|
Post by believingjesus on Mar 14, 2020 20:31:24 GMT -5
Ehrman knows exactly where he stands on Jesus and he couldn’t care less about offending Christians. Ehrman’s position is Jesus was a historical figure who was an itinerant preacher, not a god or the son of a god. The Christ myth theory is the view that "the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology," possessing no "substantial claims to historical fact."[95] Alternatively, in terms given by Bart Ehrman paraphrasing Earl Doherty, "the historical Jesus did not exist. Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity."[96]
Most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted,[2][18][97] and in modern scholarship, the Christ myth theory is a fringe theory and finds virtually no support from scholars.[98][99][100][101][note 2]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
You didn’t even bother to read what you are copying and pasting or you have the worst reading comprehension of anyone I’ve known. The sentence reads: “Alternatively, in terms given by Bart Ehrman paraphrasing Earl Doherty, "the historical Jesus did not exist. Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity."” Bart Ehrman is PARAPHRASING EARL DOHERTY (a mythicist) meaning Ehrman is stating what Earl Doherty believes, NOT what he believes about the historicity of Jesus. Give it up already!!!!
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Mar 14, 2020 20:34:04 GMT -5
Dr. Bauer would say Ehrman is a hostile source that has proven the fact that Jesus is not a myth. Many people do not see or believe Jesus is or was God incarnate. The Jews didn’t , most still don’t. Does it matter? According to some biblical scholars it doesn’t matter unto salvation. But it only opens the door to understanding who God truly is. “God in three persons.” Not three persons are God. Does this make more sense to say the Godhead is God the Father, Christ the Lord God and Savior and the Holy Spirit.It seems to me that when it’s said any other way than “God in three persons”, people are coming into the impression it’s more than one God. The doctrine of the Trinity is one of the most difficult ideas in Christianity, but it's fundamental to Christians because it: states what Christians believe God is like and who he is plays a central part in Christians' worship of an "unobjectifiable and incomprehensible God" emphasises that God is very different from human beings reflects the ways Christians believe God encounters them is a central element of Christian identity teaches Christians vital truths about relationship and community reveals that God can be seen only as a spiritual experience whose mystery inspires awe and cannot be understood logically Unpacking the doctrine The idea that there is One God, who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit means: There is exactly one God The Father is God The Son is God The Holy Spirit is God The Father is not the Son The Son is not the Holy Spirit The Father is not the Holy Spirit An alternate way of explaining it is: There is exactly one God There are three really distinct Persons - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit Each of the Persons is God Common mistakes The Trinity is not Three individuals who together make one God Three Gods joined together Three properties of God From: www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/beliefs/trinity_1.shtml
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Mar 14, 2020 20:35:09 GMT -5
The Christ myth theory is the view that "the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology," possessing no "substantial claims to historical fact."[95] Alternatively, in terms given by Bart Ehrman paraphrasing Earl Doherty, "the historical Jesus did not exist. Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity."[96]
Most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted,[2][18][97] and in modern scholarship, the Christ myth theory is a fringe theory and finds virtually no support from scholars.[98][99][100][101][note 2]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
You didn’t even bother to read what you are copying and pasting or you have the worst reading comprehension of anyone I’ve known. The sentence reads: “Alternatively, in terms given by Bart Ehrman paraphrasing Earl Doherty, "the historical Jesus did not exist. Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity." Bart Ehrman is PARAPHRASING EARL DOHERTY (a mythicist) meaning Ehrman is stating what Earl Doherty believes, NOT what he believes about the historicity of Jesus. Give it up already!!!! Bart believes like Earl Doherty! "the historical Jesus did not exist. Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity."
Most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted,[2][18][97] and in modern scholarship, the Christ myth theory is a fringe theory and finds virtually no support from scholars.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Mar 14, 2020 20:37:15 GMT -5
Dr. Bauer would say Ehrman is a hostile source that has proven the fact that Jesus is not a myth. Many people do not see or believe Jesus is or was God incarnate. The Jews didn’t , most still don’t. Does it matter? According to some biblical scholars it doesn’t matter unto salvation. But it only opens the door to understanding who God truly is. “God in three persons.” Not three persons are God. What do you mean by your first comment, “Dr. Bauer would say Ehrman is a hostile source that has proven the fact that Jesus is not a myth.”? Ehrman is agnostic or doesn’t believe there is a God. However he has proven there is/was a Jesus that actually was present at the time so said in the Bible or about that time. Otherwords a secular nonbeliever proves the historicity of Jesus. He’s not doing it to support his religious beliefs. Edit: Josephus was not a Christian. But he proved by careful and accurate historical reporting that places, people and incidents actually did happen that are in the Bible. He’d be considered a historical prover . But he was not proving because of his beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by believingjesus on Mar 14, 2020 20:48:42 GMT -5
You didn’t even bother to read what you are copying and pasting or you have the worst reading comprehension of anyone I’ve known. The sentence reads: “Alternatively, in terms given by Bart Ehrman paraphrasing Earl Doherty, "the historical Jesus did not exist. Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity." Bart Ehrman is PARAPHRASING EARL DOHERTY (a mythicist) meaning Ehrman is stating what Earl Doherty believes, NOT what he believes about the historicity of Jesus. Give it up already!!!! Bart believes like Earl Doherty! "the historical Jesus did not exist. Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity."
