Trinity Proof Scriptures

[7djengo7]

Then let's keep the discussion about how we interpret what the Bible actually says instead of resorting to slandering the other to build ourselves up in our own eyes.

I like that you consider it slander to accuse or suspect someone of being a Mormon. See, even you understand that it would be a rotten, shameful thing to be a Mormon.

What's funny, also, is your hypocrisy, your sanctimony in saying, to john w, "bla bla bla...instead of resorting to slandering the other to build ourselves up in our own eyes", when he asked if you're a Mormon. So, why were you trying to build yourself up in your own eyes? If you say that's what john w was doing--trying to build himself up in his own eyes, when he asked you if you are a Mormon--then obviously that's what you were doing when you asked him if he is a Mormon:

No, are you?

See, you asked john w if he is a Mormon. Why your double standard?

 

[keypurr]

Very funny

 

[keypurr]

Since the Bible teaches that Jesus is eternal, why do you teach that Jesus is not eternal?

define eternal

Since the Bible does not teach that Jesus was created, why do you teach that Jesus was created?

Yes it does

Since the Bible does not teach that Jesus is not God, why do you teach that Jesus is not God?

Wrong again John 17:3

Since the Bible teaches that Jesus is God, why do you teach that Jesus is not God?

Wrong again, there is only one God and Jesus has a God.

Since the Bible teaches that God is trinitarian in nature, why do you teach that God is not trinitarian in nature?

Not realy.

Again, why are you such a hypocrite?

Because he is smarter than you.

 

[7djengo7]

define eternal


Yes it does



Wrong again John 17:3



Wrong again, there is only one God and Jesus has a God.



Not realy.



Because he is smarter than you.

Cool! You and I have the same avatar picture!
Hey, do you realize that, if I were to "Thank" your post at this very second, as I write this, I'd cause you to go from having 665 "Thanks" to having 666 "Thanks"? But, I'm not gonna "Thank" your post, because I'm sure some beastly sort of character will be more than happy to come by and do that, and because you wrote "realy" instead of "really".

 

[musterion]

Very funny

You are still a pathetic loser.

 

[7djengo7]

In John 4:24, we read that "God is a Spirit".

You wrote:

The holy spirit is a possession/attribute OF God, and obviously is God.... more specifically part of God.

"The holy spirit is...part of God."

"The holy spirit is...part of [a Spirit]."

That's what you're telling us: that the Holy Spirit is part of a Spirit.

So, what Spirit would you say the Holy Spirit is part of? And, what part of that Spirit would you say the Holy Spirit is?

 

[NWL]

And yet, you haven't bothered replying to my last post to you.


Liar.

YOUR ARGUMENT WAS THIS:

And my response was this:

Your argument was not whether the Father was Jehovah, but whether Jehovah was the Father.

Liar.

I said no such thing.

Go on, click the little blue arrow next to my post and read again what I said, because you clearly didn't read it the first time.

Begging the question doesn't make your argument valid.

Christians (definitely not you) are neither Jew nor Gentile.

We are NOT Israel.

We ARE Abraham's seed.

More begging the question, which causes you to argue from a false premise.

Which I did not deny, you dimwit.

Because it does.

No, that wasn't my argument, you liar.

My argument was that Abraham had MORE THAN ONE SON, through THREE DIFFERENT WOMEN!

God even called him the father of MANY nations.

Israel is a SINGLE nation, and is NOT the only nation Abraham is a father of.

:blabla:

More question begging.

Scripture DOES NOT SAY that the BoC is Israel. It says we are Abraham's seed, and since Abraham was the father of MANY nations, and we through adoption, we CANNOT be Israel.

:blabla:

:blabla:

:blabla:

Which, no matter how you twist it, does not say that the BoC is Israel.

When a father adopts a son, after having a son through his wife, does the adopted son become his and his wife's own flesh and blood? No, of course not.

So then why would you think that we, the Body of Christ, would become Israel, who was the GRANDSON of Abraham!?

(Romans 9:7, 8) "..For not all who descend from Israel are really “Israel.” 7 Neither are they all children because they are Abraham’s offspring; rather, “What will be called your offspring will be through Isaac.” 8 That is, the children in the flesh are not really the children of God, but the children by the promise are counted as the offspring..."

