I am glad you see this. I am sure that others do as well. I have repeatedly pointed to the NT and he repeatedly turns away from it.

For the third time, you misspelled Ehrman's name.

Edit Here's your statement:

here is a brief synopsis from a review of the eminent New Testament scholar's Bert Ehrman's "How Jesus Became God" — Fooloso4

Besides, @god must be atheist claims that you are quoting the Bible. I haven't seen even one single quote. So, one of you must be lying. Or possibly both.

There enough ways for you to doubt the Bible and enough reasons for Christians to see it as consistent. It depends of which eyes you use to read it — Gregory

This is a fundamental mistake of Christian apologists. There are plenty of Christians who do see the inconsistencies. This does not mean they doubt the Bible.

At no point has Fooloso4 referred to the Bible. — Apollodorus

You must be blind as much as you are stupid. Fooloso4 did not QUOTE the bible, but he referred to it many many places. You don't even speak the language, for crying out loud.

Christians believe the Trinity and Incarnation were originally truths of oral tradition — Gregory

Some Christians, not all. I have previously pointed to the First Council of Nicaea where these issues were argued and left unresolved, but one side was declared the winner for political reasons.

Besides, god must be atheist claims that you are quoting the Bible. I — Apollodorus

You are a fing idiot. You misquote me. I did not say Foolso4 quoted the bible. I said he referred to it. Go fuck yourself, you are so full of shit.

If you use the rational, thinking person's eye, the Bible is inconsistent. If you can believe its contents, then your eyes are already providing skewed vision, so it appears consistent. — god must be atheist

Of course I didn't say that. Just because you believe only in reason, that doesn't make you reasonable. People who believe in things higher than reason are not necessarily unreasonable either. These are your mistakes, probably fueled by anger. Buddhists call reason a "mad dog" and believe the essence of a real dog is "non-dog"

I did not say Foolso4 quoted the bible. I said he referred to it — god must be atheist

That was exactly what I said. He isn't quoting the Bible he talks about his own misconstructions of Biblical statements. Surely, you can distinguish one thing from the other. Or maybe not.

This is a fundamental mistake of Christian apologists. There are plenty of Christians who do see the inconsistencies. This does not mean they doubt the Bible. — Fooloso4

They aren't stupid. They see things you don't. That's how life works. But your argument was that "you would uh think that all the Gospels would speak of Jesus's divinity" when this is not true. Christians believe it was in tradition and that the first three Gospels were speaking of Jesus's humanity and life, while the last one spoke out authoritatively of Divinity for their followers. So your argument is wrong

Just because you believe only in reason, that doesn't make you reasonable. — Gregory

He doesn't believe in reason at all. He believes in skewed reason or lies to promote his hidden agenda. In actual fact, he is being unreasonable and irrational, possibly due to ignorance, loneliness, and frustration.

For the third time, you misspelled Ehrman's name. — Apollodorus

What is the difference between:

'Ehrman's' and 'Ehrman’s'. The first is from my post, which you quoted. The second is yours.

Once again you avoid substantive matters. The following statement is either true or false. If you think it is false then point out the errors. Show where in the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke Jesus calls himself God.

I think it's completely implausible that Matthew, Mark and Luke would not mention that Jesus called himself God if that's what he was declaring about himself. That would be a rather important point to make. This is not an unusual view amongst scholars; it's simply the view that the Gospel of John is providing a theological understanding of Jesus that is not what was historically accurate.

In actual fact, he is being unreasonable and irrational, possibly due to ignorance, loneliness, and frustration. — Apollodorus

Rationalists critique things that in reality they don't understand. I don't like how Christians try to prove their faith is true but they have every right to defend the logic of their beliefs from rationalist attacks

Show where in the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke Jesus calls himself God. — Fooloso4

I just refuted that

I think it's completely implausible

To a rationalist. Faith sees things differently

What is the difference between:

'Ehrman's' and 'Ehrman’s'. The first is from my post, which you quoted. The second is yours. — Fooloso4

You are avoiding the issue again, aren't you? This is your own statement, is it not?

here is a brief synopsis from a review of the eminent New Testament scholar's Bert Ehrman's "How Jesus Became God" — Fooloso4

People do make typos, but if I have to tell you 5 or 6 times that you've misspelled Ehrman's name and you still don't register, then you've got some serious issues there, my friend. I've pointed that out many times when it comes to leaving out parts of translations, etc.

Rationalists critique things that in reality they don't understand. I don't like how Christians try to prove their faith is true but they have every right to defend the logic of their beliefs from rationalist attacks — Gregory

Isn't a logical defense a rational defense? If it can be defended rationally or logically then it should be capable of being understood rationally or logically.

You have not rationally, logically, or otherwise explained away the reason why there is no mention or claim that Jesus is God.

Rationalists critique things that in reality they don't understand. I don't like how Christians try to prove their faith is true but they have every right to defend the logic of their beliefs from rationalist attacks — Gregory

It is true that some Christians employ unwarranted methods to prove their point. But the "rationalists" don't really critique Christian beliefs, they attack them with irrational arguments and angry rhetoric which only proves their own irrationality. Therefore, they don't seem to be genuine rationalists. They are more fanatical anti-Christians. Fanaticism itself is irrational.

You have not rationally, logically, or otherwise explained away the reason why there is no mention or claim that Jesus is God. — Fooloso4

Yes I have. Christians believe that early believers already knew Jesus was God. If a priest is to give 4 sermons to his followers, why is it odd that he mentions Jesus's divinity only in the last one? You don't think about these issues properly

Okay, you got me, its Bart not Bert. You are still avoiding the issues.

its Bart not Bert. — Fooloso4

Don't forget about Ernie

Christians believe that early believers already knew Jesus was God. — Gregory

Christians are not monolithic. They hold a variety of beliefs. If Matthew, Mark and Luke believed that Jesus was God why isn't that part of the good news message?

Okay, you got me, its Bart not Bert. You are still avoiding the issues.[/quote]

I'm not avoiding anything. There are no issues to discuss and as I've demonstrated time and again, you are too self-preoccupied to see the issues.

If Matthew, Mark and Luke believed that Jesus was God why isn't that part of the good news message? — Fooloso4

You don't think with faith or pre-faith. Christians nowadays believed the apostles believed like they did and they and Paul converted thousands of people. The Gospels were written for believers who already believed God was Jesus. They had oral tradition to back it up already and John's Gospel was enough to solidify it.

What are you going to retract your argument?

Here's the thing. You have a vested interest in this I don't. If I'm wrong nothing changes. If you're wrong, and Jesus is not God, then your whole Christian world collapses. And so, it makes sense that you avoid the issue and pretend that there is no problem.

The Gospels were written for believers who already believed God was Jesus. — Gregory

How do you know they already believed? And even if it were true, that still not not explain why something so important is not even mentioned.

How do you know they already believed? — Fooloso4

That is their opinion and it's self-consistent. I am not saying it's true. I am saying you can't disprove Christianity from logic.

And even if it were true, that still not not explain why something so important is not even mentioned. — Fooloso4

Have many times have you been to church? You don't seem to know how this community, who believes their spirit and state of mind go back to Jesus, thinks. The Gospels make perfect sense as Christian documents. Why are you taking them historically? Christianity is about faith first and then "God" reveals how he worked in history. Most Christians just try to point towards their faith FOR YOU. But when you claim their story is inconsistent, you need to back that up and no one on this thread has done that.

You seem very confused to me.
I have explained already why there is nothing higher than Reason and why anyone who thinks otherwise is demonstrably stupid.
Reason is a person - a mind. So not an abstract we know not what. A person. And she will have the omni properties. So the person of Reason and God are one and the same. See? (No, obviously).

