Sure...

"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only." Matthew 24:36 (Jesus speaking)

"Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, being made in the likeness of men." Philippians 2:5-7

OMG, God is not Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ was not and is not all knowing. That is one of the reasons why its amazing that some Christians still think he was God.

It says that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, it also says that Christ is in you, now does that make you Christ.

God was in Christ, yes that was true, but He was not Christ and Christ was not God.

God was in Christ by way of holy spirit, Christ had holy spirit given to him, and God via this spirit was in Christ.

God gives Christians holy spirit upon the new birth and God is in them via that spirit and that does not make us God any more than it made Christ God.

You all might as well be arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, because I can show you probably 100 verses that would have to be thrown out of the bible if Jesus Christ was God. There are only a very small amount of verses that trinitarians use as their core defense for the doctrine of the trinity and a few of them are forgeries which can be proven to be forgeries of the text.

If you were just to go by the biblical logical research priniciple of "the difficult verse has to be understood in light of the many clear verses about a specific subject" then you would have overwhelming evidence contrary to the trinity, it is only people who have a mis-understanding of the words in the bible that are confused, and many of these people are those in the religous training seminaries of some of the top denominations in the world.

So its a trickle down affect, they are taught wrong in the seminaries and then they teach those under them wrongly and if they ever go against the grain of what they were taught they will lose their paid postions as clergy. So they obviously are controlled to a degree by fear. Most just go with the flow even though nothing about the trinity makes sense and none of it flows at all with the whole word.

If people get toooo questiony about it (the trinity) they are told its a mystery and you got to take it on faith, which basically means we can't explain it, it makes no sense but just believe us. And so they do!

Pletho

I thought under the trinity he is his father and his father is him.
The verse kind of goes against the trinity with God naming himself...just saying.

It goes on to say he could die but it doesn't say anything about seeing into the future. I mean if you're saying because he was made in the likeness of man, he was no longer omnipotent. Then how did he walk on water, turn water into wine, feed the masses with not enough bread... It looks to me like he had his powers in tacked, so you are going to have to show me a verse or something that shows directly he couldn't see the future.

I don't know much about this and am willing to be proven wrong. But what i was taught in church was that Jesus was God and that he did make prophecies of his death and betrayal.

To tell you the truth i think the second part of the op is a better argument against Christianity then the first part. The whole why didn't Jesus do this and why didn't Jesus do that is easily shot down with the freewill/god has a plan man counter argument.

I just wanted to add. The argument Jesus cant see onto the future is missing Ingersoll point.

His argument basically is. If Jesus can see into the future why didn't he...

He didn't claim to see into the future in a general sense.

Jesus did predict the coming Kingdom of God within the lifetime of his followers which didn't happen.

Jesus was correct about the destruction of the temple.

So, Ingersoll's strawman is somewhat standing. Kind of hunched over. Didn't really knock it down completely. Try again?

Prediction is the wrong word, its called prophesy. There is a difference.

All prophecies that Jesus Christ foretold have come to pass or will come to pass exactly as they were foretold. The problem is you do not understand what is meant by the kingdom of God, and since that is true you probably do not understand many other things also.

The 16th verse:

'' Jesus likes little children, so do I ''

Under the assumption he's God, are you saying God could not see the future in every sense?

It isn't his strawman, he didn't invent the idea Jesus was God.

Weird how the book containing that prophesy was written right after the temple fell.

Good point, that was a bad example. I do believe he was against the temple system as it existed then though he may not have prophesied it's destruction.

My main point was that Jesus never claimed to see into the future beyond predicting/prophesying (is that a word?) the coming Kingdom of God. Or did he? I can't think of any examples beyond the Kingdom.

I completely agree that Jesus the omniscient god is a straw man. It's suitable for attacking most mainstream Christian sects, but not for attacking Jesus himself.

Most historians are putting the book of Luke and Acts pre-70AD. So before the fall of the temple.

Not unless you have a different definition of most or a different definition of historian than most people.