Which, again, no matter how you twist it, is not talking about the BoC at all, but of Israel, and proselytes, those who became Jews after being born Gentiles.

---------------------------

Liar.

I make no such claim.

I said that the verses you provide cannot be used as a rebuttal of the trinity, because they support the trinity.

I DID NOT SAY that the verses could not be interpreted otherwise, as you have clearly shown that is possible.

:blabla:

Liar.

:blabla:

Which says nothing about Jesus being any sort of exception.

Exalted back to where He was before.

That's called idolatry, something God calls a sin.

What you mean is, "I don't have the time to show you my corrections to scripture."

:blabla:

More question begging.

Appeal to tradition.

Duh.

No, we have not.

Again, the adopted son doesn't become the one born to the one adopting, let alone his grandson.

Begging the question.

You can quote these verses all you want. It still doesn't change the fact that Christians are not Israel.

:blabla:

See above.

:blabla:

You clearly do not wish to discuss matters and clearly lack the capacity to have a dignified discussion, you call me a liar and make claim after claim without evidence. You made silly remarks that I'm a liar and then call me out by saying contradictory remarks such as "Your argument was not whether the Father was Jehovah, but whether Jehovah was the Father" (just to make you aware these mean exactly the same thing, e.g "I'm not saying Jesus wasn't God but God wasn't Jesus", like, what's the difference. You're achieving levels of contradiction I've never experienced before.

Also, please note that most -if not all- scholars agree that Roman 9:6,7, and also that of Romans 11 which speaks of the grafting of the wild olive branches(gentiles) on to the olive tree(Israel) along with the other evidence I provided shows that Christians today are spiritual Israel, If you disagree with this then you disagree with orthodox Christianity. Go away and do some research, study Romans 11, learn some manners, and come back to be me when you're ready to act like a Christian and have a adult discussion instead of acting like a teenager who hasn't learnt to control their tongue.

I don't have all the time in the world, I was going to reply, you simply needed a little Christian patience my friend.

One last point that I will leave with unless you return in good spirit, you've already acknowledged the fact that we are "Abraham's seed", Abraham's seed as mentioned in the very verse you quoted was through Isaac, who bore Jacob/Israel.

(Romans 9:7, 8) "..For not all who descend from Israel are really “Israel.” 7 Neither are they all children because they are Abraham’s seed; rather, “What will be called your seed will be through Isaac.” 8 That is, the children in the flesh are not really the children of God, but the children by the promise are counted as the offspring..."

Thus your argument that Abraham seeds relates to his other children crumbles, "Abraham's seed" is through Isaac seed, namely Jacob/Israel as seen above and in Gen 21:12 (And God said to Abraham, in Isaac shall your seed be called" Gen 21:12 AKJV). Furthermore, scripture is clear, God recognised Abraham as having one legitimate son, "[God said to Abraham after stopping him sacrificing Isaac] because you have done this and you have not withheld your son, your only one, I will surely bless you" (Gen 22:16).

 

[NWL]

Matthew 27:51-53 51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; 52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, 53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.​

The phrase "came out of the graves" could be mistaken to mean "fell out of open graves", but the word "arose" in the context of the verses shown cannot be mistaken for anything other than the dead coming to life.

arose g1453 ἐγείρω egeirō to arouse, cause to rise to arouse from sleep, to awake to arouse from the sleep of death, to recall the dead to life to cause to rise from a seat or bed etc. to raise up, produce, cause to appear to cause to appear, bring before the public to raise up, stir up, against one to raise up i.e. cause to be born of buildings, to raise up, construct, erect

​

The other problem with your scenario is the word "appeared", which means "to show oneself" not "were seen".

appeared g1718 ἐμφανίζω emphanizō to manifest, exhibit to view to show one's self, come to view, appear, be manifest to indicate, disclose, declare, make known

​

So, the passage is speaking clearly about dead people coming to life and showing themselves to many people in the city.

[/LIST][/BOX][/INDENT]
The other problem with your scenario is the word "appeared", which means "to show oneself" not "were seen".

appeared g1718 ἐμφανίζω emphanizō to manifest, exhibit to view to show one's self,come to view, appear, be manifest to indicate, disclose, declare, make known

​

In the box you showed above you didn't acknolwldge that the word has the meandings as shown in yellow. As they show it could -and I believe it to be so- mean that the bodies were made manifest, exhibit to view, came to view, appeared out of the tomb.

