There is 0 trinity god in existence

[hobelim]

Moses wrote much of the early OT.

And the evidence from outside sources for that claim is...

I am sorry that God has not found you worthy to be sent to his son. It could be your attitude? God reveals himself to those who listen to him--then one knows for sure. Listen to him= every utterance, is what Jesus taught man has to live by daily.

In other words, there is none. So, perhaps using terms like "historical facts" when referring to mythical, and legendary figures may not best serve reason, and rational discussion.

In a satan ruled world-- Listening to God is the only way one will ever find out in a good way--Woe to those who do not listen.

You are certainly entitled to your beliefs. My objection to the OP was the claim that the fairy tales, and legends written in the Bible were, in any way, historical. There is zero evidence to support that claim.

I think what the OP was saying is historical is the Jewish belief in monotheism, one God.

Who would disagree with that?


That being said, fairy tales and legends written in the Bible, like all fairy tales and legends, convey teaching that is not necessarily directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used.. Am I telling you something that you don't already know?

Does the fact that there is no archeological evidence that the boy who cried wolf ever existed detract from or disprove the moral of the story?

 

[ding]

And the evidence from outside sources for that claim is...

I am sorry that God has not found you worthy to be sent to his son. It could be your attitude? God reveals himself to those who listen to him--then one knows for sure. Listen to him= every utterance, is what Jesus taught man has to live by daily.

In other words, there is none. So, perhaps using terms like "historical facts" when referring to mythical, and legendary figures may not best serve reason, and rational discussion.

In a satan ruled world-- Listening to God is the only way one will ever find out in a good way--Woe to those who do not listen.

You are certainly entitled to your beliefs. My objection to the OP was the claim that the fairy tales, and legends written in the Bible were, in any way, historical. There is zero evidence to support that claim.

I think what the OP was saying is historical is the Jewish belief in monotheism, one God.

Who would disagree with that?


That being said, fairy tales and legends written in the Bible, like all fairy tales and legends, convey teaching that is not necessarily directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used.. Am I telling you something that you don't already know?

Does the fact that there is no archeological evidence that the boy who cried wolf ever existed detract from or disprove the moral of the story?

Fairy tales and legends? You mean allegories and accounts, right?

 

[hobelim]

I am sorry that God has not found you worthy to be sent to his son. It could be your attitude? God reveals himself to those who listen to him--then one knows for sure. Listen to him= every utterance, is what Jesus taught man has to live by daily.

In other words, there is none. So, perhaps using terms like "historical facts" when referring to mythical, and legendary figures may not best serve reason, and rational discussion.

In a satan ruled world-- Listening to God is the only way one will ever find out in a good way--Woe to those who do not listen.

You are certainly entitled to your beliefs. My objection to the OP was the claim that the fairy tales, and legends written in the Bible were, in any way, historical. There is zero evidence to support that claim.

I think what the OP was saying is historical is the Jewish belief in monotheism, one God.

Who would disagree with that?


That being said, fairy tales and legends written in the Bible, like all fairy tales and legends, convey teaching that is not necessarily directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used.. Am I telling you something that you don't already know?

Does the fact that there is no archeological evidence that the boy who cried wolf ever existed detract from or disprove the moral of the story?

Fairy tales and legends? You mean allegories and accounts, right?

No, I mean fairy tales loosely based on actual accounts and historical characters.

The very first words in the bible, "In the beginning" is just like any story that begins with "Once upon a time."

No one ever floated up into the sky or crawled out of their grave days after being being beaten within an inch of life and then crucified.

If there is truth in the stories it is hidden and not directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used like in any fairy tale.

 

[ding]

In other words, there is none. So, perhaps using terms like "historical facts" when referring to mythical, and legendary figures may not best serve reason, and rational discussion.

In a satan ruled world-- Listening to God is the only way one will ever find out in a good way--Woe to those who do not listen.

You are certainly entitled to your beliefs. My objection to the OP was the claim that the fairy tales, and legends written in the Bible were, in any way, historical. There is zero evidence to support that claim.

I think what the OP was saying is historical is the Jewish belief in monotheism, one God.

