There was molten steel pouring out the side of one of the Towers like a water fountain. No question. Glowing bright orange, liquid steel. No amount of Kerosene can do that to steel.
There were detonation charges blasting off right beneath the crumple point as the building collapsed in on itself at the exact same speed at which controlled demolitions occur. Eyewitnesses on the ground testify to hearing bombs and seeing no planes until they were told the news said there were planes. The popular narrative says that the passport was found in the rubble for one of the supposed terrorist who flew the plane, but no plane parts were found. Huh...interesting.
One has to deny a lot of established facts to claim that only planes brought the Towers down.
Oh, here you are. And you knew people who died that day. Give me a break. Troll identified.
2500 degrees is the temperature at which steel begins to melt. But kerosene, when not manipulated in a lab, burns, at best, 1800 degrees.
Not enough to melt steel.
Yahweh = God to a 1st century, 2nd temple Jew.
I’ve done my homework.
Who was speaking to Moses through the burning bush and called himself “I Am who I Am”?
Yahweh.
Why did the religious leaders in John chapter 8 pick up stones to kill Yeshua when he said, “Before Abraham was, I AM”?
Because he was claiming to be Yahweh, the Creator God: The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
I’m not going to watch your 2 hour video. If you have a point to make, use your words. No offense.
Jet fuel = kerosene
Kerosene cannot burn hot enough to melt steel.
Here's an idea.
Make the illegals kill pedophiles for citizenship.
Call it Aliens vs Predators.
Sept 24th is a Saturday
In St. Matthew’s gospel, Pontius Pilate ‘washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person’. This was to show the crowd he did not want Jesus dead, but ordered his death because that is what the people wanted. He was washing his hands of the responsibility:
Now it was the governor’s custom at the feast to release to the crowd a prisoner of their choosing. At that time they were holding a notorious prisoner named Barabbas. So when the crowd had assembled, Pilate asked them, “Which one do you want me to release to you: Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?” For he knew it was out of envy that they had handed Jesus over to him. While Pilate was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent him this message: “Have nothing to do with that innocent man, for I have suffered terribly in a dream today because of Him.” But the chief priests and elders persuaded the crowds to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus put to death. “Which of the two do you want me to release to you?” asked the governor. “Barabbas,” they replied. “What then should I do with Jesus who is called Christ?” Pilate asked. They all answered, “Crucify Him!” “Why?” asked Pilate. “What evil has He done?” But they shouted all the louder, “Crucify Him!” When Pilate saw that he was accomplishing nothing, but that instead a riot was breaking out, he took water and washed his hands before the crowd. “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” he said. “You bear the responsibility.” All the people answered, “His blood be on us and on our children!” So Pilate released Barabbas to them. But he had Jesus flogged, and handed Him over to be crucified.
~ Matthew 27:15-26
The Jews killed Jesus. They just used a loophole in the Roman system to do it.
And they put Jesus to death for claiming to be Yahweh. Equating oneself to be Yahweh = Blasphemy = Death. Hence why the religious leaders picked up stones to kill him multiple times throughout the Gospels.
That does not seem like a very profound statement.
Well, establishing the reliability of the New Testament is pretty profound in that we can be sure that the Bible we have in our hands today is, indeed, what the original authors wrote down. We can argue about whether what they wrote down is true or not, but we can't say that the Bible has been changed so much that it's impossible to determine what it originally said.
The word "God". It means something completely different to you than it does for me
The only way you can observe that the word "God" means something different to you than it does to me proves that words can be understood properly, otherwise you wouldn't be able to conclude that our meanings are different!
Just because people disagree on definitions does not mean communication is impossible.
When the thousands of copies of manuscripts (far more than for any other document of antiquity) are compared, we can know that the New Testament is 99.5% textually pure. In the entire text of 20,000 lines, only 40 lines are in doubt (about 400 words), and none affects any significant doctrine.
Even if all the manuscripts in the whole world were to disappear, the New Testament is so comprehensively quoted by early church letters, essays and other extra-biblical sources that we could still reconstruct almost the entire testament.
It is not possible to know what was and was not changed either, particularly the New Testament for this very reason.
