[Plagiarized spam removed, user removed --Nyarlathotep]

Jo "How can anything natural be infinite?"

And there it is, the argument from ignorance fallacy. Please also not yet again the unevidenced assumption inherrent in the question that something exists beyond the natural.

Jo Jo Jo, you're simply repeating the same known logical fallacies, and unevidenced assumptions you started with. You have offered nothing beyond bare assertion and fallacious arguments in all the time you've been posting here.

Jo "I probably don't have it exactly right, but it sure sounds like creation to me."

Of course id does, you are determined to blindly believe in creation, so it's hardly surprising you see it in everything. As always you ignore the dishonesty of making a bare assertion without even the pretence of evidence. And as usual I point it out relentlessly, so you ignore me, and then hilariously claim you are not being dishonest.

Jo "You could make the same argument with life concurring.
The same with intelligent life, free will, consciousnesses, and so on.
Sure sounds like something more than a happy happenstance to me."

And on and on you go, ignoring objective facts like evolution explaining the emergence of human life and intelligence, but hey you're not being dishonest. Remind as again as I must have forgotten your answer, how many scientific facts do you deny that in no way contradict your superstitious beliefs? It's none isn't it, that's why like Breezy you will never answer that question, as it exposes your manifest bias. You're not just dishonest Jo, you insult us overtime you expect us to ignore such bias and dishonesty. I'd have some respect if you just admitted your faith is by definition biased, and an accident of geography.

Jo "I am not saying that I can't believe it could not have all happened by chance."

Liar, you have said precisely this, and you are doubly a liar if you are claiming an unevidenced deity using unexplained magic is rationally more probable than natural phenomena, which we know exist as an objective fact, and of course all based your own argument from incredulity you used, and are now dishonestly trying to backtrack from without addressing it directly, and the underlying argument from ignorance fallacy that because we don't know how these events occurred this somehow validates unevidenced superstitious fantasy. You can bang this drum until you die, no one here is prepared to believe what you can demonstrate no objective evidence for, and worse still, neither are you Jo, with just the one exception for the religious bellies you so blindly and doggedly cling to. All the while ignoring the fact you'd not be a christian if you'd been born in other parts of the world, in the middle east you'd likely be a Muslim, in India a Hindu or a Sikh, etc etc..

@ Jo

"I simply mean getting back to the original doctrines and practices that are in the NT.

How do you know they are the "original" doctrines and practises? We do know that extensive interpolations, revisions and translations were rife of those texts, some of which were not even written until the late 3rd century and many more were deleted, ignored and destroyed by the eventual power struggle winners.
That is historical fact.

Couple that with the divergence of the synoptic gospels with the established jewish practice of he early and mid to late 1st century (which ALL christians belonged and practised in the beginning and some sects right up to the 10th century) how can you justify this practice of yours and claim it as "original"?
The apostles were all allegedly devout Jews were they not? All were circumcised, and ALL practised observance of the Law and of the Holy days?

The Trinity was first mooted in the late second century (as the jesus was god stories did not make sense unless you were an Adoptionist or one of the many gnostic (mainstream) sects,) and gained widespread traction in the Pauline gentile church. Tertullian first published a defence of the doctrine in the late 3rd century. Again a fact. No, the Trinity does not appear in its modern form in the NT but is based on biblical verses...as almost anything can be in my view.

The "apostolic tradition" as I put in my original post can produce no eye witnesses, no contemporary corroboration for the 20 or so apostles mentioned in the NT, in fact, like the Jesus figure there is no contemporary evidence for them at all...except of course for the hallucinatory "Paul" figure who was not known to or knew of the original jesus figure except by hearsay.

So how can you base your belief on such faulty evidence?

Also have you nowhere to lay your head? I asked this before. That seems to consecrate your ministry, along with your peripatetic wanderings and preachings? I do not want to be dealing with a wannabe....

You seem to have access to all the technology you need....not very apostolic now is it?