*Most* don't. Some do:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospels#Dating

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_the_Apostles#Date

No, I have the same. But because you can find some that disagree doesn't bother me.

I don't mean there are some that disagree. I mean that if you poll historians employed by research universities there would be more votes for post-100 than for pre-70

Most biblical scholars agree that the year of the crucifixtion of Jesus Christ was A.D. 29. The period of the book of Acts covers 4 Roman emperors.

1) Tiberius (the emporer of Rome)
2) Gaius
3) Claudius
4) Nero

There is no definate date in either the Bible or in sacred literature or history or in secular history to pinpoint that this is the day the book of Acts started and terminated.

It opened in a period when Tiberius was the emporer and it closed in the period when Nero burned the city and was emperor.

There is however a point in Acts 12:20-23 that can be documented and be backed up with historical facts. Herod died during a festival that he gave for Claudius and this occured in A.D. 44. The festival was held at Caesarea which was the Roman capital of Palistine and that's where Herod died in A.D. 44.

Gaius ascended to the throne on March 16, 37 A.D. He was murdered on January 24th, 41 A.D. Then when Claudius was emporer Herod was made king over all Judea, and the word "all" becomes very important. When I said "all Judea" that included the area of Samaria and the other provinces involved.

History also tells us that Herod Agrippa died in the seventh year of his reign, which was soon after the completion of his third year as king over over all Judea. He was 54 years old when he died. Gaius ascended to the throne on March 16, 37 A.D.

So, if you add 7 to 37 you get 44 A.D. You take the 3 years when he was king over all Judea and Claudius came on the scene in 41 A.D. and you add 3 to that and you get 44 A.D.

So you tie all these together and you know the dating of the 12 Chapter of Acts. So the year of the crucifixtion, A.D. 29 is where the book of Acts begins and up to the 12 chapter will take you to 44 A.D. It is much more difficult to work the last parts of Acts out to find its termination point.

I will maybe share some of the historical details about that, so that the last part of Acts can be pinpointed.

Luke is never mentioned in the gospel of Luke or in Acts, since he was the writer of them, Luke is mentioned in Colossians 4:14, II Timothy 4:11 Philemon 24. There are 4 sections in the book of Acts known as the "We" sections. In those sections Luke was with Paul. Acts 16:10-17, Luke:20:5-15, Luke 21:1-18, Luke 27:1-18:16

Paul must have been out of Rome by 64 A.D., that is the year that Nero had the big fire. It is highly doubtful Paul would have been in the city of Rome at this time, if he was he would have most likely been burned like the rest of them.

Pletho

The dates surrounding the historical events described in Acts are not really in dispute. It still doesn't answer the questions as to when Acts was written, though. It could have been written 50-100 years after the events that it details -- and many scholars actually believe that this is the case.

Yeah, I've got this book on my shelf that tells me John F. Kennedy was shot and killed on November 22, 1963.

It also talks about "a magic bullet", and "grassy knoll" and such.

I'm sure it's all true.

Sorry, I meant the dates of the reigns of various kings and emperors, etc...

I obviously wasn't referring to any of the fanciful stories attributed to the apostles.

You should really read my post again. Maybe you'll catch it the second time around....

I would concur that the consensus during the time of Pilot, was if this man, jesus, professed he was god, then god should be punished, mankind has been tortured over the centuries for a belief in god and lack of it as Dominic rightly outlines.

If god did return, i personally would want him tried for crimes to humanity, under gods hand recorded in the bible he is responsible for over 2.5 million deaths of men, women and children, this is the mark of a psychopath. Hitlers mind was a similar configuration. If god came back now he would be a prime candidate for death row.

Why should god get away with murder because he is a 'supreme being'?

God would have a lot to answer for if he actually existed, jesus got the brunt of it imo.

Pretty hard to retract a statement when you said it and meant it, the above was said in anger although it does have some relevance but im starting to regret voicing hatred towards God.

**** God!

i dont think he is into that