Thread replies: 204
Thread images: 38
Thread images: 38
Where does the conceptualization of the Holy Trinity come from? Take this quote for instance:
"27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. 28 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand. 30 I and My Father are one."
It is meant metaphorically, far as I can tell. There is no literal connection there that outright states "Jesus is God incarnate". It says he's a shepherd, like unto God, nothing else.
This is, far as I know, the basis of the claim that Jesus is actually God. But I confess that I haven't studied the scriptures rigorously, and I would like to pass this idea around. Also, where does the Holy Ghost thing originate from?
>>
The book of John. It all starts there.
>>
>>2194120
>Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
>>
>>2194120
Faith without tradition, is like soup without water. The theological formations of the Trinity lie in oral form, ancient text and a myriad of other sources. Why don't you look some of them up?
>>
>>2194120
Not an expert on Christianity, but I believe they think Jesus is the son of God because of his conception. All the Jewish prophets had a human mum and dad but Mary got a bit of God dick in her so jesus was better
>>
>>2194120
>www.thegreatcourses.com
>search: how jesus become god by sheik bart al-ahrmani
>>
>>2194134
This. Op is a Jew or atheist.
>>
>>
trinities appear in hindu and egyptian religion
also in slav ancient religion (tribog or triglav)
really fires my neurons
>>
Thanks all for the responses.
>>2194136
Where at? I'm interested but wouldn't know where to begin.
>>2194142
>>2194146
I've seen a book by that title in book stores but didn't think about it too much. Time to pick up a copy I think.
>>2194145
I was actually Mormon before I left the church and gravitated towards certain rabbis, lol. But no Christian, Jew nor atheist would share my beliefs. They're personal too, so don't ask.
>>
>>2194162
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/churchfathers.html
Writings of the Church Fathers.
>>
>>2194165
ty bro
>>
>>2194162
So you are Jewish? Reformed or traditional?
>>
>>2194162
The course is a good start I would say, more easy going than the book or more serious academic papers. Just know that the guy is an agnostic beforehand, but take or leave his argument after you are done with the course.
>>
>>2194172
If I were a Jew I would be a reformed one. I don't care about the ceremonies. But I have respect for traditional Jews, so who knows. My belief is in philosophers, but I take the scriptures at face value nevertheless.
>>
>>2194120
God bless you anon. I thought I was the only one trying to spread Jesus's word. Godspeed anon. You're the MVP. I'll help contribute to the thread if I've some free time.
Here, listen to Peter:
Acts 2:22:
"Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a """""MAN"""""" accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.
>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BR4NXfkI0jQ
Wow, really makes you think.
>>
>REGARDING TRINITY
The RSV is based on ancient Bible manuscripts closest to the time of Jesus(or Disciples), closer than the KJV.
Now, 32 Christian Biblical scholars backed by fifty cooperating Christian denominations remove the Trinity verse(John 5:7)
there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one.
As history tell us, this Trinity verse contradicts 1 Corinthians 14:33:
33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
So either one of these must be fabrication, because they both cannot be right. In this case, it is the Trinity verse.
So, any of you have anything to say? Remember, the most intellect among of you Christians took out this verse.
B-but this verse isn't the only verse that support Trinity.
Tch, SHOW me where in the Bible where it said "the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are ONE".
S H O W
H
O
W
>".... teach in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost."
Tch, I mean SHOW where it is SAID in the Bible where those THREE ARE ONE!!!
"T-there's none in the Bible."
"Yes, I'm proud of you anon. Now tell your friends."
>>
File: iswgith.gif (230KB, 350x247px) Image search:
[Google]
230KB, 350x247px
>>2194120
ancient indo-european mysticism
the trimurti comes to mind
but trinities are sacred in mysticism of many different cultural traditions
imo, it boils down to the trifore of man, nature, and god
man as the conscious being, sentient nature
nature as consciousness without individuation/ego
and god as the Prime Directive of both, or as the gate of transcendence or supreme end of both
>>
>>2194209
Just to add:
The idea of many gods in Christianity came from the Greek culture. The Greeks believe in many gods(Zeus, Jupiter, ect). Jesus introduced God's teaching to the Jews, Paul teach it to the Greek, Greek introduced many Gods, and spread the Trinity concept to the West.
>>
File: Three_kings_or_three_gods.jpg (1MB, 1566x2000px) Image search:
[Google]
1MB, 1566x2000px
>>2194213
The Indo-European trinities represented three social estates, clergy, military aristocracy, and commoners. I don't see what it has to do with the Christian trinity.
>>
>>2194240
the vedic trinity, and we know that the vedic religion is the oldest indo-european religion recorded, it represented the principles of destruction, creation/generation, and sustenance.
>>
>>2194209
>For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
I literally cannot see just because your tiny mind cannot conceive of the Trinity this contradicts 1 Corintians 14:33.
Also Matthew 28:19
>>
>>2194498
Yeah, sure bud. You can lie all you want. But all the "explain Trinity to me" threads on /his/ has been nothing but gibberish.
I'm just being honest.
>Mattheww 28:19
So? That verse has nothing to do with those three are one.
>>
>>2194120
>Where does the conceptualization of the Holy Trinity come from?
From Bible you uneducated, illiterate son of devil
Here have New Testament trinity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaXjVU05odE&index=4&list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TWpnOJV09MuEAwbbQNCS6Qf
Here have Old one
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNt5NKSse0Y&list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TWpnOJV09MuEAwbbQNCS6Qf&index=5
If you have objections
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHdquQpVPiU&list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TWpnOJV09MuEAwbbQNCS6Qf&index=6
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrmTjifCmw8&index=7&list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TWpnOJV09MuEAwbbQNCS6Qf
Even Jews knew this before get uberbutthurt over Jesus
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-aVQ8MELeg
>>
>>2195340
Woah woah woah, no need to be a dick. The OP ask a valid no question.
Anon, can't you make your own simple valid statement?
>>
>>2195376
>The OP ask a valid no question.
And I gave him valid answer
>The OP ask a valid no question.
And I gave him valid answer
>Giving material that is plain, easy to understand and pretty much don't leave questions about topic of "Where did Trinity came from" (It doesn't answer question "why?" but It wasn't a question in the first place) in way that I couldn't do because of lack of language skill
>Not valid
Really?
>>
>>2195399
Tch, fine. I'll watch it when I get home.
IMPORTANT:
Jesus speak Hebrew. In the Hebrew language, there're two types of plural.
Plural of number and
PLURAL OF RESPECT
GOD is sometimes referred to as PLURAL OF RESPECT, it's the genius of Hebrew language.
>>
>>2194134
Mentioning three things in the same sentence doesn't make them the same thing.
>>
>>2194120
>Holy Trinity
Most autistic concept in human history
>>
>>2195494
>Jesus speak Hebrew. In the Hebrew language, there are two types of plural.
He also spoke Greek. And his native language was Aramaic (See, Cephas).
Also in Hebrew Langue, when God is refere as one it doesn't mean unitarian fyi
>>
>>2195599
What? No, he speaks Hebrew. He speaks among the Jews, never to the gentile. Listen to what Jesus said:
Matthew 15:24:
He answered, "I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Israel(Jews)."
In the mission of preaching and healing, Jesus said:
Matthew 10:5 :
These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "DO NOT GO among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans.
Also he cried out during Crucifixion:
Eli eli lama sabachthani?(Hebrew)
Do you have basis for your claim? Besides, I'm also referring to the Old Testament.
>>
>>2195340
Watched a little bit, and it sounds like bollocks to me. An "angel of the lord" in the OT is supposed to be Jesus now, or something? Why was it never EXPLICITLY stated then? The passage I quoted was perhaps the most explicit thing you'll find, but it doesn't mean what you think it does. Jesus can be "one" with the father without being God. Everyone can. And that's the point.
I don't necessarily repudiate the trinity btw, I just think it's bollocks in terms of defining God completely. A few aspects of God perhaps, a divine trinity that shows a certain perspective of God. However Jesus was a necessary sacrifice, nothing more. Dirt, grime, filth, that was Jesus' life. He wallowed in it, and was crucified by it as thanks. How could such a being be God incarnate? The resurrection too, is a point I should probably dispute. Anyways, how is Jesus one with the father? As God incarnate, he performed his duty, I see that. But what if his duty was not nearly great enough? God's plan was to replicate the flea beetle to infinite? I see more than that on the horizon, I suppose. Jesus is one with the father in his poverty of the spirit. Jesus is a foe of power.