Most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted,[2][18][97] and in modern scholarship, the Christ myth theory is a fringe theory and finds virtually no support from scholars.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
No, he doesn’t you moron! By removing part of the sentence you have changed its meaning, which is completely dishonest by the way. Copying and pasting from the description of his book on Amazon regarding the historicity of Jesus (without changing anything unlike you): www.amazon.com/Did-Jesus-Exist-Historical-Argument/dp/0062206443/ref=mp_s_a_1_2?keywords=ehrman+did+jesus+exist&qid=1584236491&sr=8-2“In Did Jesus Exist? historian and Bible expert Bart Ehrman confronts the question, "Did Jesus exist at all, Ehrman VIGOROUSLY DEFENDS THE HISTORICAL JESUS, identifies the most historically reliable sources for best understanding Jesus’ mission and message, and offers a compelling portrait of the person at the heart of the Christian tradition.” You are someone who ALWAYS has to be right, even when you have clearly been proven wrong. It simply makes you look bad and an idiot!!!
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Mar 14, 2020 20:49:10 GMT -5
Does this make more sense to say the Godhead is God the Father, Christ the Lord God and Savior and the Holy Spirit. It seems to me that when it’s said any other way than “God in three persons”, people are coming into the impression it’s more than one God. The doctrine of the Trinity is one of the most difficult ideas in Christianity, but it's fundamental to Christians because it: states what Christians believe God is like and who he is plays a central part in Christians' worship of an "unobjectifiable and incomprehensible God" emphasises that God is very different from human beings reflects the ways Christians believe God encounters them is a central element of Christian identity teaches Christians vital truths about relationship and community reveals that God can be seen only as a spiritual experience whose mystery inspires awe and cannot be understood logically Unpacking the doctrine The idea that there is One God, who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit means: There is exactly one God The Father is God The Son is God The Holy Spirit is God The Father is not the Son The Son is not the Holy Spirit The Father is not the Holy Spirit An alternate way of explaining it is: There is exactly one God There are three really distinct Persons - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit Each of the Persons is God Common mistakes The Trinity is not Three individuals who together make one God Three Gods joined together Three properties of God From: www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/beliefs/trinity_1.shtml It's VERY simple to understand but humans make it so complicate about the Godhead.
Another Waldensians confession of Faith (A.D.1150) 1. We believe that Jesus Christ is the Son and the image of the Father---that in Him all the fullness of the Godhead dwells, and that by him alone we know the Father. He is our Mediator and advocate; nor is there any other name given under heaven by which we can be saved. In His name alone we call upon the Father, using no other prayers than those contained in the Holy Scriptures, or such as are in substance agreeable thereunto. 2. We believe in the Holy Spirit as the Comforter, proceeding from the Father, and from the Son; by whose inspiration we are taught to pray; being by Him renewed in the spirit of our minds; who creates us anew unto good works, and from whom we receive the knowledge of the TRUTH.
3. We believe that there is ONE holy church, comprising the whole assembly of the elect and faithful, that have EXISTED from the beginning of the world, or that shall be to the end thereof. Of this church the Lord is the Head! It is governed by his word and guided by the Holy Spirit. In the church it behooves all Christians to have fellowship. For her He [Christ] prays incessantly, and his prayer for it is most acceptable to God, without which indeed there could be NO salvation. ~~ NathanB: There is ONE Godhead= God the Father, Christ our God and Savior and the Holy Spirit is also God. I John5:7-8 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 are one in agreement.
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Mar 14, 2020 20:51:01 GMT -5
Bart believes like Earl Doherty! "the historical Jesus did not exist. Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity."
