"it addresses the no evidence for God Bit." When did I say that? Im fully aware that yes technically hearsay and conjecture are types of evidence that are available for many gods and Super beliefs of all types So that is not an argument for there truth, right? Sai Baba was predicted to return and he did , So What, Why Should we believe the Bibles Super claims over those of what we all consider Superstition , imaginary or nonexistent.
I went ahead and just stopped at 1:43. AronRa says, "Usually" and you go, "Yup, usually, BUT NOT ALWAYS!" great, so you agree, no more debate. Goddamn this is easier than I thought.
Don't know if it's already been answered but for your question at 12:04? The answer should be.The Bible John 14:6 (6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.) Although Aaron was using an older version but frequently used version by many prophets.
@Cactarpus Aronra was claiming The Bible never records Jesus saying that he is God. I'm not Saying that those verses prove he was, I'm saying that those verses prove that The Bible says he said he was.
The point with all the Trinitarian "Proof Scriptures" is that under Trinitarianism, Jesus seems to "hint" to be God, and Jesus' enemies (being liars and sinners) accused Jesus of claiming to be God. Neither of these make a good case for Jesus actually claiming to be God.
More importantly, if Jesus had wanted to claim to be God, it would've been very easy. Simply saying "I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. I am Jahweh. Beside me there is no other," would do it. Why didn't Jesus do this?
"But what happens when Jesus is asked directly if he is God?"
Jesus is never asked directly if he is God.
You are right that the High Priests claimed Jesus' response was blasphemy, but this doesn't mean that the High Priests were right. The High Priests also claimed that Jesus had pretended to be equals with God (do you think the High Priests were right here too?)
John 14: 8 -11 : Jesus goes on to clarify his meaning: he acts in the Father's authority. Even trinitarians do not accept that Jesus IS the Father, so to interpret his statement as "I am the Father" doesn't support trinitarianism. Aside from this, using this same language (aka, 'seeing God' when you've only seen a prophet or an angel) is common in the Bible, especially the Old Testament. After wrestling the angel, Jacob said he'd seen God: does this mean the angel was God? Of course not.
@FiverBeyond No he doesn't, He says that He is God. He says that he is the father and the father is in him, This can only be explained by the trinity. The Text is clear that Jacob did in fact wrestle with God.
@ebilly99 Mark is part of the Bible. I was arguing that the Bible Says this. And there is evidence for a Historical Jesus. The Gospels as historical documents are evidence for their own claims.
@Toudiyama 30 to 40 Years is early when you're talking the First Century. Matthew and John are Eyewitness Accounts and we know because we Know that Matthew and John (The People) were Eyewitnesses.
@ThePuppyTurtle Also the first bibles were not written in the lands they came from, (Palistine) but in rome. This would be like writing about a messiah in the international space station. It would be hard to confirm or deny. By the time it made it back to isreal the "Witnesses" were all dead or old.
@ThePuppyTurtle It might have been for the wealthy, or even middle class... But that is not whom accepted the bible. It was the poor of the world. (Lets not forget the average lifespan of the poor in isreal is but 35 years. Most were dead by the time they were written, by the time they got back there were ever fewer alive.
@ThePuppyTurtle Yep. And AronRa said "Jesus never implied that at all...." and not "the Bible didn't say something". And no, gospels aren't historical documents, scholars agree that none of them have been written by Apostles and we've NEVER seen original manuscripts. The earliest known Greek COPY fragment today is from about half of 2nd century or so and even that's an topic of a debate.
@ThePuppyTurtle "No they really don't" Give me example of a well-known, respected scholar that disagrees.
"ame 1 example from That time that we have that for." Can;t say I know, but unlike gospels we CAN establish their accuracy (if they're considered historical documents).
"Except P52 which is from 100 AD" LOL, that's the papyrus I was talking about. As you see, they are unsure of its true age, though from what I know claiming it's from 100 AD is certainly stretching it.
John 8:58 - At no point here does Jesus suggest he is God. He may simply be pointing out that Jahweh existed before Abraham (and since Jesus was Jahweh's angel, Jesus was there too).This would still be blasphemy, if untrue.
John 10:37 also doesn't suggest that Jesus is Jahweh, as there is no biblical injunction that "Only Jahweh can be loved more than your family."
John 10: 28-29 - Thomas clearly distinguishes between Jesus ("My Lord!") and Jahweh ("My God!"), praising both.
puppy, you hit upon a very clear problem with religion without even knowing it; there is no new data. why was god so dedicated to miracles 2000-5000 years ago but he can't perform any today? wouldn't that help with belief? that way religion wouldn't be so divergent. that's one of the problems: there is no data
@Itsrothytime Actually Any religion with a Holy tradition (the RCC being one example) DOES have new data coming in. It's a problem with some religion.
@ThePuppyTurtle my point is that there is no new data for christianity at large. there are divergent opinions within the catholic church. i'm talking about new SUBSTANTIVE data. there are no new miracles happening, no new divine revelations, no new holy books, etc. why would god stop giving us data? why would all of the significant events happen in a very small slice of human existence?
Those groups other than protestants that leave Catholicism accept new data and still come up with divergent answers. So do Catholics who are not Roman Catholics (for example the Eastern Orthodox Catholics, and any who profess Catholicism and have beliefs that don't match those of the church. Yes, the higher central authority of Roman Catholicism reduces drift, but that is expected when you have 1 source of drift.
@JustAnotherMutant Any Group drifting from the RCC isn't RC. Also my point about fish was that there can be many views on God and STILL ONE IS CORRECT. And this is true even if it really is as you claim impossible to know which one is. In Reality, Religions can be logically incoherent, and their historical claims can be supported by evidence.
ThePuppyTurtle, yes... one of them can be correct, however you have no convergent method of determining which one actually is. It is also quite possible that none of them are correct, and you have no convergent method of determining that. Without a convergent method, you are guessing and telling yourself you got it right.
Those other "logically incoherent" religions, like you, find those other religions to be "logically incoherent"... they just include yours and not their own in that.
ThePuppyTurtle, and every one I've looked at with historical claims has claims with no historical support. Then they claim either "there is no evidence it didn't happen that way", or "that part is metaphor".
Now for Chrisianity, I can buy the metaphor part... after all, Joshua taught in metaphor, so by Christian beliefs God teaches in metaphor. However then you need a convergent method of determining historical and metaphorical entries, and you don't have that.
I love how you shoot yourself in the foot here. You've killed your whole argument about RC not dividing, because even if it doesn't stay part of RC, it has still DIVIDED from it.
"there can be many views on God and STILL ONE IS CORRECT"
That's so untrue. It might be that the correct answer will elude us forever. It might be that there's no God at all, because - unlike fish - there's NO solid evidence to back your version of God.
@ThePuppyTurtle If counting only bigger groups then yes - but it happened anyway. Not to mention that Protestantism itself has divided from RC and it also counts. And someone has already mentioned the differing views within Catholics themselves (for example, in Poland, today we have basically two major 'churches' within the Church, fighting for influence)...
@ThePuppyTurtle Just because the doctrine doesn't contradict itself on teh surface, doesn't mean that people - or even priests within the Church - don't have different interpretations of the Bible and that one isn't contradicting another. The two competing churches in Poland I've mentioned are great in demonstrating that - one is more open and modern another very conservative and highly controversial.
