I think is is so clear in the Gospels who Jesus or Yahshua was in relation to his Father. He said he was one with the Father and that we could be one with them both through the comforter, who is the mind or connecting power of God. Yes never said to be a God but the mind of god. I think of a cell phone or any communication device. "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. John 17:5 Pretty clear he lived before birth to his father Joseph and mother Marion or Mary. He never made himself to be equal to the Father as you mentioned. I don't know but I see his words as pretty clear of who was in charge. I think when the pagans took over they had to have a trinity so they made one. Thanks for the show and thoughts.
You know how in chapter 1, the book got everything laughably wrong? The earth didn’t exist before the sun, light didn’t exist before the first light source ? Plants existing before the sun? Birds existing before land creatures? You really don’t need to worry about anything in that book. It doesn’t get better.
16 วันที่ผ่านมา +1
The "trinity" is a logical fallacy (3 =/= 1). Even people who accept the trinity recognize that fact. So you have to accept irrationality in order to accept the trinity.
so H2O is a logical fallacy? because you would have to be irrational in order to accept H20 being a liquid, gas, and solid. Now this is just a simplified form for understanding how 1 can be three, while God is more complex
If you ask me the whole thing is just a hodge podge of whatever you want it to be.... Can u imagine after 2,100 years of so many people throughout history manipulating this crazy book what the original manuscripts must look like as compared to what we have now... Just based on human nature...and the selfish interests of so many different groups trying to manipulate this book the probability of this book being even close to the originals is about like winning the lottery....Just consider why after 2,100 years social media is full of channels people still debating this crazy book.
DAVID.. Perhaps that's not as clear as you think! Tynsdale pub two diff. Bible 34 and 36 ( I think) In years 34 jn 1 1. Was. ,,the (w)ord was with God. In 36 ( after the Pope Threatened him) he wrote. ,the Word was with God. FACT IS , I FEEL TYNDAL WAS A BODERLINE UNITARIAN! UNTIL THE POPE BURNED HIM AT THE STAKE , THEN 40 YR LATER A SECOND POPE DUG UP HIS BONES , SMASHED THEM AND THREW IN THE RIVER! Excuse me, that's not how you treat a fellow Trinitarian is it??
16 วันที่ผ่านมา +1
My "monotheistic " religion has 500 gods, but they are all really just 1.
That passage has nothing to do with my belief in the Trinity. The Holy Spirit has revealed Himself to me in many ways. The presence of the Father and the Son are hard to question. Do I understand this concept? I am not God. I still believe it. I only claim to know that Jesus died for my sins and rose from the dead for my salvation. I believe a lot of Christian doctrines.
Neither Bart Ehrman nor anyone else has seen "the original text" of John's Gospel. Erasmus wasn't working with "original texts." He was working in the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. The doctrine of the Trinity isn't dependent on one text, it's a consequence of many statements made across the Second Testament and it is developed in theology. Depending on Eherman, who is as ideologically motivated as anyone he makes fun of here, doesn't get you far. You don't have to believe it but you should go into what the idea is based in. If you think you can out think Gregory of Nyssa or Basil, well, good luck with that but you're trying to do the same thing only without much to go on.
16 วันที่ผ่านมา +2
The "Gospel of John" has multiple authors, none of whom was "John". It was written long after Jesus' alleged death and Paul's letters.
That is conjecture with no proof. Same as they say there were multiple writers of Isaiah. If the scholars feel things are one way then I will go the other. They are always wrong. That is why they are paid.
OP, you're totally right - good comment. I just posted here as a different comment that these guys are confusing theology with philosophy, so they end up with a terrible theology *and* a terrible philosophy.
It's was Wiiliam Tyndale translated the bible into English, hence King James Bible. And William believed in the trinity. So shut up Bart. Atheists are one pain in the neck.
Analyzing theology from the standpoint of philosophy is like wanting to taste food by looking at nutritional data. It just doesn't make any sense. I'm sorry to say that your approach is 100% nonsensical. Theology is NOT philosophy.
People want to blame Erhman, but he's just repeating fact.
So with the newest discover of the mosaic, Jesus is God, how does that factor in?
Is John writing about the trinity or the incarnation?