Who would disagree with that?


That being said, fairy tales and legends written in the Bible, like all fairy tales and legends, convey teaching that is not necessarily directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used.. Am I telling you something that you don't already know?

Does the fact that there is no archeological evidence that the boy who cried wolf ever existed detract from or disprove the moral of the story?

Fairy tales and legends? You mean allegories and accounts, right?

No, I mean fairy tales loosely based on actual accounts and historical characters.

The very first words in the bible, "In the beginning" is just like any story that begins with "Once upon a time."

No one ever floated up into the sky or crawled out of their grave days after being being beaten within an inch of life and then crucified.

If there is truth in the stories it is hidden and not directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used like in any fairy tale.

How do you know?

 

[Czernobog]

I am sorry that God has not found you worthy to be sent to his son. It could be your attitude? God reveals himself to those who listen to him--then one knows for sure. Listen to him= every utterance, is what Jesus taught man has to live by daily.

In other words, there is none. So, perhaps using terms like "historical facts" when referring to mythical, and legendary figures may not best serve reason, and rational discussion.

In a satan ruled world-- Listening to God is the only way one will ever find out in a good way--Woe to those who do not listen.

You are certainly entitled to your beliefs. My objection to the OP was the claim that the fairy tales, and legends written in the Bible were, in any way, historical. There is zero evidence to support that claim.

I think what the OP was saying is historical is the Jewish belief in monotheism, one God.

Who would disagree with that?


That being said, fairy tales and legends written in the Bible, like all fairy tales and legends, convey teaching that is not necessarily directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used.. Am I telling you something that you don't already know?

Does the fact that there is no archeological evidence that the boy who cried wolf ever existed detract from or disprove the moral of the story?

Fairy tales and legends? You mean allegories and accounts, right?

No, I mean fairy tales, and legends. In order for a story to be an "account", it would have to be historically accurate. I'm still waiting for any historical confirmation of the existence of any of the heroes of the Biblical fairy tales.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[ding]

In other words, there is none. So, perhaps using terms like "historical facts" when referring to mythical, and legendary figures may not best serve reason, and rational discussion.

In a satan ruled world-- Listening to God is the only way one will ever find out in a good way--Woe to those who do not listen.

You are certainly entitled to your beliefs. My objection to the OP was the claim that the fairy tales, and legends written in the Bible were, in any way, historical. There is zero evidence to support that claim.

I think what the OP was saying is historical is the Jewish belief in monotheism, one God.

Who would disagree with that?


That being said, fairy tales and legends written in the Bible, like all fairy tales and legends, convey teaching that is not necessarily directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used.. Am I telling you something that you don't already know?

Does the fact that there is no archeological evidence that the boy who cried wolf ever existed detract from or disprove the moral of the story?

Fairy tales and legends? You mean allegories and accounts, right?

No, I mean fairy tales, and legends. In order for a story to be an "account", it would have to be historically accurate. I'm still waiting for any historical confirmation of the existence of any of the heroes of the Biblical fairy tales.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Of course you do. We have already established that you condemn respect for anyone who believes in God. That's what distinguishes you as a militant atheist. The fact of the matter is that you seem to be oblivious to the different literary types contained within the Books of the Bible. Instead you choose to lump them into one category, fairy tales, to suit your own purpose. Thus proving that ignorance is often insolent, which is especially true for ignorance which thinks it knows.

 

[Czernobog]

And the evidence from outside sources for that claim is...

I am sorry that God has not found you worthy to be sent to his son. It could be your attitude? God reveals himself to those who listen to him--then one knows for sure. Listen to him= every utterance, is what Jesus taught man has to live by daily.

In other words, there is none. So, perhaps using terms like "historical facts" when referring to mythical, and legendary figures may not best serve reason, and rational discussion.

In a satan ruled world-- Listening to God is the only way one will ever find out in a good way--Woe to those who do not listen.

You are certainly entitled to your beliefs. My objection to the OP was the claim that the fairy tales, and legends written in the Bible were, in any way, historical. There is zero evidence to support that claim.

