church" instead of The Church ? there is a big difference .It would be like a minster or pastor that doesn't believe what the bible says and teaches trying to teach someone what it does . Its called the blind leading the blind .Maybe poor Bart had a false teacher teaching him false things about the bible .So if he believed something that wasn't true then he was probably not saved to begin with . In his case its a either or situation .He would be a lier if he told the people he was preaching to that they needed to believe something to be true even if it wasn't and he knew it wasn't ......there is too much involved one way or the other ....

a reply to: the2ofusr1

are you sure you are not talking about "a church" instead of The Church ?

I'm talking about the Bible. It's not true that the gospels were written by their name sakes. They were not written by eye witnesses, yet EVERY CHURCH teaches that they were. That is a lie.

When I come on these boards and question the veracity of biblical stories and prophecies like the ones being discussed in this thread, and then get the argument "The gospels were written by eye witnesses, are you calling these eye witnesses liars?", I'm quick to point out who the liars really are. "The Church" is built on lying sands. Its doctrine is easily eroded.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

So if he believed something that wasn't true then he was probably not saved to begin with . In his case its a either or situation .

Look at it this way. The saved/not saved dichotomy is only real to people with that sort of World View. Not everyone has that limited bubble view. There is a big World to which that dichotomy is irrelevant. If (I don't know him personally but have read two of his books) he once lived in the saved/not saved world but has left it, the characterization saved/not saved is moot, irrelevant. If he hasn't reached the stage yet (I don't know) of realizing the irrelevancy of the question, I think he probably will, that's growth.

Edit to add: consider the utter ludicrousness of someone forced to prove how saved they used to be, before they have any credibility as a scholar.

a reply to: pthena

Jesus said a man had to be born again, which is born of the Holy Spirit. Explain exactly how a person could undo the work of God and reverse the new creation He made.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Maybe he thought there was more money writing against the hand that fed him for those many years .Sometimes even a traitor can be convinced to turn ....Maybe it the money ,but it sure is not the fame from his peers .

Uhm, Bart Erhman isn't a liar. He didn't make up the facts that he's sharing with us. It's true that we have been lied to by the Church. The gospels are not written by the people whose names are titled. The gospels have been manipulated by the "Church".

His former boss, Dr. Metzger tried to stop Bart in his errors, for years. Somewhere he went off the deep end. Bart isn't the greatest textual critic in human history, Bruce Metzger was.

a reply to: whereislogic

In Hebrew culture, "firstborn" doesn't always mean first in order, it usually means "greatest born". Here are some examples. Issac was called Abraham's firstborn son, he wasn't. David was called firstborn, and he wasn't. He was the youngest son of Jesse.

"Firstborn" is a Hebraism meaning "greatest born". The incarnate Son of God was the greatest born of any man. But He was pre-existent, He was the Creator Himself. Jesus was God speaking to Moses from the burning bush. He was in the firey furnace with Shadrach, Meshech, and Abednego. He walked with Adam in the garden, He met with Abraham and ate with him on Earth.

Jesus is the incarnate Son of God, the Angel of the Lord, He is God. He existed in loving communion with the Father before the world and angels were created. He is called Everlasting Father, He said He and the Father are One.

And we still haven't got to the breath of God, the Ruach HaKoddesh. The Holy Spirit. That's 3 persons, and the Bible says there is One God.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Bart Erhman is NOT in error. It's a well established fact that the gospels were anonymous. It's factual that the gospels have been added to and edited over the centuries and are not historically reliable.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Maybe he thought there was more money writing against the hand that fed him for those many years .Sometimes even a traitor can be convinced to turn ....Maybe it the money ,but it sure is not the fame from his peers .

Uhm, Bart Erhman isn't a liar. He didn't make up the facts that he's sharing with us. It's true that we have been lied to by the Church. The gospels are not written by the people whose names are titled. The gospels have been manipulated by the "Church".

His former boss, Dr. Metzger tried to stop Bart in his errors, for years. Somewhere he went off the deep end. Bart isn't the greatest textual critic in human history, Bruce Metzger was.

How does one call someone a critic when said person has nothing critical to say about the book?

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Jesus said a man had to be born again, which is born of the Holy Spirit. Explain exactly how a person could undo the work of God and reverse the new creation He made.