@ThePuppyTurtle Most of texts talking about it are Polish. All I can give is... hmmm... find "Radio Maryja" on wikipedia, as church (rather a collection of churches) known as 'Torun church' (kościół toruński) is focused around this radio and its founder, father Tadeusz Rydzyk. In opposition to it there's the 'Lagiewnicki church' (kościół Łagiewnicki).
@ThePuppyTurtle Oh, and talking further about differences within Catholic church... In Poland we have an extremely strong cult of Mary. I'd say that at least at times she is considered either as important or more important than Jesus. She's been crowned as symbolic Queen of Poland about 300 years ago. There's even a well-known old poem mentioning that, basically, we may complain about Jesus, but by all means, we should leave Mary alone :D
@ThePuppyTurtle ... Source to what exactly? To back my claim (check Jasna Gora monastery on wiki for example), to claim that Mary is queen of Poland (check Black Madonna from the very same monastery) or to the poem (A. Mickiewicz, Dziady)?
@ThePuppyTurtle I've already given you sources, look up Radio Maryja in wiki and you'll see what I'm about, as it;'s the most informative ource I can currently find in English. Also, I've made this point to counter your claim that people don't have contradicting views or can interpret the Bible very differently even within as apparently homogeneous denomination as RCC, remember?
@ThePuppyTurtle Also - the fact that RCC doesn't divide at high rate is actually not due to the Bible, but skilful politics. Maintaining "central planning" and indoctrinating people to respect Church is simply effective. That, an of course getting rid of 'unwanted element' is. It's not a secret. Only recently they've "silenced" another potential sect leader and are always keeping an eye on troublesome priests, just in case someone is planning another schism :P
@ThePuppyTurtle *facepalm* Only if you consider new interpretations as 'new data' =___= For honesty's sake, you probably should not talk about arguments that stand the scrutiny or displaying warnings talking about 'providing evidence supporting truths that we don't want to admit to ourselves', because what you are doing is a mere speculation or twisting facts to suit theories, rather than twisting theories to suit facts.
@ThePuppyTurtle *sigh* So you just things that Popes just make things up in the fly or something? Most, if not all, is based or supported by some kind of interpretation of the Bible.
For Christians, arguments for Christianity tend to stand up to scrutiny. For Muslims, arguments for Islam tend to stand up to scrutiny... etc... Arguments for atheism? Well, like what?
For different belief systems about fish, we have a method of choosing between them which produces convergent answers. For religion, that method has not converged on any answer.
The methods religious people use show no convergence, and thus we have no reason to think that any of these methods actually work.
I love when he says "what Jesus actually said." im Sorry but the deity of Christ is very carefully defended and to say that in one sentance and ignore all arguments to the contrary is amusing to say the lease.
Wow not even 60 seconds in and you ask, What religions can stand up to scrutiny?. I am quite confident in saying all religions that have an actual God, or Gods figurehead(s)
Now lets see how the rest of the vid goes and if you explain the opening quote in a way i have to retract some if not all of this comment.
No PT you did not validate your comment, you just dug yourself deeper.
While AronRa didn't add much citations in his 4+ year old vid, are you sure he has not answered your 'refutations' in the 4 years since? Not withstanding he would have researched, as well as read most if not all the religious texts of the religions he did mention.
Lastly, quoting the bible to 'validate' is as effective as quoting say lord of the rings or Harry Potter to validate LotR and HP, try external sources.
@Knightyme Aronra said that the Bible Doesn't say Jesus is God, I quoted the Bible to prove it does. I wasn't reasoning in a circle anymore than you would be in response to the assertion that Moby Dick never mentions any Whales.
"I said THE 1 CORINTHIANS 15 CREED was written months after the resurrection. Scholars agree with me."
And yes, please, cite your sources here. Most scholars don't seem to be aware that there exists any documents from that period at all. Whether scholars agree with you or not is rather immaterial. The question is if they have evidence to back it up.
If you think that doesn't matter either, and, say, are fine with the entire bible being one giant piece of symbolism. Then, Great! We should have no problem living together because you should be fine adopting secularism in every conceivable way, given that you have no information about reality in the Bible.
Of course, your belief still would be a bit odd, as it seems highly unmotivated in that case.
You don't think that it matters whether Genesis is literally true or not? When Jesus is claimed to be a direct descendant of Adam in NT, with the entire genealogy listed? Roflmao! If people like Adam and Noah(Who is most likely a cultural adaptation of part of the Epic of Gilgamesh) are in fact fictional, then the authors of NT were at best lying to make Jesus seem more impressive. At worst, the entire character is invented.
One of the obvious problems with the atheists is that they insist on reading the Bible as literal. Clearly the Bible was not meant as literal but as many forms of writing such as poetic, metaphorical as well as allegorical. Fundy atheists, like aronra, only show they do not have any basic understanding of theology or context that is useful in understaanding and religious text.
@jfrontier1 That's partly because AronRa's video was addressing Creationism which is a literal interpretation and the fact that Christians pull out of their assess all kinds of different interpretations for every single different denomination. While the actions of liberal Christians to take the bible as symbolic is admirable, the only way to critically examine a doctrine is to address what is written on the paper.
@Nightmare060 Was he addressing only creationism or Christianity as well? And while we should examine what is on paper how do we do that? By studying the proper context of the passage/parable/story/letter/etc. Many plain words in the text have different meanings when properly studied. An obvious example is the genesis creation story. Since the literal reading is the newer reading we should look into what the authors tried to convey with their messages.
@jfrontier1 There is a difference between studying the bible to get the most accurate translation and historical context of the time the bible was written in and cherry picking passages to support all number of apologetic excuses. IstheSuperfly perfectly shows this, as does BrettPalmer/Discovering Religion. When a text is so vague that it can be interpreted so many different ways including literally, it's hardly a reliable source from a supreme deity.
@Nightmare060 Actually if we read the text from a historical basis and the way it was meant ot be read we can understand it. The fact that some people do not is not the fault of the text or even of God, just humans having problems.
but why would a book that is supposed to be "perfect" and written by an all knowing and divine being,be so easily misinterpreted?
didn't god foresee the problems arising by the vagueness of his message?
if god truly loves his creation it would make more sense for him to make it easy on people to understand and accept his words,rather than allowing it to be prone to misinterpretations,which will eventually damn people to hell for eternity,just for an honest misunderstanding.
@FractalMachine Did God really write the bible? Yes, God probably did see any problems with it but so what?
Why would it make more sense to make the Bible easy for us to understand? And it is for me, when we have the Holy Spirit we can understand the Bible just fine. But if God made it to easy for us then we would not really have faith.
it would still require faith to believe in what the book says,and that it's divine.
making it more clear would not take away the faith requirement,it would just open the door for a clearer understanding of god's will.
if the holy spirit is truly the way to understand the bible then why is it that every individual has his own interpretations of scripture and god's will and what god thinks about certain issues?