You also showed the following:

arose g1453 ἐγείρω egeirō to arouse, cause to rise to arouse from sleep, to awake to arouse from the sleep of death, to recall the dead to life to cause to rise from a seat or bed etc. to raise up, produce, cause to appear to cause to appear, bring before the public to raise up, stir up, against one to raise up i.e. cause to be born of buildings, to raise up, construct, erect

​

As you can see there are more defintions for the word that suit my idea, you've simply cherry picked the one that best suit your understanding and have claimed that it is proof that my claim cannot ture whislt ignoring the other definitons.

As I said to other I do not believe there is enough evidence to suggest the "bodies came back to life" simply because it stated they were "raised" when looking at the context. It cannot be ignored that immediately before the the dead were raised from their tombs that an earthquake happened and seems to much of a feat that all these people were raised to life and the fact failed to be recorded by every bible writer but one.

And look! the curtain of the sanctuary was torn in two, from top to bottom, and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split. 52 And the tombs were opened, and many bodies of the holy ones who had fallen asleep were raised up(and people coming out from among the tombs after his being raised up entered into the holy city), and they became visible to many people.." (Matthew 27:51-53)

 

[NWL]

No, seriously. You are suggesting that dead bodies were raised up out of the ground, still dead, stayed dead, and then were rolled into the cities, either by gravity or angels or third parties, still dead? And this is a testament of Jesus how?

Matthew 27:52-53 KJV
(52) And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
(53) And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

Considering that it says that the bodies of the saints which slept arose, the arising is awaking from that sleep. Furthermore, it says that "they went" not that they were carried into the holy city, and it says they "appeared unto many" not that they were shown or paraded before many. Why would anyone take corpses from the graves and carry them into the city anyway?

The only reason I can think of that you would have an interpretation of dead bodies going into the city while still dead is for the purpose of propping up that failing 'Jesus is the first and the last to be raised from the dead ... oops, I mean raised from the dead by God without a prophet nearby" theory. And the only reason you made that theory was in an effort to evade the full force of "I am the first and the last."


Recognizing when your story has tied itself in knots is not a personal attack, it's a realization that your premise has defeated itself that would be recognized by a rational person. Do you really not see any difficulty in your proposal that dead bodies first rose out of the ground and then went (or ROLLED?) into Jerusalem?

You've ignored everything I last said to you and are simply holding onto the ONLY argument you think you can deal with. Deal with my points, then we can carry on the discussion.

1. Answer me if you will, is the Father as mentioned in John 5:22, "the God" who "Judges the world through the man who was appointed" in Acts 17:31?

2. Is God "appointing Jesus to judge the world in Acts 17:31" and "the Father entrusting Jesus to do all the in John 5:22" referring to the same idea of Jesus receiving authority to judge?

3. Satan is the first adversary of God and he will be the last adversary of God, can someone say Satan is "the First and the last of God adversaries". Yes or no?

4. Can Adam be referred to as the "first and the last person whom God made out for dust"(this question relates to this present and not future events of Resurrection)?

5. Does using YHWH's name in vain according to Exodus 20:7 relate to the abuse of the actual name YHWH or titles that God is called?

"..You must not take up the name of Jehovah your God in a worthless way, for Jehovah will not leave unpunished the one who takes up His name in a worthless way.." (Exo 20:7)

6. Are Ehud and Othniel both saviours (in any sense) according to scripture, yes or no?

(Judges 3:9) When the Israelites called to Jehovah for help, Jehovah raised up a savior to rescue the Israelites, Othʹni·el the son of Keʹnaz, the younger brother of Caʹleb.

(Judges 3:15) Then the Israelites called to Jehovah for help, so Jehovah raised up for them a savior, Eʹhud the son of Geʹra, a Benʹja·min·ite who was left-handed. In time the Israelites sent tribute through him to Egʹlon the king of Moʹab.

7. If the F&L is in relation to Jesus being Almighty God as in Rev 1:8 then how is it possible the "first and the last became dead" according to both Rev 1:18 and Rev 2:8 since God cannot die. Please do not say its speaking about his humanity as Jesus is clearly speaking in regards to his divine nature (according to your reasoning of F&L being the same as Rev 1:8 A&O the almighty). How is it possible immortal God died. If you have answered this question, please show me where.

