# Christianity Simplified Though LOGIC ! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 6, 2005, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-simplified-though-logic/315842 "2005-08-06T03:06:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2005, 9:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-simplified-though-logic/315842/61 "2005-08-08T09:13:02Z")
> [@tim314](#): > > By the way, **Liberal** , am I correctly understanding that you aren’t actually arguing in favor of the line of reasoning in the OP, but just objecting to specific criticisms of it? Yes, that’s correct. The OP is flawed because it is simply a list of non sequiturs. No inference may be drawn from the premises presented. My objection is to both sides — whoever might say that there is empirical proof of Jesus’s saviorhood as well as those who say the opposite. I am arguing more against the latter because no one else is, and it needs to be put down. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2005, 9:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-simplified-though-logic/315842/62 "2005-08-08T09:13:19Z")
(Incidentally, I realise that the citation doesn’t take you straight to the quote - click “Public Lectures/Beginning of time” and look to the 11th and then last paragraph. He still absolutely believes that a singularity exists in real time). ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2005, 9:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-simplified-though-logic/315842/63 "2005-08-08T09:21:18Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Hawking draws no such inference: singularities are still the only future within the event horizon, and he **makes no categorical claim** about the size of the universe within the Planck epoch, but still considers that it _contains_ a singularity: > [Citation](http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/lindex.html). The bet was _only_ about information and entropy (which relates more to the _event horizon_ than to the centre of the collapsed star inside it). > > Please **stop** saying that Hawking doesn’t believe in singularities any more. I didn’t say that Hawking drew any inference. I said that the inference can (and must) be drawn. A singularity is either undefined, ill-behaved, or not differentiable. For example, f(x) = 1/x, x = 0. Or y[sup]2[/sup] = x[sup]2[/sup] at (0,0). Or g(x) = |x|, x = 0. If both these premises are true: (1) information escapes from black holes, and (2) entropy increases in black holes, then one must infer that black holes are not singularities. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2005, 9:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-simplified-though-logic/315842/64 "2005-08-08T09:22:33Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > (Incidentally, I realise that the citation doesn’t take you straight to the quote - click “Public Lectures/Beginning of time” and look to the 11th and then last paragraph. He still absolutely believes that a singularity exists in real time). Then he is mistaken a third time. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2005, 9:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-simplified-though-logic/315842/65 "2005-08-08T09:36:52Z")
> [@Lib](#): > > (1) information escapes from black holes Only _at the event horizon_ until the black hole **evaporates** , _ie._ the singularity exists for as long as the event horizon does. How does what happens at the event horizon imply anything about the centre of the body _inside_ it? Please tell me exactly how you are correcting the Lucasian Professor. Perhaps we can co-write a paper. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2005, 9:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-simplified-though-logic/315842/66 "2005-08-08T09:45:21Z")
What exactly is **evaporating** if not information? That’s what went in. Regarding correcting the Lucasian Professor, the Pope, the President of the US or anyone else, when they make correct inferences, they are correct. When they do not, they are wrong. I haven’t read Hawking’s papers on predicate logic, but if you want to link me, I’ll have a look. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2005, 10:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-simplified-though-logic/315842/67 "2005-08-08T10:08:41Z")
> [@Lib](#): > > What exactly is evaporating if not information? The black hole loses energy by [Hawking radiation](http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A568514): at the event horizon, virtual pairs which would ordinarily just annihilate become separated. Losing energy means that it loses mass (according to E=mc[sup]2[/sup]) and thus the event horizon shrinks. This is known as [evaporation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation#Black_hole_evaporation). Hawking’s change of mind was about what happened after aeons of such radiation, when the event horizon shrank back such that the object was no longer smaller than its Schwarzchild radius as in a normal star, allowing all the previously hidden information to be “seen” again (or, perhaps, for it to influence what happened at the event horizon. Note also that this total evaporation may never actually happen in practice given the enormous timescales). Now, how are you suggesting that this relates to the strength of the gravitational force at the centre? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2005, 11:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-simplified-though-logic/315842/68 "2005-08-08T11:00:59Z")
