Jesus allegedly wrote nothing during his life, both up to & during his ministry. Or did he..?

a reply to: GBP/JPY

however you spell it guy on a cross

jesus hesus he is us

justus just us

Just to answer the title.

Neither did Mohammad, he was a total illiterate.

But neither did many founders of many ancient religions seeing their followers usually did that.

However God wrote on stone he made, then gave them to Moses, but Moses busted them in anger when he saw the people having an orgy. So God made Moses cut some new stones and God rewrote what he had on the originals, which were destroyed, so there was no comparing them with the Originals to be sure they were exact, however God is God and could very easily rewrite exactly what were on the first without error.

That is how God preserved his words to us today, he does it through men and no need to go to old dead languages, (because between the lot there still was no complete bible any any of those old languages to get a good copy out of) to re-interpret what God has already preserved for us today in the AKJV Bible.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
However God wrote on stone he made, then gave them to Moses, but Moses busted them in anger when he saw the people having an orgy. So God made Moses cut some new stones and God rewrote what he had on the originals, which were destroyed, so there was no comparing them with the Originals to be sure they were exact,

I disagree. We have uncover the oldest known stone tablet aged between 1500-1700 years old to compare with.
OLDEST KNOWN 10 COMMANDMENTS TABLET SOLD AT AUCTION

Not only that, we have non christian and Jews source to compare with, such as Mohammed Quran:
"And We ordained laws for him in the tablets in all matters, both commanding and explaining all things, (and said): 'Take and hold these with firmness, and enjoin thy people to hold fast by the best in the precepts'..." 007.145

The stone tablet is one of very rare example of undisputable proof in religious text, acknowledged by historian and archeology study. This is how God preserved his words.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
he does it through men and no need to go to old dead languages, (because between the lot there still was no complete bible any any of those old languages to get a good copy out of)

I define "men" as having proof of god's qualification to carry HIS words through miracles.

I don't define "men" as con-man, mad, hallucinated, or in any altered state of consciousness. We have too many crazy men who pen outlandish claims, whether inspired or not. Just check at YouTube.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
to re-interpret what God has already preserved for us today in the AKJV Bible.

I still don't think unicorn is the right word for goat or rhinoceros.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
Just to answer the title.

Neither did Mohammad, he was a total illiterate.

That is why it's amazing he can recite the Old Testaments in Quran, without any single contradiction.

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
a reply to: whereislogic

God appears to each person as He wills, for purposes beyond our understanding - and only by humbling ourselves & admitting that He is too vast & inscrutable to ever understand by meager will alone, can we see revealed the One who is, was & always will be.

“‘Who has come to know the mind of Jehovah, that he may instruct him?’ But we do have the mind of Christ.”​—1 COR. 2:16.
...
We should not, therefore, be surprised that our thinking is far different from that of Jehovah. Through his prophet Isaiah, Jehovah told the Israelites: “The thoughts of you people are not my thoughts, nor are my ways your ways.” Then, illustrating this fact, Jehovah went on to say: “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so my ways are higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.”​—Isa. 55:8, 9.

Does this mean, though, that we should not even try to understand Jehovah’s way of thinking? No. Although we can never fully understand all of Jehovah’s thoughts, still the Bible encourages us to gain “intimacy with Jehovah.” (Read Psalm 25:14; Proverbs 3:32.) One way we can draw closer to Jehovah is by showing regard for and paying attention to his activities as recorded in his Word, the Bible. (Ps. 28:5) Another way is by getting to know “the mind of Christ,” who is “the image of the invisible God.” (1 Cor. 2:16; Col. 1:15) By taking time to study Bible accounts and to meditate on them, we can begin to understand Jehovah’s qualities and his way of thinking.

Beware of a Wrong Tendency

As we meditate on Jehovah’s activities, we need to avoid the tendency to judge God by human standards. [whereislogic: as required in the argument from Marcion and Agarthaseed, which judges God by human standards) This tendency is alluded to in Jehovah’s words as recorded at Psalm 50:21: “You imagined that I would positively become like you.” It is as one Bible scholar stated over 175 years ago: “Men are apt to judge of God by themselves, and to suppose him restricted by such laws as they deem proper for their own observance.”

We need to be careful not to shape our concept of Jehovah so as to conform it to our own standards and desires. Why is this important? Well, as we study the Scriptures, some of Jehovah’s actions may seem to be not quite right from our limited, imperfect viewpoint. The ancient Israelites fell into that way of thinking and drew a wrong conclusion concerning Jehovah’s dealings with them. Notice what Jehovah said to them: “You people will certainly say: ‘The way of Jehovah is not adjusted right.’ Hear, please, O house of Israel. Is not my own way adjusted right? Are not the ways of you people not adjusted right?”​—Ezek. 18:25.

