Trinity

[zinnat13]

As far as I am able to understand, in Trinity, father is God, son is Jesus while the holy spirit represents eternal consciousness, which is independent from both others, yet imbedd in them.

With love,
Sanjay

[Veritas Aequitas]

Again why are you so stupid and ignorant? Even the Bible itself acknowledges that it is corrupted! Jeremiah 8:8 reads as follows:
“How can you say, ‘We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us’? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie.[Jeremiah 8:8]

Re Jeremiah 8:8 here is the counter from Al Fadi, David Wood and Sam Shamoun;

I watched that. These people are clowns. They have not presented any argument; Trinitarian Christians are very bad at logic; I recently witnessed that on the forum itself. That is because the moment someone embraces the Trinity, it's bye bye logic for them until they realize that they have been fooled and reject it.

The following is an argument that conclusively settles the matter. It's obvious that one cannot both, on the one hand, accept that the Bible is corrupted (as Christians scholars do) and on the other hand counter Jeremiah 8:8, which is saying the Jewish scriptures are corrupted! I am not surprised though that you didn't see that contradiction as we all now know you are stupid. Anyway, I now will present the evidence from true Bible scholars on Jeremiah 8:8.

There is a scholarly book which is a collection of academic papers of around 18 recognized Bible scholars (most of them Christians) which addresses the corruption of the Jewish scriptures: Changes in Scripture, Rewriting and Interpreting Authoritative Traditions in the Second Temple Period, Edited by Hanne von Weissenberg, Juha Pakkala and Marko Marttila.

Knowledge of Hebrew is recommended for one to be able to read all the chapters of the book as the numerous examples of corruption shown in the book are in Hebrew, the original language.

An excerpt from a chapter of the book written by biblical scholar John J Collins  on Jeremiah 8:8 on page 23:

• “How can you say,  ‘We are  wise,  and  the law  of  the Lord  is  with  us,’ when,  in  fact,  the false  pen of  the scribes  has  made it  into  a lie”  (Jer  8:8)
  
  We do  not  know  precisely  what Jeremiah had in mind  in his scathing denunciation  of  scribal  activity  on  the  Torah.  Many  scholars  think  that the  prophet  was opposed  to any written Torah.1  He  was  certainly  concerned  that  the  authority  of  the  prophet to  speak  for God  was being usurped by  the scribes,  as  indeed  it  was.  But it  is also established beyond  doubt  that  scribes frequently changed  the supposedly  revealed texts that they  transmitted. Ironically,  the book of  Jeremiah is itself a prime  example of scribal composition,  where  the  original oracles of the prophet are  now  overshadowed  by  the  accretions, often ideological, of scribal transmission.2  Of   course,  Jeremiah’s   judgment  on  such  accretions  reflects a particular perspective,  which  is not  inevitable. Religious traditions  sometimes  value  the  contributions  of  the  editors,  who  gave the  material its  canonical shape,  more than  those of the prophets.  It  is often  assumed that these editors were attempting  to preserve and  explicate  the  true   meaning  of  their  sources,  and  undoubtedly  this  was often so.  But  Jeremiah’s outburst  should  warn  us  that a  “hermeneutic  of suspicion”  towards  the ideological  underpinnings of scribal  activity  is not  entirely  anachronistic.  Claims  to  speak  with  divine  authority  were especially fraught  with  implications  for power in ancient society,  and were inevitably, and  properly,  contested.

One point is I am confident people like Al Fadi, David Wood, Shamoun and others are very capable to countering whatever Muslims throw at them based the numerous articles I read and video heard from them.

Since you simply charged them as clowns and stated they don't have any arguments, I have now listened to the full videos;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XlfeG4kjYk
You are LYING and stupid not to recognize the proper argument point they have presented.

David Wood argued, it was the Quran that confirmed the Torah is reliable when Muhammad make reference to it as authentic.
If the Torah during Muhammad's time, why did Muhammad make reference to the Torah?

Quran 10:94 And if thou (Muhammad) art in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto thee, then question those who read the Scripture (that was) before thee. Verily the Truth from thy Lord hath come unto thee. So be not thou of the waverer.

Sam Shamoun presented various points that argue Jeremiah 8:8 is not to be taken literally by itself and need to be cross-referenced to other parts of Jeremiah, Daniel and elsewhere.

Generally Jeremiah 8:8 is something like a warning that some scribes could intentionally or unintentional when writing down the verses, but there are other sources to correct whatever errors are made.