@FractalMachine Exactly how much more clear do some things need to be. Much of the NT is quite clear, man has been messing it up ever since we got it. But again, so what? Why is it bad that The Holy Spirit speaks to us in different ways? Many of my Christian friends believe all sorts of things about God and that is between them and God. Christian Mystics, Fundy's, liberal/progressives, moderate Christians whatever, we all view God differently and yet the same. God is a loving God.
@FractalMachine So when people understand God differently, so what? Is our job really to know all about God or to learn of Him through faith? If God chooses to speak to us through whatever means He chooses that is up to Him.
that means that the vast majority of people understand scripture wrong!
that is clearly not efficient,especially if your goal is salvation for as many people as possible. (and a loving god would want as many people as possible to be saved)
basically in that case,the holy spirit plays a much bigger role,than scripture,rendering scripture almost obsolete,due to it's vagueness.
and the holy spirit tells every individual something else about how to understand scripture
@FractalMachine How do you know what is efficent in God's eyes? And what makes it less efficent than some other means? Perhaps this is exactly how God wants to do this?
How is scripture pointless? Perhaps God seeks for us to understand what He is trying to say through scripture, or some other means? Again, so what?
so the holy spirit doesn't seam to me to be a reliable thing either.
all this is of course if your goal is finding out the ONE truth and god's true intention.
there are not many ways to interpret an instruction manual,because it's most efficient when the instructions are clear,and easily understood by everybody from the genius to the simpleton.
and again it has nothing to do with faith because you're supposed to need faith to believe in the bible,not to understand it.
@FractalMachine Why is the Holy Spirit not reliable? If you do not understand Him perhaps you should try to listen to Him?
Why should I believe that the Bible is simply an instruction manual? The Bible is simply the way the authors wrote of their understanding of God through the cultural, political, scientific, and economic understanding of their time.
Faith is more than a simple belief. We are to study and look into why we believe what we do. You seem to think it is blind faith, and it's not
@jfrontier1 Ok you make the claim that the bible is meant to to be read as poetic, metaphorical and allegorical. How does one determine which verse, paragraph or chapter is which and by what criteria?
I would say that the criteria would have to be one so there is no misunderstanding or mixing of poetic, metaphorical or allegorical.
And what of those Christians that *do* say it is to be read literal? That then negates all of your claim.
@Knightyme The Bible has been read my way for a long time. It is the literal translation that has been a more recent way to understand the Bible. The Fundemantalists is a recent development.
So, why would God make it so simple to read that it requires no faith in Him?
I actually have history on my side on the translations. And progressive revelation is common for the Bible, as in from the OT to the NT to special revelation. God progress our knowledge of Him.
@Knightyme You should probably give me an example of what you mean. But here is one that I usually use.
Psalms 75:3When the earth and all its people quake, it is I who hold its pillars firm.
OK, so God is holding some pillars that support the earth right? Well, this is obviously not literal (if you do not believe me, go to NASA and look for the pillars). Now, did the Hebrews not know of the round earth? Yes, they did. Pillars is not literal.
I think what he was trying to get to in that video (and I admit it can be interpreted different ways) is that creationism relies on certainty, and that certainty can be undermined. There is a different between having faith and have certainty.
3:29 Exodus 25:18: And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat.
3:58 Your groan of disgust is misplaced - Aron makes a very good point.
4:41 That IS a problem with religion as a whole. Where is Catholicism getting new data from? A religious leader within the organisation... like the Protestants. 1 is interpreting scripture, the other scripture & aural hallucinations he ascribes to God.
@:50 I think Christians haven't demonstrated that so its just your assertion. I havent watched many of your vids but do you have an argument for the truth of christianity that stands up to scrutiny or atleast better than other religions. What do you think is the Best argument?
Another wrong quote. Jesus wasn't asked directly if he was god but was asked in the name of god if he was the christ. The blasphmeny was saying that he would sit at the right hand of god. You really need to read you bible more carefully and stop making assupmptions about it. How many times are you going to be wrong in 1 video?
@lautz73 If he wan't claiming to be God it wouldn't have been blasphemy. There was nothing blasphemous about claiming to sit at the right hand of God and not be God.
@ThePuppyTurtle Claiming that he, a man, would be sitting at the right hand of god would have been blasphmous since the jewish religion says that no man can have that power. You are using the current views to determine what would and wouldn't be blasphemous when it would have been different then.
@ThePuppyTurtle Keep reading in John and it'll give you the source. It was blasphemous to claim that you were so powerful to sit at the right hand of god. For you to not know that and claim to know your religion makes me wonder if you really know your religion. I seriously doubt it from your lack of knowledge.
What evidence do you have that prove your faith? And if you have evidence you don't have faith. Faith is belief without evidence.
1 Corinthians was, scholars conclude, was written around 57CE (that AD to you). That would be over 30 years (3 decades) after the supposed death of Jesus. So to say that it was less than that is a lie. Do you research. i have found several places where you are wrong. And you say that AronRa doesn't know what he's doing.
@lautz73 I didn't say that ! Corinthians was written months after the Resurrection I said THE 1 CORINTHIANS 15 CREED was written months after the resurrection. Scholars agree with me.
What arguements for christianity stand up to scruntiny? Of course your bible neglects those jews or muslims (all 3 religions pray to the same abrahamic god) that are enlighted. You need to go and look at John 10 again. Nowhere in there does it say what you have said. Are you lying for your god?
@ThePuppyTurtle Take it in the context. John 10:36 he calls himself the son of god yet again. The trinity is made up to explain how Jesus is part of god when Jesus never claimed to be god.
if there are equal evidence to prove ones claim, and (just for this example) they are all pulling in difference directions, how can one faith be excluded and claimed to be superior? If all evidence is equal, and if you dont make excpetions, it is, then u cannot say that christianity has mericles but others faith mericles are false. It makes no sence...
I once saw great potential in you... and i still see it, u just need to look a little broader and apply ur arguments equally...
@Spinobreaker I'd be happy to answer your question if your comment made any sense
Are you saying that if other faith's miracles are false then so should Christianity's? If so then the reason why it doesn't make sense to you is that you seem to think that if one claims a miracle happens is true, then everyone who claims a miracle to happen is also true which is not necessarily the case.
If I'm correct you probably fear that there is no systematic standard for identifying miracles.
@nazra7 - (disclaimer, if i use u or anything like that it is not meant to be a personal attack, nither are any of my comments, even if they sound it. I just want to make that clear from the begining) - No. What i mean is there is no reason to assume it was a miracle (apologies for the bad spelling, its not what im best at). And you cant dismiss every other miracle because its not of the christain faith. THere is a standard, but just because we cant explain it doesn't mean its magic...
@nazra7 (cont)- ...because, thats all a mericle boils down to doesn't it. People have been making claims about merilces forever, and yet every time one of them is put to a group like JREF(who have a $1m prize if u can prove the supernatural) theyve been proved false. Regardless of the claim...
And if there was a god, and people were worshiping him, would he not, if he was loving, want to help them. Yes theres tough love, but sometimes it can be cruel as, like if u dont believe... (cont 2)
@nazra7 - (cont 2) - in something you get to burn forever, or what ever you believe. What evidence is there to support that. That is what religion refuses to accept. It is not a sceptics role to disprove something, that is almost impossible, but the role of the religious to show evidence for the after life. As of yet there is none.