A key to avoiding the trap of judging Jehovah by our own standards is to recognize that our viewpoint is limited and at times seriously flawed. Job needed to learn this lesson. During his time of suffering, Job struggled with despair and became somewhat self-centered. He lost sight of the bigger issues. But Jehovah lovingly helped him to broaden his viewpoint. By asking Job over 70 different questions, none of which Job could answer, Jehovah emphasized the limitations of Job’s understanding. Job reacted in a humble way, adjusting his viewpoint.​—Read Job 42:1-6.
...

Source: “Who Has Come to Know the Mind of Jehovah?”

The 70 questions are in Job ch.38. I like the question in Job 38:24. It is generally believed that light consists of energy particles that have wave properties. To this day, however, man still cannot give a complete answer to the question propounded over three millenniums ago by the Creator of light: “Where, now, is the way by which the light distributes itself?”​—Job 38:24. (the Quantum Mechanics conundrum, see for example the subject of wave-particle duality).

Wave–particle duality is the concept in quantum mechanics that every particle or quantic entity may be partly described in terms not only of particles, but also of waves. It expresses the inability of the classical concepts "particle" or "wave" to fully describe the behavior of quantum-scale objects.

Source: wikipedia

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed
a reply to: whereislogic

I cannot and will not have a discussion about The Bible with folks that ridicule evolution and say things like:
...

I'm sorry if some of what I said rubbed you the wrong way but I'm not good at telling people what they want to hear (tickling their ears; I tend to do the opposite of what's described at 2 Timothy 4:3,4, end up saying things or pointing out things that others do "not put up with", as indicated by your last response). Just trying to be honest with ye. The video that discusses evolution was only there for the G.B. Shaw quotation, it's not my video and there is no need to watch the rest. I do not agree with how some things are phrased and the tone of the videomaker in that video. Rather than those using “smooth talk and complimentary speech” in order to “seduce the hearts of guileless ones” (Ro 16:18) I prefer to be honest with you when I see you making a claim for which I have found conclusive evidence that it is incorrect. When someone is making a lot of claims that are incorrect (and not providing any reasonable evidence for these claims in their comment), I don't think it's reasonable to expect me to respond to each one of them with a detailed presentation of the relevant evidence (facts) I am aware of. Especially just after I've already gone into detail about an earlier claim where you were 'boasting your religiously motivated opinions' without any detail* or supporting evidence. Partly using your words that you use to describe my commentary, which is filled with facts to consider, starting with my first response.

*: such as bible quotations about the claims you are making about what the bible supposedly describes, shows or teaches regarding "YHWH from the Old Testament", the least you can do is cherry-pick some verses to support the claims with which you judge God by human standards in the manner I described earlier as something that is easy to do if one wants to twist the Scriptures, and not just throw the claims out there and then complain about "dogmatic material" when someone points out they are incorrect and gives more detailed examples from the Scriptures that show that your description and interpretation of what you refer to as the "Old Testament" and "New Testament" is incorrect and inconsistent with what the Scriptures actually teach. After all, you're making claims about what the Scriptures supposedly teach, show or describe, it's only fair if one actually compares what you say about "YHWH from the Old Testament" with what the Scriptures actually teach about it. And perhaps because it doesn't match you bring up circular reasoning when someone actually takes God's word for it rather than yours when it comes to describing who God is and what he is like, or what his only unique personal name is.

originally posted by: whereislogic
....

You are obviously a Jehovah's witness.

Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christians. They do not believe in the physical resurrection of Christ and they do not believe in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

The Gospels clearly say, the resurrection was physical and that the Father and the Holy Spirit are in the Son.

Interesting thought, but I don't think it is likely. He would have amended the parts that were overwritten with the New Covenant, such as "an eye for an eye". Logistically it also seems difficult, given the eventual disregard he had from the Jews.

Jesus not writing anything on paper known to us today seemed to me to be a bold statement in itself. Emphasizing the transient nature of this stage in life. Or even demonstrating that the Living Word cannot be fully actualized in writing or language.

Jesus didn't write a Gospel because he taught them The Logia (Sayings of Christ).

Quotes from "Exegesis of the Dominical Logia" by Papias of Hierapolis (circa 100AD):

...Matthew put the logia in an ordered arrangement in the Hebrew language, but each person interpreted them as best he could.