No way that I know of. You must have me confused with someone else. Hawking’s new theory suggests that the amount of information going into the black hole is the same as the amount coming out, except that what comes out is mangled and unrecognizable as what went in. “If you jump into a black hole, your mass energy will be returned to our Universe, but in a mangled form, which contains information about what you were like, but in an unrecognisable state.” — Hawking’s 2004 lecture. What he conceded was that information was not lost. His comments on entropy and the Big Crunch were separate comments made earlier. If no information is lost, and entropy continues to increase even if the universe contracts and expands again, then whatever black holes there are that exist are not singluarities. If they were, then information about entropy would be lost, just as information about a function is lost when the function is undefined. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2005, 11:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-simplified-though-logic/315842/69 "2005-08-08T11:17:15Z")
> [@Lib](#): > > If no information is lost, and entropy continues to increase even if the universe contracts and expands again, then whatever black holes there are that exist are not singluarities. If they were, then information about entropy would be lost, just as information about a function is lost when the function is undefined. I still don’t understand: why are you suggesting that a singularity must irretrievably lose information? Are you just _asserting_ this? (Note that the singularity is not the black hole _in toto_ - it is the mathematical centre, and even then there are different kinds of singularity: _“If you’ve seen one singularity you have **not** seen them all” - Brian Greene, The Elegant Universe_). ---
**Author:** ![MadderMitch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8e7dd6/32.png) [@MadderMitch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MadderMitch)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2005, 12:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-simplified-though-logic/315842/70 "2005-08-08T12:32:27Z")
[Quick aside to **Liberal**] Have you studied mathematics at a university institution? [/Quick aside to **Liberal**] No qualms or anything about the analyses, just curiosity ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2005, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-simplified-though-logic/315842/71 "2005-08-08T13:21:26Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > I still don’t understand: why are you suggesting that a singularity must irretrievably lose information? Are you just _asserting_ this? Because that’s what a singularity _is_. It has no information. That doesn’t mean that we know nothing about it; we know, for example, that it is undefined. But everything we can say about it is a tautology. Therefore, there is no meaningful information to extract — nothing to tell us anything new. > [@](#): > > (Note that the singularity is not the black hole _in toto_ - it is the mathematical centre, and even then there are different kinds of singularity: _“If you’ve seen one singularity you have **not** seen them all” - Brian Greene, The Elegant Universe_). Yes, I know that. And what I’m saying is that that center cannot exist in the classic sense of a singularity. Not if given the two premises. If the center were informationless, then no prediction about entropy could be made, and no information could emerge. Some information cannot come from no information. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2005, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-simplified-though-logic/315842/72 "2005-08-08T13:22:29Z")
> [@MadderMitch](#): > > Have you studied mathematics at a university institution? No, I haven’t. I welcome any corrections to my statements. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2005, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-simplified-though-logic/315842/73 "2005-08-08T13:46:41Z")
> [@Lib](#): > > Because that’s what a singularity _is_. It has no information. But Hawking’s bet did not necessarily relate to the singularity at the mathematical centre. It related to the entire event horizon and the volume contained therein, of which that mathematical centre is but an infinitessimal part. The information content referred to is that of the _whole volume_. You appear to be suggesting that because spacetime is infinitely curved at one infinitessimal location then the information content of the entire body is somehow affected. Why? > [@](#): > > And what I’m saying is that that center cannot exist in the classic sense of a singularity. Not if given the two premises. I still cannot see how your conclusion is not a _non sequitur_, even given the two premises (information escapes from black holes and entropy increases in black holes). Again, these premises relate to the _surface or volume_ of the black hole, not to the point at its centre (where real particles arguably cannot ‘fit’ _anyway_). Again I ask, can you direct me to someone else who argues that the existence of gravitational singularities is disproven by the eventual release of information from black hole evaporation? This would be important news - strange that Hawking still has extant singularities in his lecture notes, don’t you think? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2005, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-simplified-though-logic/315842/74 "2005-08-08T16:11:01Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Wait a minute. Are you saying that the Messiah will do the set of things that Scott stole and not one other thing? The OT doesn’t say he’ll smile, does it? So if he smiles, is he disqualified? The Messiah is not defined by birthright but by deeds. He is not the Messiah until he fulfills the requirements. Jesus fulfilled none of the OT requirements. Death and resurrection, even if it were to happen, would be irrelevant to Messiaship. A presumptive Messiah has either fulfilled the rquirements or has not. Jesus did not. It’s like if there’s a prophecy that a guy will cure cancer. If you die without curing cancer, then you weren’t the guy that cured cancer. Messiahship is defined solely by the fulfillment of the requirements. It’s not a special, unique person who is born the Messiah. Anyone is welcome to try. Jewish tradition holds that there is always at least one potential Messiah in every generation (which makes sense if you consider that a lineage to David would require at least on male link on the chain for every generation). > [@](#): > > Plus, I submit that your translation is shortsighted and biased. Psalm 145:17 uses the same word, directly in reference to God: “The Lord is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works.” There is no reason to assume that this represents a sudden change in gears from the Psalm 16 verse. It’s just a poor choice of translation. [Here](http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=02623&version=kjv). See for yourself. You tell me if the word carries some kind of unique definition of spiritual perfection which can only be applied to God. If that’s the case, then why does the Hebrew Bible use it so often to refer to humans? Furthermore, if Psalm 16 can only refer to God, then it CAN’T refer to the Messiah, because the OT Messiah _is not God_. > [@](#): > > Finally, the antecedants in all so-called Messianic verses are vague and open to interpretation. Once again, you are digging into a particular interpretation out of many possible ones and presenting it as definitive. Psalm 16 is not an example of Messianic prophecy and has never been read that way in Judaism. You’re extropolating an awful lot from an extremely tenedentious interpretation of a single word in a non-Messianic Psalm. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2005, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-simplified-though-logic/315842/75 "2005-08-08T18:26:00Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > But Hawking’s bet did not necessarily relate to the singularity at the mathematical centre. It related to the entire event horizon and the volume contained therein, of which that mathematical centre is but an infinitessimal part. The information content referred to is that of the _whole volume_. You appear to be suggesting that because spacetime is infinitely curved at one infinitessimal location then the information content of the entire body is somehow affected. Why? Because we cannot say that the one allegedly infinitessimal location is not a part of the whole. (Pun. :)) His new theory suggests that the amount going in is the same as the amount coming out. Not nearly the same with an infinitessimal difference, but the same. Not point nine some finite number of times, but point nine to infinity — i.e., one. The implication is not that a part of the information (however small) returns from an infinitessimal location, _but that there is not an infinitessimal location_. Therefore, there is not a singularity. > [@](#): > > I still cannot see how your conclusion is not a _non sequitur_, even given the two premises (information escapes from black holes and entropy increases in black holes). Again, these premises relate to the _surface or volume_ of the black hole, not to the point at its centre (where real particles arguably cannot ‘fit’ _anyway_). How is there space to curve if there is no mass/energy? If nothing can fit in it, then there is nothing there. There cannot be nothing anywhere. Therefore, there is something there. That something cannot be infinitely dense (for the reasons already explained three different ways). Therefore, that something is not a singularity. It’s just a really really dense place. But not an infinitely dense place. > [@](#): > > Again I ask, can you direct me to someone else who argues that the existence of gravitational singularities is disproven by the eventual release of information from black hole evaporation? This would be important news - strange that Hawking still has extant singularities in his lecture notes, don’t you think? No, I can’t direct you to any such thing. I can only depend upon you to apply the logic for yourself. You’re more than capable of doing so, and don’t need to depend on someone else’s lectures. Hawking is an eminent physicist, but not necessarily a talented logician. That is not to denegrate him in any way, as you know, but merely to say that there was no reason for him to draw the same inference unless he had pursued it. Why don’t you toss the idea out there, and see what your peers say? Especially while the whole world is waiting on his rather Godelian declaration that he would soon tell us the mathematical particulars of his new theory. Maybe this information is what he needs. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2005, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-simplified-though-logic/315842/76 "2005-08-08T19:26:57Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > The Messiah is not defined by birthright but by deeds. He is not the Messiah until he fulfills the requirements. Jesus fulfilled none of the OT requirements. Death and resurrection, even if it were to happen, would be irrelevant to Messiaship. A presumptive Messiah has either fulfilled the rquirements or has not. Jesus did not. But that is controversial. You might as well say that the Judaic G-d cannot exist since we know that He did not fulfill the requirements of Genesis 1. The world was in fact not created in six days. There is no reason that Messianic prophecy cannot have been of the same metaphorical and cryptic nature as a lot of other prophecy. Just because Jews interpret it one way and Christians another does not mean that some allegedly correct interpretation defaults to the Jews. Yes, it was written by Jews (in a sense), but you wouldn’t say that you have to be an Italian to interpret the writings of Cicero. > [@](#): > > It’s just a poor choice of translation. [Here](http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=02623&version=kjv). See for yourself. You tell me if the word carries some kind of unique definition of spiritual perfection which can only be applied to God. If that’s the case, then why does the Hebrew Bible use it so often to refer to humans? I _don’t_ think that it always carries that meaning. All I’m saying is that a person is entitled to give it that meaning if he wishes. And you are not entitled to tell him that he can’t. > [@](#): > > Furthermore, if Psalm 16 can only refer to God, then it CAN’T refer to the Messiah, because the OT Messiah _is not God_. Maybe He is and maybe he isn’t. Besides, Christ Himself is not the totality of God. > [@](#): > > Psalm 16 is not an example of Messianic prophecy and has never been read that way in Judaism. You’re extropolating an awful lot from an extremely tenedentious interpretation of a single word in a non-Messianic Psalm. That honestly doesn’t make sense from how I understand your point of view. It seems to me that, for you, any and all interpretations would be tendentious. ---
**Author:** ![JustAnotherGeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/58f4c7/32.png) [@JustAnotherGeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JustAnotherGeek)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2005, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-simplified-though-logic/315842/77 "2005-08-08T21:03:42Z")
Has anyone noticed that the OP has yet to reappear? I wonder if this wasn’t so much a drive-by witnessing, but rather the OP’s attempt to see what would happen if he posted what he considers to be bad logic on the part of Christians. Is this a case of a false witnessing? Is this a case of, if you’ll pardon the phrase, an atheist playing “Christian’s Advocate?” ---
**Author:** ![MadderMitch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8e7dd6/32.png) [@MadderMitch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MadderMitch)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2005, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-simplified-though-logic/315842/78 "2005-08-08T21:17:43Z")
> [@JustAnotherGeek](#): > > Has anyone noticed that the OP has yet to reappear? > > I wonder if this wasn’t so much a drive-by witnessing, but rather the OP’s attempt to see what would happen if he posted what he considers to be bad logic on the part of Christians. > > Is this a case of a false witnessing? Is this a case of, if you’ll pardon the phrase, an atheist playing “Christian’s Advocate?” I thought it was frowned upon to call someone for “trolling” on these msg boards? I know you didn’t directly say it, but it’s implied anyway ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2005, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-simplified-though-logic/315842/79 "2005-08-08T21:36:23Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > But that is controversial. You might as well say that the Judaic G-d cannot exist since we know that He did not fulfill the requirements of Genesis 1. The world was in fact not created in six days. There is no reason that Messianic prophecy cannot have been of the same metaphorical and cryptic nature as a lot of other prophecy. Just because Jews interpret it one way and Christians another does not mean that some allegedly correct interpretation defaults to the Jews. Yes, it was written by Jews (in a sense), but you wouldn’t say that you have to be an Italian to interpret the writings of Cicero. A lot of what Christians interpret as being Messianic prophecy has no such intent in its original context. Like your