Why are you such a coward not to address the specific arguments they made?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Re Luke 19:27
Here is the counter Al Fadi, David Wood and Sam Shamoun;

I watched the David Wood monologue till the end. And he is in fact saying that biblical Jesus did indeed refer to himself in the verse Luke 19:27! This is how stupid some people can be; in trying to refute Luke 19:27, they ended confirming their belief in it!
And don't forget Luke 14:26,  where biblical Jesus is clearly commanding hate towards family and community members:

• “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.(Luke 14:26)

As you entertained me with that video, I too will like to do the same for you, God willing. The following YT link will no doubt not fail to entertain you as well: https://youtu.be/Y0_iluq6uus

Since you simply brushed it off with "Jesus refer to himself" ...
I have confidence in Fadi, Wood and Shamoun, and I took time to listen to the video.

You stated 19:27 is Jesus commanding non-Christians to be killed.
But as David Wood explained, 19:27 is related to a parable that Jesus told with reference from 19:11. There is no command from Jesus to kill non-believers.
Even Ahmad Deedat make the same ignorant mistake or he was deceptive in twisting the biblical verse 19:27 out of context.

As Wood stated, even if say, Jesus refer to himself, there is no command to kill non-Christians.

Re 14:26 I will do some research on that and I am confident it is not meant to be literal and in whatever the cases, they are overridden by the overriding maxim, i.e. love all - even enemies.

[Veritas Aequitas]

And don't forget Luke 14:26,  where biblical Jesus is clearly commanding hate towards family and community members:

• “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.(Luke 14:26)

I read up a few explanations to Luke 14:26, the one below is the most effective;

Jesus told his disciples to love even their enemies (Luke 6:27), therefore he cannot be telling us to literally hate our families. So, what does he mean? And what is his point?

It helps to understand the contemporary custom for expressing choice. Take what the Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible says on this topic,

"While the Hebrews naturally had a whole range of such emotions ranging from outright death-seeking malice to mere preference, disregard, and rejection, they had no suitable words to express different shades of meaning. Thus words such as “love” and its opposite “hate” (Heb. śānēʾ; Gk. miśō) were used to express the idea of preference." *

Choose who you love - really love

We cannot love two masters: Luke 16.13. Jesus is asking his followers to choose their master. The same idea surfaces in the Old Testament. God expressed hatred for insincere worship (Isa. 1:14; Amos 5:21), therefore part of what Jesus is saying, is “are you all in - fully sincere?”

"the love the disciple has for him must be so great that the best of earthly loves is hatred by comparison (cf. Matt. 10:37)." **

Jesus comes first. Before all people and before all things.

God bless, Malcolm

* Kealy, C.S.Sp, Seán. Freedman, David Noel, Allen C. Myers, and Astrid B. Beck, eds. Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible. Accordance electronic edition, version 3.6. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.

** Morris, Leon. Luke: An Introduction and Commentary. TNTC 3. IVP/Accordance

[seeds]

How Trinity is possible if Son is united to Father but Father is the highest and knows certain things, like the end of time, that Son doesn't know?

When it comes to the concept of the Trinity, I try to be practical about it.

I suggest that instead of relying on the consensus opinion of a large gathering of smelly old men in a meeting that took place in Nicaea, 325 years after the death of Jesus,...

...how about we look at what the Bible itself stated in one of its most important and essential axioms, right there in the book of Genesis.

It clearly proclaims that God created man (and woman) in his own image.

In other words, our being is a reflection (a replication) of God’s being.

Now,...

(and assuming that you are not suffering from “multiple personality disorder”)

...take a good long gander at yourself and tell me where you detect the presence of any sort of “trinity” within the ontological makeup of your mind or body?

Hume asserted the self is merely a bundle of activities and nothing more, i.e. he meant no substantial self such as a permanent soul.

That sounds no different than the materialistic blatherings of a modern-day neurophysiologist.

It is nothing more than the standard form of existential nihilism that offers no ultimate or eternal purpose for humans as individuals.

In other words, it will never work as the replacement for the “old paradigm religions” as was discussed in the “What causes Muslims to be violent?” thread.

However empirical evidence from personal experience and observation there is obviously the trinity of the following;
1. the empirical self [physical which all can verify],
2. the I-self [the mental self personhood] and
3. empirical self that is interdependent within all other empirical selves.