...Mark, in his capacity as Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately as many things as he recalled from memory... Peter... had no intention of providing an ordered arrangement of the logia of the Lord. Consequently Mark did nothing wrong when he wrote down some individual items just as he related them from memory. For he made it his one concern not to omit anything he had heard or to falsify anything.

The Law of Christ is told multiple times throughout The New Testament. Every true follower of Christ knows that His Law is Freedom through Love:

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." - Jesus Christ (Matthew 7:12)

"By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." - Jesus Christ (John 13:35)

"Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law." - Paul (Romans 13:10)

"For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." - Paul (Galatians 5:14)

"If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:" - James (James 2:8)

"Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God." - The Apostle John (1 John 4:7)

a reply to: Ove38
The Bible gives the names of Jehovah God and of his Son, Jesus Christ; yet, nowhere does it name the holy spirit. (Isaiah 42:8; Luke 1:31)

The holy spirit is God’s power in action, his active force. (Micah 3:8; Luke 1:35) God sends out his spirit by projecting his energy to any place to accomplish his will.—Psalm 104:30; 139:7.

The Bible sometimes uses “name” to stand for power or authority. (Deuteronomy 18:5, 19-22; Esther 8:10) This is similar to its use in the English expression “in the name of the law,” which does not mean that the law is a person. A person who is baptized “in the name of ” the holy spirit recognizes the power and role of the holy spirit in accomplishing God’s will.—Matthew 28:19.

Misconception: Jesus’ apostles and other early disciples believed that the holy spirit was a person.

Fact: The Bible does not say that, nor does history. The Encyclopædia Britannica states: “The definition that the Holy Spirit was a distinct divine Person . . . came at the Council of Constantinople in ad 381.” This was over 250 years after the last of the apostles had died.

Should You Believe in the Trinity?

More than two billion people profess to be Christian. Most belong to churches that teach the Trinity​—the doctrine that the Father, the Son, and the holy spirit together form one God. How did the Trinity become an official doctrine? More important, is this teaching in harmony with the Bible?

The Bible was completed in the first century C.E. Teachings that led to the development of the Trinity began to be officially formulated in 325 C.E.​—more than two centuries later—​at a council in the city of Nicaea in Asia Minor, now Iznik, Turkey. According to the New Catholic Encyclopedia, the creed attributed to the Council of Nicaea set out the first official definition of ‘Christian orthodoxy,’ including the definition of God and Christ. Why, though, was it deemed necessary to define God and Christ centuries after the Bible was completed? Is the Bible unclear on these important topics?

IS JESUS GOD?

When Constantine became sole ruler of the Roman Empire, professed Christians were divided over the relationship between God and Christ. Was Jesus God? Or was he created by God? To settle the matter, Constantine summoned church leaders to Nicaea, not because he sought religious truth, but because he did not want religion to divide his empire.

“To us there is but one God, the Father.”​—1 Corinthians 8:6, King James Version

Constantine asked the bishops, who may have numbered into the hundreds, to come to a unanimous accord, but his request was in vain. He then proposed that the council adopt the ambiguous notion that Jesus was “of one substance” (homoousios) with the Father. This unbiblical Greek philosophical term laid the foundation for the Trinity doctrine as later set forth in the church creeds. Indeed, by the end of the fourth century, the Trinity had essentially taken the form it has today, including the so-called third part of the godhead, the holy spirit.

WHY SHOULD YOU CARE?

Jesus said that “the true worshipers will worship the Father with . . . truth.” (John 4:23) That truth has been recorded in the Bible. (John 17:17) Does the Bible teach that the Father, the Son, and the holy spirit are three persons in one God?

For one thing, the Bible does not mention the word “Trinity.” For another, Jesus never claimed to be equal to God. Instead, Jesus worshipped God. (Luke 22:41-44) A third line of evidence concerns Jesus’ relationship with his followers. Even after he was raised from the dead to the spirit realm, Jesus called his followers “my brothers.” (Matthew 28:10) Were they brothers of Almighty God? Of course not! But through their faith in Christ​—God’s preeminent Son—​they too became sons of the one Father. (Galatians 3:26) Compare some additional scriptures with the following statement from the creed attributed to the Council of Nicaea.

What the Nicene Creed says:

“We believe . . . in one Lord Jesus Christ . . . that is of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God.”

What the Bible says:

“My Father is greater than I [Jesus].”​—John 14:28.* [Italics ours. All the quotations in this section are from the King James Version.]

“I [Jesus] ascend unto my Father, and your Father, and to my God, and your God.”​—John 20:17.

“To us there is but one God, the Father.”​—1 Corinthians 8:6.

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”​—1 Peter 1:3.