It actually is possible to determine this. This is where the school of Textual Criticism comes into play.
There is absolutely no evidence that the Bible has been revised, edited, or tampered with in any systematic manner. The sheer volume of biblical manuscripts makes it simple to recognize any attempt to distort the Bible. There is no major doctrine of the Bible that is put in doubt as a result of the inconsequential differences among the manuscripts.
Follow me for a minute here....
Pretend your Aunt Sally learns in a dream the recipe for an elixir that preserves her youth. When she wakes up, she scribbles the directions on a scrap of paper, then runs to the kitchen to make up her first glass. In a few days Aunt Sally is transformed into a picture of radiant youth because of her daily dose of “Sally’s Secret Sauce.”
Aunt Sally is so excited she sends detailed, hand-written instructions on how to make the sauce to her three bridge partners (Aunt Sally is still in the technological dark ages–no photocopier or email). They, in turn, make copies for ten of their own friends.
All goes well until one day Aunt Sally’s pet schnauzer eats the original copy of the recipe. In a panic she contacts her three friends who have mysteriously suffered similar mishaps, so the alarm goes out to the others in attempt to recover the original wording.
Sally rounds up all the surviving hand-written copies, twenty-six in all. When she spreads them out on the kitchen table, she immediately notices some differences. Twenty-three of the copies are exactly the same. Of the remaining three, however, one has misspelled words, another has two phrases inverted (“mix then chop” instead of “chop then mix”) and one includes an ingredient none of the others has on its list.
Do you think Aunt Sally can accurately reconstruct her original recipe from this evidence? Of course she can. The misspellings are obvious errors. The single inverted phrase stands out and can easily be repaired. Sally would then strike the extra ingredient, reasoning it’s more plausible one person would add an item in error than 25 people would accidentally omit it.
Even if the variations were more numerous or more diverse, the original could still be reconstructed with a high level of confidence if Sally had enough copies.
This, in simplified form, is how scholars do “textual criticism,” an academic method used to test all documents of antiquity, not just religious texts. It’s not a haphazard effort based on hopes and guesses; it’s a careful linguistic process allowing an alert critic to determine the extent of possible corruption of any work
Correct. I would argue that, although Christianity doesn't have all the answers, it's does have the most among the World Religions.
I like what CS Lewis once opined:
“I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.”
― C.S. Lewis
Thank you for explaining a little more about where you're coming from. I was beginning to think you were simply trolling.
I'm beginning to think your just trolling in here.
Having read almost all of your posts on this topic, it sounds as if you derive your Theology from a mix of Zeitgeist and Ancient Aliens and New Atheism? I mean, you're all over the place! lol.
There are heaps of interpretations of the Trinity and not one has ever made any sense to me whatsoever within the framework of Christianity.
Can you give us some examples of the analogies you have encountered? Maybe I might be able to provide one you havent hear before and may shed some light on the issue for you?
Christians do not have a single working theory they all share.
This is demonstrably false. Historical Orthodox Christianity has always held as true:
That God exists
That He is Triune in Nature
That Jesus was God in the Flesh
That Jesus Died, was Buried, and Rose again from the Dead on the 3rd day
That the Bible is the Word of God
The majority of other doctrines (which comprise the differences between most Denominations) are secondary in nature to the above mentioned primary issues.
Historical Christianity does, indeed, have more than one working theory they all share
Why does the concept of the holy trinity make not a lick of sense as the Bible describes it? Why does it obfuscate instead of enlighten?
The Trinity is a Mystery. We can understand it in part, but not in it's entirety. There are good examples that explain the nature of the Trinity, but at some point all analogies break down. The Trinity is not a contradiction - that would be foolish. But it is a conundrum. However, it does explain why God is Love. Love can only occur in a relationship. A relationship is precisely what the Godhead is, from eternity past.
Why does it obfuscate instead of enlighten?
There are many explanations/concepts in Physics that I would say obfuscate instead of enlighten. But that doesn't make the concept false.
If God were infinite, then by definition, a Finite creature would not fully be able to comprehend Him. Furthermore, if one could fully understand God, then that would mean God isn't very Great.