I love the scriptures. That is why I intend to get to the bottom of this. But a Christian I am not, so it's not like I intend to be heard by any ears here. Well, let's hope it was at least entertaining.
>>
>>2195635
>What? No, he speaks Hebrew.
Cephas, Rock name that he gave Simon is Aramaic.
Talitha kum, "Little Girl, I say to you, get up" is Aramaic.
Ephphatha, which is 'be opened' is Aramaic.
Abba which is "Father" is Aramaic.
Raca which is "Fool" - Aramaic.
And so on and so on.
He also used Greek when he spoke to romans, Pilate and amny others. He also quoted exclusively from Septuagint, Greek old testament, because Hebrew was dead languge and there was not one, complete Hebrew old testament. I doubt if even Torah was in original language by that time.
>He speaks among the Jews
Who spoke Aramic which is recoded in Bible and in Josephus work "Jewish history"
>never to the gentile
>Samaritan Woman
>Roman centurion
>Shittone of random listeners IN ROMAN EMPIRE
>No gentiles
>Matthew 15:24
It itself is spoken to gentile woman. Let's read more
But she came and adored him, saying: Lord, help me.
Who answering, said: It is not good to take the bread of the children, and to cast it to the dogs.
But she said: Yea, Lord; for the whelps also eat of the crumbs that fall from the table of their masters.
Then Jesus answering, said to her: O woman, great is thy faith: be it done to thee as thou wilt: and her daughter was cured from that hour.
Jesus spoke primaly to Jews, sure. But not exclusively. Read Acts 10 and 15 for more. Prophet Amos is also nice read.
>Matthew 10:5
Same shit. If you read whole chapter you will see why he did it - to gather Jews under new, Christian covenant.And what he will do them if they won't obey them. After his resurection, when law was fulfiled he spoke " Going therefore, teach ye A L L NATIONS"
for there was no more Jews, no Greek, they all were one in Christ.
>Eli eli lama sabachthani?
It's arameic. That's one. Second, you quoted to diffrent verions at once. In Mathew it's "Eli, Eli, LEMA sabachthani?". Version with "lama" is in Mark but it's "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?". In Hebrew it would be "ēlī ēlī lāmā ‘azabtānī"
>>
>>2195340
First, thanks for link. I respect civilized argument.
Now, NOWHERE in the link stated that THOSE THREE ARE ONE.
They just cherry picked those verses. I can also cherry pick my verse, for example, Jesus disclaiming he is god:
John 5:30;
I can of mine own self do nothing.
Now, let's look at the John 5:7 in RSV:
For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three AGREE in one.
They only AGREE, not they're one.
Unless you can show me where in the bible where those three are one, then Trinity is just a fabrication.
>>
>>2195928
>Jesus's language
Ok, I take your word for it. Thanks f.a.m.
>gentile
Jesus said himself, "I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Israel."
The woman's child only heal because of her faith, Jesus never said he'll heal that child.
The bread are for the Jews, not for you and me.
>>
>>2195846
>Watched a little bit, and it sounds like bollocks to me.
Watch it again, maybe with dictionary.
> An "angel of the lord" in the OT is supposed to be Jesus now, or something?
Yes. "Angel" is not "kind" of something - it mean just "messenger". It is also synonyms to "Memra of YHWH" which is "Word of Lord". Watch last video.
>Why was it never EXPLICITLY stated then?
Why is not exactly stated that God is all-powerful? Why is not exactly started that God is omnipresent? Why is not exactly started that water is wet? Because inspired authors didn't comprehend stupidity of this claim that's why.
>The passage I quoted was perhaps the most explicit thing you'll find, but it doesn't mean what you think it does. Jesus can be "one" with the father without being God. Everyone can. And that's the point.
The passage that you quote states that a) Jesus is Son of God hence "he is greater than me" (note: Greater here means no difference in essence but in function) b) Jesus is God hence "I and My Father are one", "neither shall anyone snatch them out of MY hand" and immediately after that "no one is able to snatch them out of MY FATHER'S hand" and ofcourse " And I give them eternal life" (I i.e. Jesus do that only God can - giving eternal life). Watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzBesvLK5bE
> How could such a being be God incarnate?
He was literally perfect human. If God can dwell in a fucking bush of fire he can dwell in perfect, sinless human who is God's Image. In fact, it make more sense.
Listen you sound like muslim so I will give you something for muslims https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XM0Pjbkp3E4
>But what if his duty was not nearly great enough?
>Literally perfect, ultimate sacrafice
>not great enough
If I was Satan, I would give you standing ovation for such heresy
>Jesus is a foe of power.
Do you even New Testament? Revelation to be precise.
>>
>>2196003
>Now, NOWHERE in the link stated that THOSE THREE ARE ONE.
Przetłumacz
Do you have reading problems? Are you fucking deluded? Or are you just a dirty fucking muslim that is trained to not having logical process in your mind? ALL of those videos stated CLEAR and SIMPLE - TRINITY IS AS BIBLICAL AS GOD HIMSELF. For love Jesus' foreskin who can you don't understand it? It was so simply explained that even a nine years old would understand it.
>John 5:30
Jesus is Son of God. He is eternally begotten. He IS "The Son". It's literally in nicene creed.
If you would read whole chapter you would see that Jesus clearly, and I mean as clear as fucking crystal water states - he is divine.
>1 John 5:7 (not Jhon 5:7)
>AGREE in one.
In greek εἷς
Definition: one
Same word is used in Matthew 19:17 "There is only One who is good."
Also Douay-Rheims>RSV. And Vulagte>Any other translation. And orginal>Any transaltion.
>Unless you can show me where in the bible where those three are one, then Trinity is just a fabrication.
Isaiah 48. Whole chapter. Here, have comentary on it http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/trinity_isaiah_1.html
You are deluded faggot who is jest deluded twat. I will give one last source that deal with it's matter. Read it and vade retro http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm
>>
>>2196133
It is said somewhere that God knows every little hair on our heads. If that's true, then that's probably it for "omnipresent" or whatever, and even "all-powerful", as he knows everything because he shaped it all himself. And even these are issues that should probably be explicitly talked about as well. Where's the evidence for God being all-powerful? Who says he can't be overthrown? Why battle Satan at all even, if nothing's at stake? Why create him if so omnipresent and all-knowing? Did the authors comprehend that as well? Just wanted to point it out; I don't trust doctrines of Christianity, for good reason I feel. I don't trust much of anybody to read into complex sentence structures and metaphors and perfectly understand much of anything, and that's why I expect explicitness. It's nothing personal, I just don't much care for most people.
>>
>>2196133
>angel
Are you saying that angel is Jesus? Remember, the Trinity is Father, JESUS and holy ghosts.
>son of God
Anon, there're many Son of God. Look pic related.
Adam, Israel(another name for Prophet Jacob, Genesis 35:10), Ephraim, David, Jesus and the people in pic.
David is even called 'begotten' by God.
IMPORTANT:
There's a fabrication in John 3:16:
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
The word 'begotten' is TAKEN OUT, because it wasn't supposed to be there in the first place.
SO, God only have one "begotten" son, THAT IS DAVID, NOT JESUS.
>eternal life
This refers to life in heaven. If you righteous things(which is Jesus's teachings), then heaven is a place for you.
Ezekiel 18:21:
"But if a wicked person turns away from all the sins they have committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, that person will surely live; they will not die(eternal life)."
>>
>>2196090
I already explained it. Go read WHOLE Gospels and WHOLE acts. Then come back, repent and apologise for sin against your own intellect.
>>2196252
You ask meaningless questions, really. It's logically impossible to God not to be omnipresent, all-powerful and all that divine shit. It's logical. You can read shitone of philosophical explonation why. Aquinas five ways are good for it.
For the same reason God cannot be nottriune. I will try to explain it for ya, but I recomed to read De trinitate by St. Richard of Saint Victor for he explains it better than I.
>There is God (insert here shittone of arguments that can proove it logically)
>God created Heaven and Earths.
>To be creator of everything God must be ultimately perfect.
>If God is ultimately perfect then he have to be One becouse nature of ultimate perfectness demands it and laws of Logic apply to God too.
>To create something God had to have reason for it for if he is ultimate perfectness he don't do anthing unnecessary.
>The only reason for creation is Love.
From this we can couclude that:
1) God cannot be untarian for if he was he would be depend on his creation to feel love
2)He cannot be unitarian for even if he wasn't depend on his creation to feel Love then he would be
a)Selfish, and selfish love is not perfect love and cannot not be perfect in his atributes
b)There wouldn't be reason to God to create anything at all for he would be selfsustaining in his Love
Thus God cannot be untarian. He still have to be One though so only conclusion is that God is multipersonal (which would als fit in fact that he is greater in all atributes than his creations)
>If God was only Two Divine Persons then his Love for himself would be exclusive
Thus God cannot be Duoune.