interpretation of Psalm 16, for instance. That Psalm has nothing to do with the Messiah, There isn’t a single word in it which would indicate that it should be read that way. It’s not a question of interpretation, it’s a question of plain reading. We aren’t talking about differing interpretations of prophecy, we’re talking about erroneously ascribing prophetic intent where none exists. > [@](#): > > I _don’t_ think that it always carries that meaning. All I’m saying is that a person is entitled to give it that meaning if he wishes. And you are not entitled to tell him that he can’t. It NEVER carries that meaning in the sense that you’re trying to argue (spiritual perfection). I linked to the lexicon and you can see that the word just doesn’t mean that. You’re trying to argue that the word must refer to the Messiah because only God possesses that quality of _chaciyd_, but that assertion simply isn’t true. The Hebrew Bible attributes that word to humans many times. There is no support for any argument that it can only refer to God or even that it _usually_ applies to God. My Oxford Annotated says it literally means “devout adherent.” Most of the uses in the Bible fall along those lines…to indicate a faithful or pious _human_, a good person, a saint. If that word is your only argument for calling the verse Messianic (and there is nothing else in the text to identify it as such) then your argument is incredibly specious, _a priori_ and tendentious as hell…_especially_ since your argument is based on an erroneous belief that the OT Messiah is God. > [@](#): > > Maybe He is and maybe he isn’t. The Hebrew Bible says he isn’t. > [@](#): > > Besides, Christ Himself is not the totality of God. I don’t know what that means but the OT Messiah is just supposed to a regular person and no part of God at all. > [@](#): > > That honestly doesn’t make sense from how I understand your point of view. It seems to me that, for you, any and all interpretations would be tendentious. Not necessarily all, but yours certainly is. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2005, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-simplified-though-logic/315842/80 "2005-08-08T22:04:10Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > A lot of what Christians interpret as being Messianic prophecy has no such intent in its original context. Like your interpretation of Psalm 16, for instance. That Psalm has nothing to do with the Messiah, There isn’t a single word in it which would indicate that it should be read that way. It’s not a question of interpretation, it’s a question of plain reading. We aren’t talking about differing interpretations of prophecy, we’re talking about erroneously ascribing prophetic intent where none exists. And I disagree. So now what? > [@](#): > > It NEVER carries that meaning in the sense that you’re trying to argue (spiritual perfection). I linked to the lexicon and you can see that the word just doesn’t mean that. You’re trying to argue that the word must refer to the Messiah because only God possesses that quality of _chaciyd_, but that assertion simply isn’t true. The Hebrew Bible attributes that word to humans many times. There is no support for any argument that it can only refer to God or even that it _usually_ applies to God. My Oxford Annotated says it literally means “devout adherent.” Most of the uses in the Bible fall along those lines…to indicate a faithful or pious _human_, a good person, a saint. If that word is your only argument for calling the verse Messianic (and there is nothing else in the text to identify it as such) then your argument is incredibly specious, _a priori_ and tendentious as hell…_especially_ since your argument is based on an erroneous belief that the OT Messiah is God. You linked to A lexicon. There are other lexicons. In fact, the one you linked to credited Strongs, but it truncated Strongs’s entries. — “2623 chaciyd khaw-seed’ from 2616; properly, kind, i.e. (religiously) pious (a saint):–godly (man), good, **holy (one)**, merciful, saint, (un- )godly.” Just because you found a lexicon you like, that doesn’t mean it is the definitive lexicon of the ages. All I’m trying to explain to you is that there is no such thing. Controversy exists. The writing itself is incredibly old. People are entitled to interpret it any way they please, and that includes you. But we (and this includes you) are not entitled to tell others how they _must_ interpret it. > [@](#): > > The Hebrew Bible says he isn’t. It does? Where? > [@](#): > > I don’t know what that means but the OT Messiah is just supposed to a regular person and no part of God at all. But we all are part of God. So Jesus teaches. Regular people have the light of God within them. > [@](#): > > Not necessarily all, but yours certainly is. You would know, I guess, being the authority on me and all. 😉 Look, Dio, one more time. You don’t get to say how other people may interpret things. Your value judgments on their interpretations are as worthless as their value judgments on yours. You do not stand apart as some objective arbiter of interpretation. Simple as that. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-simplified-though-logic/315842.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-simplified-though-logic/315842.md?page=5)