I think what the OP was saying is historical is the Jewish belief in monotheism, one God.

Who would disagree with that?

I could agree with that analysis.

That being said, fairy tales and legends written in the Bible, like all fairy tales and legends, convey teaching that is not necessarily directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used.. Am I telling you something that you don't already know?

Does the fact that there is no archeological evidence that the boy who cried wolf ever existed detract from or disprove the moral of the story?

I would probably have no problem with that, were it not for a couple of things.

First, unlike the Bible, no one thinks the Boy Who Cried Wolf is divinely inspired text, or that it is the tapestry of some greater God story.

Second, few if any Christians refer to the Bible as a morality play. They believe everything in it happened, just as it was written, as a matter of history.

Finally, even as a morality play, one must admit that it is rather confused, and contradictory.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Czernobog]

In a satan ruled world-- Listening to God is the only way one will ever find out in a good way--Woe to those who do not listen.

You are certainly entitled to your beliefs. My objection to the OP was the claim that the fairy tales, and legends written in the Bible were, in any way, historical. There is zero evidence to support that claim.

I think what the OP was saying is historical is the Jewish belief in monotheism, one God.

Who would disagree with that?


That being said, fairy tales and legends written in the Bible, like all fairy tales and legends, convey teaching that is not necessarily directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used.. Am I telling you something that you don't already know?

Does the fact that there is no archeological evidence that the boy who cried wolf ever existed detract from or disprove the moral of the story?

Fairy tales and legends? You mean allegories and accounts, right?

No, I mean fairy tales loosely based on actual accounts and historical characters.

The very first words in the bible, "In the beginning" is just like any story that begins with "Once upon a time."

No one ever floated up into the sky or crawled out of their grave days after being being beaten within an inch of life and then crucified.

If there is truth in the stories it is hidden and not directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used like in any fairy tale.

How do you know?

We don't know, as none of us we're there, however we can certainly be more than a little skeptical, as there is not a single historical record that confirms any of the stories told in the Bible.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[ding]

You are certainly entitled to your beliefs. My objection to the OP was the claim that the fairy tales, and legends written in the Bible were, in any way, historical. There is zero evidence to support that claim.

I think what the OP was saying is historical is the Jewish belief in monotheism, one God.

Who would disagree with that?


That being said, fairy tales and legends written in the Bible, like all fairy tales and legends, convey teaching that is not necessarily directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used.. Am I telling you something that you don't already know?

Does the fact that there is no archeological evidence that the boy who cried wolf ever existed detract from or disprove the moral of the story?

Fairy tales and legends? You mean allegories and accounts, right?

No, I mean fairy tales loosely based on actual accounts and historical characters.

The very first words in the bible, "In the beginning" is just like any story that begins with "Once upon a time."

No one ever floated up into the sky or crawled out of their grave days after being being beaten within an inch of life and then crucified.

If there is truth in the stories it is hidden and not directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used like in any fairy tale.

How do you know?

We don't know, as none of us we're there, however we can certainly be more than a little skeptical, as there is not a single historical record that confirms any of the stories told in the Bible.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Much better.

 

[ding]

Finally, even as a morality play, one must admit that it is rather confused, and contradictory.

Is it your expectation that you would be able to properly understand a religion that is not your own? I wouldn't expect myself to be able to do that.

 

[Czernobog]

Finally, even as a morality play, one must admit that it is rather confused, and contradictory.

Is it your expectation that you would be able to properly understand a religion that is not your own? I wouldn't expect myself to be able to do that.

Good of you to admit your limitations.

 

[ding]

Finally, even as a morality play, one must admit that it is rather confused, and contradictory.

Is it your expectation that you would be able to properly understand a religion that is not your own? I wouldn't expect myself to be able to do that.

Good of you to admit your limitations.

Yes, it is. It is a requirement in progressing as a human being.

 

[Czernobog]

Finally, even as a morality play, one must admit that it is rather confused, and contradictory.

Is it your expectation that you would be able to properly understand a religion that is not your own? I wouldn't expect myself to be able to do that.

Good of you to admit your limitations.