>If God is Three Divine Persons then his love isinclusive and he could create anything.
>If God is more than Three then his inclusiveness wouldn't be greater and since He is perfect there is nothing not necessary in him.
Therefore God is Triune
>>
>>2196291
>Are you saying that angel is Jesus? Remember, the Trinity is Father, JESUS and holy ghosts.
No. Trinity is Father, Son (Logos) and Holy Spirit. Messenger (Angel) can b reffer as (Logos). Not to mention that names are non-issue.
>Anon, there're many Son of God. Look pic related.
First of all Jesus acknowledge it. "Son of God" is not divine title. "Son of Man" hoever is. Read Daniel
>This refers to life in heaven.
I know to what is referse you dummy. My point was Jesus is GIVER of Life. GIVER. Atribute of God and noone besides him.
>>
>>2196244
>przetlumacz
As I said, I can also cherry pick my verse, for example, Jesus disclaiming divinity, Mattheww 19:17.
>Mattheww 19:17:
And he said unto him, Why do you call me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if you will enter into life, keep the commandments.
Look closely, Jesus said "why do you call me good? There's none good but God". According to Jesus, he's not even worthy to be called good, much less a god. For that, I respect the man.
God is good, Jesus(according to him) is not worthy to be called good. This show that Jesus reject himself to be divine.
>link
>Isaiah 48
...too long. Can you give me the gist of it?
>>2196351
>son of god
Yes, Jesus acknowledged he is the Son of God. But so what? Listen to Jesus,
John 10
>34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
Meaning in the Old Testament that the people are called gods(Exodus 7:1, psalm 82:6, 2 Corinthians 4:4)
>35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
If people are even called gods in the Old Testament, then why do the Jews should find fault in Jesus claiming to be JUST the Son of God?
>Giver of life
So what? It's just a miracle given to Jesus. Prophet Isaiah dry bone give life to a dead body, but is Isaiah a god? No.
>dummy
I'll kick you in the ribs if you used that filthy fucking language again.
>>
>>2196335
How can you call this philosophy? Where does it follow from that God must be perfect? Someone pulled it out of his ass. This shit is hilarious. It would be ideal for that particular "philosopher" for God to be perfect and to demonstrate perfect love, but nowhere does it follow logically that God has to be perfect. I mean, it's fun to read and whatever, but simply not true. The concept "God" merely means ultimate power. This is what I'm talking about. No Christian has any common sense. I mean I know I asked for it, but it's all so trite that I cannot bring myself to slog through it at this point. Maybe after I get some sleep.
>>
>>2196436
Oh, and just to add. The Jews are always looking for a fight. Any excuse will do? As the saying, "if you're looking for a fight, look around the corner".
Again, I respect your civilized argument.
>>
>>2196252
Bruh, He created the universe. He created us, a very complex organisms that have awareness. If He's weak, then no way He can do all this thing.
>>
>>2196529
He merely adapted us from what was already there, actually. I know because I saw it, or so it would seem. And it's true that it's likely that over infinite "time" that God would have eventually come to perfection, but we have no idea of the mechanics of what went on to speculate. We can only look at evidence around us, and say Yes to it, as if it were perfect.
>>
>>2196436
>Mattheww 19:17
Absolutely does not prove your point
http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/q_jesus_good.htm
>...too long. Can you give me the gist of it?
Oh I see that zou are a faggot. READ IT YOU DIP OF SHIT OR NOT ENAGE IN DISCCUSION.
>Yes, Jesus acknowledged he is the Son of God. But so what? Listen to Jesus,
I told you that you illiterate fuck. Song of God is NOT divine title. SON OF MAN IS. Read fucking Book of Daniel.
>So what? It's just a miracle given to Jesus. Prophet Isaiah dry bone give life to a dead body, but is Isaiah a god? No.
Prophets never claim to be giver of life. Jesus claimed that he himself is Giver of Life. Thus Jesus Claimed divinity.
>I'll kick you in the ribs if you used that filthy fucking language again.
Oh srry you illiteate dumpass. Not my falut that you cannot read becouse you are fucking singaporean fuck that listen only to his faggot prophet Muhhamed :^)
>Again, I respect your civilized argument.
You don't since you ignore arguments and don't know how to read.
>>
>>2196452
>How can you call this philosophy? Where does it follow from that God must be perfect?
Watch this for exemple https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQPRqHZRP68&list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TXf-YyDFKXw90izlvLZ14ka
Or read this https://summaphilosophiae.wordpress.com/2007/03/15/perfect-being-theology/
Or read Summa Theologica.
Or any fucking book abot philoshopy of theology and stop acting like a fucking nigger.
>>
>>2194120
There is one God (Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 45:5-6). Yet there are three persons presented as deity in Scripture: the Father (John 6:27; Colossians 1:3), the Son (John 1:1-3, 14; 8:24; 20:28-29; Romans 9:5; Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1; Hebrews 1:10-12) and the Holy Spirit (John 14:16-17; Acts 5:3-4; 2 Samuel 23:2-3; 2 Corinthians 3:18). Lastly, these three are presented as distinct persons (John 8:16-18; Luke 11:1; 3:21-22; Galatians 4:6). Thus from Scripture we learn that although there is one God, there are three distinct persons who are deity. So the Trinity is the biblical position to hold to once one examines what Scripture teaches.
>>
>>2196291
>the Trinity is Father, JESUS and holy ghosts.
Why do you know more about the Trinity than Allah, who claims in the Koran that the trinity is the doctrine that Jesus, God and Mary are three gods, when the trinity is that The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are the same God?
>>
>>2194182
Jesus is a man, both God and man, the God-man
>>
>>2194229
The trinity is ONE GOD. There are not many gods and not many lords, but one God the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ
>>
>>2195635
>No, he speaks Hebrew.
And Greek (He spoke to Pilate) and Aramaic, and every other language because He is God in the flesh
>I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Israel(Jews)
You're not even being fair to Matthew, since his gospel ends with a command to preach to all nations
>These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "DO NOT GO among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans.
See above
>Eli eli lama sabachthani?(Hebrew)
No, that's Aramaic. He's quoting from the Psalms
>>
>>2194120
Two souls and the energy they are made of. Separate but connected. The strength of people who understand the soul and the afterlife.
>>
>>2197333
The Pslam DOESNT even refer to Jesus. See:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2012/09/failed-prophecy-psalm-22/
Just wake up, I may or may not reply to all of you, depending on my stress level.
>>
>>2197913
*woke
>>
Father/God is the absolute, the truth. Thesis
Son is the one who fully abides by God. The perfect Antithesis.
The Holy Spirit is the resolution, how God will react. The Synthesis.
Those who are a conflicting antithesis to god face a shitty synthesis.
i was reading on this thread earlier and i came up with this after thinking about other stuff. comment subscribe and smash that mofuckin like button.
>>
>>2197092
You're a good guy dude. I appreciate the posts, even the ones I disagree with. The ontological argument makes perfect sense, actually. But.
Premise 1: Life maintains itself by feeding on other life.
Premise 2: God is alive.
Premise 3: God is evil. He eats his lambs so to speak.
The style isn't exactly proper, but this ontology stuff is merely common sense anyways. Just trying to show that the "hurrr he's god so must be a nice guy" argument is faulty.
>>
>>2197913
Muslims should be shot
>>
>>2197310
>>2197320
Yeah, sorry f.a.m., still confusing. It contradict 1 Corinthians 14:33:
For God is not the author of confusion...
Also look >>2194618
>>2197291
No, the Koran never said Trinity is the doctrine of Jesus. Jesus said, when ask 'which commandments is the first of all':
Mark 12:29:
"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.
>why?
...I don't want Jesus to cast you away:
Matthew 7:
21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’
Is he talking to the Hindus? Muslim? Jew? No, the one who heals the sick in the name of Jesus is you Christians. That's why I want to talk.
>>2197064
>Giver of life
Please elaborate
>Son of man, Daniel
ctrl f 'Daniel 7:13' in
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_man
Besides, that Son of Man will be given everlasting dominion, which Jesus doesn't:
John 18:36:
Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world...
>not reading argument
Which one? The link are still 404, sorry.