@Spinobreaker There are exceptions of not believing which will allow you to to be given a chance at salvation even after death. One being a child who dies prematurely, another being one who was never given the opportunity to believe.
IN addition there are exceptions to believing which will still have a person end up in hell, and that is not seeking forgiveness and atonement of their sins, and not performing selfless deeds for the less fortunate.
@nazra7 - Near death experiences are explainable by science. They do not prove an afterlie. In a hospital in Rotorua New Zealand, i had to go to the emergency room. It was quiet and i was talkign to the nurses about this sort of thing. She said the doctors have been conducting (varified by the one who helped me) an experiment, they have an object in a position someone entereing the room couldn't see, but you could see if you were floating above your body, its obvious (cont)
@Spinobreaker You're either lieing or referring to an experiment that I don't know about because it sounds like you're trying to make up for lack of results released by the AWARE study. If you're referring to a study that I'm not aware of then citations is needed. Otherwise, that rebuttal is nothing more than hearsay.
Go to this website: iands.org. There is no proof that NDErs are experience the afterlife, but studies about them conclude probable evidence of the afterlife.
@nazra7 - they showed me the object, in its secret location, its no a study, its just a way they show people in the hospital that they never left there body or the room. Nothing more...
That said i know of a study, i cant remember the name of, but it showed that NDEs are similar only because of the way the brain powers down, so to speak. Im looking frough my database of docos now for the specific one (1 in around 2000 files)...
@nazra7 (cont) - and clearly visible, just not from the bed. Every patcient who has deescribed out of body/near death type experiences to the doctors in the past 10 years, not one of them has seen this thing. And in a hopsital like that, were talking easy 300 cases, not once has the item been identified or even vaigly mentioned as 'something'. Ive watch a lot of those videos, and they prove nothign more than the brain shutting down... i can keep going if you want
@Spinobreaker I don't dismiss miracles just because it doesn't seem Christian. I use a standard of probabilities... timing is key.
If an event happened that is either unexplained or the odds of it happening are abysmal, couple together with Christian significance such as altering one's life in a positive way, prayer, or fasting, then I say its most likely a Christian miracle.
"it addresses the no evidence for God Bit." When did I say that? Im fully aware that yes technically hearsay and conjecture are types of evidence that are available for many gods and Super beliefs of all types So that is not an argument for there truth, right? Sai Baba was predicted to return and he did , So What, Why Should we believe the Bibles Super claims over those of what we all consider Superstition , imaginary or nonexistent.
Greathiway 2 weeks ago
@Greathiway Based off of evidence.
ThePuppyTurtle 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ThePuppyTurtle " Based off of evidence:
AGian I aknowlage that, So what? you didnt adress my point?
Greathiway 2 weeks ago
I hope that you grow out of this, eventually.
lordwindowlicker 2 weeks ago
I went ahead and just stopped at 1:43. AronRa says, "Usually" and you go, "Yup, usually, BUT NOT ALWAYS!" great, so you agree, no more debate. Goddamn this is easier than I thought.
BigLundi 2 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Arguments for Christianity stand to scrutiny? ... What?
MidnightTea7 4 weeks ago
Don't know if it's already been answered but for your question at 12:04? The answer should be.The Bible John 14:6 (6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.) Although Aaron was using an older version but frequently used version by many prophets.
pumpstations 1 month ago
@pumpstations I Agree, the Son, who is God, is the only way to the father, who is God.
ThePuppyTurtle 1 month ago
Find me one science book that calls you a fool for not believing it. Religion is the ultimate failure.
GodKillerAtheist 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
I am god and the proof is that this is written in text and I can respond to you, need any more proof?
Cactarpus 1 month ago
@Cactarpus Aronra was claiming The Bible never records Jesus saying that he is God. I'm not Saying that those verses prove he was, I'm saying that those verses prove that The Bible says he said he was.
ThePuppyTurtle 1 month ago
@ThePuppyTurtle no the bible says that people said he said he did.
ebilly99 1 month ago
The point with all the Trinitarian "Proof Scriptures" is that under Trinitarianism, Jesus seems to "hint" to be God, and Jesus' enemies (being liars and sinners) accused Jesus of claiming to be God. Neither of these make a good case for Jesus actually claiming to be God.
More importantly, if Jesus had wanted to claim to be God, it would've been very easy. Simply saying "I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. I am Jahweh. Beside me there is no other," would do it. Why didn't Jesus do this?
FiverBeyond 1 month ago
@FiverBeyond He basically says that with "Before Abraham was born I am"
ThePuppyTurtle 1 month ago
"But what happens when Jesus is asked directly if he is God?"
Jesus is never asked directly if he is God.
You are right that the High Priests claimed Jesus' response was blasphemy, but this doesn't mean that the High Priests were right. The High Priests also claimed that Jesus had pretended to be equals with God (do you think the High Priests were right here too?)
FiverBeyond 1 month ago
@FiverBeyond If they were wrong Jesus would have Clarified. He did it on many occasions.
ThePuppyTurtle 1 month ago
John 14: 8 -11 : Jesus goes on to clarify his meaning: he acts in the Father's authority. Even trinitarians do not accept that Jesus IS the Father, so to interpret his statement as "I am the Father" doesn't support trinitarianism. Aside from this, using this same language (aka, 'seeing God' when you've only seen a prophet or an angel) is common in the Bible, especially the Old Testament. After wrestling the angel, Jacob said he'd seen God: does this mean the angel was God? Of course not.
FiverBeyond 1 month ago
@FiverBeyond No he doesn't, He says that He is God. He says that he is the father and the father is in him, This can only be explained by the trinity. The Text is clear that Jacob did in fact wrestle with God.
ThePuppyTurtle 1 month ago
@ThePuppyTurtle NO Mark said Jesus said he was the father. No evidence that there ever was a jesus.
ebilly99 1 month ago
@ebilly99 Mark is part of the Bible. I was arguing that the Bible Says this. And there is evidence for a Historical Jesus. The Gospels as historical documents are evidence for their own claims.
ThePuppyTurtle 1 month ago
@ThePuppyTurtle And Harry Potter proves witchcraft... Outside sources buddy.
ebilly99 1 month ago
@ebilly99 Harry Potter is not a Historical Document.
ThePuppyTurtle 1 month ago
@ThePuppyTurtle Nor is the bible. It is a religious text that contains some history.
ebilly99 1 month ago
@ebilly99 The Gospels are.
ThePuppyTurtle 1 month ago
@ThePuppyTurtle not evidence at all, circual logic my friend, is what you are trying here
Toudiyama 1 month ago
@Toudiyama No, It's a Formal Argument:
P1: If an Event is attested to in an reliable historical account then it probably occurred.
P2: The Gospels are reliable historical accounts
C1: The Events attested to in the Gospels occurred
P1 is Basic Historical method. And P2 is true because the Gospels are Early Eyewitness Accounts, which The Historical method considers reliable.
ThePuppyTurtle 1 month ago
@Toudiyama Correction, 2 are eyewitness accounts, the others are based off of Eyewitness Testimony.
ThePuppyTurtle 1 month ago
@ThePuppyTurtle written about 30 or 40 years after the event. have you ever tried that giving account to something that happens that long ago
btw which 2 are eye witness accounts and how do we know the are eye witness accounts?