How many times does the Bible say Jesus is the "son of God?" Why say this if he is not God's son but actually God?
You need to look into how 1st century, 2nd Temple Jews understood these words. What you are essentially doing is trying to understand a first century text while wearing 21st century glasses.
The Religious leaders of the day knew exactly what Jesus was claiming when he said things like this - which is why they picked up stones to kill him. Blasphemy - equating yourself with Yahweh - was punishably by death.
Almost every title or name that Yahweh attributed to himself in the Old Testament Jesus attributed to himself:
The Bread of Life
The Light of the World
The Great Shepard
I Am...
The Door
The Gate
The Way
The Truth
The Life
etc....
By attributing these titles to himself, Jesus claimed to be God on more than one occasion. The Jews and the religious leaders saw this. You can too. You just need to remove your 21st glasses and put on your 1st century Jewish glasses.
Who did Jesus pray to on the cross then if he is God?
Jesus was actually quoting the first verse of Psalms 22 while on the Cross:
"My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"
~ Psalms22:1
When Jesus cries out this phrase, it is a reference to Psalm 22. This Psalm is held to be a messianic psalm and one where the author (King David) appears to be sharing in some vision of what will happen to the Lord’s Messiah. Jesus only shares the first verse of the Psalm, but because of the scriptural literacy of Jesus’ day, most people would have assumed he was referring to the entire Psalm. We can examine it and find tie-ins to the crucifixion narrative.
In Psalm 22:6-8, it says that David’s enemies are mocking him, specifically because he trusts in the Lord that the Lord would rescue him. Matthew 27:35-44 and Mark 15:29-32 both say that the people mocking Jesus claimed that if God loved him so much, then God should save him in that moment.
Psalm 22:18 states that the clothing of the author was divided up and the oppressors were “casting lots” (a game of chance) for the possession of it. Matthew 27:35 tells us that Jesus’ garments were divided up and the new owners were decided by casting lots. How amazing is it that across the approximately 1,000 years difference between King David’s vision—recorded in Psalm 22—and the recorded actions of the death of Jesus, should be so similar?
Who did he ask to alleviate his suffering if he is the omnipotent "all-father"
Historical Orthodox Christianity holds that Jesus was both 100% God and 100% Man. Fully Human, yet fully God. He had two natures - the Hypostatic Union. So Jesus, as a man, could experience pain and suffering, like us. He could also heal the blind, walk on water, control weather, bring dead people back to life (Lazarus), and resurrect from the Dead himself - as only God can do.
Historical Orthodox Christianity also hold to the teaching of the Trinity. God is a triune being with three persons in One nature. The 2nd person of the Trinity is speaking to the 1st person of the Trinity. There is similar language found in the Creation account (and the account of the Tower of Babel) pointing to this plurality within the Godhead:
Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness...
~ Gen 1:26
You're entire response misses the point.
The authenticity/reliability of the NT documents (which I have 100% shown to be light years above any other book from early antiquity) is not an argument for whether or not the content in the Bible is true. All the information I provided does is prove that we can ascertain with a very high level of certainty (99.8%) that what we have in our hands today IS what the original authors wrote down - whether you believe that message came from God or not, or is true or not.
Do you see the nuance?
If you don't see the nuance, then maybe you should ask some clarifying questions to make sure you understand what is being said, before spouting off at the lip trying to wax eloquent.
By the way, your attempt at casting doubt on the ability of language to communicate meaning to another is a self refuting attempt. You say here:
Any language in existence is a set of pigeon holes, words with finite meanings, that are interpreted differently even by contemporary people with agreed upon definitions.
You either believe the words you are using have some sort of common understanding and can communicate the intent of what you are trying to say to me, in which case your argument fails, or, what you are saying about the nature of language is true and no one can truly understand what it is you're trying to say because "words can be interpreted differently."
You can't have it both ways.
The facts that I have presented (and others) above in the previous comments show, without a doubt, that there is no other book from early antiquity that can claim the level of reliability/trustworthiness that the NT can claim.
Hands down.
God is all loving, but He is also a Holy, Righteous, Judge.