 

[NWL]

Moreover, it was through Jaobs/Israel descendants that the "heirs with reference to a promise" (as seen in Gal 3:29) when said to Abraham by God relates.

No it wasn't.

I've presented evidence that shows it was, you have not shown how my evidence is incorrect or anything to the contrary.

Asserting someone is wrong does not make them wrong.

The orthodox position maintained by Christians is that the "promise" by God to Abraham related to mankind receiving blessing through his seed, namely Issac, through Jacob/Israel. This is detailed in Gen 22:15-28:

"..And Jehovah’s angel called to Abraham a second time from the heavens, 16 saying: “‘By myself I swear,’ declares Jehovah, ‘that because you have done this and you have not withheld your son, your only one, 17 I will surely bless you and I will surely multiply your offspring like the stars of the heavens and like the grains of sand on the seashore, and your offspring will take possession of the gate of his enemies. 18 And by means of your offspring all nations of the earth will obtain a blessing for themselves because you have listened to my voice...”

Abraham's seed through Isaac - "..For not all who descend from Israel are really “Israel.” 7 Neither are they all children because they are Abraham’s seed; rather, “What will be called your seed will be through Isaac.” (Romans 9:7, 8)

Scripture is very clear on the matter. Since you deny that it was through Isaac and Jacob/Israel, who was the promise to Abraham by God through, do tell us?

Well, I would hate to be wrong, and, fortunately, I'm not, and JudgeRightly's not. However, obviously YOU don't hate being wrong.

Assertions mean nothing, show how you are not wrong instead of asserting you are not.

Again, your jargon, "receives the glory in the ultimate sense", is not only not found in the Bible, but it is nonsensical.

It's not jargon my friend, I'm simply using English to convey an idea. Let's see if you can understand this, according to the bible who ultimately receives worship out of all creation? Animals, Humans, Angels or God?

Is my question loaded with jargon or do you understand the question above perfectly clear when I say "ultimately"?

Instead of asserting what I say is nonsensical why not explain how excatly it is nonsenseical, again, asserting something does not make you right, where is your evidence?

Now, why don't you state exactly what (if anything) you think it is to "give glory", and also, state exactly what (if anything) you think it is to "receive glory"?

To give glory means to receive praise or worship or both to someone. To receive glory means to receive glory or praise or both from someone else.

It has other meanings but these are the meanings relevant to the topic at hand.

 

[NWL]

Where have I denied or stated Jesus doesn't receive glory by the passage?

Here is more meaningless jargon you have spun out hoping to hide your inconsistencies and hypocrisies: "receive glory by the passage". What the heck is that? You and I both know that that is meaningless, and designed to create a smokescreen.

When I said "by the passage" I meant "by/according to the verse/scripture/passage" being spoken of, I don't get what the issue is by what I said? Did you not earlier say that Jesus receive glory from your understanding according to the passage? Why do you struggle with the idea that I have agreed with you by also saying Jesus receives glory "by the passage"?

Apparently me agreeing with you is a "smokescreen", but this attack of what I, NWL, meant by the phrase "by the passage" couldn't possibly be one could it.

Only a deranged person, a fool, after reading this passage, could deny that Jesus is glorified by God the Father. But, you deny that Jesus is glorified by God the Father. You deny that this passage shows Jesus to be glorified by God the Father.

8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Easy there my Christian friend, I wouldn't want you to act unchristian because of me by speaking in such an aggressive manner, although I doubt you'll heed this advice, but try and chill out.

As I've already said, I do not deny Jesus is being glorified in Phil 2, it is clear that he is, and that is exactly my point, despite him being glorified who does it go to according to the verse? Not him but the Father! Why, as I've been arguing its because according to the bible we are to worship the Father through Jesus, hence why everyone "bends the knee to Jesus" buts its "to the glory of God the Father".

Obviously, your "question", "whether it is Jesus..." is rhetorical. By it, you are denying that Jesus is shown to receive glory in Philippians 2:8-11 KJV.

Anyway, it is not either/or; it is both/and. In Philippians 2:8-11, BOTH Jesus--God the Son--is shown to receive glory, AND God the Father is shown to receive glory. You deny that Jesus is shown to receive glory. You deny that Jesus receives glory.