“These things saith the Amen [Jesus], . . . the beginning of the creation of God.”​—Revelation 3:14.

QUICK FACTS:

“The Nicene Creed is actually not the product of the First Council of Nicea (325) . . . but of the First Council of Constantinople (381),” says The New Westminster Dictionary of Church History.

“The Council of Nicea in 325 stated the crucial formula for [the yet future Trinity] doctrine in its confession that the Son is ‘of the same substance . . . as the Father.’”​—Encyclopædia Britannica.

“The Christian Bible, including the New Testament, has no trinitarian statements or speculations concerning a trinitary deity.”​—Encyclopædia Britannica.

“The doctrine of the trinity . . . is not a product of the earliest Christian period, and we do not find it carefully expressed before the end of the second century.”​—Library of Early Christianity—​Gods and the One God.

“In order to articulate the dogma of the Trinity, the [Catholic] Church had to develop her own terminology with the help of certain notions of philosophical origin.”​—Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Trinity Doctrine, A False Teaching Of Man, Council of Nicaea

Nearly all the quotations in the video above are also from the KJV.

just as you touch upon in your OP... the young Jesus chose to not learn-a-trade or become an apprentice in the Joseph-the-Architect family business..

young Jesus was a nerd, always wrapped up in the mysterious world of the Mystic Word-Play(Codes) of the religious teachers... young Jesus learned to not rely on writing things down---> BUT to commit all his knowledge to memory and like a Savant his mind worked with mental Alpha-Bets not parchment or animal skin scrolls with inked characters on it...(was the movie Forest Gump a hidden characterization of Jesus?)


Jesus was a Maverick 'Teacher' ...had no formal credentials from the organized religions of his day
(Pharisee/Saducee Rabbi's)... the most likely mode for Jesus was the Cult of Nazoreen's & the followers-of-the-Light...in which he chose to emulate and devote his life to the 'role' of becoming the 'Suffering Messiah'....
& man-o-man Jesus played that role to the hilt...even a death sentence by the occupation force of Rome before he reached the age of 37 in 3AD of modern calendar time

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Ove38
The Bible gives the names of Jehovah God and of his Son, Jesus Christ; yet, nowhere does it name the holy spirit. (Isaiah 42:8; Luke 1:31) .....

Matthew 28:19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit"

John 10:30 "I and the Father are one."

Even if Jesus only says "I and the Father are one." The fact is that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one. The Father is not the only spirit in Jesus, also the Holy Spirit is in Jesus. (John 20:22)

You didn't say one word about why Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in the physical resurrection of Christ ? The Gospels clearly say, the resurrection was physical. This is clear evidence that Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christians.

a reply to: Ove38
Do any of the scriptures that are used by Trinitarians to support their belief provide a solid basis for that dogma?

A person who is really seeking to know the truth about God is not going to search the Bible hoping to find a text that he can construe as fitting what he already believes (eisegesis occurs when a reader imposes his or her interpretation into and onto the text). He wants to know what God’s Word itself says. He may find some texts that he feels can be read in more than one way, but when these are compared with other Biblical statements on the same subject their meaning will become clear. For example...

John 17:22, KJV (Jesus praying to his God):

And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

Why is it that when Trinitarians bring up John 10:30 they never mention anything about John 17:22 where Jesus uses the same phrase to describe what he would like his disciples to be: "one" just like he and his God are "one"? Are now all his disciples also part of the Trinity that I guess isn't a Trinity anymore cause it's more than 3? Or should we conveniently interpret this verse quite differently than John 10:30 while continuing to try to forcefit a Trinitarian concept into John 10:30 (and perhaps telling ourselves John 17:22 doesn't clarify how John 10:30 is to be understood without Trinitarian eisegesis)? Why should I respond to statements that aren't even questions? It's not like you've demonstrated that you care about what the bible says when you can't use it for your eisegesis (just like I mentioned Agarthaseed was doing when I was talking about leaving out things that she couldn't use for her argument regarding "YHWH from the Old Testament") or demonstrated that you are willing to answer or respond to any of my real questions. Instead Trinitarians will often just play one card after another from the house of cards that is used to argue for the doctrine of the Trinity (or Binitarianism) while ignoring, distracting from, talking past, or arguing away* the responses to all these twisted misleading arguments or texts that have been twisted by Trinitarians (the twisted interpretation being triggered in Trinitarian readers when quoting those texts; like pushing buttons). *: with eisegesis
For example:

According to the New Catholic Encyclopedia, the creed attributed to the Council of Nicaea set out the first official definition of ‘Christian orthodoxy,’ including the definition of God and Christ. Why, though, was it deemed necessary to define God and Christ centuries after the Bible was completed?

