ktriton

False. The idea of the trinity is cross-cultural and cross-mythological.

Magus55

No, is smashing children on rocks advocated by Jesus? No.

Sci_Fidelity

No, but it was certainly advocated in the O.T. Was it not?

Magus55

Wrong, Jesus claimed to be God. The trinity is all over the Bible. If you deny Jesus' divinity, you deny Him. And Vinnie doesn't even accept the supernatural aspects of the Bible. Well, duh, without Jesus' ressurection, Christianity wouldn't exist! Why vinnie even bothers calling himself Christian is beyond me. Whats the point when you deny every single theological concept that Christianity supports?

Magus55

Show me the verse that you wish to discuss please so I can look at it in context.

Sci_Fidelity

It's right here in this thread.

In addition to Psalm 137, there's also Isaiah 13:15-16 :

"Everyone that is found shall be thrust through, and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. THEIR CHILDREN ALSO SHALL BE DASHED TO PIECES BEFORE THEIR EYES; their houses shall be spoiled, and their WIVES RAVISHED."

Edited to add verses. (I think there are others along this line)

Tod

I pointed out a couple a few weeks ago that included the following first two examples:

Ex. 6:3 tells us that Abraham did not know Yahweh's (the Judeo-Christian god) name, but Gen. 22:14 tells us that he not only
knew his name, but named a place after him. This one went on for a while. To read the explanations giving, find the thread on the next page (or maybe the next after that by now) entitled "A couple of examples of contradictions.")

One of my favorites that never gets addressed in the past or the last time I posted it here in the aforementioned thread: In I Kings 15:5 we are told that "David did all that was right in the eyes of the LORD...save only the matter of Uriah the Hittite." (The "matter of Uriah the Hittite" is found in II Sam. chapter 11. What had happened was that David had sent a man, Uriah, to the front lines of a battle, ensuring his death, so that he might acquire his wife Bathsheba). However, if you turn to the last chapter of II Samuel, chapter twenty-four, you will find that David was punished for taking a census. The punishment was an example of utmost cruelty in itself, because to punish David Yahweh (God) killed 70,000 Israelites who had nothing to do with David's decision to take the census. If Yahweh got so angry about David's taking of the census that he punished him by killing 70,000 people, obviously the "matter of Uriah the Hittite" was not the only act of David that was not "right in the eyes of the LORD" as is claimed in I Kings 15:5.

Furthermore, in the first verse we are told that it was Yahweh himself that had "moved" David to take the census in the first place! So he "moves" him to do it, and when David does exactly what the Lord had "moved" him to do, it is deemed a sin, and David is punished. His punishment not harming him, but killing 70,000 others. That is no different than forcing your child to touch a forbidden object, and then to punish him you kill all of his friends on the block. A strange display of mercy and infinite justice to be sure.

Further still, this points to another contradiction. In the same account of the same event found in I Chronicles, we are told it was
Satan, not Yahweh, that had "incited" David to take the census. So which was it, Yahweh or Satan? For this one the common excuse I've heard is that Yahweh allowed Satan to do it. Of course, allowing somebody to do something and doing it yourself aren't the same thing. Not to mention that it would be a pretty shitty god that allowed an evil being to "move" a person (especially one that does "all that is right in the eyes of the lord" save ONE time in his life) to do something that the god later punishes the person for doing. As a parent, I'd never allow gang members access to my daughter to corrupt her, and then punish her when I allowed it.

Jesus tells us in John 3:13 that no man but him has ascended to heaven, but in II Kings 2:11 we read that Elijah ascended to heaven centuries prior. I had this one addressed a couple of times years ago, but I can't remember the apologetics offered. It wasn't really noteworthy or convincing.

In Matt. 12:40 Jesus says he will be in the grave for "three days and three nights". This is confirmed in Mark 8:31, which states that he will rise "after three days." From his crucifixion Friday afternoon until his alleged resurrection early Sunday before the sun had risen is only a day and two nights. Even if we allow a part of a day to equal a whole day, which is the most common explanation, you still have only three days and two nights. It says clearly three days and THREE nights and AFTER three days.

How about a few examples of failed prophecy?

Ez. 29:9-12 and 30:4-16 tell us that Nebuchadrezzar will "destroy" the land of Egypt, cause its inhabitants "to cease", the land will be made "desolate and waste" and "neither shall it be inhabited for forty years," and finally that afterwards, "there shall be no more a prince in the land of Egypt." The prophecy fails miserably on all counts.

Nebuchadrezzar never destroyed Egypt, neither did he exile or exterminate the inhabitants of Egypt. A prince ruled in Egypt for
centuries after Nebuchadrezzar's death, and never has Egypt been uninhabited for a single day in recorded history, much less forty
years. An utter failure of a prophecy.

Another example would be Jer. 36:30, where Jeremiah predicts to Jehoiakim that Jehoiakim would have no sons to rule over Judah. His son Jeconiah (also Coniah and Jehoiachin) (I Chron. 3:16 and II Kings 24:6) however was the very next king (Est. 2:6 and II Kings 24:6-8)! This prophecy not only fails, but one doesn't even have to look outside the Bible to see as much. The Bible refutes one of its own prophecy.

Jesus didn't fare much better. As also discussed in an earlier thread a few weeks ago, he says in Matt. 10:23 that the disciples wouldn't spread the gospel over all the towns of Israel before he would return. He corroborates this in Matt. 16:28, saying that some of his disciples would live to see his second coming. Well, the whole of Palestine knows the story of Jesus, all the disciples are dead, and still no Jesus!

The solution to this problem offered in the aforementioned earlier thread was that Jesus' second coming already occurred in 70 AD with the siege of Jerusalem and destruction of the temple by the Romans. I'll leave it to you to figure out why that explanation reaks of silliness. ; )

Vinnie

Magus, Magus, Magus...whatever are we going to do with you and all these titular reductionist fallacies??? Be happy, you just learned a new term

As I state on my website, I am not a "practical Christian". "Typical Christian" would probably have been a better word choice though:

"Since much of my religious background and spiritual imagery comes from the Christian culture I live in, I am a theist within the Christian tradition. But I reject virtually all Orthodox beliefs so I am not a Christian in any practical sense of the word."

Of course, I do not consider "orthodox" and "Christian" to be synonymous terms. Orthodox modifies the word Christian here. Its a "type" of Christian. Its an adjective in this context, not a noun. So I am in fact a Christian.

You are correct that I am not a liberal Christian if by that you mean "liberal orthodox Christian". I am however a liberal Christian. There were lots of Christianities that existed in the first century. Your model is only one. Deal with it because your smug religious snobbery and limited definitions are not going to change that.

I am a Thomasine Christian. The heavenly or mythological Jesus is my mystagogue. I love our Blessed Lord who teaches mystical doctrines and initiates people into Christianity--a mystery cult. Through self-knowledge and transformation of myself into a utopian being, I will enter the Kinddom of God.

Praise Jesus! And Thomas for recording these secret sayings!

Vinnie

Magus55

No where in Psalm 137 does it say God condones that. Its the Psalmist's opinion in having the wicked punished.

Isaiah 13:15-17 is a babylonian invasion occuring during the end times.

Magus55

And who is your Lord? Can't be Jesus since you don't believe He is even divine. And I doubt you'll be entering the Kingdom of God by rejecting Jesus and not believing in His ressurection. And I thought Mormonism was bad.