How Jesus became god'... from not being one. Bart Ehrman.

[james bond]

If you're willing to wait an infinite amount of time everything is inevitable. Including both of these.

You were claiming Darwinism and several hundred million years which suddenly became 300 million years couple of posts later. That may as well be infinity. No one can do a scientific method experiment that's over a lifetime. Let's just say what you say is unintelligent and not worth spending time on.

I can give you an example of Michael Marshall and his claim of irreducible complexity of metabolism, reproduction, and membrane for the origin of life. The problem is we don't see it happen today. If it happened in the past around 3.5 billion years ago, then it should still be happening today due to uniformitarianism. Thus, it's wrong.

Anyway, this is what I was laughing my arse off in post #26 about you and your weak agnostic - atheist arguments. That's why you got the gif. If you have a strong belief in your claims, then you'd be making much better arguments. Instead, I don't really see you working at it. You post whatever is at the top of your head and it turns out kinda ridiculous.

 

[alang1216]

I think you'll understand if I don't trust your judgements.

What judgments?

I already said you don't answer my questions and you ignored the last one. Why are you such a wimpy atheist?

I answered your questions, I'm sorry you don't like the answers. Your judgement of me as a 'wimpy atheist' (whatever that is) is a good example of one of your judgements I don't trust.

 

[alang1216]

If you're willing to wait an infinite amount of time everything is inevitable. Including both of these.

You were claiming Darwinism and several hundred million years which suddenly became 300 million years couple of posts later. That may as well be infinity. No one can do a scientific method experiment that's over a lifetime. Let's just say what you say is unintelligent and not worth spending time on.

I can give you an example of Michael Marshall and his claim of irreducible complexity of metabolism, reproduction, and membrane for the origin of life. The problem is we don't see it happen today. If it happened in the past around 3.5 billion years ago, then it should still be happening today due to uniformitarianism. Thus, it's wrong.

View attachment 385734

Anyway, this is what I was laughing my arse off in post #26 about you and your weak agnostic - atheist arguments. That's why you got the gif. If you have a strong belief in your claims, then you'd be making much better arguments. Instead, I don't really see you working at it. You post whatever is at the top of your head and it turns out kinda ridiculous.

First off I never said how long Darwin the earth has been in existence, only that it was way more than 6,000 years. It was you who first talked about Darwin requiring 3 billion years before the discovery of radioactivity. I'm not surprised at your confusion since you can write "No one can do a scientific method experiment that's over a lifetime". Maybe someday you'll realize how silly that sounds.

Secondly, as to my "weak agnostic - atheist arguments", I was not talking about myself but my understanding of Erhman's. Any problems you have with those arguments you'll have to take up with Ehrman.

 

[bottlecap]

sacrifices of animals was ONLY a temporary atonement for sins and were ALSO ONLY a foreshadowing of the sacrifice of GOD's SON

What makes you think so? There are several instances in the OT where after describing the way of offering sacrifices the verses end with words 'that requirement is eternal, for your generations' ( I hope I expressed it correctly in English).

Except of that, the sacrifices must be carried out in a certain place by certain people.

Human sacrifices would, of course, be an ABOMINATION to GOD, as it is murder first, and the offering would be tainted by sin. It should be noted that JESUS could have easily avoided CRUCIFIXION but willingly laid down HIS LIFE

It may well be argued whether it was willingly or not. I highly doubt that. According to the Christian view, God sent him to be sacrificed, right?

But anyway, this isn't the point. Even if he did that willingly, it was a human sacrifice. Abomination to God. This sacrifice hadn't been made according to the requirements - not in the place, not by the people, not according to 'instructions' because there weren't them per se and couldn't be. So, this wasn't a sacrifice, but just a killing.

Jesus Teachings are super important and a guide to righteous living. They are also IMPOSSIBLE to live up to so our best human efforts fall far short. Therefore HIS Sacrifice was MORE Important

Yes a human is far from ideal and therefore in the OT the word 'try' is often used.

So, you dont find it strange when God offers the sacrifice to Himself without any efforts from humans?