I think is is so clear in the Gospels who Jesus or Yahshua was in relation to his Father. He said he was one with the Father and that we could be one with them both through the comforter, who is the mind or connecting power of God. Yes never said to be a God but the mind of god. I think of a cell phone or any communication device. "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. John 17:5 Pretty clear he lived before birth to his father Joseph and mother Marion or Mary. He never made himself to be equal to the Father as you mentioned. I don't know but I see his words as pretty clear of who was in charge. I think when the pagans took over they had to have a trinity so they made one. Thanks for the show and thoughts.
MATTHEW, PERHAPS YOU SHOULD VIEW THE VIDEO BELOW. I BELIEVE ITS SIMILIAR, BUT BY DIFF SPEAKER. GIVE IT A LOOK
You know how in chapter 1, the book got everything laughably wrong?
The earth didn’t exist before the sun, light didn’t exist before the first light source ?
Plants existing before the sun? Birds existing before land creatures?
You really don’t need to worry about anything in that book. It doesn’t get better.
The "trinity" is a logical fallacy (3 =/= 1). Even people who accept the trinity recognize that fact. So you have to accept irrationality in order to accept the trinity.
so H2O is a logical fallacy? because you would have to be irrational in order to accept H20 being a liquid, gas, and solid. Now this is just a simplified form for understanding how 1 can be three, while God is more complex
@@Matthew-cp2egA false anology
@@djelalhassan7631amazing proof
@djelalhassan7631 wow
@@Matthew-cp2eg I know I am amazing.
If you ask me the whole thing is just a hodge podge of whatever you want it to be.... Can u imagine after 2,100 years of so many people throughout history manipulating this crazy book what the original manuscripts must look like as compared to what we have now... Just based on human nature...and the selfish interests of so many different groups trying to manipulate this book the probability of this book being even close to the originals is about like winning the lottery....Just consider why after 2,100 years social media is full of channels people still debating this crazy book.
DAVID.. Perhaps that's not as clear as you think! Tynsdale pub two diff. Bible 34 and 36 ( I think)
In years 34 jn 1 1. Was. ,,the (w)ord was with God.
In 36 ( after the Pope Threatened him) he wrote. ,the Word was with God. FACT IS , I FEEL TYNDAL WAS A BODERLINE UNITARIAN! UNTIL THE POPE BURNED HIM AT THE STAKE , THEN 40 YR LATER A SECOND POPE DUG UP HIS BONES , SMASHED THEM AND THREW IN THE RIVER! Excuse me, that's not how you treat a fellow Trinitarian is it??
My "monotheistic " religion has 500 gods, but they are all really just 1.
That passage has nothing to do with my belief in the Trinity. The Holy Spirit has revealed Himself to me in many ways. The presence of the Father and the Son are hard to question. Do I understand this concept? I am not God. I still believe it. I only claim to know that Jesus died for my sins and rose from the dead for my salvation. I believe a lot of Christian doctrines.
Neither Bart Ehrman nor anyone else has seen "the original text" of John's Gospel. Erasmus wasn't working with "original texts." He was working in the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. The doctrine of the Trinity isn't dependent on one text, it's a consequence of many statements made across the Second Testament and it is developed in theology. Depending on Eherman, who is as ideologically motivated as anyone he makes fun of here, doesn't get you far. You don't have to believe it but you should go into what the idea is based in. If you think you can out think Gregory of Nyssa or Basil, well, good luck with that but you're trying to do the same thing only without much to go on.
The "Gospel of John" has multiple authors, none of whom was "John". It was written long after Jesus' alleged death and Paul's letters.
That is conjecture with no proof. Same as they say there were multiple writers of Isaiah. If the scholars feel things are one way then I will go the other. They are always wrong. That is why they are paid.
Hm, so I guess you've got absolutely solid proof for that, given for how unbearably certain you sound?
OP, you're totally right - good comment. I just posted here as a different comment that these guys are confusing theology with philosophy, so they end up with a terrible theology *and* a terrible philosophy.
It’s all made up. Jesus was not a god. There is no Holy Spook, nor a Big Daddy god. They are just there to fill in the blanks we don’t understand.
It's was Wiiliam Tyndale translated the bible into English, hence King James Bible. And William believed in the trinity. So shut up Bart. Atheists are one pain in the neck.
Analyzing theology from the standpoint of philosophy is like wanting to taste food by looking at nutritional data. It just doesn't make any sense. I'm sorry to say that your approach is 100% nonsensical.
Theology is NOT philosophy.