Yes, it is. It is a requirement in progressing as a human being.

Only when that admission is followed by exploration, discovery, and learning, rather than just acceptance of one's limitations.

 

[ding]

Finally, even as a morality play, one must admit that it is rather confused, and contradictory.

Is it your expectation that you would be able to properly understand a religion that is not your own? I wouldn't expect myself to be able to do that.

Good of you to admit your limitations.

Yes, it is. It is a requirement in progressing as a human being.

Only when that admission is followed by exploration, discovery, and learning, rather than just acceptance of one's limitations.

Sure. So what? I'm not the one who is trying to explain a religion that is not my own to someone else. You are.

 

[Czernobog]

Finally, even as a morality play, one must admit that it is rather confused, and contradictory.

Is it your expectation that you would be able to properly understand a religion that is not your own? I wouldn't expect myself to be able to do that.

Good of you to admit your limitations.

Yes, it is. It is a requirement in progressing as a human being.

Only when that admission is followed by exploration, discovery, and learning, rather than just acceptance of one's limitations.

Sure. So what? I'm not the one who is trying to explain a religion that is not my own to someone else. You are.

Neither am I. I am the one pointing out the flaws of that religion to someone trying to convince me that religion is reasonable, and rational.

 

[ding]

Is it your expectation that you would be able to properly understand a religion that is not your own? I wouldn't expect myself to be able to do that.

Good of you to admit your limitations.

Yes, it is. It is a requirement in progressing as a human being.

Only when that admission is followed by exploration, discovery, and learning, rather than just acceptance of one's limitations.

Sure. So what? I'm not the one who is trying to explain a religion that is not my own to someone else. You are.

Neither am I. I am the one pointing out the flaws of that religion to someone trying to convince me that religion is reasonable, and rational.

Finally, even as a morality play, one must admit that it is rather confused, and contradictory.

 

[ding]

Is it your expectation that you would be able to properly understand a religion that is not your own? I wouldn't expect myself to be able to do that.

Good of you to admit your limitations.

Yes, it is. It is a requirement in progressing as a human being.

Only when that admission is followed by exploration, discovery, and learning, rather than just acceptance of one's limitations.

Sure. So what? I'm not the one who is trying to explain a religion that is not my own to someone else. You are.

Neither am I. I am the one pointing out the flaws of that religion to someone trying to convince me that religion is reasonable, and rational.

The flaws as you understand it. How is this not you trying to explain a religion that is not your own to someone else?

 

[Czernobog]

Good of you to admit your limitations.

Yes, it is. It is a requirement in progressing as a human being.

Only when that admission is followed by exploration, discovery, and learning, rather than just acceptance of one's limitations.

Sure. So what? I'm not the one who is trying to explain a religion that is not my own to someone else. You are.

Neither am I. I am the one pointing out the flaws of that religion to someone trying to convince me that religion is reasonable, and rational.

The flaws as you understand it. How is this not you trying to explain a religion that is not your own to someone else?

So, one has to share a delusion to understand it? Really? Interesting position.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[ding]

Yes, it is. It is a requirement in progressing as a human being.

Only when that admission is followed by exploration, discovery, and learning, rather than just acceptance of one's limitations.

Sure. So what? I'm not the one who is trying to explain a religion that is not my own to someone else. You are.

Neither am I. I am the one pointing out the flaws of that religion to someone trying to convince me that religion is reasonable, and rational.

The flaws as you understand it. How is this not you trying to explain a religion that is not your own to someone else?

So, one has to share a delusion to understand it? Really? Interesting position.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

See post #30.

 

[Czernobog]

Only when that admission is followed by exploration, discovery, and learning, rather than just acceptance of one's limitations.

Sure. So what? I'm not the one who is trying to explain a religion that is not my own to someone else. You are.

Neither am I. I am the one pointing out the flaws of that religion to someone trying to convince me that religion is reasonable, and rational.

The flaws as you understand it. How is this not you trying to explain a religion that is not your own to someone else?

So, one has to share a delusion to understand it? Really? Interesting position.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

See post #30.

My response remains the same. I do not need to share your delusion to understand it.