Most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted,[2][18][97] and in modern scholarship, the Christ myth theory is a fringe theory and finds virtually no support from scholars.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
No, he doesn’t you moron! By removing part of the sentence you have changed its meaning, which is completely dishonest by the way. Copying and pasting from the description of his book on Amazon regarding the historicity of Jesus: www.amazon.com/Did-Jesus-Exist-Historical-Argument/dp/0062206443/ref=mp_s_a_1_2?keywords=ehrman+did+jesus+exist&qid=1584236491&sr=8-2“In Did Jesus Exist? historian and Bible expert Bart Ehrman confronts the question, "Did Jesus exist at all, Ehrman VIGOROUSLY DEFENDS THE HISTORICAL JESUS, identifies the most historically reliable sources for best understanding Jesus’ mission and message, and offers a compelling portrait of the person at the heart of the Christian tradition.” You are someone who ALWAYS has to be right, even when you have clearly been proven wrong. It simply makes you look bad and an idiot!!! Ok, moron... You are the MOST stupid moron! around here... with the name like believingJesus, but you don't believe in Him whatsoever! You are a moron and stupid... change your name to NOTbelievingJesus, Ok. Who are you trying to deceive and fool? What an idiot! you are.
|
|
|
Post by believingjesus on Mar 14, 2020 20:57:14 GMT -5
No, he doesn’t you moron! By removing part of the sentence you have changed its meaning, which is completely dishonest by the way. Copying and pasting from the description of his book on Amazon regarding the historicity of Jesus: www.amazon.com/Did-Jesus-Exist-Historical-Argument/dp/0062206443/ref=mp_s_a_1_2?keywords=ehrman+did+jesus+exist&qid=1584236491&sr=8-2“In Did Jesus Exist? historian and Bible expert Bart Ehrman confronts the question, "Did Jesus exist at all, Ehrman VIGOROUSLY DEFENDS THE HISTORICAL JESUS, identifies the most historically reliable sources for best understanding Jesus’ mission and message, and offers a compelling portrait of the person at the heart of the Christian tradition.” You are someone who ALWAYS has to be right, even when you have clearly been proven wrong. It simply makes you look bad and an idiot!!! Ok, moron... You are the stupid moron!Good one! You CLEARLY disproved my point <sarcasm>. You are pathologically stubborn and moronic. Your entire 20 years of “contributions” to the TMB haven’t meant squat because of this! What a waste of your time and life! At this point I consider you on the level of a troll.
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Mar 14, 2020 20:58:33 GMT -5
Ok, moron... You are the stupid moron! Good one! You CLEARLY disproved my point <sarcasm>. You are pathologically stubborn and moronic. Your entire 20 years of “contributions” to the TMB haven’t meant squat because of this! What a waste of your time and life! At this point I consider you on the level of a troll. Look in the mirror you, stupid moron! You are the TROLL.
Ok, moron... You are the MOST stupid moron! around here... with the name like believingJesus, but you don't believe in Him whatsoever! You are a moron and stupid... change your name to NOTbelievingJesus, Ok. Who are you trying to deceive and fool? What an idiot! you are.
|
|
|
Post by ant_rotten on Mar 14, 2020 21:06:15 GMT -5
You have no idea what you talking about. For someone who doesn’t even like Ehrman, you sure claim to know a lot about him. I suggest you stop with nonsense as you are making yourself look stupid.. Maybe it is you!The Christ myth theory is the view that "the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology," possessing no "substantial claims to historical fact."[95] Alternatively, in terms given by Bart Ehrman paraphrasing Earl Doherty, "the historical Jesus did not exist. Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity."[96] Most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted,[2][18][97] and in modern scholarship, the Christ myth theory is a fringe theory and finds virtually no support from scholars.[98][99][100][101][note 2] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus You seem to be the only person on TMB that claims Ehrman doesn’t believe Jesus existed, so no, the problem is not mine, it’s yours. You’ve made yourself look very stupid, even amongst other Christians on here. But the again, that happens a lot.. BART HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS CHRIST MYTH NONSENSE!! Time to go back to school Nathan and learn how to evaluate sources of information.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Mar 14, 2020 21:06:49 GMT -5
Ok, moron... You are the stupid moron! Good one! You CLEARLY disproved my point <sarcasm>. You are pathologically stubborn and moronic. Your entire 20 years of “contributions” to the TMB haven’t meant squat because of this! What a waste of your time and life! At this point I consider you on the level of a troll. Please consider this. That paragraph is hard to understand in itself. Also Nathan’s native language is not English which is the hardest language to be understood. I just read that Wikipedia article and I might have come to the same conclusions if I had not read the whole article. Paraphrasing just means putting into other words what someone else has said/written. It doesn’t mean they deny them or refute them. So as I said that one paragraph about Ehrman “paraphrasing” another person’s ideas about Jesus could be taken either way. Of course you already knew what Ehrman had said so it was clear to you what that paragraph was getting at. Thank you. Edit: the second paragraph by itself is hard to know who is reciting what. Are others refuting Ehrman or is Ehrman refuting someone. It takes reading the whole article to know exactly who is what, that is unless you already know what Ehrman has said in other writings.