>>2197333
>not being fair
Look, you're also not being fair. You can't disregard Jesus's saying that he's ONLY sent to the lost sheep of Israel. The Father sent Jesus, to spread and fulfill the law of Moses to the Jews, NOT bringing a new religion:
Matthew 5:17:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
>>
>>2197310
Oh, and also, partialism is blasphemy, according to your Church.
>>
>>2199272
You're one of the most dishonest posters this board has ever had, put a bullet in your brain
>>
>>2199456
Maybe you're right. Part of me wants you to burn in hell.
BUT there's also part of me wants to break bread with you.
Let's break bread and talk. That's all I'm asking.
>>
>>2196351
Angel can be referred to as Logos? Where? Wasn't Logos is a title given ONLY to Jesus? Are you saying that that angel is Logos?
>>
>>2194120
>In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
this is a nice starting point for you.
>>
>>2195599
Jesus never existed, bro, Paul called Peter 'Cephas', we have no idea if that was his real name or just a name given to him because he was a leader of a religion.
>>
>>2199708
I just leave this here:
http://www.answering-christianity.com/john1_1.htm
>>
>>2199679
There's a firstborn angel that Philo called Logos
>>
>>2199785
Wait... angel having coitus and begets children? Sorry, but that's nonsense. Also, please show me where in the bible.
>>
>>2194498
What is the Council of Nicea?
>>
>>2199715
Show me where in the Bible where Jesus doesn't exist
>>
>>2199833
Genesis 6:4
There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.
>>
>>2194120
>Where does the conceptualization of the Holy Trinity come from?
1 John 5
This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
>>
>>2195527
Read it again.
"the name"
not "the names"
>>
>>2200067
Catholic rubbish.
>>
>>2199785
Philo never wrote of Jesus.
When Jesus is referred to as The Angel of The Lord in the OT, that does not mean that Jesus is an angel, or that Jesus is a created being.
Anything can be a messenger; "angel" means "messenger".
>>
>>2200626
That's not the point he's trying to make. The council of Nicea exist because there're separation in the Christians community regarding whether Jesus is God, human or semi-god.
If Trinity doesn't contradict the 1 Corintians 14:33, then how come the Christians are divided?
>>
>>
>>
>>2200618
Damn, I misunderstood. I meant that can you show me where the angel are refer to as 'Logos' in the bible. Again, sorry for the misunderstood.
Also, I doubt that 'angels' came in the daughter of men. Angels are spiritual, doesn't have flesh and bone. I doubt that they can produce sperms.
>>
>>2200607
Paul's letters, all he is, is a preexistent being from Heaven
>>
>>
>>2200727
>Anon... angels doesn't coitus and beget.
Literally the reason for the Flood. Literally.
Genesis 6:9
This is the genealogy of Noah. Noah was a just man, perfect in his generations. Noah walked with God.
Perfect in his generations.
Pure human.
>>
>>2199770
nobody cares what muslims think
>>
>>2200767
Those are not people.
Those are fallen angels. Demons. Who mated with human women and made the nephilim.
Giants.
And God's men (like Joshua, Caleb and David) are giant killers.
Numbers 13
33 And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.
>>
>>2200626
funny, it's from that same Catholic rubbish you retarded protestants get your Bible.
>>
>>2200831
That primarily comes from a profound misunderstanding of what "the firstborn of all creation" means.
It's a position, a status; Jesus is the heir to all creation.
It does not mean Jesus was a created being; Paul makes that clear in his letter to the Colossians:
Colossians 1:16 For by him (Jesus) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
Jesus created this universe, lost this universe, redeemed this universe, and will destroy this universe, taking all who want to go with him into a new one.
>>
>>2198332
Premise 1: Does not include spirit beings. God is a spirit beings. Spirit beings have no need to eat live things.
Premise 2: God is alive. He is also eternal. As a spirit being, he has no need to eat any live beings, nor were there any live beings to eat prior to him making them.
Premise 3: When you think God is evil, you have a problem with God. You are listening to the devil about God, and the devil only lies.
God does not eat his lambs, he adopts them into his family as children.
>>
>>2200857
By him all things were created, meaning he was a pre-existent being and god's agent of creation
>>
>>2200703
No, there were some gnostics running about saying that Jesus did not come down from heaven in the flesh, and could not be God.
Even Catholics can tell gnostics are full of shit.
Christians are divided due to the lingering carnality of human beings in our flesh; Paul said as much.
True Christians are not divided at all, but unified as one by the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit.
And if people want to worship God in the Spirit in different ways, I don't see the problem.
>>
>>2194120
its realy old
they started by conceptualising god and his ''essence'', which mattered for reasons, like if god manifests on the material plane like gods often do in myths, is it realy god, or just a manifestation of what god is
then there was the whole egiptian thing, where you had god, the thought of god, the breath of god, the word of god, all personified as different entities
so you get to the son of god, being either his thought or his word, not that it makes much difference in the context
then the greek notion of logos comes in
then the whole idea of a divine spirit, permeating all
eventualy it gets systematised into a trinity
in a sense its a way to represent the divine as a personal self, since a self cannot be unles it relates to itself
>>
>>2200818
Angels are never "logos"; John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.....and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.
Jesus is the Word of God.
>>
>>2200854
Bible was finished centuries before there were any catholics to bastardize it, add books to it, etc.
Nice try though.
>>
>>2200863
It means Jesus is God; Jesus is the Creator.
>>
>>2200865
the gnostic ''jesus'' was a divinity, a aeon, separate from christ, aeons cannot die, they can only fool around pretending to be humans but thats a illusion
gnosticism isnt realy about the same stuff monotheist abrahamic religion is about so their definition of god isnt realy the same
the abrahamic god is a fool to them, a sort of cosmic autist that cant help fucking shit up
>>
>>2200892
Gnostics do not, nor does anyone else, have a right to make up their own Jesus.
>>
>>2200875
john is heavily influenced by gnosticism, people even call it a gnostic gospel
in that context christ is the word of god, as in christianity jesus-christ is the word incarnate
that all things were created by him and without him nothing was created means all things are the manifestation, incarnation, of the word
in that sense we are all incarnations of the word, same as jesus
>>
>>2200875
Is that why there were people who argued Jesus was a created being, Philo also calls the Logos the firstborn
>>
>>2200896
but you do?
>>
>>2200899
Do you even know what being the word means?
>>
>>2200903
what does it mean?
>>
>>2200907
It means being the Word of creation, god spoke and it was
>>
>>2200623
You wouldn't say "names" you fuckwit
>>
>>2200916
dont see the difference, thats what ''the word of god'' means in this context, cosmogonies with a ''word of god'' usualy mean the word is incarnated, materialised, as what is
egiptians had this, hindus have this, abrahamic religions have this, its just basic cosmogony
in christianity the main character is the incarnated word, the word became flesh and dwelled among us
but this goes for all of creation, we are all equaly the incarnated word
its a myth, it has a point, dont you get it?
>>
>>2200975
I know that it's a myth but I used to think it meant that Jesus is the Hebrew Bible that dwelt among us, which would make sense what with all the call backs and remakes of Old Testament stuff
>>
>>2196244
>>2197064
My internet eat rectum meat. Can someone make a pastebin of the answering-islam link?
>>2200621
See >>2194209 and >>2196003
>>2200857
How about David? David is the ONLY begotten Son >>2196291 and Psalm 89:27;
And I will appoint him to be my FIRSTBORN, the most exalted of the kings of the earth.
>>2200827
Bruh
>>2200831
>Jewish angelology
Regardless, it's also the Christians angelology.
>>2200852
And these fallen angels/demon are referee to as 'Son of God'?
>>2200865
>some
Anon, no. A huge chunk disagree with other huge chunks.
A NOT CONFUSING concept will have only a small chunk of disagreement, but this is NOT the case for Trinity.
>don't divide
Anon... There're right now more than 33000 Christians denominations. All of them are DIFFERENT and all of them claim to have the Holy Spirit. Why does Holy spirits guide them to all different directions? Instead of one direction?
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a106.htm
>>2200868
Yes, exactly. The angel of YHWH is never Logos to begin with. Meaning that in the OT there was never a Trinity concept.
>>2200863
>>2200875
Wait... through him? Jesus does not create us? 'Through him' is like saying he's some kinds of tool or something. Not to be rude.
Besides, Jesus said:
John 5:30:
By myself I can do nothing...
>>
ITT: Mentally retarded proddies who take everything in the bible as literal.
These threads are getting old, they boil down to the same shit every time.
>>
>>2200927
Don't you have three different names, but all mean you?
Mind = blown
>>
>>2203045
Jesus didn't actually physically say anything.
