You're viewing a single thread.
TBF, his (hypothetical) dad planned the whole thing.
Yes, but only because he knew our nature, and still wanted to love and forgive us, despite being quite unforgivable.
Sure. That fucker wants to forgive us and he gets a pass. I want to love and forgive everyone and I wind up with a life sentence for murdering my son.
That's your mistake.
You set up a situation in which he will end up being murdered by others.
Step 1: become a healthcare CEO
Step 2: deny defend depose
Step 3: profit
Thomson died for our spin
That's why the trinity is essential - Jesus is God. God became man so He could die Himself
Total nonsense that one can only accept through thorough indoctrination
How so?
perhaps you could explain to me how three people could exist in one? of course without using the words "holy mystery." how convenient is it that the most basic tenets of the religion, like the belief in god, require blind faith.
but God is beyond comprehension you will say, and that of course not all of it makes sense to my feeble human mind.
What about this: How is it reasonable for you to believe in a religion?
Because you were told to, absent of any sort of proof, from the time that you were a child? Granted I'm making an assumption but one well grounded in reality.
What of the similarities (Virgin birth, resurrection, etc.) to other religions? what about the constant translations re-translations and mis-translations of the bible? What about the Hindu and Buddhists that believe in their faith just as fervently because they too were indoctrinated from birth? is your book older than their book? Is your God more plausible than their God?
regardless of all that, if you make the claim that God exists or that he's three people or he's got 17 arms, the burden of proof is on you, and I guarantee you can't meet it.
I can explain to you how two people can exist in one. Your father is also a son.
If I told you that my father is two people, you'd either think I was unwell or being metaphorical. He is a single person who can be viewed through lenses. The trinity is distinct. They are referred to as "three persons."
I don't need an infographic to explain daddy's existence:
That's modalism
I don't think there's a point answering the first as it relies on the second.
Your assumption is wrong. I deconstructed my beliefs and ended up switching denomination because of it. And as I have said earlier - albeit to somebody else - the genetic fallacy doesn't hold any water. Most Christians I hang out with actually are converts themselves, including my closest brethren. I could also say "if you grew up in Saudi Arabia, you wouldn't be an atheist". Doesn't legitimise or delegitimise your beliefs. It depends on if you questioned your beliefs. If someone was raised atheist, decided to examine religions and stuck with atheism in the end, I don't think it would be fair to say that they were just indoctrinated as an atheist and discount their atheism. I questioned my own beliefs and they changed slightly, but I saw the rest were well grounded.
Similarities in other religions predating Christianity aren't quite the same. Sure, some themes exist, but Christianity is quite original in the narrative.
The translation of the Bible I use is the English Standard Version, which is translated from copies of the original greek manuscripts. Textual criticism is important. While we don't have the originals or even first generation copies, we have several new testament manuscripts spanning parts of Asia, Africa and Europe. And they all say roughly the same thing. Mistakes and variants (usually spelling errors, misplaced verses, at most a different or new paragraph) can easily be weeded out by looking at the majority of manuscripts. Thankfully - unlike most records from that time period - we have an abundance of new testament manuscripts to work from. If you have a Bible with footnotes (specifically thinking about my ESV here) it clearly states where there is a variant and we can't be sure. Such as John 8:1-11, the doxology of the Lord's prayer or the ending of Mark's Gospel.
Hinduism and Buddhism (like most religions) both try and preach a Jesus. They both adapted to Jesus trying to make room for him. Buddhism compromised and claimed Jesus was a Bodhisvatta (Jesus Himself didn't - He claimed to be the One True God) and Hinduism tries to depict him as another rendering of god (Jesus said He was the only way).
Proving the Trinity without first proving Christianity is pointless;
The best place to start when looking into any religion is Jesus - He forms the biggest and is incorporated in basically all of them, so He's a good place to start. If Jesus is who He said He is, then what He said is true.
😬
You’ve got a strange definition of love. That sounds like manipulation to me.
Is god also jesus and the holy spirit all at once?
Ah, yes, the holy Trinity.
The only thing that made less sense than a virgin birth or resurrection.
It still doesn't make sense. Like from a narrative view either. It doesn't help the story, or the belief it's just a useless... Thing?
a virgin birth
parthenogenesis – Jesus is a clone of Mary – which also make him canonically a trans man
the perfect push over the edge for the doubting christian in your life: was Jesus trans or was Mary an adulterer?
What's the logic?
Virgin births exist in nature. There are entire species of lizards that are only composed of females, for example the mourning gecko lepidodactylus lugubris only reproduces via virgin birth.
Due to how parthogenesis works, individuals born through virgin births are always clones of the mother. Thus they are all females.
If (big if) Jesus existed and IF (even bigger if) he was conceived through a virgin birth, he therefore must have been biologically female since there were no male chromosomes involved in his conception. Hence, Jesus sex must have been female but his gender was male (he/him pronouns)... ergo he was a trans man.
If Jesus existed and was a biological male, he could not have been conceived through a virgin birth, the best explanation then is that either a) Mary had sex with Joseph, but then why the virgin birth story? Or b) Mary was an adulterer who concocted the "virgin birth" story to hide her adultery from Joseph.