|
|
|
Post by ant_rotten on Mar 14, 2020 21:11:19 GMT -5
Good one! You CLEARLY disproved my point <sarcasm>. You are pathologically stubborn and moronic. Your entire 20 years of “contributions” to the TMB haven’t meant squat because of this! What a waste of your time and life! At this point I consider you on the level of a troll. Look in the mirror you, stupid moron! You are the TROLL.
Ok, moron... You are the MOST stupid moron! around here... with the name like believingJesus, but you don't believe in Him whatsoever! You are a moron and stupid... change your name to NOTbelievingJesus, Ok. Who are you trying to deceive and fool? What an idiot! you are. Instead of getting angry, take it on the chin and realise that in this case you are wrong.. Do you have any humbleness at all?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2020 21:13:54 GMT -5
i haven't listened to much of what bart has said but i do believe that snow and the others are right he has said Jesus existed, just not as the Son of God... Thank you. Please explain that to Nathan.. that doesn't work anymore....
|
|
|
Post by ant_rotten on Mar 14, 2020 21:16:02 GMT -5
Good one! You CLEARLY disproved my point <sarcasm>. You are pathologically stubborn and moronic. Your entire 20 years of “contributions” to the TMB haven’t meant squat because of this! What a waste of your time and life! At this point I consider you on the level of a troll. Please consider this. That paragraph is hard to understand in itself. Also Nathan’s native language is not English which is the hardest language to be understood. I just read that Wikipedia article and I might have come to the same conclusions if I had not read the whole article. Paraphrasing just means putting into other words what someone else has said/written. It doesn’t mean they deny them or refute them. So as I said that one paragraph about Ehrman “paraphrasing” another person’s ideas about Jesus could be taken either way. Of course you already knew what Ehrman had said so it was clear to you what that paragraph was getting at. Thank you. Edit: the second paragraph by itself is hard to know who is reciting what. Are others refuting Ehrman or is Ehrman refuting someone. It takes reading the whole article to know exactly who is what, that is unless you already know what Ehrman has said in other writings. This is clearly just another case of Nathan taking things out of context to try and prove a point, as he did yesterday with another quoted passage taken out of context. Regardless of how hard the English language may be, all Nathan has to do is stop trying to be right on every occasion and be more thorough with the sources he cites. A bit of humbleness would go a long way on his part..
|
|
|
Post by ant_rotten on Mar 14, 2020 21:17:22 GMT -5
Thank you. Please explain that to Nathan.. that doesn't work anymore.... That’s precisely why Nathan has found himself in this predicament on this thread..
|
|
|
Post by believingjesus on Mar 14, 2020 21:18:32 GMT -5
Good one! You CLEARLY disproved my point <sarcasm>. You are pathologically stubborn and moronic. Your entire 20 years of “contributions” to the TMB haven’t meant squat because of this! What a waste of your time and life! At this point I consider you on the level of a troll. Please consider this. That paragraph is hard to understand in itself. Also Nathan’s native language is not English which is the hardest language to be understood. I just read that Wikipedia article and I might have come to the same conclusions if I had not read the whole article. Paraphrasing just means putting into other words what someone else has said/written. It doesn’t mean they deny them or refute them. So as I said that one paragraph about Ehrman “paraphrasing” another person’s ideas about Jesus could be taken either way. Of course you already knew what Ehrman had said so it was clear to you what that paragraph was getting at. Thank you. Edit: the second paragraph by itself is hard to know who is reciting what. Are others refuting Ehrman or is Ehrman refuting someone. It takes reading the whole article to know exactly who is what, that is unless you already know what Ehrman has said in other writings. I might have some compassion for him knowing now that English is not his native language, but he ignored the content of my post which clearly contradicts what he is claiming and clearly proves him wrong. What is his native language by the way? If you don’t feel comfortable sharing it, that’s fine. Maybe he should use the browser translate option to translate sources into his native language?