If Angels are never Logos then why did Philo talk about a firstborn angel named Joshua (Jesus) in Jewish angelology?
You do know some Jews used to worship angels, right?
>>
>>2203135
But remember, they're also distinct.
>>
I get where the Holy Spirit comes from, it's explicitly mentioned several times, but Jesus as God seems to have flown over my head. He mentions several times that the Father is within him, or that he was sent by the Father, but I think I missed the part where he says specifically that he is God.
Reading the Bible, I can see where Arius took his particular interpretation of it.
>>
>>2203149
They also worships Golden calf, but Moses and God get real mad. The Jew as a whole, during the time of Moses, worship only one God.
But the angel worshippers(citation/link needed) are only Jews that stray from the straight path.
Besides, if Trinity really does exist in the OT, then there got to be some verse that Jews worships the angel of YHWH and spirit of YHWH, which is NOT the case.
>why he talk?
The hell do I know. I never read angelology. I never even know what the angelology book is about.
>Joshua(Jesus)
Joshua is the disciples of Moses, not Jesus.
>>
>>2203187
*why he talk about the angel of firstborn
>>
I love Jesus, no homo.
>>
>>2203187
The fact that it is seen as a heresy in Judaism is evidence that Jews were doing it.
Moses also never existed.
>>
>>2203223
>never existed
Bruh
>worship angel
Again, I never heard of this. Link needed.
>>
>>2203246
Because you haven't been studying the work of the right historians, that's why
>>
>>2203223
Just to add, if Moses really did teach Trinity, then the large chunks of Jews must have worship angel and spirit of YHWH. As the Jews obey Moses.
The small chunks doesn't represent the whole community, which only means that the small chunks stray from the right path. Because the Jews as a whole keep and accept Moses teaching.
>>
>>2203279
Fine, just give me link where Philo said the firstborn angel is Logos.
>'right historians'
...yeah, it up to debate.
>>
>>2203296
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo's_view_of_God#The_Logos
Jesus is supposed to be that 'Joshua', it takes cross referencing to find it out
>>
>>2203310
From what I understand from reading this is:
1. Philo believe that Logos is single independent being
2. Logos is the 'firstborn of God'
So Logos is 'firstborn of God'? There's only two 'firstborn of God', Jacob and David. Since Jacob(Israel) is not begotten, so that's only leave David(the begotten Son of God). Is David 'Logos'?
Also, Jesus is not begotten. See >>2196291.
Jesus, I think, never referred as 'firstborn of God', neither the angel.
If all my argument is true, then Philo referring Logos as 'archangel of many names' is just an idiom, kind of like how he refers Logos as 'Heavenly Adam'.
Am I wrong?
>>
>>2203440
Logos was a celestial being, bro, not a human one
>>
>>2203440
Actually someone who may have been a contemporary of Paul calls Jesus the firstborn of all creation and Paul calls God 'formless' and having 'invisible properties' from that you can surmise Jesus was an agent of creation and thus an angel, the body of 'god'
>>
>>2203469
>celestial being
Logos, is the 'firstborn of god'. I can't think any person/being in the bible other than David and Jacob is refer to as 'firstborn of God'. Jesus is never referred as such, I think.
>>2203484
Sorry, but I'm having a hard time trusting that someone. It not in the Bible. That 'someone' might be wrong, so I stick with the Bible.
>>
>>2203526
http://biblehub.com/colossians/1-15.htm
>Not in the Bible
>>
>>2203535
Oh, thanks. But which son?
Besides, he is merely JUST a Son of God, not begotten. Listen to what Jesus said in John 10.
In that chapter, the Jews accused Jesus for claiming divinity. See how Jesus refute them, >>2196436.
As for reasons why the Jews stone him, see >>2196458.
Seeing how Jesus refute them, it as if he's disclaiming divinity.
>>
>>2203593
Apparently THE Son, not A son like in the Old Testament, that's all we have to go by as it doesn't say 'begotten son'. Begotten isn't used once by Paul.
>>
>>2203617
The 'Son of God' is an idiom in the language of the Jews. It's used for 'pious person'. That's why you seen the usage of 'son of god' in the OT.
This is the reason why Jesus refute them in John 10. Not literally he is the 'Son of God', but a pious person. By refuting, I mean disclaiming divinity.
Look, John 10( I advised you read the whole chapter):
Jew's accusations:
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.
Jesus's refutation:
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
If he really is THE Son, then why did he refute them?
>>
>>2203716
I don't care about that, I don't think the Bible has any historical value
>>
>>2203741
This is what your master said. It holds more weight than what other people(Paul, John, Philo, ect).
No historical value? Yeah, I've no comment about that.
>>
>>2203766
Jesus isn't my master, bro, I'm an Atheist. I'm not that dude you've been arguing with
>>
>>2203771
Oh, an atheist? Then listen to this argument:
According to scientists, the universe has an ultimate beginning.
Meaning that before the universe, there was nothing.
According to the law of physics, we can't create something out of nothing.
Following this logic, we shouldn't exist in the first place, but somehow we do.
Thus, there's 'something' that can bypass this law(creating something out of nothing). And that 'something' is God.
Agree?
>>
>>2203771
Atheist rejects the idea of the universe have a beginning, because it must meant that some kind of deity must be involved.
So, they're saying that the universe has been existed since forever.
Ever heard of the Second Law of Thermodynamics? It stated that things will become more disorder over time, until it achieved equilibrium.
IF the universe really did exist since forever, then how come that the universe aren't in equilibrium(same temperature, brightness, matter, ect everywhere)? See Heat Death.
>>
>>2203792
>Before the universe there was nothing
Literally no Scientist says this
>According to the law of physics, we can't create something out of nothing
Who said the something was 'created'?
>Following this logic, we shouldn't exist in the first place, but somehow we do
Your personal incredulity is not logic
>Thus, there's 'something' that can bypass this law(creating something out of nothing). And that 'something' is God
Even if there was a nothing and how did nothing begetting nothing become a 'law'? A law of what? Logic? Your 'logic' depends on a strict definition of 'nothing'.
>And that 'something' is God
Could be anything, it could not be conscious at all, if indeed there was a nothing that you describe. The logic doesn't follow that
'something' that can bypass this 'law' is god.
>Agree
No, I don't, obviously.
>>
>>2203803
>Atheist rejects the idea of the universe have a beginning, because it must meant that some kind of deity must be involved
No, it most certaintly doesn't mean that. You must demonstrate your god exists before it could mean that. You can't argue your god into existence
>>
>>2203803
Also, the universe is not an isolated system
>>
>>2203810
>isolated system
The (entire) universe is an isolated system. The OBSERVABLE universe is an open system. Google "universe an isolated system".
>>2203807
Do you know how scientists prove the existence of blackhole? We can't see blackhole, but we can see the blackhole effects it surrounding. Same with my argument.
>>
>>2203805
>literally no scientists said this
Yes, but they say that the universe have a beginning.
>nothing
God is something, which have existed before time and space itself
>incredulity
We both in the same boat
>'law'
Then you're saying that 'something' can came out of 'nothing'? Nah, I rather follow my logic.
My second argument still stand.
>>
>>2203842
But the universe came about in a way where there doesn't NEED to be a god
Why would there be one? For your convenience?
Apparently nothing god does shows up as an interaction within the universe the same as it does with a black hole. Except religious experiences, which is your best evidence for the existence of a god and that has been demonstrated to be unreliable.
>>
>>2203857
>Yes, but they say that the universe have a beginning
But they say the universe was pre-existent in a singularity.
>God is something, which have existed before time and space itself
Firstly, define your god properly. Secondly, what does it mean to EXIST before time and space?
>We both in the same boat
Except I'm not making any positive statements
>Then you're saying that 'something' can came out of 'nothing'? Nah, I rather follow my logic
Not the nothing you're positing. But a Scientific nothing, yes
>>
>>2203861
Nah, my best evidence that we exist.
Prove by observation:
Blackhole: it swallows the surrounding matters
God: we exist
Look, the physics law, including Quantum Mechanics, stated that 'something' can't came out from 'nothing'.
If you bring out Krauss argument, he's just using a pseudo-nothing. Not an actual 'nothing'.
>came in a way where it doesn't need god
Nah, it's impossible
>>
>>2203873
>God: we exist
Non-sequitur
>Look, the physics law, including Quantum Mechanics, stated that 'something' can't came out from 'nothing'
There's currently and literally no law that states this
>If you bring out Krauss argument, he's just using a pseudo-nothing. Not an actual 'nothing'
No, he's using the 'this kind of thing happens naturally' "nothing"
>Nah, it's impossible
My personal incredulity
And don't say we're in the same boat because we're not, I can grasp the concept of a god, it's just not necessary to explain the universe's and our existence
>>
>>2203867
>singularity
Again, even if that singularity is 'something' and existed since forever, then how come it wait forever(if that singularity have no beginning) to blow up(big bang)?