All the above are verifiable empirically and philosophically.

Other than the single personage represented in number 2, there is nothing about that list that even comes close to resembling the 3 individual persons of the Christian Trinity that somehow blend together in the mystical union that forms the transcendent Godhood.

Again, if according to the Biblical assertion that a human is created in the image of God, then because you cannot look upon a human as consisting of 3 individual “persons,” then, likewise, neither can you look upon God as consisting of 3 individual “persons.”

The Trinity concept was a subsequent (ad hoc) “add-on” to Christianity due to an arbitrary consensus decision made by, again, a bunch of confused and smelly old men, three and a quarter centuries after the death of Jesus.

It was a misguided diversion away from the pure monotheism of the Abrahamic concept of God.

Indeed, it was a diversion that I have often suggested was corrected with the invention of Islam which (if nothing else) steered the Abrahamic project back onto the course of, again, pure monotheism, thus putting the kybosh on the Trinity nonsense.
_______

[bahman]

How Trinity is possible if Son is united to Father but Father is the highest and knows certain things, like the end of time, that Son doesn't know?

When it comes to the concept of the Trinity, I try to be practical about it.

I suggest that instead of relying on the consensus opinion of a large gathering of smelly old men in a meeting that took place in Nicaea, 325 years after the death of Jesus,...

...how about we look at what the Bible itself stated in one of its most important and essential axioms, right there in the book of Genesis.

It clearly proclaims that God created man (and woman) in his own image.

In other words, our being is a reflection (a replication) of God’s being.

Now,...

(and assuming that you are not suffering from “multiple personality disorder”)

...take a good long gander at yourself and tell me where you detect the presence of any sort of “trinity” within the ontological makeup of your mind or body?
_______

I don't believe in trinity.

[attofishpi]

How Trinity is possible if Son is united to Father but Father is the highest and knows certain things, like the end of time, that Son doesn't know?

When it comes to the concept of the Trinity, I try to be practical about it.

I suggest that instead of relying on the consensus opinion of a large gathering of smelly old men in a meeting that took place in Nicaea, 325 years after the death of Jesus,...

...how about we look at what the Bible itself stated in one of its most important and essential axioms, right there in the book of Genesis.

It clearly proclaims that God created man (and woman) in his own image.

In other words, our being is a reflection (a replication) of God’s being.

Now,...

(and assuming that you are not suffering from “multiple personality disorder”)

...take a good long gander at yourself and tell me where you detect the presence of any sort of “trinity” within the ontological makeup of your mind or body?
_______

I don't believe in trinity.

What do you believe?

[bahman]

When it comes to the concept of the Trinity, I try to be practical about it.

I suggest that instead of relying on the consensus opinion of a large gathering of smelly old men in a meeting that took place in Nicaea, 325 years after the death of Jesus,...

...how about we look at what the Bible itself stated in one of its most important and essential axioms, right there in the book of Genesis.

It clearly proclaims that God created man (and woman) in his own image.

In other words, our being is a reflection (a replication) of God’s being.

Now,...

(and assuming that you are not suffering from “multiple personality disorder”)

...take a good long gander at yourself and tell me where you detect the presence of any sort of “trinity” within the ontological makeup of your mind or body?
_______

I don't believe in trinity.

What do you believe?

I believe in myself, other peoples, and spiritual reality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

How Trinity is possible if Son is united to Father but Father is the highest and knows certain things, like the end of time, that Son doesn't know?

When it comes to the concept of the Trinity, I try to be practical about it.

I suggest that instead of relying on the consensus opinion of a large gathering of smelly old men in a meeting that took place in Nicaea, 325 years after the death of Jesus,...

...how about we look at what the Bible itself stated in one of its most important and essential axioms, right there in the book of Genesis.

It clearly proclaims that God created man (and woman) in his own image.

In other words, our being is a reflection (a replication) of God’s being.

Now,...

(and assuming that you are not suffering from “multiple personality disorder”)

...take a good long gander at yourself and tell me where you detect the presence of any sort of “trinity” within the ontological makeup of your mind or body?

Hume asserted the self is merely a bundle of activities and nothing more, i.e. he meant no substantial self such as a permanent soul.

That sounds no different than the materialistic blatherings of a modern-day neurophysiologist.

It is nothing more than the standard form of existential nihilism that offers no ultimate or eternal purpose for humans as individuals.

In other words, it will never work as the replacement for the “old paradigm religions” as was discussed in the “What causes Muslims to be violent?” thread.