Not strange, but it was absolutely necessary that NO human participation could be involved in the redemption of mankind as GOD could not allow failure. In fact, JESUS was not only the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, but JESUS is also the high priest after the priesthood of Melchizedek, that offers HIMSELF.

Psalm 110:4

The Lord has sworn
and will not change his mind:
“You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek
and

Hebrews 7:27-28

27 Unlike the other high priests, HE does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. HE sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.

 

[bottlecap]

To your first point

"But anyway, this isn't the point. Even if he did that willingly, it was a human sacrifice. Abomination to God. This sacrifice hadn't been made according to the requirements - not in the place, not by the people, not according to 'instructions' because there weren't them per se and couldn't be. So, this wasn't a sacrifice, but just a killing."

I DO NOT like to cut and paste, but I cannot say it better.

Isaiah 53

1 Who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
3 He was despised and rejected by mankind,
a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.
4 Surely he took up our pain
and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God,
stricken by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to our own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
8 By oppression[a] and judgment he was taken away.
Yet who of his generation protested?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was punished.[b]
9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes[c] his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.
11 After he has suffered,
he will see the light of life[d] and be satisfied[e];
by his knowledge[f] my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,[g]
and he will divide the spoils with the strong,[h]
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.

 

[zaangalewa]

Not so I. But my grandpa was king David - and I guess this means I'm very familiar with the stories of the bible.

Not really. ...

Aha

 

[ESay]

sacrifices of animals was ONLY a temporary atonement for sins and were ALSO ONLY a foreshadowing of the sacrifice of GOD's SON

What makes you think so? There are several instances in the OT where after describing the way of offering sacrifices the verses end with words 'that requirement is eternal, for your generations' ( I hope I expressed it correctly in English).

Except of that, the sacrifices must be carried out in a certain place by certain people.

Human sacrifices would, of course, be an ABOMINATION to GOD, as it is murder first, and the offering would be tainted by sin. It should be noted that JESUS could have easily avoided CRUCIFIXION but willingly laid down HIS LIFE

It may well be argued whether it was willingly or not. I highly doubt that. According to the Christian view, God sent him to be sacrificed, right?

But anyway, this isn't the point. Even if he did that willingly, it was a human sacrifice. Abomination to God. This sacrifice hadn't been made according to the requirements - not in the place, not by the people, not according to 'instructions' because there weren't them per se and couldn't be. So, this wasn't a sacrifice, but just a killing.

Jesus Teachings are super important and a guide to righteous living. They are also IMPOSSIBLE to live up to so our best human efforts fall far short. Therefore HIS Sacrifice was MORE Important

Yes a human is far from ideal and therefore in the OT the word 'try' is often used.

So, you dont find it strange when God offers the sacrifice to Himself without any efforts from humans?

Not strange, but it was absolutely necessary that NO human participation could be involved in the redemption of mankind as GOD could not allow failure. In fact, JESUS was not only the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, but JESUS is also the high priest after the priesthood of Melchizedek, that offers HIMSELF.

Psalm 110:4

The Lord has sworn
and will not change his mind:
“You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek
and

Hebrews 7:27-28

27 Unlike the other high priests, HE does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. HE sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.

If no human participation is involved, then such a sacrifice doesn't make sense. What is a sacrifice? It is not about slaughtering some living being, burning it and eating it (even not to mention about a human being).

The sacrifice is just an external act, the form of a communion with God. But before that, you should make a sacrifice inside of you, in your heart. Burning flesh doesn't clean you from anything, only your sincere repenting does.

 

[james bond]

I think you'll understand if I don't trust your judgements.

What judgments?

I already said you don't answer my questions and you ignored the last one. Why are you such a wimpy atheist?

I answered your questions, I'm sorry you don't like the answers. Your judgement of me as a 'wimpy atheist' (whatever that is) is a good example of one of your judgements I don't trust.

Here's one you missed:

>>Me: William Thomson with his hundred million years age of Earth estimate falsified Darwin's claim of several hundred million years. What did Darwin do after that? <<

A great physicist of his time falsified or debunked Darwin. C'mon Darwin had to respond.