I explained too why God has no essential properties: it would be inconsistent with being omnipotent. That's why there are no necessary truths if God exists. Nothing that is true has to be true if there's an omnipotent being.

Simplicity - I don't know why you think I deny God's simplicity. I don't. Minds are simple objects, so God's mind is simple. But 'infinitely' simple is just nonsense of the sort mystery junkies like you go in for.

You also seem to think that God's existence can't be proved and have a dislike of those who seek to show God by rational means. God's existence can be proved and it is perverse to dislike the attempt to do so. It shows a corrupt nature. You prefer mystery over clarity. Like I say, Buddhism will love you. Style over substance.

You seem as well to have a faulty understanding of faith and knowledge. To know something there has to be a reason - specifically an epistemic reason - to believe it. But you do not have to know that there is, for that would set one off on an infinite regress. Some things are therefore known without the knower knowing that there is a reason to believe them. Thus if anything is known, some things are known by faith. But that doesn't mean that everything is known by faith or that that which some know by faith cannot be known by others via reason. Someone who has faith God exists can have knowledge of God, but so too can someone who believes in God on the basis of a proof.

Your idea of God is anthromorphic still because human souls have parts while God's does not. Even calling God "she" doesn't mean God is not *perfectly* simple. The Trinity is what makes perfect simplicity rational

And I love Buddhism. All spiritual ideas are truly about spiritual practice

And I love Buddhism. — Gregory

I am not surprised. I imagine you like crystals too.

All spiritual ideas are truly about spiritual practice — Gregory

Obviously false. Save it for the Buddhists.

Your idea of God is anthromorphic still because human souls have parts while God's does not. — Gregory

Er, what? Did you read what I said? Minds - all minds - are simple. That means they don't have parts. You can't have half a mind. That's true of all minds. Like I say, you're confused (and you like being confused, yes?)

The Trinity is what makes perfect simplicity rational — Gregory

I don't think you're qualified to talk about rationality.

I disagree. Perfection necessarily entails flawlessness. Not knowing something is a flaw. — Pinprick

I explained why that is not so. Literally. Did you not read it?

I'll do it again. Read it this time. Velasquez's portrait of pope innocent X is perfect. So is Da Vinci's Madonna of the rocks. Part of what makes Velasquez's portrait perfect is his loose brushwork. But that's not what makes Da Vinci's Madonna perfect. It doesn't have loose brushwork. If you took one of Velazquez's strokes and put it in the Madonna, it would constitute a flaw.

So what would constitute a flaw in one context doesn't constitute a flaw in another. Can you understand this? It isn't hard.

Thus, you could have two people who are perfect, yet different. And one of them could be perfect in part because they know everything, and the other could be perfect in part because they don't know everything. Again....two paintings, both perfect. One of them is perfect in part because of its loose brushwork. One of them is perfect in part because of its disciplined brushwork. See??

Knowing everything can be a perfection in one context, and not a perfection in another. It depends on the person's other features. And again, I actually gave you an example of a way in which 'not' knowing everything could contribute to one being perfect. If you are perfect but don't know it, then you are humble and that could actually be partly why you are perfect. Again: one way of being perfect is to have - among other virtues - the virtue of humility. A being who believes that she is herself perfect does not have that virtue. Thus, not knowing something can sometimes be a virtue, and thus can make someone perfect.

Now, God doesn't have any of his properties essentially. So, nothing stops the person of God going from being perfect in one way, to being perfect in another. There is no contradiction, no problem here. God can know everything one day, and then decide to make himself less than all knowing, and remain perfect throughout.

Don't just say "I disagree - lack of knowledge is a flaw" - you can't make something true just by repeating it enough times. And wisdom doesn't come from cleaving unthinkingly to a store of superficially plausible sounding maxims. Lack of knowledge is 'not' always and everywhere a flaw. Sometimes it can be a perfection.