

32·
1 year agoIf the passage doesn’t mention JC then it’s probably not about JC. A mid 19th century post hoc explanation of the trinity isn’t going to actually change that.


If the passage doesn’t mention JC then it’s probably not about JC. A mid 19th century post hoc explanation of the trinity isn’t going to actually change that.


So where exactly does it mention Jesus?
You’re quipping about making stuff up while supporting a book whose primary evidence for taking it remotely seriously is itself?
The count of occurrences isn’t evidence of authenticity or truthfulness.