Constantine...proposed that the council adopt the ambiguous notion that Jesus was “of one substance” (homoousios) with the Father. This unbiblical Greek philosophical term laid the foundation for the Trinity doctrine as later set forth in the church creeds. Indeed, by the end of the fourth century, the Trinity had essentially taken the form it has today, including the so-called third part of the godhead, the holy spirit.

Why should I believe any philosophy (theosophy) coming from the murderous Pagan emperor Constantine using Greek philosophical language that isn't to be found in the bible over what the bible says?
“To us there is but one God, the Father.”​—1 Corinthians 8:6, King James Version

...Reminiscent of the conduct of Constantine after his so-called conversion to Christianity, Clovis set out to consolidate his rulership by systematically killing off all rivals to the throne. He exterminated “all his relatives to the sixth degree.”
...
After Clovis died, a process of mythmaking began that would turn him from a cruel warrior into a reputed saint. Gregory of Tours’ account, written almost a century later, is viewed as a conscious effort to identify Clovis with Constantine, the first Roman emperor to accept “Christianity.”

Source: The Baptism of Clovis—1,500 Years of Catholicism in France

What is the origin of the Trinity doctrine?

The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.”—(1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.

In The Encyclopedia Americana we read: “Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.”—(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.

According to the Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, “The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.”—(Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.

John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of ‘person’ and ‘nature’ which are G[ree]k philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as ‘essence’ and ‘substance’ were erroneously applied to God by some theologians.”—(New York, 1965), p. 899.

Col. 2:8: “Look out: perhaps there may be someone who will carry you off as his prey through the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ.”

"philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men" : "...the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.” : all the ancient "traditions of men" : "The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of ‘person’ and ‘nature’ which are G[ree]k philosophical terms..." : i.e. "philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men".

Sources: already mentioned in the quotations

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Ove38
John 17:22, KJV (Jesus praying to his God):

And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

Why is it that when Trinitarians bring up John 10:30 they never mention anything about John 17:22 where Jesus uses the same phrase to describe what he would like his disciples to be: "one" just like he and his God are "one"?

Just to be clear, I phrased that question as "what he would like his disciples to be" based on the context, the context shows that it's a request he makes in prayer to God, it's something he would like for his disciples.

John 17:

Jesus spoke these things, and raising his eyes to heaven, he said: “Father, the hour has come. Glorify your son so that your son may glorify you, 2 just as you have given him authority over all flesh, so that he may give everlasting life to all those whom you have given to him. 3 This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ.
...
20 “I make request, not concerning these only, but also concerning those putting faith in me through their word, 21 so that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us, so that the world may believe that you sent me.
22 I have given them the glory that you have given me, in order that they may be one just as we are one. 23 I in union with them and you in union with me, in order that they may be perfected into one, so that the world may know that you sent me and that you loved them just as you loved me.

How much clearer does Jesus need to get with the "I", "you", "me", "we", "us" etc.? He's clearly differentiating between himself and his God and when he uses "we" or "us" he's also clearly referring to another individual besides himself, just like when he says "I" or "me" he's only referring to himself (if the Trinity doctrine were true, why wouldn't he say "we" when he says "I" then as well? Or "I" when he says "we"?). This is normal rational use of language. No Pagan Greek philosophy required to understand the plain simple language that Jesus uses all over the Scriptures.

No Pagan Babylonian philosophy and religious "tradition of men" required for that either:

What evidence points to the identity of Babylon the Great, referred to in Revelation?
...
Ancient Babylonian religious concepts and practices are found in religions worldwide

“Egypt, Persia, and Greece felt the influence of the Babylonian religion . . . The strong admixture of Semitic elements both in early Greek mythology and in Grecian cults is now so generally admitted by scholars as to require no further comment. These Semitic elements are to a large extent more specifically Babylonian.”—The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria (Boston, 1898), M. Jastrow, Jr., pp. 699, 700.

Their gods: There were triads of gods, and among their divinities were those representing various forces of nature and ones that exercised special influence in certain activities of mankind. (Babylonian and Assyrian Religion, Norman, Okla.; 1963, S. H. Hooke, pp. 14-40) “The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s [Plato’s] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.”—Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel (Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.

Source: Babylon the Great: Reasoning

The apostle Paul warns: “The inspired utterance says definitely that in later periods of time some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired utterances and teachings of demons.”(1 Timothy 4:1)

Source: Keep Clear of False Worship!