You have heard it said that Jesus said "Most certainly, I tell you, unless one is born anew, he can't see the Kingdom of God...Most certainly I tell you, unless one is born of water and spirit, he can't enter into the Kingdom of God! 6That which is born of the flesh is flesh. That which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7Don't marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born anew.' 8The wind blows where it wants to, and you hear its sound, but don't know where it comes from and where it is going. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit."

Look at the underlined part. I think I'm beginning to understand another person's point of view. That's just an aside, by the way.

First off, for me anyway is realizing that I have no idea what 'the Kingdom of God is', as much as I used to think I knew. I know now that those were imaginary explanations which were imposed upon me from my own reading from within a very limited (ignorant/naïve) worldview.

I have no idea who or what Goddess, God, god(desses) may be (in any real way), again, I've heard and read stories. One particular idealized version was imposed upon me by my own acquiescence to it. Seeing as only one version was presented, ie. the specific male deity supposedly one and only contained in the stories told or written (Old and New Testament) to describe him. The Old and New Testament I took to be revealed will of this deity.

That deity as described in the "revealed will" is inconsistent from story to story, commandment to commandment regardless of how much protest is contained in the "revealed will" that he never changes. The attempt to reconcile all these imposed paradoxes caused a psychotic break eventually. Eventually, I told them to get out of my mind and begone 'foul demon'.

So I suppose it comes down to, who the real unknowable divine is and who is not. Ideas, feelings, emotions, mind, rational thought must all be in harmony. A delicate balance in order to have integrity. From what I know, and feel, I value integrity over an ill defined 'Kingdom of God'. Any deity who has a problem with that can freely take a walk.

Final answer: In the context of what I thought of as god, I cast it out on my own authority. As for what may or may not be real godness at work, I have no answer.

Edit to add:

The stuff I wrote sounds a bit pretentious and holy. Don't be fooled. In practical terms I'm not much different from an Atheist. I looked in the mirror. Looks like an atheist.

a reply to: pthena

I see that reading the passage did effect me, in the sense that I wanted to sort of fit in to the pattern. And my words reflect that. See, that's what happens.

I was born in and from the waters of my mother's womb. I assume that I started breathing on my own (spirit) some time afterward. Therefore, no umbilical cord providing oxygen. I don't think I'd want to undo that. Although it will be undone in the not too distant future.

There. That's my final answer, for the moment.

a reply to: pthena

See... some things you read just hit the heart

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Maybe he thought there was more money writing against the hand that fed him for those many years .Sometimes even a traitor can be convinced to turn ....Maybe it the money ,but it sure is not the fame from his peers .

Uhm, Bart Erhman isn't a liar. He didn't make up the facts that he's sharing with us. It's true that we have been lied to by the Church. The gospels are not written by the people whose names are titled. The gospels have been manipulated by the "Church".

His former boss, Dr. Metzger tried to stop Bart in his errors, for years. Somewhere he went off the deep end. Bart isn't the greatest textual critic in human history, Bruce Metzger was.

How does one call someone a critic when said person has nothing critical to say about the book?

It's a weird term for a profession that studies ancient manuscripts. A textual critic is just that profession, it's a weird name but it doesn't mean to criticize.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Bart Erhman is NOT in error. It's a well established fact that the gospels were anonymous. It's factual that the gospels have been added to and edited over the centuries and are not historically reliable.

If you say so, people vastly more esteemed than him say otherwise. Yes, both he and Dr. Metzger have PHd's but they aren't in the same galaxy.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Maybe he thought there was more money writing against the hand that fed him for those many years .Sometimes even a traitor can be convinced to turn ....Maybe it the money ,but it sure is not the fame from his peers .

Uhm, Bart Erhman isn't a liar. He didn't make up the facts that he's sharing with us. It's true that we have been lied to by the Church. The gospels are not written by the people whose names are titled. The gospels have been manipulated by the "Church".

His former boss, Dr. Metzger tried to stop Bart in his errors, for years. Somewhere he went off the deep end. Bart isn't the greatest textual critic in human history, Bruce Metzger was.

How does one call someone a critic when said person has nothing critical to say about the book?

It's a weird term for a profession that studies ancient manuscripts. A textual critic is just that profession, it's a weird name but it doesn't mean to criticize.

it means to work out the real meaning... I believe he was a believer in "inerrancy"

Which means he wasn't a textual critic... he had pre-assumed bias... and looked for ways to prove it