Again I do not deny that Jesus is being glorified there, since it clearly says "every knee should bend to him" and that God "God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name", the fact remains, despite these things being done to Jesus its "to the glory of God the Father".

Again, is the everyone bending of the knee to Jesus "to the glory the Father" according to Phil chapter 2?

Do you even read the things you write? "to whose glory is it to"? Really? "his own or the Father"? Seriously? Why must you continually butcher the English language?

How is this a butchering of the English language, explain? Stop asserting things with proof or explanation.

[1]According to Philippians 2:8-11, Jesus is glorified by God the Father. Yes or No?
[2]According to Philippians 2:8-11, [is] Jesus' glorification by God the Father is EQUAL to God the Father's glorification by Jesus. Yes or No?

1. Yes, Jesus is gloried by the father in the sense of God "exalting him to a superior position, kindly giving him the name that is above every other name", he does so "so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend—of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground— 11 and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord" to his own glory, or as the verse puts it "to the glory of God the Father".

2. No, if Jesus glorification was equal to that of the Father then it would read as follows in Phil 2, " God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, 10 so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend... and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father [and to himself/Jesus]. Since the verse states that it is simply "to the glory of God the Father" then it is clear Jesus being exalted and every knee bending to him does not equate the Fathers level of glorification.

In Isaiah 45:23 KJV, the LORD says:

To WHOM would you say "every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear", according to this verse?

According to that verse alone, God, according to the entirety of scripture including Phil 2, to Jesus, but "to God the Father glory" as seen in Phil 2:11.

If it has been instructed for us to worship the Father through Jesus who is "the image of God", and we follow that command, then bending the knee to Jesus is bending the knee to the Father, since that is how we've been instructed to worship the Father, "no one come to the father except through me" (John 14:6)

 

[Dartman]

In John 4:24, we read that "God is a Spirit".

You wrote:



"The holy spirit is...part of God."

Yes.

"The holy spirit is...part of [a Spirit]."

Nope. This is your creation ... not what I wrote.

The holy spirit/mind, God's spirit/mind, is the sense in which Jehovah/YHVH God IS "a spirit".... Just like OUR spirit/mind is the sense in which we ARE "spirits".

Jesus did NOT say; "God is ONLY spirit"..... nor did John say "God is ONLY love" .... but those are very important attributes OF God. And, there are MANY other important attributes of God.
The point Jesus was making to the Samaritan woman is very much like the point Jesus made to the pharisees;

Matt 15:8-9 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.


God is truth, righteousness, justice, goodness, etc. Those are all aspects of His mind/spirit. The TRUE believers are those that draw near to God in every aspect of their thinking/spirit.

 

[Dartman]

...

1. Yes, Jesus is gloried by the father in the sense of God "exalting him to a superior position, kindly giving him the name that is above every other name", he does so "so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend—of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground— 11 and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord" to his own glory, or as the verse puts it "to the glory of God the Father".

2. No, if Jesus glorification was equal to that of the Father then it would read as follows in Phil 2, " God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, 10 so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend... and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father [and Jesus]. Since the verse states that it is simply "to the glory of God the Father" then it is clear Jesus being exalted and every knee bending to him does not equate the Fathers level of glorification.



According to that verse alone, God, according to the entirety of scripture including Phil 2, to Jesus, but "to God the Father glory" as seen in Phil 2:11.

If it has been instructed for us to worship the Father through Jesus who is "the image of God", and we follow that command, then bending the knee to Jesus is bending the knee to the Father, since that is how we've been instructed to worship the Father, "no one come to the father except through me" (John 14:6)

Many great points!
Just to support your efforts, and explain my methods ... I have found that 7djengo7 has SOME points that need refuting .... and the rest is not worth any response.

 

[musterion]

Many great points!
Just to support your efforts, and explain my methods ... I have found that 7djengo7 has SOME points that need refuting .... and the rest is not worth any response.

Only one of your anti-trinitarian buds on this thread even tried refuting the yellow chart about a dozen pages back, the one that shows Christ is Yahweh, and he wrongly focused on only one verse that got him spanked and sent to his room.

You seem pretty bright, you ever going to give it a shot?


View attachment 26703

 

[oatmeal]

You missed it.This is your grade school argument, clown:




You can't be this stupid. I take that back. All Christ rejectors, which, by definition, are those that reject that the Lord Jesus Christ is God, are stupid.