Toudiyama 1 month ago
@Toudiyama 30 to 40 Years is early when you're talking the First Century. Matthew and John are Eyewitness Accounts and we know because we Know that Matthew and John (The People) were Eyewitnesses.
ThePuppyTurtle 1 month ago
@ThePuppyTurtle Also the first bibles were not written in the lands they came from, (Palistine) but in rome. This would be like writing about a messiah in the international space station. It would be hard to confirm or deny. By the time it made it back to isreal the "Witnesses" were all dead or old.
ebilly99 1 month ago
@ebilly99 I'm pretty sure travel was quicker then that. It wasn't quick, but it didnt tae lifetimes.
ThePuppyTurtle 1 month ago
@ThePuppyTurtle It might have been for the wealthy, or even middle class... But that is not whom accepted the bible. It was the poor of the world. (Lets not forget the average lifespan of the poor in isreal is but 35 years. Most were dead by the time they were written, by the time they got back there were ever fewer alive.
ebilly99 1 month ago
@ThePuppyTurtle Yep. And AronRa said "Jesus never implied that at all...." and not "the Bible didn't say something". And no, gospels aren't historical documents, scholars agree that none of them have been written by Apostles and we've NEVER seen original manuscripts. The earliest known Greek COPY fragment today is from about half of 2nd century or so and even that's an topic of a debate.
MidnightTea7 4 weeks ago
@MidnightTea7 "scholars agree that none of them have been written by Apostles" No they really don't.
"we've NEVER seen original manuscripts" Name 1 example from That time that we have that for.
The earliest known Greek COPY fragment today is from about half of 2nd century or so and even that's an topic of a debate.
Except P52 which is from 100 AD.
ThePuppyTurtle 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ThePuppyTurtle "No they really don't" Give me example of a well-known, respected scholar that disagrees.
"ame 1 example from That time that we have that for." Can;t say I know, but unlike gospels we CAN establish their accuracy (if they're considered historical documents).
"Except P52 which is from 100 AD" LOL, that's the papyrus I was talking about. As you see, they are unsure of its true age, though from what I know claiming it's from 100 AD is certainly stretching it.
MidnightTea7 4 weeks ago
John 8:58 - At no point here does Jesus suggest he is God. He may simply be pointing out that Jahweh existed before Abraham (and since Jesus was Jahweh's angel, Jesus was there too).This would still be blasphemy, if untrue.
John 10:37 also doesn't suggest that Jesus is Jahweh, as there is no biblical injunction that "Only Jahweh can be loved more than your family."
John 10: 28-29 - Thomas clearly distinguishes between Jesus ("My Lord!") and Jahweh ("My God!"), praising both.
FiverBeyond 1 month ago
@FiverBeyond 1: no it wouldn't.
2: But only God can REASONABLY DEMAND this.
3: He calls Jesus Both.
ThePuppyTurtle 1 month ago
puppy, you hit upon a very clear problem with religion without even knowing it; there is no new data. why was god so dedicated to miracles 2000-5000 years ago but he can't perform any today? wouldn't that help with belief? that way religion wouldn't be so divergent. that's one of the problems: there is no data
Itsrothytime 1 month ago
@Itsrothytime Actually Any religion with a Holy tradition (the RCC being one example) DOES have new data coming in. It's a problem with some religion.
ThePuppyTurtle 1 month ago
@ThePuppyTurtle my point is that there is no new data for christianity at large. there are divergent opinions within the catholic church. i'm talking about new SUBSTANTIVE data. there are no new miracles happening, no new divine revelations, no new holy books, etc. why would god stop giving us data? why would all of the significant events happen in a very small slice of human existence?
Itsrothytime 1 month ago
@Itsrothytime Again this is not Always the case. In the RCC or the EOC Holy Tradition is equal to scripture, it is new divine revelation.
ThePuppyTurtle 1 month ago
BOY YOU WILL SEE SOON
bullenchris18 1 month ago
do you honestly believe a single word that comes out of your mouth?
just curious.
it seams that instead of logical answers to his arguments you are not only missing the point,but avoiding them on purpose.
his point is that there are TONS of religions each claiming to be the exclusive TRUE word of god.
christianity is just one of them,and even in christianity there are many groups each claiming to be the only true christians.
to an objective outsider they ALL are the same,unsubstantiated claims
FractalMachine 1 month ago
Those groups other than protestants that leave Catholicism accept new data and still come up with divergent answers. So do Catholics who are not Roman Catholics (for example the Eastern Orthodox Catholics, and any who profess Catholicism and have beliefs that don't match those of the church. Yes, the higher central authority of Roman Catholicism reduces drift, but that is expected when you have 1 source of drift.
Then of course there are all the other religions.
JustAnotherMutant 1 month ago
@JustAnotherMutant Any Group drifting from the RCC isn't RC. Also my point about fish was that there can be many views on God and STILL ONE IS CORRECT. And this is true even if it really is as you claim impossible to know which one is. In Reality, Religions can be logically incoherent, and their historical claims can be supported by evidence.
ThePuppyTurtle 1 month ago
ThePuppyTurtle, yes... one of them can be correct, however you have no convergent method of determining which one actually is. It is also quite possible that none of them are correct, and you have no convergent method of determining that. Without a convergent method, you are guessing and telling yourself you got it right.
Those other "logically incoherent" religions, like you, find those other religions to be "logically incoherent"... they just include yours and not their own in that.
JustAnotherMutant 1 month ago
ThePuppyTurtle, and every one I've looked at with historical claims has claims with no historical support. Then they claim either "there is no evidence it didn't happen that way", or "that part is metaphor".
Now for Chrisianity, I can buy the metaphor part... after all, Joshua taught in metaphor, so by Christian beliefs God teaches in metaphor. However then you need a convergent method of determining historical and metaphorical entries, and you don't have that.
JustAnotherMutant 1 month ago
@ThePuppyTurtle "Any Group drifting from the RCC isn't RC."
I love how you shoot yourself in the foot here. You've killed your whole argument about RC not dividing, because even if it doesn't stay part of RC, it has still DIVIDED from it.
"there can be many views on God and STILL ONE IS CORRECT"
That's so untrue. It might be that the correct answer will elude us forever. It might be that there's no God at all, because - unlike fish - there's NO solid evidence to back your version of God.
MidnightTea7 4 weeks ago
@MidnightTea7 1: But that has only happened 4 times.
ThePuppyTurtle 4 weeks ago
@ThePuppyTurtle If counting only bigger groups then yes - but it happened anyway. Not to mention that Protestantism itself has divided from RC and it also counts. And someone has already mentioned the differing views within Catholics themselves (for example, in Poland, today we have basically two major 'churches' within the Church, fighting for influence)...
MidnightTea7 4 weeks ago
@MidnightTea7 But it's still rare, And the Doctrine never contradicts itself.
ThePuppyTurtle 4 weeks ago
@ThePuppyTurtle Just because the doctrine doesn't contradict itself on teh surface, doesn't mean that people - or even priests within the Church - don't have different interpretations of the Bible and that one isn't contradicting another. The two competing churches in Poland I've mentioned are great in demonstrating that - one is more open and modern another very conservative and highly controversial.
MidnightTea7 4 weeks ago
@MidnightTea7 Could I get a source for the Poland thing?
ThePuppyTurtle 4 weeks ago
@ThePuppyTurtle Most of texts talking about it are Polish. All I can give is... hmmm... find "Radio Maryja" on wikipedia, as church (rather a collection of churches) known as 'Torun church' (kościół toruński) is focused around this radio and its founder, father Tadeusz Rydzyk. In opposition to it there's the 'Lagiewnicki church' (kościół Łagiewnicki).
MidnightTea7 4 weeks ago
@ThePuppyTurtle Oh, and talking further about differences within Catholic church... In Poland we have an extremely strong cult of Mary. I'd say that at least at times she is considered either as important or more important than Jesus. She's been crowned as symbolic Queen of Poland about 300 years ago. There's even a well-known old poem mentioning that, basically, we may complain about Jesus, but by all means, we should leave Mary alone :D
MidnightTea7 4 weeks ago
@MidnightTea7 Source?
ThePuppyTurtle 4 weeks ago
@ThePuppyTurtle ... Source to what exactly? To back my claim (check Jasna Gora monastery on wiki for example), to claim that Mary is queen of Poland (check Black Madonna from the very same monastery) or to the poem (A. Mickiewicz, Dziady)?
MidnightTea7 4 weeks ago
@MidnightTea7 That there are 2 churches in Poland, Also explain why I'm meant to care.
ThePuppyTurtle 4 weeks ago
@ThePuppyTurtle I've already given you sources, look up Radio Maryja in wiki and you'll see what I'm about, as it;'s the most informative ource I can currently find in English. Also, I've made this point to counter your claim that people don't have contradicting views or can interpret the Bible very differently even within as apparently homogeneous denomination as RCC, remember?
MidnightTea7 3 weeks ago
@ThePuppyTurtle Also - the fact that RCC doesn't divide at high rate is actually not due to the Bible, but skilful politics. Maintaining "central planning" and indoctrinating people to respect Church is simply effective. That, an of course getting rid of 'unwanted element' is. It's not a secret. Only recently they've "silenced" another potential sect leader and are always keeping an eye on troublesome priests, just in case someone is planning another schism :P
MidnightTea7 4 weeks ago
@MidnightTea7 I argue it's because of the new "Data" But there is no way to confirm this.
ThePuppyTurtle 4 weeks ago
@ThePuppyTurtle *facepalm* Only if you consider new interpretations as 'new data' =___= For honesty's sake, you probably should not talk about arguments that stand the scrutiny or displaying warnings talking about 'providing evidence supporting truths that we don't want to admit to ourselves', because what you are doing is a mere speculation or twisting facts to suit theories, rather than twisting theories to suit facts.
MidnightTea7 4 weeks ago
@MidnightTea7 I considder a new ex cathedra statement new data.
ThePuppyTurtle 4 weeks ago
@ThePuppyTurtle *sigh* So you just things that Popes just make things up in the fly or something? Most, if not all, is based or supported by some kind of interpretation of the Bible.
MidnightTea7 4 weeks ago
@MidnightTea7 Sometimes sure. what's your point?
ThePuppyTurtle 4 weeks ago
@ThePuppyTurtle That you're making stuff up, just to push your agenda through.
MidnightTea7 3 weeks ago
For Christians, arguments for Christianity tend to stand up to scrutiny. For Muslims, arguments for Islam tend to stand up to scrutiny... etc... Arguments for atheism? Well, like what?
For different belief systems about fish, we have a method of choosing between them which produces convergent answers. For religion, that method has not converged on any answer.
The methods religious people use show no convergence, and thus we have no reason to think that any of these methods actually work.
JustAnotherMutant 1 month ago
It's funny about the council of Nicea that pretty much all but 5 to 10 people agreed with arrians.
TheIconodule 1 month ago
I love when he says "what Jesus actually said." im Sorry but the deity of Christ is very carefully defended and to say that in one sentance and ignore all arguments to the contrary is amusing to say the lease.
TheIconodule 1 month ago
Wow not even 60 seconds in and you ask, What religions can stand up to scrutiny?. I am quite confident in saying all religions that have an actual God, or Gods figurehead(s)
Now lets see how the rest of the vid goes and if you explain the opening quote in a way i have to retract some if not all of this comment.
Knightyme 1 month ago
Pt 2
No PT you did not validate your comment, you just dug yourself deeper.
While AronRa didn't add much citations in his 4+ year old vid, are you sure he has not answered your 'refutations' in the 4 years since? Not withstanding he would have researched, as well as read most if not all the religious texts of the religions he did mention.
Lastly, quoting the bible to 'validate' is as effective as quoting say lord of the rings or Harry Potter to validate LotR and HP, try external sources.
Knightyme 1 month ago
@Knightyme Aronra said that the Bible Doesn't say Jesus is God, I quoted the Bible to prove it does. I wasn't reasoning in a circle anymore than you would be in response to the assertion that Moby Dick never mentions any Whales.
ThePuppyTurtle 1 month ago
@ThePuppyTurtle Fair point in that context. :)
I guess it was a mostly automatic reply to someone using a book to validate what the book says. My apologies.
That said, I still hold that using the bible to validate biblical subjects is far weaker, bordering on pointless, then using external sources.
Knightyme 1 month ago
06:08 "In reality there is no such thing as absolute truth."
Puppy, you should have commented on that one too.
pugnaculum1 1 month ago
@pugnaculum1 I didn't because he went on to clarify that he was only saying that no human can know the absolute truth about everything.
ThePuppyTurtle 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I said THE 1 CORINTHIANS 15 CREED was written months after the resurrection. Scholars agree with me."
And yes, please, cite your sources here. Most scholars don't seem to be aware that there exists any documents from that period at all. Whether scholars agree with you or not is rather immaterial. The question is if they have evidence to back it up.
Gnomefro 1 month ago
If you think that doesn't matter either, and, say, are fine with the entire bible being one giant piece of symbolism. Then, Great! We should have no problem living together because you should be fine adopting secularism in every conceivable way, given that you have no information about reality in the Bible.
Of course, your belief still would be a bit odd, as it seems highly unmotivated in that case.
Gnomefro 1 month ago
You don't think that it matters whether Genesis is literally true or not? When Jesus is claimed to be a direct descendant of Adam in NT, with the entire genealogy listed? Roflmao! If people like Adam and Noah(Who is most likely a cultural adaptation of part of the Epic of Gilgamesh) are in fact fictional, then the authors of NT were at best lying to make Jesus seem more impressive. At worst, the entire character is invented.
Gnomefro 1 month ago
@Gnomefro When did Jesus claim to be a direct descendant of Adam in NT?
ThePuppyTurtle 1 month ago
One of the obvious problems with the atheists is that they insist on reading the Bible as literal. Clearly the Bible was not meant as literal but as many forms of writing such as poetic, metaphorical as well as allegorical. Fundy atheists, like aronra, only show they do not have any basic understanding of theology or context that is useful in understaanding and religious text.
