Calling Out Alang1216: The God of Abraham is a myth

[ding]

The were written by Christians for Christians and were more interested in theology than historical accuracy.

So a conspiracy? Where’s your evidence for that. Who did it? Why did they do it? And how did they benefit from it?

 

[alang1216]

No. They acknowledge it period. Unconditionally.

Really? What was their source?

 

[ding]

Really? What was their source?

What source do you have that says, no they didn’t?

I have a source, you have no source.

If it is as you say that nothing happened the way it was recorded in ancient manuscripts, then why are there no competing manuscripts which challenge them?

Where are the challenges recorded by the Pharisees?

 

[alang1216]

Again…. Use the texts we are discussing to make your point. Explain to me how such a detailed narrative became accepted as true if it is false as you claim. Walk me through it.

Maybe a follower of Jesus claimed she saw him in a marketplace after his death? Once that story circulated, the embellishments soon followed. Are all the resurrection accounts the same? Spoiler alert, they are very different. Why?

 

[alang1216]

No you don’t. If you did you should be able to easy explain why so many people were fooled.

For the same reason Mohammad has so many followers.

 

[ding]

Maybe a follower of Jesus claimed she saw him in a marketplace after his death? Once that story circulated, the embellishments soon followed. Are all the resurrection accounts the same? Spoiler alert, they are very different. Why?

Maybe? Really. Why don’t you just say you don’t want to believe it even if you have zero evidence for your beliefs. Besides that’s not what was recorded. What was recorded explains why people started worshipping Jesus as God. What was recorded in the Babylonian Talmud confirms that Jesus did perform miracles and did claim to be equal to God. Which is exactly what the texts you are trying to discredit with zero information say.

 

[alang1216]

Acts

Based on a reading of Acts, it is true that the apostles do not explicitly call Jesus "God" in the same way modern Trinitarian theology does. Instead, they use titles like "Lord" (Kurios) and "Christ" (Messiah), which emphasize his unique status and authority given to him by God, rather than explicitly proclaiming a co-equal divinity.
This reflects a transitional phase in early Christian theology.
Arguments that Jesus was not called "God" in Acts
Several passages support the view that the apostles understood Jesus as distinct and subordinate to God the Father:

• A "man attested by God": In his Pentecost sermon, the Apostle Peter refers to Jesus as "a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him" (Acts 2:22). Peter's language distinguishes Jesus, a man, from God, who worked through him.
• "Made... both Lord and Christ": Later in the same sermon, Peter states that "God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified" (Acts 2:36). The language of "made" suggests that Jesus's status as Lord and Messiah was bestowed upon him by God after his resurrection, rather than being an inherent property of his nature.
• "The servant of God": Peter also refers to Jesus as "the servant" of God (Acts 3:13, 26; 4:27). The Greek term used, pais, can also be translated as "child," but in either case, it portrays a relationship of service and subordination to God the Father.
• Distinct figures in visions: The account of Stephen's martyrdom further emphasizes the distinction. As Stephen is dying, he has a vision of "the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God" (Acts 7:55). This description explicitly portrays two distinct figures.

 

[ding]

For the same reason Mohammad has so many followers.

Why do you spell it out? I’d love to hear your conspiracy theory.

 

[ding]

Based on a reading of Acts, it is true that the apostles do not explicitly call Jesus "God" in the same way modern Trinitarian theology does. Instead, they use titles like "Lord" (Kurios) and "Christ" (Messiah), which emphasize his unique status and authority given to him by God, rather than explicitly proclaiming a co-equal divinity.
This reflects a transitional phase in early Christian theology.
Arguments that Jesus was not called "God" in Acts
Several passages support the view that the apostles understood Jesus as distinct and subordinate to God the Father:

• A "man attested by God": In his Pentecost sermon, the Apostle Peter refers to Jesus as "a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him" (Acts 2:22). Peter's language distinguishes Jesus, a man, from God, who worked through him.
• "Made... both Lord and Christ": Later in the same sermon, Peter states that "God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified" (Acts 2:36). The language of "made" suggests that Jesus's status as Lord and Messiah was bestowed upon him by God after his resurrection, rather than being an inherent property of his nature.
• "The servant of God": Peter also refers to Jesus as "the servant" of God (Acts 3:13, 26; 4:27). The Greek term used, pais, can also be translated as "child," but in either case, it portrays a relationship of service and subordination to God the Father.
• Distinct figures in visions: The account of Stephen's martyrdom further emphasizes the distinction. As Stephen is dying, he has a vision of "the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God" (Acts 7:55). This description explicitly portrays two distinct figures.

I want you to stay focused on what people did and what history recorded. History recorded the first Christians worshipped Jesus as God. Theology doesn’t matter. Jesus being made the center of a religion is what you need to explain.

So walk me through how that happened.

 

[alang1216]

What source do you have that says, no they didn’t?

I have a source, you have no source.

If it is as you say that nothing happened the way it was recorded in ancient manuscripts, then why are there no competing manuscripts which challenge them?

Where are the challenges recorded by the Pharisees?

You want me to produce a source that says "nothing happened"? That sort of thing doesn't get written, copied, and handed down. Especially by Christian scribes.

Or are you asking for challenges recorded by the Pharisees decades before they were actually made?

 

[ding]

You want me to produce a source that says "nothing happened"? That sort of thing doesn't get written, copied, and handed down. Especially by Christian scribes.

Or are you asking for challenges recorded by the Pharisees decades before they were actually made?

No. I want you to be honest. Say you have no evidence. Then walk me through how and why Jesus was worshipped as God.

 

[alang1216]

Maybe? Really. Why don’t you just say you don’t want to believe it even if you have zero evidence for your beliefs. Besides that’s not what was recorded. What was recorded explains why people started worshipping Jesus as God. What was recorded in the Babylonian Talmud confirms that Jesus did perform miracles and did claim to be equal to God. Which is exactly what the texts you are trying to discredit with zero information say.

You believe what you want to believe and ignore what doesn't fit your narrative.

 

[alang1216]

Why do you spell it out? I’d love to hear your conspiracy theory.

Answered.

 

[ding]

You believe what you want to believe and ignore what doesn't fit your narrative.

No. I have corroborated evidence. You have no evidence. All you have is a claim of myth. Which is really more like a claim of a conspiracy.

 

[alang1216]

I want you to stay focused on what people did and what history recorded. History recorded the first Christians worshipped Jesus as God. Theology doesn’t matter. Jesus being made the center of a religion is what you need to explain.

So walk me through how that happened.

Just because you can't address my points don't turn it back on me. You claimed Acts as a source, then explain why Acts says what I quoted.

 

[ding]

Answered.

You haven’t because you can’t.

Let me walk you through your beliefs. You can’t accept claims of miracles so you reject all evidence of miracles. Which means that everything in the NT is fiction and made up. Does that sound about right?

Here’s your problem. How did that happen. That’s what I want you to walk me through. How and why did all of that testimony get written down if it isn’t true. How did that happen?

 

[alang1216]

No. I want you to be honest. Say you have no evidence. Then walk me through how and why Jesus was worshipped as God.

I can't because he wasn't. Just read Acts.

 

[alang1216]

You haven’t because you can’t.

Let me walk you through your beliefs. You can’t accept claims of miracles so you reject all evidence of miracles. Which means that everything in the NT is fiction and made up. Does that sound about right?

Here’s your problem. How did that happen. That’s what I want you to walk me through how all of that testimony get written down if it isn’t true. How did that happen?

Embellishment.

 

[ding]

Just because you can't address my points don't turn it back on me. You claimed Acts as a source, then explain why Acts says what I quoted.

Walk me through how the NT was written if it isn’t true.

 

[ding]

Embellishment.

Great. Walk me through that. Show me.