Here's another of my argument which you missed and didn't provide an answer:
>>Me: Thus, what does evolution come up with? That life first appeared on Earth 3.5 billion years ago.

Finally, why would I make stuff like that up when anyone can look it up to verify? Everyone knows Darwin needed long time, common descent, and tree of life. <<

What did evolution came up with after the 4.5 B age of the Earth? That's much more than several hundred million years, 300 million years, that Darwin first stated. Wouldn't that be after he thought > 6,000 years old? Now, he's got his best selling science books (the second one being racist) and Hitler wanting him. He even makes friends with a future leader of social Darwinism, Herbert Spencer. He gets "survival of the fittest" to explain evolution by natural selection from new buddy Spencer and uses that in a later publication of Origin of the Species. That is hidden racism right there.

Finally, I gave you the Clair Patterson paragraph and link. It stated, "Darwin had finally gotten the luxury of time he had craved." This was after Patterson showed the Earth was 4.5 B years old from radiometric dating. Do you see how several hundred million years went to 300 million years according to you and then > 3 billion before Darwin died? It still wasn't enough as verified by evolution berkeley edu.

I judged you as a "wimpy atheist" and gave you a reason for it. It is because you do not put the time in to follow your faith of no God/gods. Ehrman would be a great example. What about others? Another troubling one was Victor Stenger, a physicist, philosopher, author, and religious skeptic. He's another good example.

It should be me who doesn't trust your judgements. That's why you get the Ivy League equivalent of LMAO.

 

[james bond]

Not so I. But my grandpa was king David - and I guess this means I'm very familiar with the stories of the bible.

Not really. ...

Aha

My example from the Bible wasn't that difficult to understand. It was self-explanatory and gave the core of Jesus' teaching. Yet, you had lightning bolts shooting out of our hands. Again, where do you get that kind of stuff haha?

You know what I think is more powerful that that? The disintegrater ray.

 

[zaangalewa]

Science has explanations for how each evolved that requires no supernatural intervention. That is one reason I say that there is little evidence of design.

You mean other than space and time being created from nothing and the laws of nature predestining intelligence?

Sorry but I don't know what existed before the BB and I don't believe there are such laws of nature predestining intelligence.

That's because you are intentionally ignorant. The universe is an intelligence creating machine.

It's not intentional. On the trillions of planets in the universe we know of exactly one with intelligence and that took billions of years to create. If the universe is an intelligence creating machine it is a very inefficient one.

Sure it is. Intelligence is written into the laws of nature.

How?

This is what it takes to create intelligence. You are criticizing how intelligence is created. That doesn’t take away from the fact that the laws of nature strive to produce intelligence. Everything which exists exists through the laws of nature. If it is possible for it to exist through the laws of nature it eventually will.

But once was nothing, what we are able to call nature. "Then" appeared space-time, energy and information and the universe started to expand.

Through everything about the laws of nature which existed before space and time.

"Before" time existaed was no time. So it makes not any sense to say something existed "before" time existed. It's "only" our belief that god made everything out of nothing.

That’s how. Every little detail. So before space and time existed the laws of nature existed

What's nearly the same as to say the word of creation is a timeless word as Augustinus said about 1700 years ago.

such that everything that was possible to exist by the laws of nature existed in potential before space and time.

... or not ... ¿Who knows? ...

In the sense that things existed outside of our space and time

To exist means for us to be here in our universe within space and time.

they most certainly did exist before the creation of our space and time. It's not that complicated to understand.

It sounds nice what you say, that's all. But you do not understand on your own, what you try to speak about.

The purpose of potential is realization which manifests itself in mind stuff so it goes to reason that the source of potential and realization is mind stuff. It's not that complicated to understand.

It is simple what you say here. A coordinate system, three coordinates: possiblity, time and space. If you draw a line into this coordinates then this line - whatever the form is - is a reality. But what do you know about the correct line - if it is not a shower of raindrops or anything else? Nothing!

Apparently I was wrong. It was too complicated for you to understand.