Nice job on the video.
jfrontier1 1 month ago
@jfrontier1 That's partly because AronRa's video was addressing Creationism which is a literal interpretation and the fact that Christians pull out of their assess all kinds of different interpretations for every single different denomination. While the actions of liberal Christians to take the bible as symbolic is admirable, the only way to critically examine a doctrine is to address what is written on the paper.
Nightmare060 1 month ago
@Nightmare060 Was he addressing only creationism or Christianity as well? And while we should examine what is on paper how do we do that? By studying the proper context of the passage/parable/story/letter/etc. Many plain words in the text have different meanings when properly studied. An obvious example is the genesis creation story. Since the literal reading is the newer reading we should look into what the authors tried to convey with their messages.
jfrontier1 1 month ago
@jfrontier1 There is a difference between studying the bible to get the most accurate translation and historical context of the time the bible was written in and cherry picking passages to support all number of apologetic excuses. IstheSuperfly perfectly shows this, as does BrettPalmer/Discovering Religion. When a text is so vague that it can be interpreted so many different ways including literally, it's hardly a reliable source from a supreme deity.
Nightmare060 1 month ago
@Nightmare060 Actually if we read the text from a historical basis and the way it was meant ot be read we can understand it. The fact that some people do not is not the fault of the text or even of God, just humans having problems.
jfrontier1 1 month ago
@jfrontier1
but why would a book that is supposed to be "perfect" and written by an all knowing and divine being,be so easily misinterpreted?
didn't god foresee the problems arising by the vagueness of his message?
if god truly loves his creation it would make more sense for him to make it easy on people to understand and accept his words,rather than allowing it to be prone to misinterpretations,which will eventually damn people to hell for eternity,just for an honest misunderstanding.
FractalMachine 1 month ago
@FractalMachine Did God really write the bible? Yes, God probably did see any problems with it but so what?
Why would it make more sense to make the Bible easy for us to understand? And it is for me, when we have the Holy Spirit we can understand the Bible just fine. But if God made it to easy for us then we would not really have faith.
jfrontier1 1 month ago
@jfrontier1
i don't think so.
it would still require faith to believe in what the book says,and that it's divine.
making it more clear would not take away the faith requirement,it would just open the door for a clearer understanding of god's will.
if the holy spirit is truly the way to understand the bible then why is it that every individual has his own interpretations of scripture and god's will and what god thinks about certain issues?
FractalMachine 1 month ago
@FractalMachine Exactly how much more clear do some things need to be. Much of the NT is quite clear, man has been messing it up ever since we got it. But again, so what? Why is it bad that The Holy Spirit speaks to us in different ways? Many of my Christian friends believe all sorts of things about God and that is between them and God. Christian Mystics, Fundy's, liberal/progressives, moderate Christians whatever, we all view God differently and yet the same. God is a loving God.
jfrontier1 1 month ago
@FractalMachine So when people understand God differently, so what? Is our job really to know all about God or to learn of Him through faith? If God chooses to speak to us through whatever means He chooses that is up to Him.
jfrontier1 1 month ago
@jfrontier1
that means that the vast majority of people understand scripture wrong!
that is clearly not efficient,especially if your goal is salvation for as many people as possible. (and a loving god would want as many people as possible to be saved)
basically in that case,the holy spirit plays a much bigger role,than scripture,rendering scripture almost obsolete,due to it's vagueness.
and the holy spirit tells every individual something else about how to understand scripture
FractalMachine 1 month ago
@FractalMachine How do you know what is efficent in God's eyes? And what makes it less efficent than some other means? Perhaps this is exactly how God wants to do this?
How is scripture pointless? Perhaps God seeks for us to understand what He is trying to say through scripture, or some other means? Again, so what?
jfrontier1 1 month ago
@jfrontier1
so the holy spirit doesn't seam to me to be a reliable thing either.
all this is of course if your goal is finding out the ONE truth and god's true intention.
there are not many ways to interpret an instruction manual,because it's most efficient when the instructions are clear,and easily understood by everybody from the genius to the simpleton.
and again it has nothing to do with faith because you're supposed to need faith to believe in the bible,not to understand it.
FractalMachine 1 month ago
@FractalMachine Why is the Holy Spirit not reliable? If you do not understand Him perhaps you should try to listen to Him?
Why should I believe that the Bible is simply an instruction manual? The Bible is simply the way the authors wrote of their understanding of God through the cultural, political, scientific, and economic understanding of their time.
Faith is more than a simple belief. We are to study and look into why we believe what we do. You seem to think it is blind faith, and it's not
jfrontier1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jfrontier1 Ok you make the claim that the bible is meant to to be read as poetic, metaphorical and allegorical. How does one determine which verse, paragraph or chapter is which and by what criteria?
I would say that the criteria would have to be one so there is no misunderstanding or mixing of poetic, metaphorical or allegorical.
And what of those Christians that *do* say it is to be read literal? That then negates all of your claim.
Knightyme 1 month ago
@Knightyme The Bible has been read my way for a long time. It is the literal translation that has been a more recent way to understand the Bible. The Fundemantalists is a recent development.
So, why would God make it so simple to read that it requires no faith in Him?
I actually have history on my side on the translations. And progressive revelation is common for the Bible, as in from the OT to the NT to special revelation. God progress our knowledge of Him.
jfrontier1 1 month ago
@jfrontier1 That didn't answer the question - What criteria is used to determine the format a given passage needs to be read in?
Knightyme 1 month ago
@Knightyme You should probably give me an example of what you mean. But here is one that I usually use.
Psalms 75:3When the earth and all its people quake, it is I who hold its pillars firm.
OK, so God is holding some pillars that support the earth right? Well, this is obviously not literal (if you do not believe me, go to NASA and look for the pillars). Now, did the Hebrews not know of the round earth? Yes, they did. Pillars is not literal.
jfrontier1 1 month ago
Taking on AronRa are we,Someone i testing their hand at the big boys table.
MonTag666 1 month ago
nice rebuttal, bro!!! God bless you!!! :)
Sophiethefembot 1 month ago
I think what he was trying to get to in that video (and I admit it can be interpreted different ways) is that creationism relies on certainty, and that certainty can be undermined. There is a different between having faith and have certainty.
thornisdan 1 month ago
@4:50 "new Data" you mean making shit up?
Greathiway 1 month ago
@3:00 Are you referring to 1 Romans? It does not seem to be refer to christian. Also you dont think that is completely circular?
Greathiway 1 month ago
3:29 Exodus 25:18: And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat.
3:58 Your groan of disgust is misplaced - Aron makes a very good point.
4:41 That IS a problem with religion as a whole. Where is Catholicism getting new data from? A religious leader within the organisation... like the Protestants. 1 is interpreting scripture, the other scripture & aural hallucinations he ascribes to God.
5 minutes is enough of this is enough.
COEXISTential 1 month ago
@:50 I think Christians haven't demonstrated that so its just your assertion. I havent watched many of your vids but do you have an argument for the truth of christianity that stands up to scrutiny or atleast better than other religions. What do you think is the Best argument?
Greathiway 1 month ago
@Greathiway Read Wisdom 2
ThePuppyTurtle 2 weeks ago
@ThePuppyTurtle "Read Wisdom 2" Are you referring the apocrypha? What point of mine does that address?
Greathiway 2 weeks ago
@Greathiway Yes, it addresses the no evidence for God Bit.
