You are saying that because three Gospels don't mention Jesus's divinity the religion doesn't stand up to scrutiny — Gregory
What is at issue, as you know, is not whether Jesus called himself son of God, but whether the Gospels say that he is God. — Fooloso4
Jesus would have been appalled to find that he was deified. He made a clear distinction between himself, a human being and God. — Fooloso4
Each Gospel is a collection of different eye-witness reports, hence the difference between them. — Apollodorus
You have not cited where he said this — Fooloso4
Although it has long been recognised that numerous books of the New Testament bear names of authors who are unlikely to have written them, it has often been said that it was an accepted practice in antiquity for a writer to attribute his work to a well-known figure from the past, or a teacher who has greatly influenced him.
Ehrman's contention is that what are referred to as "pseudepigraphs" or falsely attributed works, was not an accepted practice in antiquity. That they would have regarded false attribution as forgery. — Fooloso4
So, he is implying that forgery was involved in the writing of early Christian texts. — Apollodorus
Why would anyone forge four different scriptures instead of just one? — Apollodorus
It is not that someone forged these works. Their authenticity is not in question. — Fooloso4
So, according to Ehrman, “people forged books to influence Christianity”. — Apollodorus
Even you are denying the authenticity of the Gospel of John. — Apollodorus
As to the question of proof. I am not trying to prove anything. I am pointing to the evidence in the books and evaluating it. — Fooloso4
You have turned a thread about the Trinity into an attempt to discredit a highly regarded Biblical scholar. — Fooloso4
John 1:49 affirms that he was a rabbi. The fact that it also calls him the son of God does not mean John denied he was a rabbi. — Fooloso4
I don't see how you cannot believe you are a person of flesh and bones — Gregory
but Descartes ultimate escape from doubt was the ontological argument which he presented in a form which made his non-local mind (as he believed) into the deity. — Gregory
- then you can get anything you jolly well like from it.you have to understand how Descartes really thought, not just what his words say — Gregory
The Meditations was the first philosophy book I ever read — Gregory
Divine love is nauseating? Maybe — Gregory
But Deism leads to atheism while the Trinity as an idea can withstand doubts. If someone believes in God it is most natural to believe God didn't just love himself for all eternity but is, instead, a family of persons in complete simplicity. — Gregory
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.