But some historians certainly do dispute that Jesus claimed to be God Himself, or part of a triune God-head.
They say you are mis-translating and mis-interpreting what the New Testament writers intended.
Of course, you are free to dispute those historians.
I am only here to plead that you do it reasonably, without threatening to burn anybody at the stake as "damnable heretics".
Kevmo: “That is not a religious belief. It is a historical observation. Historians don’t have a problem with it, but apparently you do. And to think, you were the one who went out of his way to point out the differences between religious faith and history. You can’t even tell the difference yourself.”
But some historians certainly
***Woah, wait a second. You don’t even dispute that you can’t tell the difference between a historical observation and a religious belief.
do dispute that Jesus claimed to be God Himself, or part of a triune God-head.
***The vast majority of historians do not dispute it. It is historians with an axe to grind, idealogically driven hacks who push such unhistorical nonsense. Kinda like the Mormon guys who get degrees in history so they can back up mormonism.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2056400/posts
They say you are mis-translating and mis-interpreting what the New Testament writers intended.
***And they are hacks. And you are a heretic.
Of course, you are free to dispute those historians.
***gladly. Click on the link.
I am only here to plead that you do it reasonably, without threatening to burn anybody at the stake as “damnable heretics”.
***Well, heresy is heresy. The title of the thread calls it a damnable heresy. Why you would plead such a thing and defend a heresy is your own problem.