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Mar 14, 2020 21:19:20 GMT -5
Guy Raz of National Public Radio interviews Bart Ehrman - transcript with 8 minute audio clip: Interview
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Mar 14, 2020 21:22:00 GMT -5
Look in the mirror you, stupid moron! You are the TROLL.
Ok, moron... You are the MOST stupid moron! around here... with the name like believingJesus, but you don't believe in Him whatsoever! You are a moron and stupid... change your name to NOTbelievingJesus, Ok. Who are you trying to deceive and fool? What an idiot! you are. Instead of getting angry, take it on the chin and realise that in this case you are wrong.. Do you have any humbleness at all? Like I wrote a few months ago, if you like to dish it out you better learn to receive it in return. I had been nice for 20 years, no more a walking doormat.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Mar 14, 2020 21:24:46 GMT -5
Please consider this. That paragraph is hard to understand in itself. Also Nathan’s native language is not English which is the hardest language to be understood. I just read that Wikipedia article and I might have come to the same conclusions if I had not read the whole article. Paraphrasing just means putting into other words what someone else has said/written. It doesn’t mean they deny them or refute them. So as I said that one paragraph about Ehrman “paraphrasing” another person’s ideas about Jesus could be taken either way. Of course you already knew what Ehrman had said so it was clear to you what that paragraph was getting at. Thank you. Edit: the second paragraph by itself is hard to know who is reciting what. Are others refuting Ehrman or is Ehrman refuting someone. It takes reading the whole article to know exactly who is what, that is unless you already know what Ehrman has said in other writings. I might have some compassion for him knowing now that English is not his native language, but he ignored the content of my post which clearly contradicts what he is claiming and clearly proves him wrong. What is his native language by the way? If you don’t feel comfortable sharing it, that’s fine. Maybe he should use the browser translate option to translate sources into his native language? He is Vietnamese. He actually does well considering the multitude of English/American word usages. I find myself floundering sometimes and English was my best subject in college. But I used to work with our Vietnamese and Laotian refugee patients in trying to help them understand even basic medical and healthy living in the US. It was difficult for them and some of them actually spoke fairly good English.
|
|
|
Post by believingjesus on Mar 14, 2020 21:27:21 GMT -5
I might have some compassion for him knowing now that English is not his native language, but he ignored the content of my post which clearly contradicts what he is claiming and clearly proves him wrong. What is his native language by the way? If you don’t feel comfortable sharing it, that’s fine. Maybe he should use the browser translate option to translate sources into his native language? He is Vietnamese. He actually does well considering the multitude of English/American word usages. I find myself floundering sometimes and English was my best subject in college. But I used to work with our Vietnamese and Laotian refugee patients in trying to help them understand even basic medical and healthy living in the US. It was difficult for them and some of them actually spoke fairly good English. Ok. Thanks for the info.
|
|
|
Post by believingjesus on Mar 14, 2020 21:31:32 GMT -5
Guy Raz of National Public Radio interviews Bart Ehrman - transcript with 8 minute audio clip: InterviewCopying and pasting from the transcript of the interview because it is highly unlikely Nathan will look at the source: “RAZ: Let's start with the premise of your question because - I hope I'm not giving anything away. Your answer is yes, Jesus did exist. EHRMAN: Yes. That's right.” That settles it right there.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Mar 14, 2020 21:36:54 GMT -5
Please consider this. That paragraph is hard to understand in itself. Also Nathan’s native language is not English which is the hardest language to be understood. I just read that Wikipedia article and I might have come to the same conclusions if I had not read the whole article. Paraphrasing just means putting into other words what someone else has said/written. It doesn’t mean they deny them or refute them. So as I said that one paragraph about Ehrman “paraphrasing” another person’s ideas about Jesus could be taken either way. Of course you already knew what Ehrman had said so it was clear to you what that paragraph was getting at. Thank you. Edit: the second paragraph by itself is hard to know who is reciting what. Are others refuting Ehrman or is Ehrman refuting someone. It takes reading the whole article to know exactly who is what, that is unless you already know what Ehrman has said in other writings. This is clearly just another case of Nathan taking things out of context to try and prove a point, as he did yesterday with another quoted passage taken out of context. Regardless of how hard the English language may be, all Nathan has to do is stop trying to be right on every occasion and be more thorough with the sources he cites. A bit of humbleness would go a long way on his part.. I see your point. However everybody seems to have caught a bit of that disease lately. When a person has been heckled and belittled routinely over piddling things, then some important detail like this comes up and people begin to pile up on the routine heckling and belittling; and as we all are humans with clay feet, it’s easily to Trip a trigger unpleasant responses. I’m not saying those responses are right, it’s just reflex responses. The atmosphere on TMB has become very cynical and we all have contributed to it. Perhaps it’s just a symptom of the times, I don’t know. Or maybe because it’s because most of us are old and crotchety and set in our ways. Nevertheless it’s just that way. I, for one, am trying hard to shake cynicism in myself and realize that what really matters is only that which will matter a 100 years from now. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Mar 14, 2020 21:38:34 GMT -5
He is Vietnamese. He actually does well considering the multitude of English/American word usages. I find myself floundering sometimes and English was my best subject in college. But I used to work with our Vietnamese and Laotian refugee patients in trying to help them understand even basic medical and healthy living in the US. It was difficult for them and some of them actually spoke fairly good English. Ok. Thanks for the info. Thank YOU!