Since explanation a) falls flat on it's face, we are left with either 1) trans man or 2) Mary the adulterer.
Edit: correcting spelling mistakes
Scholars unanimously agree that Jesus existed, was baptised and crucified. His followers had reason to believe that He rose from the dead as well.
You also left out explanation 0, which is that Jesus was conceived via the Holy Spirit. Jesus did have a Father - God. He is God from God. Joseph was also visited by an angel and I think we could probably take it as fact that they didn't divorce (as we have records of Jesus being referred to a boy of Joseph) So no, this can't cause a crisis of faith for a believer.
Miracles are called miracles for a reason- you are right that a virgin cannot give birth to a male without divine intervention (except from artificial insemination)
Why did God create a bespoke Y chromosome just for Jesus? Why couldn’t Jesus have been born female? What would that change?
Did they crucify women back then?
Yes, there is evidence that women were crucified.
One Roman punishment if a slave killed their master was often that all slaves in the household were crucified. I imagine there were less women crucified overall and that it was less common, but I don’t think there’s evidence that women were exempted.
Because God is male. Man was created in God's image, Jesus refers to God in heaven as Father, Jesus is a male (He was circumcised) and the Holy Spirit is also Male (as the Holy Spirit impregnated the Virgin Mary)
"Miracles" are only compelling to people who already believe.
They're utterly unconvincing to anyone not indoctrinated, as proven by the fact that you don't believe in Hindu, Buddhist, Mormon, or Muslim miracle accounts.
I disagree. I believe because I’ve witnessed miracles.
So have Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Pagans, and witches.
So that's clearly a bad way to know what's true.
In this scenario, it was with someone who doesn't believe.
And even then, if a dude performed a miracle in front of you like rising from the dead, wouldn't you believe him?
I don't believe in Hindu, Buddhist, Mormon or Muslim miracle accounts as I cannot find any compelling ones. I don't believe in Islam because it completely contradicts the Bible whilst claiming the Bible is a correct revelation from God, and I don't believe in white islam/mormonism because it hinges on one dude who was a known liar and con artist. Both of these prophets also conveniently lifted the polygamy rule. Hinduism claims Jesus is divine but just another way, while Jesus said He is the only way, and Buddhism claims Jesus was a good teacher and Bodhisvatta when Jesus Himself claimed to be God.
If you can find me compelling islamic, mormon, buddhist or hindu miracles, I'll consider it.
You missed the whole point.
Yours aren't compelling either, you've just been indoctrinated otherwise.
If someone "raised from the dead" in front of me I'd need stacks and stacks of evidence to validate it, not merely a narrative from two thousand years ago where the author had an agenda to convince people that the laws of nature briefly stopped in a time when everyone believed in magic.
What do you have other than stories written a generation after the purported events by four anonymous authors that contradict in major story-breaking ways?
for what?
How does it debunk Christianity?
it doesn't debunk, it raises additional questions. if you're all in, "it's a miracle" is a good enough explanation.
It makes sense in the context of an infinite being existing in numerous places at once. It's not useless as it shows God Himself died for our sins
That's all retconning.
Dude showed up with a message for peace, was murdered and his murder is celebrated. Literally, a bunch of people running around pretending that's what he wanted. The propaganda is so strong that everyone just accepts it as fact.
It's really not much different than claiming a women wanted to be sexually assaulted because of what she was wearing.
No?
Mark 15:29-30 And those who passed by derided him, wagging their heads and saying, “Aha! You who would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save yourself, and come down from the cross!”
Even the old testament shows it was voluntary
Isaiah 53:6-9 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth. By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people? And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth.
Jesus claimed to be God
John 10:30 "I and the Father are one."
John 8:57-58 So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”
Yeah, no shit. They wrote a bunch of books with varying accounts claiming exactly this. All retcon. All written decades after the events. The Bible is bullshit.
All written decades after the events.
Unlike most of history for that time, which was usually written centuries after the events.
He is whatever you want them to be.
No! It can’t be!
What is it?
It can’t be!
What did you do Ray?
Oh no!
It’s the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
Yes.
Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith unless every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father infinite; the Son infinite; and the Holy Ghost infinite. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated; nor three infinites, but one uncreated; and one infinite. So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties; but one Almighty. So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the catholic religion; to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal. So that in all things, as aforesaid; the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, let him thus think of the Trinity. Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Substance [Essence] of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Substance [Essence] of his mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood into God. One altogether; not by confusion of Substance [Essence]; but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell; rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty, from whence he will come to judge the living and the dead. At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies; And shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved.
Thruth is, opinions differ a lot among christians when it comes to trinity. You should respect other views (and not just the christian ones).
Apart from whether or not The Holy Spirit proceeds from the son as well as The Father, opinion doesn't differ and all Christians agree on the triune God.
That's simply not true, unitarians disagree with the trinity thing.
Unitarianism is a completely different religion 🤦 even Islam is closer to Christianity than to Unitarianism
Also not true. The Unitarian church is a reformed Christian branch, and there are more than one unitarian branches. The fact they seem like heretics to you doesn't mean they're not Chistians.
Christians worship Christ. Unitarians do not.
Unitarians are a Christian branch whether you like it or not. For anyone interested, here's more info: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarianism