sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
Interesting, I thought your denial was only restricted to the fact that you are a follower of Scientism - J_M
Throwing silly labels around is just another way of avoiding the challenges of the OP. Page 21 now.
Perry - Another pathetic attempt to distract from the challenges of the OP.
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
Still off on irrelevant philosophical tangents. The OP is about 9 simple observations. Nothing you have said since begins to address them.
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
My OP does not require a formal argument in reply. It just invites an informal conversation. I offer 9 examples of observable things that don't easily reconcile the with the claims of Christians.
You have hidden from inconvenient truths behind tons of incoherent and untestable assertions.
The one paltry attempt you did make to directly address the problem was truly pathetic.
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
Are you demanding scientific evidence for a metaphysical discussion?No I'm asking for reasonable responses to a few common sense observations.
interpret john 1:1 by john 1:1. .
the greek language has the definite article which has approximately thirty variations, is translated into english as “the”, and points to an identifiable personality, someone we have prior knowledge of.
but the greek language has no indefinite article corresponding to the english “a”, or “an”.
I admit in the Bible the Trinity it's not directly present
It is flatly contradicted.
interpret john 1:1 by john 1:1. .
the greek language has the definite article which has approximately thirty variations, is translated into english as “the”, and points to an identifiable personality, someone we have prior knowledge of.
but the greek language has no indefinite article corresponding to the english “a”, or “an”.
why bring a totally new and extremely complex concept
Early christians were a Jewish sect. They adored Jesus. Monotheism in theory had to be reconciled with their practice. The solution was a ridiculous formulation of self-contradictory words.
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
18 pages of evidence-free dogma.
interpret john 1:1 by john 1:1. .
the greek language has the definite article which has approximately thirty variations, is translated into english as “the”, and points to an identifiable personality, someone we have prior knowledge of.
but the greek language has no indefinite article corresponding to the english “a”, or “an”.
One God, three Persons - J_M
Wouldn't it have been useful if Jesus had said something similar?
Very helpful. Thank you Barbara.
interpret john 1:1 by john 1:1. .
the greek language has the definite article which has approximately thirty variations, is translated into english as “the”, and points to an identifiable personality, someone we have prior knowledge of.
but the greek language has no indefinite article corresponding to the english “a”, or “an”.
I disagree.
The author of John - not John by the way - could have stated very simply the Jesus was The God (Ho Theos) if that was what he intended.
The WT are wrong about almost everything but not regarding John 1:1.
The translation that captures the anarthrous predicate noun best is perhaps Moffatt who has it as "The Word was divine".
The gospels reveal an evolution of the divinity of Jesus. Practical adoration of Jesus by a monotheistic group eventually required a theological explanation. The trinity is a self-contradictory, post-biblical piece of gobbledygook.
I challenge anybody to state it in their own words - and illustrate it - without using specialist language without contradicting themselves or committing heresy.