It's not very difficult to find out that existence means to be part of a flow of energy in interaction within space and time - and it's also not difficult to know that this game started once in a first cause (for example a big bang). But is is impossible to know, what had caused the first cause of this game, because then this first cause would not be a first cause any longer. A first cause is without cause.

The universe has no outside (it expands from all points into all directions, so everything is always in the middle of the universe) - and the universe has no before (it is about 13.8 billion years old). So what was 15 billion years ago? Nothing! And what exists in a distance of 200 billion lightyears? Nothing!

So where do you take from the natural laws, which make us? What kind of nature is this?

 

[ESay]

To your first point

"But anyway, this isn't the point. Even if he did that willingly, it was a human sacrifice. Abomination to God. This sacrifice hadn't been made according to the requirements - not in the place, not by the people, not according to 'instructions' because there weren't them per se and couldn't be. So, this wasn't a sacrifice, but just a killing."

I DO NOT like to cut and paste, but I cannot say it better.

Isaiah 53

1 Who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
3 He was despised and rejected by mankind,
a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.
4 Surely he took up our pain
and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God,
stricken by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to our own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
8 By oppression[a] and judgment he was taken away.
Yet who of his generation protested?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was punished.[b]
9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes[c] his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.
11 After he has suffered,
he will see the light of life[d] and be satisfied[e];
by his knowledge[f] my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,[g]
and he will divide the spoils with the strong,[h]
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.

And what do you see when you read this thoroughly? I think that this chapter revokes the Trinity doctrine.

'Considered punished by God' , 'the Lord has laid on him' and others quotations clearly tells that he isn't God.

'I will him portion among the great'. What for? If the 'son of God' is God 'himself'.

 

[zaangalewa]

Not so I. But my grandpa was king David - and I guess this means I'm very familiar with the stories of the bible.

Not really. ...

Aha

My example from the Bible wasn't that difficult to understand. It was self-explanatory and gave the core of Jesus' teaching. Yet, you had lightning bolts shooting out of our hands. Again, where do you get that kind of stuff haha?

You know what I think is more powerful that that? The disintegrater ray.

Do you expect an answer now?

 

[james bond]

Do you expect an answer now?

I thought you provide an answer earlier. How much time do you need?

 

[zaangalewa]

sacrifices of animals was ONLY a temporary atonement for sins and were ALSO ONLY a foreshadowing of the sacrifice of GOD's SON

What makes you think so? There are several instances in the OT where after describing the way of offering sacrifices the verses end with words 'that requirement is eternal, for your generations' ( I hope I expressed it correctly in English).

Except of that, the sacrifices must be carried out in a certain place by certain people.

Human sacrifices would, of course, be an ABOMINATION to GOD, as it is murder first, and the offering would be tainted by sin. It should be noted that JESUS could have easily avoided CRUCIFIXION but willingly laid down HIS LIFE

It may well be argued whether it was willingly or not. I highly doubt that. According to the Christian view, God sent him to be sacrificed, right?

But anyway, this isn't the point. Even if he did that willingly, it was a human sacrifice. Abomination to God. This sacrifice hadn't been made according to the requirements - not in the place, not by the people, not according to 'instructions' because there weren't them per se and couldn't be. So, this wasn't a sacrifice, but just a killing.

Jesus Teachings are super important and a guide to righteous living. They are also IMPOSSIBLE to live up to so our best human efforts fall far short. Therefore HIS Sacrifice was MORE Important

Yes a human is far from ideal and therefore in the OT the word 'try' is often used.

So, you dont find it strange when God offers the sacrifice to Himself without any efforts from humans?

Not strange, but it was absolutely necessary that NO human participation could be involved in the redemption of mankind as GOD could not allow failure. In fact, JESUS was not only the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, but JESUS is also the high priest after the priesthood of Melchizedek, that offers HIMSELF.

Psalm 110:4

The Lord has sworn
and will not change his mind:
“You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek
and

Hebrews 7:27-28

27 Unlike the other high priests, HE does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. HE sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.