ThePuppyTurtle 2 weeks ago
Another wrong quote. Jesus wasn't asked directly if he was god but was asked in the name of god if he was the christ. The blasphmeny was saying that he would sit at the right hand of god. You really need to read you bible more carefully and stop making assupmptions about it. How many times are you going to be wrong in 1 video?
lautz73 1 month ago
@lautz73 If he wan't claiming to be God it wouldn't have been blasphemy. There was nothing blasphemous about claiming to sit at the right hand of God and not be God.
ThePuppyTurtle 1 month ago
@ThePuppyTurtle Claiming that he, a man, would be sitting at the right hand of god would have been blasphmous since the jewish religion says that no man can have that power. You are using the current views to determine what would and wouldn't be blasphemous when it would have been different then.
lautz73 1 month ago
@lautz73 Could I get a Source?
ThePuppyTurtle 1 month ago
@ThePuppyTurtle Keep reading in John and it'll give you the source. It was blasphemous to claim that you were so powerful to sit at the right hand of god. For you to not know that and claim to know your religion makes me wonder if you really know your religion. I seriously doubt it from your lack of knowledge.
lautz73 1 month ago 2
What evidence do you have that prove your faith? And if you have evidence you don't have faith. Faith is belief without evidence.
1 Corinthians was, scholars conclude, was written around 57CE (that AD to you). That would be over 30 years (3 decades) after the supposed death of Jesus. So to say that it was less than that is a lie. Do you research. i have found several places where you are wrong. And you say that AronRa doesn't know what he's doing.
lautz73 1 month ago
@lautz73 I didn't say that ! Corinthians was written months after the Resurrection I said THE 1 CORINTHIANS 15 CREED was written months after the resurrection. Scholars agree with me.
ThePuppyTurtle 1 month ago
@ThePuppyTurtle Biblical scholars right?
What about the Jesus Seminar. What do they say?
ebilly99 1 month ago
@ThePuppyTurtle "THE 1 CORINTHIANS 15 CREED was written months after the resurrection. Scholars agree with me."
Cite your sources please.
violentlygraceful 1 month ago
and the majority of what uve argued is just YOUR interpritation, nothing more... im sorry... nothing more...
Spinobreaker 1 month ago
What arguements for christianity stand up to scruntiny? Of course your bible neglects those jews or muslims (all 3 religions pray to the same abrahamic god) that are enlighted. You need to go and look at John 10 again. Nowhere in there does it say what you have said. Are you lying for your god?
lautz73 1 month ago
@lautz73 Except in John 10:30
ThePuppyTurtle 1 month ago
@ThePuppyTurtle Take it in the context. John 10:36 he calls himself the son of god yet again. The trinity is made up to explain how Jesus is part of god when Jesus never claimed to be god.
lautz73 1 month ago
if there are equal evidence to prove ones claim, and (just for this example) they are all pulling in difference directions, how can one faith be excluded and claimed to be superior? If all evidence is equal, and if you dont make excpetions, it is, then u cannot say that christianity has mericles but others faith mericles are false. It makes no sence...
I once saw great potential in you... and i still see it, u just need to look a little broader and apply ur arguments equally...
Spinobreaker 1 month ago
@Spinobreaker I'd be happy to answer your question if your comment made any sense
Are you saying that if other faith's miracles are false then so should Christianity's? If so then the reason why it doesn't make sense to you is that you seem to think that if one claims a miracle happens is true, then everyone who claims a miracle to happen is also true which is not necessarily the case.
If I'm correct you probably fear that there is no systematic standard for identifying miracles.
nazra7 1 month ago
@nazra7 - (disclaimer, if i use u or anything like that it is not meant to be a personal attack, nither are any of my comments, even if they sound it. I just want to make that clear from the begining) - No. What i mean is there is no reason to assume it was a miracle (apologies for the bad spelling, its not what im best at). And you cant dismiss every other miracle because its not of the christain faith. THere is a standard, but just because we cant explain it doesn't mean its magic...
Spinobreaker 1 month ago
@nazra7 (cont)- ...because, thats all a mericle boils down to doesn't it. People have been making claims about merilces forever, and yet every time one of them is put to a group like JREF(who have a $1m prize if u can prove the supernatural) theyve been proved false. Regardless of the claim...
And if there was a god, and people were worshiping him, would he not, if he was loving, want to help them. Yes theres tough love, but sometimes it can be cruel as, like if u dont believe... (cont 2)
Spinobreaker 1 month ago
@nazra7 - (cont 2) - in something you get to burn forever, or what ever you believe. What evidence is there to support that. That is what religion refuses to accept. It is not a sceptics role to disprove something, that is almost impossible, but the role of the religious to show evidence for the after life. As of yet there is none.
Spinobreaker 1 month ago
@Spinobreaker There are exceptions of not believing which will allow you to to be given a chance at salvation even after death. One being a child who dies prematurely, another being one who was never given the opportunity to believe.
IN addition there are exceptions to believing which will still have a person end up in hell, and that is not seeking forgiveness and atonement of their sins, and not performing selfless deeds for the less fortunate.
nazra7 1 month ago
@Spinobreaker There is plenty of evidence for the afterlife, check out some videos regarding near death experiences.
nazra7 1 month ago
@nazra7 - Near death experiences are explainable by science. They do not prove an afterlie. In a hospital in Rotorua New Zealand, i had to go to the emergency room. It was quiet and i was talkign to the nurses about this sort of thing. She said the doctors have been conducting (varified by the one who helped me) an experiment, they have an object in a position someone entereing the room couldn't see, but you could see if you were floating above your body, its obvious (cont)
Spinobreaker 1 month ago
@Spinobreaker You're either lieing or referring to an experiment that I don't know about because it sounds like you're trying to make up for lack of results released by the AWARE study. If you're referring to a study that I'm not aware of then citations is needed. Otherwise, that rebuttal is nothing more than hearsay.
Go to this website: iands.org. There is no proof that NDErs are experience the afterlife, but studies about them conclude probable evidence of the afterlife.
nazra7 1 month ago
@nazra7 - they showed me the object, in its secret location, its no a study, its just a way they show people in the hospital that they never left there body or the room. Nothing more...
That said i know of a study, i cant remember the name of, but it showed that NDEs are similar only because of the way the brain powers down, so to speak. Im looking frough my database of docos now for the specific one (1 in around 2000 files)...
Might have even been Penn and Teller BS... lol
Spinobreaker 1 month ago
@nazra7 (cont) - and clearly visible, just not from the bed. Every patcient who has deescribed out of body/near death type experiences to the doctors in the past 10 years, not one of them has seen this thing. And in a hopsital like that, were talking easy 300 cases, not once has the item been identified or even vaigly mentioned as 'something'. Ive watch a lot of those videos, and they prove nothign more than the brain shutting down... i can keep going if you want
Spinobreaker 1 month ago
@Spinobreaker I don't dismiss miracles just because it doesn't seem Christian. I use a standard of probabilities... timing is key.
If an event happened that is either unexplained or the odds of it happening are abysmal, couple together with Christian significance such as altering one's life in a positive way, prayer, or fasting, then I say its most likely a Christian miracle.
nazra7 1 month ago