"This Greek philosopher’s [Plato’s] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.”
And that's not the only teaching "of demons" that Plato copied and slightly modified from Babylon, that then got adopted into Christendom. All the arrows are pointing in the same direction:

He is a liar! (part 1 of 2)

originally posted by: whereislogic
Why is it that when Trinitarians bring up John 10:30 they never mention anything about John 17:22 where Jesus uses the same phrase to describe what he would like his disciples to be: "one" just like he and his God are "one"? Are now all his disciples also part of the Trinity that I guess isn't a Trinity anymore cause it's more than 3? Or should we conveniently interpret this verse quite differently than John 10:30 while continuing to try to forcefit a Trinitarian concept into John 10:30 (and perhaps telling ourselves John 17:22 doesn't clarify how John 10:30 is to be understood without Trinitarian eisegesis)? Why should I respond to statements that aren't even questions?

Not to forget, Trinitarians love to bring out passage from John 14:9, Jesus replied, “Philip, I have been with you all this time, and still you do not know Me? Anyone who has seen Me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father'?"

If this passage is to be taken literally, then the Pharisees and Pontius Pilate should also have seen the Father. Instead, John 8:19, Jesus replied, " "You do not know me or my Father."

It's baffling how easy for anyone to twist Platonism or Neoplatonism into the Greek's Logos ( Words of God ).

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Ove38
The Bible gives the names of Jehovah God and of his Son, Jesus Christ; yet, nowhere does it name the holy spirit. (Isaiah 42:8; Luke 1:31) .....

originally posted by: Ove38
Matthew 28:19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit"

I'm not exactly sure what you are doing or implying (with the bolded part) here, since I already answered the Trinitarian eisegesis regarding Matthew 28:19 and explained how it's actually using the concept of "in the name of" at Mt 28:19 (you seem to just be in repeat-mode, so let me respond in kind, this time in reverse order, perhaps it'll get through that way, or encourage a response that makes more sense than a repetition of an eisegesis-triggertext).

The Bible sometimes uses “name” to stand for power or authority. (Deuteronomy 18:5, 19-22; Esther 8:10) This is similar to its use in the English expression “in the name of the law,” which does not mean that the law is a person. A person who is baptized “in the name of ” the holy spirit recognizes the power and role of the holy spirit in accomplishing God’s will.—Matthew 28:19. [the bible is very clear that Jehovah and Jesus do not have the same name, I hope and assume you can still count...that's 2 names, so the phrase "in the name of" followed by the usage of the word "and" a couple of times, is not referring to the 3 differentiated subjects in that sentence (by the word "and") having 1 specific name or that they are 1 individual for that matter, or that they are 1 Triune God; to me it's clear that Jesus means that people should be baptized in the name (power or authority) of the Father AND in the name (power or authority) of the Son AND in the name (power or authority) of the holy spirit, the last one referring to the concept of the one being baptized "recognizing the power and role of the holy spirit in accomplishing God’s will", the middle one referring to "recognizing and accepting the power and role of the Son, Jesus Christ, in accomplishing God’s will" and the first one referring to "recognizing and accepting the power and role of the Father, i.e. Jehovah God". He doesn't have to spell that out like that for me, which is the point at which a Trinitarian might argue that I'm doing eisegesis and changing what it says by adding "in the name of" a couple more times, but I don't have to do that, it's already clear from the text itself by the usage of the word "and" and the benefit of not being indoctrinated with Trinitarian eisegesis and dogma, I'm just spelling it out for ye now cause apparenly it's not getting through, see end of comment for more details.]

The holy spirit is God’s power in action, his active force. (Micah 3:8; Luke 1:35) God sends out his spirit by projecting his energy to any place to accomplish his will.—Psalm 104:30; 139:7.

The Bible gives the names of Jehovah God and of his Son, Jesus Christ; yet, nowhere does it name the holy spirit. (Isaiah 42:8; Luke 1:31)

Because the holy spirit is not a person (and that gets to the heart of your other Trinitarian eisegesis regarding Mt 28:19 as well, in your mind when you read it, or in the minds of other Trinitarian readers who read your quotation, it's triggered without even having to make the argument that the holy spirit is a person in a Triune God).

By referring to God’s spirit as his “hands,” “fingers,” or “breath,” the Bible shows that the holy spirit is not a person. (Exodus 15:8, 10) A craftsman’s hands cannot function independent of his mind and body; likewise, God’s holy spirit operates only as he directs it. (Luke 11:13) The Bible also compares God’s spirit to water and associates it with such things as faith and knowledge. These comparisons all point to the impersonal nature of the holy spirit.—Isaiah 44:3; Acts 6:5; 2 Corinthians 6:6.