If it have existed since forever, then it must have achieved equilibrium. Why do it need to blow up?
I'll tell you why. Because it's not existed since forever. It's blow up because that way it can increase it entropy. And it's still increasing right now.
>what does it mean to exist before time and space?
God is, dare I say it, a God.
>scientific nothing
It's not the 'nothing' pre-universe existence.
>literally no law stated this
There's also no law stated that 'something' can came out of 'nothing'. Krauss theory only use pseudo-nothing, not an actual nothing.
>Krauss
Again, pseudo-nothing. See
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Universe_from_Nothing
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_ie9musGEqQ
>incredulity
Fucking fine
>>
>>2203934
>>singularity
Again, even if that singularity is 'something' and existed since forever, then how come it wait forever(if that singularity have no beginning) to blow up(big bang)?
Firstly, it didn't 'blow up' it expanded. Secondly, they think it may have been a collision with another universe that helped expand the singularity. Wouldn't need a god, just seems random to me. This is not an idea Krauss even likes but it's an induction
>I'll tell you why. Because it's not existed since forever. It's blow up because that way it can increase it entropy. And it's still increasing right now.
You ask a question then answer your own question with 'god did it'. 'god did it' doesn't make any testable predictions and it doesn't answer anything. It's a non-answer you use to fill in whatever you think we don't understand.
>God is, dare I say it, a God
Define 'god'
>There's also no law stated that 'something' can came out of 'nothing'. Krauss theory only use pseudo-nothing, not an actual nothing
The more and more Science answers questions, the more and more you'll move the goalposts about this 'nothing'
>InspiringPhilosophy
He quote mines and takes people out of context then also misrepresents the data.
I take it you've never actually read Krauss' book?
>>
>>2203957
>didn't blow up
Yes, it expands. Great Inflation of the Universe, over a very very short period of time. A drastic change. That the singularity undergoes.
>convenient answer
No, what I'm saying is it's impossible for the universe to exist since forever, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Thus, saying that the universe have a beginning.
>God
All powerful, Creator, can do the impossible
>stray from goalposts
What do you mean? Krauss 'nothing' aren't the same as an actual 'nothing'.
Besides, my goal is to prove the universe have an ultimate beginning, which I did in my entropy argument.
>takes people out of context then also misrepresents the data
Yes, we all do this in stating our case. Same with Krauss. Besides, what's important is, is his argument invalid? I 'think' it valid.
>never read
Still read, not finished
>>
>>2204035
Just to add:
*the singularity undergoes, which shouldn't even make sense if the singularity is in equilibrium. Since it's a drastic change, not minor.
>>
>>2204035
The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you.
>No, what I'm saying is it's impossible for the universe to exist since forever, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Thus, saying that the universe have a beginning
There is no second law of thermodynamics in a singularity.
>All powerful, Creator, can do the impossible
Why would their need to be one? Because of your lack of understanding in Physics and Quantum Physics?
>What do you mean? Krauss 'nothing' aren't the same as an actual 'nothing'
Your definition of nothing is ad hoc, you use the word nothing to prove a god exists as when Science doesn't meet your definition of nothing, you put in the place of it 'god'
>Yes, we all do this in stating our case. Same with Krauss. Besides, what's important is, is his argument invalid? I 'think' it valid
No he doesn't because Science has lead to a naturalist philosophy in every aspect of it in which a god isn't needed. You're so stuck on this first cause because you want your god to be real, you're not following the evidence where it leads.
>Still read, not finished
All you've refuted it with is semantics and a god-of-the-gaps argument.
>>
>>2205666
>there's no second law of thermodynamics in singularity
Wrong. Blackhole is a singularity and scientists said that it have high entropy.
If you insist that it doesn't have entropy, then how come the singularity wait since forever to blow up?
>because of my lack of understanding
What? I've used scientific argument. You tell me where have I gone wrong in my argument.
>nothing
Ok anon, what's 'nothing' to you?
>Krauss a naturalist
Do you even read the reception of his book on Wikipedia? Scientis said his theory has massive flaws because of his abuse the term 'nothing'.
>not following the evidence
Tell me where I don't follow the evidence.
You're also want to believe that there's no God as I want to believe there's one. Admit it, you incredulity is the same as mine.
>refuted
All I've refuted based on science, the Second law of Thermodynamics.
>>
>>2206179
>Wrong. Blackhole is a singularity and scientists said that it have high entropy
Gravitational singularity.
>If you insist that it doesn't have entropy, then how come the singularity wait since forever to blow up?
We don't know how long it took to go from a singularity to a Universe, only how long it took for it to expand.
>What? I've used scientific argument. You tell me where have I gone wrong in my argument
Well, first you confused a naked singularity for a gravitational singularity
>Ok anon, what's 'nothing' to you?
Virtual particles with no purpose
>Do you even read the reception of his book on Wikipedia? Scientis said his theory has massive flaws because of his abuse the term 'nothing'
Semantics
>You're also want to believe that there's no God as I want to believe there's one. Admit it, you incredulity is the same as mine
Atheism isn't a claim, it's the rejection of a claim. I follow the evidence where it leads. I don't know if there's a god, but it's unlikely. Therefore, not personal incredulity
>All I've refuted based on science, the Second law of Thermodynamics
Sure, if you say so
>>
>>2206333
>singularity
The singularity before the big bang has all the universe matter in a very small space. Anyway, my point is, singularity follow the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
>don't know how long
Regardless, atheist said that the universe have no ultimate beginning. So it existed forever.
Don't you think it weird that the singularity that existed since forever to suddenly undergoes a drastic change and explode? Why did it wait forever to explode?
If the it truly exist since forever, then it should become stable, not unstable and kaboom.
>confused singularity
Ok, so you're saying that different singularity follow different laws? Are there even more than one singularity?
Besides, all matter of the universe is compressed in a small space before the big bang, partially, if not, fully resemble a blackhole mechanics.
>semantics
What the hell is that?
>virtual particles with no purpose
Yeah, sorry bud. My 'nothing' is 'lack of everything'. Your 'nothing' is 'quantum fluctuations in the lacking space-time or matter'
And yes, my 'nothing' is the same 'nothing' that Richard Feymann understand. Watch the video in >>2203934.
>I don't know whether there's god
God has no obligation to exist or not exist whether you believe it or not.
>sure, if you say so
Yeah, but what do you really think? That I'm pulling all of this out of my arse?
>>
Great job derailing the thread, faggots.
>>
>>2206668
Eat shit, fucking filthy uretra. The thread was long dead since no one talk about Trinity anymore.
>>
>>2206516
>The singularity before the big bang has all the universe matter in a very small space. Anyway, my point is, singularity follow the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
We don't know the physics of the naked singularity
>Don't you think it weird that the singularity that existed since forever to suddenly undergoes a drastic change and explode? Why did it wait forever to explode?
Because it's random, it has no schedule to go by, there is no purpose.
>If the it truly exist since forever, then it should become stable, not unstable and kaboom
Unstable and kaboom? What are you a child? The fact that it became unstable is evidence that there's no 'perfect energy' responsible for a singularity.
>Ok, so you're saying that different singularity follow different laws? Are there even more than one singularity?
We don't know what physics the 'first cause' singularity followed
>Besides, all matter of the universe is compressed in a small space before the big bang, partially, if not, fully resemble a blackhole mechanics
Non-sequitur
>What the hell is that?
Look it up
>eah, sorry bud. My 'nothing' is 'lack of everything'. Your 'nothing' is 'quantum fluctuations in the lacking space-time or matter'
And yes, my 'nothing' is the same 'nothing' that Richard Feymann understand. Watch the video in >>2203934.
I don't care what Richard Feynman defined 'nothing' as, his understanding of the universe was different than the understanding we have today. He died in 1988. It's 2017.
>God has no obligation to exist or not exist whether you believe it or not
Apparently, he HAS to exist or nothing complex makes sense to you.
>Yeah, but what do you really think? That I'm pulling all of this out of my arse?
I think you need to actually go to University and study Physics
>>
ITT:
>Retarded Muslims post the same stupid, biblically illiterate arguments ceaselessly
>Proddies get buttmad and sperg
>Atheist BTFO scientifically impaired retard
Muslims use interpretations of the Greek/Hebrew that are... shaky at best.