You: Since the bible does not employ, "mention," the terms, "atheism...monotheism...rapture...omnipotent...omniscient.... God the Son... God the Holy Spirit...The Sermon On The Mount.. Holy of Holies... God the Holy Spirit.........." ........................................these concepts, like "Trinity," are false.

You're a moron.Grow a brain, or get saved-or both.


Real tough guy, are you, punk? Impressive. Lack confidence, do you, punk? Yes... I've fought bigger girls than you, sis, so you don't scare me.


I always insult wolves. Too bad, cry baby, and stuff your "Poor me....wounded soul....accusation of hate technique" made up false "doctrine," as exposing, marking, identifying wolves, like yourself, and calling them names, is biblical, despite your spineless protests to the contrary.


And get this, punk: wolves, and sheep, generally don't get along. But, if that gives you the "warms and fuzzies," knock yourself out, talk show groupie.

Am I clear, wolfie? And kindly show me the scripture, where I must "reply" to anyone, including a wolf, and Christ rejector, such as yourself.

I thought so.

Does God the Father have a wife?

Son, in the book, means one possessing the nature of something, whether literal or figurative("Son of man," which the Saviour used over, and over again, "sons of thunder," "sons of disobedience"...survey Mark 3:7 KJV, Ephesians 2:1 KJV,....) Typically, when "son of" is used in relation to a person (son of man, son of Abraham, son of David,.......) the son possesses the nature of his father.

Yes, the son has the nature of the Father.

Are you a son of God?

I John 3:2

I am a son of God.

Not by adoption, but by seed.

I Peter 1:23

Your logic requires that I as a son of God is God?

Is that what you are telling me?

For that matter, you do admit, evidently that Jesus is a son.

And as a son has the nature of the Father

God is his Father. If Jesus is God, then Jesus must be his own son?

Why the confusion?

Why not enjoy the clarity of scripture rightly divided?

 

[oatmeal]

Only one of your anti-trinitarian buds on this thread even tried refuting the yellow chart about a dozen pages back, the one that shows Christ is Yahweh, and he wrongly focused on only one verse that got him spanked and sent to his room.

You seem pretty bright, you ever going to give it a shot?


View attachment 26703

That is one impressive chart!

Wow, nothing like a pie chart to prove something.

 

[Rosenritter]

As I said to other I do not believe there is enough evidence to suggest the "bodies came back to life" simply because it stated they were "raised" when looking at the context. It cannot be ignored that immediately before the the dead were raised from their tombs that an earthquake happened and seems to much of a feat that all these people were raised to life and the fact failed to be recorded by every bible writer but one.

1. How many authors recorded the raising of the child by Elijah?
2. How many gospels recorded Nicodemus coming to Jesus by night?
3. How many gospels record the wise men coming to see Jesus after his birth?

Do you discount these events as well?

 

[Rosenritter]

You've ignored everything I last said to you and are simply holding onto the ONLY argument you think you can deal with. Deal with my points, then we can carry on the discussion.

No, I ignored everything else because the absurdity of "the dead did not rise when the bible said they rose" was too great already. All of your arguments are depending on ignoring scripture, and this is a prime example.

Matthew 27:50-54 KJV
(50) Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
(51) And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
(52) And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
(53) And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
(54) Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.

I don't imagine that you would normally have a problem with this passage, except in this case you had already made up a theory that "Jesus was the first and the last" ... "person to have been raised without another person to do the resurrection." You've erected such a teeter-totter house of cards in an implausible balancing act and now you're fighting tooth and nail over the base card.

Your alternative version of the gospel that would read "There was an earthquake and grave robbers took dead bodies into the city of Jerusalem later" does not even fit in the sense of that passage" nor does it even make sense. You can fight and die on this hill, I suppose, but if that is your choice realize likely no one here is going to be able to take you seriously.

But if you want to be taken seriously, you need to show yourself reasonable when one of your prior theories has been disproved or shown implausible.

 

[Rosenritter]

That is one impressive chart!

Wow, nothing like a pie chart to prove something.

The amusing part is that wasn't a Trinitarian chart.

 

[musterion]

That is one impressive chart!

Wow, nothing like a pie chart to prove something.

You can continue to be a snarky juvenile jackwagon, or you can man up and try to refute the chart. Your call.