If no human participation is involved, then such a sacrifice doesn't make sense. What is a sacrifice? It is not about slaughtering some living being, burning it and eating it (even not to mention about a human being).

The sacrifice is just an external act, the form of a communion with God. But before that, you should make a sacrifice inside of you, in your heart. Burning flesh doesn't clean you from anything, only your sincere repenting does.

-----
Come, let us return to the Lord; for he has torn us, that he may heal us; he has struck us down, and he will bind us up. After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him. Let us know; let us press on to know the Lord; his going out is sure as the dawn; he will come to us as the showers, as the spring rains that water the earth. What shall I do with you, O Ephraim? What shall I do with you, O Judah? Your love is like a morning cloud, like the dew that goes early away. Therefore I have hewn them by the prophets; I have slain them by the words of my mouth, and my judgment goes forth as the light. For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.
-----

-----

 

[zaangalewa]

Do you expect an answer now?

I thought you provide an answer earlier. How much time do you need?

What do you like to know from me, wrangler?

 

[Hollie]

How are your gods free from sin when they lied as is clearly shown in the genesis fable? Have you never read the fable?

I've answered all your questions, but rarely mine. It means that unbelief is a sin and it applies to you.

You never answered why your gods committed sin. Per the genesis fable, they lied to Adam and Eve.

 

[zaangalewa]

How are your gods free from sin when they lied as is clearly shown in the genesis fable? Have you never read the fable?

I've answered all your questions, but rarely mine. It means that unbelief is a sin and it applies to you.

You never answered why your gods committed sin. Per the genesis fable, they lied to Adam and Eve.

Did I not give you an answer which only needs logic and no knowledge about why god "hates" sin?

If you speak about "gods" then you should be by the way aware, that gods and god are as different as normal cats and Schrödingers cat. For example makes it not a big sense to ask for the existence of the creator of all existence. Was he existent when he created existence? If god not exists now - will he exist in the next second? ... and so on ... To believe in god means by the way also just simple to trust in god - independent from the own logic and own knowledge.

 

[bottlecap]

To your first point

"But anyway, this isn't the point. Even if he did that willingly, it was a human sacrifice. Abomination to God. This sacrifice hadn't been made according to the requirements - not in the place, not by the people, not according to 'instructions' because there weren't them per se and couldn't be. So, this wasn't a sacrifice, but just a killing."

I DO NOT like to cut and paste, but I cannot say it better.

Isaiah 53

1 Who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
3 He was despised and rejected by mankind,
a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.
4 Surely he took up our pain
and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God,
stricken by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to our own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
8 By oppression[a] and judgment he was taken away.
Yet who of his generation protested?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was punished.[b]
9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes[c] his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.
11 After he has suffered,
he will see the light of life[d] and be satisfied[e];
by his knowledge[f] my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,[g]
and he will divide the spoils with the strong,[h]
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.

And what do you see when you read this thoroughly? I think that this chapter revokes the Trinity doctrine.

'Considered punished by God' , 'the Lord has laid on him' and others quotations clearly tells that he isn't God.

'I will him portion among the great'. What for? If the 'son of God' is God 'himself'.

I personally am not a Trinitarian. The Trinity is NEVER mentioned in the Bible but is something theologians came up with it to explain the Father, Son, Holy Spirit relationship. Sadly, Christian have warred among themselves over the "Trinity" for centuries and do so today.

As I said in an earlier post, the important thing for humans is not the relationship between the Father and Son, BUT our relationship to God as sinners and the GRACE offered us by the sacrifice of His Son.

 

[james bond]

How are your gods free from sin when they lied as is clearly shown in the genesis fable? Have you never read the fable?

I've answered all your questions, but rarely mine. It means that unbelief is a sin and it applies to you.

You never answered why your gods committed sin. Per the genesis fable, they lied to Adam and Eve.

YOU:

Where do you get such BS butt poop?

Unbelief is still a sin!

 

[james bond]

Do you expect an answer now?

I thought you provide an answer earlier. How much time do you need?

What do you like to know from me, wrangler?

Yes, I understand at your age of 80s that the memory goes (soon after your legs).

Let me refresh your memory.