Christian interpretation is too often taken to be ironclad even though (I believe trinitarian doctrine is the most logical conclusion) it certainly isn't
Please just shut the fuck up, this is as bad as the retards that spam their opinions of the Qur'an and Islam despite knowing jack shit
>>
>>2206725
>naked singularity
>no schedule
*initial singularity. Apparently it some kind of a gravitational gravity. Here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_singularity
Yes, we don't know the physics of gravitational singularity, but we do know that this gravitational singularity has something to do with increasing entropy.
>what are you a child?
Yes
>'perfect energy'
Yeah, sorry. I don't understand. Please elaborate.
A universe with no ultimate beginning should be stable, not unstable. As in doesn't undergoes drastic change, big bang, great inflation, ect.
>non-sequitur
>semantics
I look it up, it said it's a branch of linguistic and reasoning. Please use simple words, linguistic is not my area.
>died in 1988
So what? His knowledge is still relevant to this days. And so is Einstein's.
Beside, the your 'quantum fluctuations' 'nothing' isn't an actual 'nothing'. Did you watch the video?
>he HAS to exist or you won't understand
Yes, the universe is complex as all hell. Navier-stokes, Higgs Boson, blackhole, quarks, Schrondinger cat, ect.
Way TOO complex for God not to exist.
>university
I am
>>2206822
>shaky
Literally where are my argument is shaky? I used what Jesus HIMSELF said, not the Apostles.
>>
Okay so, here's a little argument I want to leave in favor of the doctrine of Trinity.
(1) God is the only timeless, changeless being.
(2) God is a loving, personal being.
(3) Love (agape) can only be a real property if there are at least two differenr persons.
(4) Therefore, in order for (1) and (2) to be true, God requires another timeless being to love (3). However, that being could only be Himself.
(5) Therefore, God needs to be a multipersonal being.
(6) Therefore, God is one being yet at least two persons.
>>
>>2206945
>I used what Jesus said himself
Yeah, this is generally the default argument of Muslims and it's weak.
The apostles recorded what Jesus said, there is a reason why they lead the church- they were agreed to be the leaders.
The text and Jesus himself imply heavily that he is claiming divinity. Why the fuck do you think the Jews wanted to murder Jesus? He was blaspheming. If Paul was corrupting the teachings of Jesus like you guys like to claim, why the fuck were the churches just going along with it?
The epistles were among the earliest things written (about 50's AD) and there would have been plenty of people around who had spent time with Jesus and the apostles.
>>
>>2207008
>it's weak
Why? Just because I quote Jesus? You're saying that your master saying is weak?
>apostles teaching
It doesn't even hold any weight compare to Jesus quote
>divinity
Ok anon. Answer me. Why did he REFUTE the Jews in >>2203716?
If he really is literally the begotten son of god? Also see >>2196291.
>Why do Jews want to murder him?
Because they doesn't like his teaching. What is Jesus's teaching? To follow the Moses teaching, NOT introducing a new religion.
Matthew 5:17:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
Also see, >>2196458.
>why do they go along with it?
I tell you why. You Christians wants someone take the blame and punished for your sins.
>>
>>2207099
Top kek, all of that shit was refuted already. I'm not getting sucked into your retarded game where you just repeat shit over and over.
Try to explain away John 8:58 please.
>>
>>2206979
>God is a loving, personal being
Proofs
>God requires another timeless being to love
Proofs
>>
>>2206945
>Yes, we don't know the physics of gravitational singularity, but we do know that this gravitational singularity has something to do with increasing entropy
The entropy was equal to 0 at the Big Bang, the net energy of the universe is 0.
>Yes
Oh
>Yeah, sorry. I don't understand. Please elaborate
Perfect stable energy most likely doesn't exist is what I'm saying.
>A universe with no ultimate beginning should be stable, not unstable
It might be that the only reason the Big Bang happened is that another universe collided with our singularity.
>Beside, the your 'quantum fluctuations' 'nothing' isn't an actual 'nothing'
It's nothing in a Scientific sense because it doesn't seem to need a god to explain it.
>Way TOO complex for God not to exist
More god of the gaps arguments
>I am
But are you studying Physics or Q. Physics?
>>
>>2207173
Why are you even bothering with this guy?
>>
>>2207128
If God is timeless, changeless and loving, and love can only exist when you have a subject to love, the only way God can be timelessly and changelessly loving is if there's another timeless subject to love.
>>
>>2207192
I have no idea
>>
>>2194120
further proof that religion is a pillar of civilisation
>>
>>2207224
>I have no idea
...
......
.........
You're making me sad, I'll reply to you in a little while.
>>2207118
What's with you Christians with 'I AM'?
'I AM' is merely 'I am'.
The 'I am' in that verse is 'ego emi'. Which is MERELY 'I am'. Not 'I AM'.
Let's look:
>Jews: "You're yet 50 and you've seen Abraham?"
>Jesus: " before Abraham born, *God's name*."
Literally why? The Jews ask a question. Jesus give a completely irrelevant answer with out-of-placed 'God's name'.
The more logical is 'before Abraham was born, I am'(merely I am). And this is correct.
Seeing as Abraham was born first, and Jesus was born later.
EXPLANATION:
Before we were born, God created us in a form of soul. We were in the spritual realm.
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; (Jeremiah 1:5)"
It's at this time that Jesus know Abraham in the spritual realms. This is more logical explanation.
Besides, the greek work in that verse is also the same as the greek work in John 3:28:
"You yourselves testify that I said, '""""""""I am"""""""""" not the Christ,' but, 'I have been sent before him.'"
This is John the Baptist is talking. Worship him if that 'I am' is God's name.
Here for more, yet I doubt you even have the balls to look it up, but here:
http://www.answering-christianity.com/iam.htm
>have refuted
Bet you can't even form a single argument
>>
>>2207273
I think it's pretty obvious what Jesus meant by ego eimi, considering his audience grabbed stones to throw them at Him yet He didn't rephrase his speech.
>>
>>2207173
>net entropy is 0
Anon... do you know what entropy is? The net entropy CANNOT go down. It's always increasing, even right now.
At the beginning is not 0, it's low.
>might
Some scientists also says that the earth is flat. That theory is not well accepted because of contradictions.
>perfect energy
Yeah sorry bud. In entropy, there's only two types of energy, "useful" and "useless".
Are you saying that the universe is forever unstable? No, because every unstable incidents used useful energy and turn it into useless. Since the useless energy CANT be converted back to useful, it's impossible that the universe exist since forever.
>nothing
Look, that's still pseudo-nothing. My nothing is 'lack of everything', a Feymann nothing, not even space, like my soul.
>university
Main in mathematics, but also take some physics and QM.
>>2207295
See >>2196458 because they were never fond of that man to begin with. By not fond, I mean always want to kill him.
Besides, any normal people would run if the crowd are throwing stones at him.
>>
>>2207173
Oh, just to add: scientists literally said that Krauss abused the term nothing.
>>
>>2207273
Exodus 3:14 says I am is a divine name. But you already know that
Have fun in hell anon, I don't envy you.
>>
>>2207273
>b-but why didnt he say I Am That I Am
The Tetragrammaton is shortened to simply I Am multiple times, now please drop this idiotic argument.
>Before we were born, God created us in a form of soul. We were in the spritual realm.
>It's at this time that Jesus know Abraham in the spritual realms. This is more logical explanation.
I like how you say that Jesus quoting Exodus here makes no sense and then go ahead and reply with something that makes even less sense in the context of the Bible.
>Besides, the greek work in that verse is also the same as the greek work in John 3:28:
>"You yourselves testify that I said, '""""""""I am"""""""""" not the Christ,' but, 'I have been sent before him.'"
This ignores any context whatsoever, but nice try, context definitely isn't extremely important in language at all bud.
>In John 8:56-58, John is expounding his belief that Jesus had a prehuman existence as an angelic being in heaven. John's Jesus is proclaiming here that this prehuman existence began before Abraham was born: "Before Abraham came into being, I am."
>In no honest way can John's statement be taken to identify Jesus as God.
Yes, it totally makes sense in this context Jesus would invoke the well known first section of the Tetragrammaton to tell them that he used to be an angelic being. No, it actually doesn't make sense. At all.
>B-but he didnt say it in Greek!
Beside the point, meanings can be carried over between languages.
>>
>>2207362
That says net energy.
>Some scientists also says that the earth is flat. That theory is not well accepted because of contradictions
How do they compare?