The Bible gives the names of Jehovah God and of his Son, Jesus Christ; yet, nowhere does it name the holy spirit. (Isaiah 42:8; Luke 1:31) When the Christian martyr Stephen was given a miraculous heavenly vision, he saw only two persons, not three. The Bible says: “He, being full of holy spirit, gazed into heaven and caught sight of God’s glory and of Jesus standing at God’s right hand.” (Acts 7:55) The holy spirit was God’s power in action, enabling Stephen to see the vision.

In the Bible, the word “spirit” is translated from the Hebrew word ruʹach and the Greek word pneuʹma. Most often, those words refer to God’s active force, or holy spirit. (Genesis 1:2) However, the Bible also uses those words in other senses:

Breath.—Habakkuk 2:19; Revelation 13:15.

Wind.—Genesis 8:1; John 3:8.

The vital, or animating, force in living creatures.—Job 34:14, 15.

A person’s disposition or attitude.—Numbers 14:24.

Spirit persons, including God and the angels.—1 Kings 22:21; John 4:24.

These meanings all share the sense of something invisible to humans that produces visible effects. Similarly, the spirit of God, “like the wind, is invisible, immaterial and powerful.”—An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, by W. E. Vine.

Deuteronomy 18:19,20

Indeed, I will require an account from the man who will not listen to my words that he will speak in my name.

20 “‘If any prophet presumptuously speaks a word in my name that I did not command him to speak or speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet must die.

Baptized in the Name of Whom and What?

...
On the day of Pentecost 33 C.E., an important festival was in progress and many visitors were sharing in it. But something unusual occurred, after which the apostle Peter gave a stirring discourse that had an amazing effect. Some 3,000 Jews and proselytes were touched by his words, repented, and got baptized in water. Thus they were added to the newly formed Christian congregation. (Acts 2:41)
...
Earlier that day, “there occurred from heaven a noise just like that of a rushing stiff breeze.” In the upper chamber of a house, some 120 of Jesus’ disciples were filled with holy spirit. Thereafter, reverent men and women gathered and were intrigued to hear these disciples “speak with different tongues.” Upon listening to what Peter said, including his pointed comments about Jesus’ death, many “were stabbed to the heart.” What should they do? Peter answered: “Repent, and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ . . . , and you will receive the free gift of the holy spirit.”​—Acts 2:1-4, 36-38.

Think of the religious situation of those Jews and proselytes who heard Peter. They had already accepted Jehovah as their God. And from the Hebrew Scriptures, they knew about the holy spirit, God’s active force used during creation and thereafter. (Gen. 1:2; Judg. 14:5, 6; 1 Sam. 10:6; Ps. 33:6) But they needed something more. It was vital for them to understand and accept God’s means of salvation​—the Messiah, Jesus. Hence, Peter highlighted their need for being “baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.” Some days before, the resurrected Jesus commanded Peter and others to baptize people “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit.” (Matt. 28:19, 20) That had profound meaning in the first century, and it still does. What is it?

In the Name of the Father
..
In the Name of the Son
..
In the Name of the Holy Spirit
..

continued from last comment (some of the parts I skipped):

In the Name of the Father

As noted, those who responded to Peter’s discourse worshipped Jehovah and had previously had a relationship with him. They had been trying to follow his Law, which was the reason those from other lands had come to Jerusalem. (Acts 2:5-11) However, God had just made a significant change in his dealings. He rejected the Jews as his special nation; their keeping the Law was no longer the means to obtain his approval. (Matt. 21:43; Col. 2:14) If those listeners wanted an ongoing relationship with Jehovah, they needed something else.

It certainly was not to turn away from Jehovah, their Life-Giver. (Acts 4:24) No, those responding to Peter’s explanation could see now more than ever that Jehovah was a benevolent Father. He sent the Messiah to deliver them and was willing to forgive even those to whom Peter could say: “Let all the house of Israel know for a certainty that God made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you impaled.” Actually, those applying Peter’s words would now have even greater reason to appreciate what the Father had done for all who wanted a relationship with God!​—Read Acts 2:30-36.

Indeed, those Jews and proselytes could now see that a relationship with Jehovah involved recognizing him as the Provider of salvation by means of Jesus. You can understand, then, why they repented of their sins, including that of knowingly or unknowingly sharing in killing Jesus. And it is equally understandable that during the following days “they continued devoting themselves to the teaching of the apostles.” (Acts 2:42) They could and would want to “approach with freeness of speech to the throne of undeserved kindness.”​—Heb. 4:16.