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 14, 2020 22:06:57 GMT -5
It seems to me that when it’s said any other way than “God in three persons”, people are coming into the impression it’s more than one God. The doctrine of the Trinity is one of the most difficult ideas in Christianity, but it's fundamental to Christians because it: states what Christians believe God is like and who he is plays a central part in Christians' worship of an "unobjectifiable and incomprehensible God" emphasises that God is very different from human beings reflects the ways Christians believe God encounters them is a central element of Christian identity teaches Christians vital truths about relationship and community reveals that God can be seen only as a spiritual experience whose mystery inspires awe and cannot be understood logically Unpacking the doctrine The idea that there is One God, who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit means: There is exactly one God The Father is God The Son is God The Holy Spirit is God The Father is not the Son The Son is not the Holy Spirit The Father is not the Holy Spirit An alternate way of explaining it is: There is exactly one God There are three really distinct Persons - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit Each of the Persons is God Common mistakes The Trinity is not Three individuals who together make one God Three Gods joined together Three properties of God From: www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/beliefs/trinity_1.shtmlIt's VERY simple to understand but humans make it so complicate about the Godhead. It must be simple if Nathan can comprehend it.
|
|
|
Post by believingjesus on Mar 14, 2020 22:08:20 GMT -5
Many atheists on TMB do NOT believe in historical Jesus. We have gone over with them with many discussion on here. They Jesus became God after the resurrection... I wonder where they get these ideas from? There are books out there supporting the mythicist position they may have read. I mentioned some of the authors in a previous post. I haven’t read any of them personally. I do not believe in the Christian god but I do not hold the mythicist position. I believe Jesus was a real historical figure or an amalgamation of historical figures. This seems to be the overall consensus among scholars who do textual criticism of the Bible.
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Mar 14, 2020 22:10:21 GMT -5
It's VERY simple to understand but humans make it so complicate about the Godhead. It must be simple if Nathan can comprehend it. Can you imagine even a Vietnamese an Oriental can understand it then of course all of you should get it by now.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 14, 2020 22:12:20 GMT -5
No, he doesn’t you moron! By removing part of the sentence you have changed its meaning, which is completely dishonest by the way. Copying and pasting from the description of his book on Amazon regarding the historicity of Jesus: www.amazon.com/Did-Jesus-Exist-Historical-Argument/dp/0062206443/ref=mp_s_a_1_2?keywords=ehrman+did+jesus+exist&qid=1584236491&sr=8-2“In Did Jesus Exist? historian and Bible expert Bart Ehrman confronts the question, "Did Jesus exist at all, Ehrman VIGOROUSLY DEFENDS THE HISTORICAL JESUS, identifies the most historically reliable sources for best understanding Jesus’ mission and message, and offers a compelling portrait of the person at the heart of the Christian tradition.” You are someone who ALWAYS has to be right, even when you have clearly been proven wrong. It simply makes you look bad and an idiot!!! Ok, moron... You are the MOST stupid moron! around here... with the name like believingJesus, but you don't believe in Him whatsoever! You are a moron and stupid... change your name to NOTbelievingJesus, Ok. Who are you trying to deceive and fool? What an idiot! you are.
Nathan, does that mean I go up a notch in your estimation?
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Mar 14, 2020 22:14:12 GMT -5
Ok, moron... You are the MOST stupid moron! around here... with the name like believingJesus, but you don't believe in Him whatsoever! You are a moron and stupid... change your name to NOTbelievingJesus, Ok. Who are you trying to deceive and fool? What an idiot! you are.
Nathan, does that mean I go up a notch in your estimation? What do you mean?
|
|