>Are you saying that the universe is forever unstable? No, because every unstable incidents used useful energy and turn it into useless. Since the useless energy CANT be converted back to useful, it's impossible that the universe exist since forever
No one's saying the Universe as we know it existed forever, that's not what they say.
>Look, that's still pseudo-nothing. My nothing is 'lack of everything', a Feymann nothing, not even space, like my soul
You just presume the existence of a soul without any testable evidence?
>Main in mathematics, but also take some physics and QM
You sure about that, famalingo?
>>
>>2207396
It doesn't matter what Scientists say, it matters what the evidence says
>>
>>2207407
Yes exactly. Now worship John the Baptist.
>>2207423
>exodus
I never said Jesus quoting Exodus. I'm providing more logical answer. Have you read the link?
>less sense
>ignore context
Yeah, sure bud.
Jews: "You're yet 50 and you've seen Abraham?"
Yours:
Jesus: " before Abraham born, *God's name*."
Mine:
Jesus: " before Abraham born, I am"
Your out-of-placed *God's name* answer to an irrelevant questions does make more sense and doesn't ignore the context.
>it logical for Jesus to utter the fist of Tetragrammaton
Same can be said with John the Baptist
>meaning can be carried
Yes, but it's often misunderstood, like the term 'son of god'. See >>2203716.
>>
Question for the Muslim: What makes you think your dishonestly twisting my scriptures while pretending to care what they say makes me want to join your religion, rather than destroy your religion?
>>
>>2207555
Because you're a cuck
>>
>>2207504
You keep taking the greek here to make it look like the way John is saying I am is in the same context as Christ, when it obviously isn't.
>I never said Jesus quoting Exodus. I'm providing more logical answer. Have you read the link?
I directly quoted it multiple times you imbecile.
>Jews: "You're yet 50 and you've seen Abraham?"
>Yours:
>Jesus: " before Abraham born, *God's name*."
>Mine:
>Jesus: " before Abraham born, I am"
Yeah, in the context of the bible, concluding that the "I Am" here is a direct reference to YHWH makes a lot more sense than what you are proposing.
>it logical for Jesus to utter the fist of Tetragrammaton
>Same can be said with John the Baptist
You are really obsessed with twisting those words out of any kind of context.
Lets talk about the Qur'an now okay, champ?
I'd love to hear what you think Surah 5:116 is saying
>>
>>2207555
Don't bother, Muslims repeat the same arguments ad infinitum and take verses out of context and then pretend to know shit about the bible
>>
>>2207593
>John the Baptist
>Context
Yes, exactly. The greek word for 'I am' is merely 'I am', NOT 'I AM'.
I'm trying to show you that this 'ego eimi' is NOTHING SPECIAL. Because John the Baptist used the EXACT SAME greek as John 8:58 and multiple place in the bible:
http://biblehub.com/greek/eimi_1510.htm
In Exodus, the greek word 'I AM WHO I AM' is not known. BUT you must agree that it's special right?
IF it's that special, then HOW COME the EXACT SAME greek is used in both verse(John 8:58, 3:28)?
WHY did the Christians make such a big fuss about it when it is USED MULTIPLE time in the bible?
>context
Yes, I agree. The context is very important. Now let's look:
The Jews at that time were very angry towards Jesus because he said that his works will please Abraham. Feeling angry, they ask:
Jews: "You have SEEN Abraham?"
Look, the question is NOT asking that Jesus is god, NOR does the question ask for YHWH name.
Christians:
Jesus:"before Abraham was born, *God's name*."
It DOESNT MAKE SENSE for Jesus to use, according to Christians, *God's name* out of nowhere. It's out-of-placed. Agree?
Does the question ask that? NO. Then it just merely 'I am'.
Agree?
>>
>>2207555
you do the same
>>
>>2207593
>Quran
Why? I know you Christians will never took the Quran as an argument. But if you insist:
>Surah 5:116
>And [beware the Day] when Allah will say, "O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, 'Take me and my mother as deities besides Allah ?'" He will say, "Exalted are You! It was NOT FOR ME to say that to which I HAVE NO RIGHT. If I had said it, You would have known it. You know what is within myself, and I do not know what is within Yourself. Indeed, it is You who is Knower of the unseen.
Here, we can see that Allah ask Jesus if he tells his people to worship him and his mother. Jesus answer Allah by saying that he is not speaking on his own will. The Muslim believe all the Prohet doesn't speak on his own.
Jesus HIMSELF said:
John 14:24
....These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.
John 7:16
Jesus answered, "My teaching is not my own. It comes from the one who sent me.
>Surah 5:117
>I said not to them except what You commanded me - to worship Allah , my Lord and your Lord. And I was a witness over them as long as I was among them; but when You took me up, You were the Observer over them, and You are, over all things, Witness.
This is exactly what Jesus did.
When asked what is the most important commandments, Jesus HIMSELF said:
Mark 12:29
"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.
Revelation 19:10
And I(John) fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellow servant and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: WORSHIP GOD: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.
>>
>>2208418
>islam and anime
Are you Southeast Asian?
>>
>>2207555
>>2207597
>>2207593
>twist
Anon, I'm not twisting anything. Jesus HIMSELF said:
John 14:48 :
....My Father is greater than I
John 10:29:
My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all...
John 5:30
I can of mine own self do nothing....
Johh 5:30 clearly implies Jesus does not possess the quality of God. God can do everything.
Matthew 24:36:
"But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
This verse is talking about doomsday. This clearly state that Jesus(Son) doesn't know when is doomsday. God know everything, but Jesus doesn't know everything.
>>
>>2207555
>>2207597
>>2207593
>twist
Look, you Christians claims that Jesus brought a new religion.
Jesus bringing a new religion? NEVER.
Matthew 5:17:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
A law abiding Jew comes to Jesus seeking eternal life or salvation. In the words of Matthew:
Matthew 19:16-17
"And behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is God: but if thou wilt enter into life, KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS."
What commandments? Moses's commandments, NOT JESUS'S.
If Jesus really did came to bring a new religion? Why did he HIMSELF said to KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS?
Where did I twist? Where did I take out of context? I NEVER belittle Jesus, yet you claiming I'm making mockery out of him?
>>
>>2207466
>evidence
You think scientists pulling nothing out from their arse or something? These are not crack up scientists, these are the most decent scientists at this time.
They know about what your 'nothing' is and they've observed it.
But they've agree that Krauss misused that term. And also agree that this Krauss nothing is not 'lack of everything nothing'.
>evidence
Look, the my 'nothing' can't be observed because everywhere is 'something'.
Know about gravitational lensing? During Einstein, the scientists know about this, but have no evidence about it. It's only until recently that it's discovered. My point is we don't need evidence to know somethings exist. Just math fuckery.
>>2208431
Nah
>>2207459
>compare
I'm just giving example of not-well-accepted theory.
>forever
No, I'm saying that atheist says that the initial singularity exist since forever. And that singularity follow entropy law.
>>
>>2194120
>Where does the conceptualization of the Holy Trinity come from?
It was ME, James... the author of all your pain!
>>
File: 1464652668166.png (376KB, 822x1857px) Image search:
[Google]
376KB, 822x1857px
>>2194120
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/jesus-is-god-bible/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK8VwsplGR8
>>
>it's another Muslim pretends to know the Bible episode
>it's another Muslim ignores any evidence and repeats his claims endlessly episode
>it's another proddie asspain episode
Sure smells like autism in here
>>
>>2210475
Thanks anon. I was looking for this. You're the MVP.
>>
>>2210528
>it's another episode where Christians ignoring my evidence
>it's another episode where Christians accuse me of ignoring their evidence but DIDNT POINTS WHICH EVIDENCE I'VE IGNORE, if there's any.
Look, anon. I'm tired and want to rest. If you can show me where have I ignore the evidence, I would gladly to look it up after my rest.
If you can't take it, it's fine. Your brain capacity only holds so little.
>>2210475
I'll reply to you after my 5-6 hours rest. You're the MVP.
>>
>>2207459
I kind of liked this fruitful exchange, may you please recommend something to me to introduce myself on this field of knowledge? thanks
>>
>>2211054
If you want a book, I recommend 'From Eternity to Here' by Sean Caroll, you can get a free pdf from the internet.
Wikipedia is a goldmine. Just wiki search what physics or Quantum Mechanics that you want to know about.
>>
>>2211111
Oh, and that book discuss pretty much of the atheist discussion happening here.
>>
>>
>>2203045
Speaking of the Council of Nicea, does anyone know the percentage between the three Christians groups?
Thread posts: 204
Thread images: 38
Thread images: 38