Today, millions of people from various backgrounds have learned from the Bible the truth about Jehovah. (Isa. 2:2, 3) Some were atheists or deists, but they became convinced of the existence of a Creator with whom they could have a meaningful relationship. Others worshipped a triune god or various idols. They learned that Jehovah alone is the almighty God, and they now address him by his personal name. That is in line with the fact that Jesus said his disciples should be baptized in the name of the Father.
...
In the Name of the Son

Think again, though, about what Peter said to the crowd. He stressed accepting Jesus, which is directly linked to being baptized “in the name . . . of the Son.” Why was that vital then, and why is it vital now? Well, accepting Jesus and being baptized in his name means recognizing his role in our relationship with the Creator. Jesus had to be hanged on a torture stake in order to remove the curse of the Law from the Jews; however, his death had a greater benefit. (Gal. 3:13) He provided the ransom sacrifice that all mankind needed. (Eph. 2:15, 16; Col. 1:20; 1 John 2:1, 2) To that end, Jesus endured injustice, reviling, torture, and finally death. How much do you appreciate his sacrifice?
...
He died so that you can gain endless life.
...
Being baptized in the name of the Son means acknowledging what Jesus has done for you and accepting his authority as “the Chief Agent of life.” (Acts 3:15; 5:31)
...
Yes, being baptized in the name of the Son means recognizing Jesus’ authority and striving to follow his example and teachings, including that of being willing to forgive others.​—1 Pet. 2:21; 1 John 2:6.

Being imperfect, you are not able to imitate Jesus fully. Nevertheless, in line with your wholehearted dedication to God, you want to imitate Jesus to the best of your ability. This involves continuing to work at putting away the old personality and putting on the new. (Read Ephesians 4:20-24.)
...
There is another way you can show that you understand what is involved in having been baptized in the name of the Son. God “subjected all things under [Jesus’] feet, and made him head over all things to the congregation.” (Eph. 1:22) Thus, you need to respect the way Jesus directs those dedicated to Jehovah.
...
In the Name of the Holy Spirit

What does it mean to be baptized in the name of the holy spirit? As noted earlier, those hearing Peter on the day of Pentecost were aware of the holy spirit. In fact, they could see proof right before their eyes that God continued to use the holy spirit. Peter was one of those who had been “filled with holy spirit and [who had] started to speak with different tongues.” (Acts 2:4, 8) The expression “in the name of” need not imply the name of a person. Today, many things are done “in the name of the government,” which is not a person. They are done by the authority of the government. Similarly, one who is baptized in the name of the holy spirit recognizes that the holy spirit is, not a person, but Jehovah’s active force. And such baptism means that one acknowledges the role the holy spirit plays in God’s purpose.
...
...come to appreciate that the Scriptures were written under the inspiration of holy spirit. (2 Tim. 3:16) ... the fact that ‘the Father in heaven gives holy spirit to those asking him,’ including to you. (Luke 11:13)
...
That spirit also helps us individually in our daily activities. Our having been baptized in the name of the holy spirit involves recognizing its role in our life and gratefully cooperating with that spirit.
...

Just to show there's a little more to it than when I was trying to keep it short and said:

...the middle one referring to "recognizing and accepting the power and role of the Son, Jesus Christ, in accomplishing God’s will" and the first one referring to "recognizing and accepting the power and role of the Father, i.e. Jehovah God".

a reply to: andy06shake

What makes you think he couldn't?

He was clearly able to read scripture & teach in the temple, so it's likely he was able to write too.

a reply to: AstrapisekirtS

You're ignorant of the facts. Clearly you enjoy being ignorant of the facts, because otherwise diligent investigation would have revealed them. Poisonous nonsense doesn't detract from Truth - it just shows you for what you are. Thanks for making it so clear to see - saves me the trouble of getting mired in argument should you creep into this or any other thread in future.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

The Hebrew language is by no means 'dead', it is utilised to compose something which is living and active, sharper than a double-edged sword.. And if you really get into it (read the Stan Tenen book I linked in the OP) you will find that the language is incredibly complex & full of layers of meaning, such that make you wonder at the incredible way that information is encoded, almost one could say 'by a divine hand', and hence my little theory that somehow, Christ had a hand (literally) in conveying that evolved form of the language. Then you can consider the way in which Hebrew is utilised (rightly or wrongly) in the Qabalah, in terms of magickal operations, sorcery & so on. It's a language of great power, however one slices it (that's an accidental pun which you'll only get if you read the linked Tenen book I mentioned). So wise up, and consider the value of the language, at least - you don't need to study it hard to realise how awesome it actually is.

Cheers, FITO.