Hume's definition of self is similar to Buddhism-proper's anatta.

Buddhism-proper provides a Life Problem Solving Technique that would deal with the existential issues that are grounded within the issue re “What causes Muslims to be violent?”

• Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.
  viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25193

Note Buddhism-proper is divorced from the idea of Rebirth, Buddhist heaven, gods, myths, spirits, etc., believed by various lower levels Buddhists.

However empirical evidence from personal experience and observation there is obviously the trinity of the following;
1. the empirical self [physical which all can verify],
2. the I-self [the mental self personhood] and
3. empirical self that is interdependent within all other empirical selves.

All the above are verifiable empirically and philosophically.

Other than the single personage represented in number 2, there is nothing about that list that even comes close to resembling the 3 individual persons of the Christian Trinity that somehow blend together in the mystical union that forms the transcendent Godhood.

Again, if according to the Biblical assertion that a human is created in the image of God, then because you cannot look upon a human as consisting of 3 individual “persons,” then, likewise, neither can you look upon God as consisting of 3 individual “persons.”

The Trinity concept was a subsequent (ad hoc) “add-on” to Christianity due to an arbitrary consensus decision made by, again, a bunch of confused and smelly old men, three and a quarter centuries after the death of Jesus.

It was a misguided diversion away from the pure monotheism of the Abrahamic concept of God.

Indeed, it was a diversion that I have often suggested was corrected with the invention of Islam which (if nothing else) steered the Abrahamic project back onto the course of, again, pure monotheism, thus putting the kybosh on the Trinity nonsense.
_______

I thought you asked for an example of a real manifestation of trinity within humans, thus my example of a real trinity.
I had no intention to compare this type of trinity to Christianity's Trinity which is "real" to Christians but I believe is delusional.

[seeds]

Hume asserted the self is merely a bundle of activities and nothing more, i.e. he meant no substantial self such as a permanent soul.

That sounds no different than the materialistic blatherings of a modern-day neurophysiologist.

It is nothing more than the standard form of existential nihilism that offers no ultimate or eternal purpose for humans as individuals.

In other words, it will never work as the replacement for the “old paradigm religions” as was discussed in the “What causes Muslims to be violent?” thread.

Hume's definition of self is similar to Buddhism-proper's anatta.

Buddhism-proper provides a Life Problem Solving Technique that would deal with the existential issues that are grounded within the issue re “What causes Muslims to be violent?”...

Note Buddhism-proper is divorced from the idea of Rebirth, Buddhist heaven, gods, myths, spirits, etc., believed by various lower levels Buddhists.

We’re getting off topic here, but, you’re kidding, right?

I mean, how in the world can it be claimed that “Buddhism-proper” divorces itself from the idea of Rebirth when Buddha himself is said to have remembered a vast number of his past lives?

According to Wiki:

The Buddha and Rebirths

The texts report that on the night of his enlightenment the Buddha gained the ability to recall his previous lives. It is said that he remembered not just one or two, but a vast number, together with the details of what his name, caste, profession, and so forth had been in each life...

— Damien Keown, Buddhism: A Very Short Introduction

Setting aside any conflicting interpretations of Buddhism, the bottom line is that the individualization of personal, self-aware consciousness that was once known here on earth as Siddhartha Gautama (aka, the Buddha) is either alive right now in some higher context of reality...

...or...

...his personal consciousness and personal sense of self-awareness have been extinguished and no longer exist.

Which is it?

Pick one and explain why.

However empirical evidence from personal experience and observation there is obviously the trinity of the following;
1. the empirical self [physical which all can verify],
2. the I-self [the mental self personhood] and
3. empirical self that is interdependent within all other empirical selves.

All the above are verifiable empirically and philosophically.

Other than the single personage represented in number 2, there is nothing about that list that even comes close to resembling the 3 individual persons of the Christian Trinity that somehow blend together in the mystical union that forms the transcendent Godhood.

I thought you asked for an example of a real manifestation of trinity within humans, thus my example of a real trinity.
I had no intention to compare this type of trinity to Christianity's Trinity which is "real" to Christians but I believe is delusional.

It should have been obvious from the way I was setting up the argument that it was meant to demonstrate that the Christian Trinity is self-refuted by Christianity’s very own prime doctrine that declares that humans are created in the image of God.

And that’s because if a human is allegedly created in God’s image, yet is obviously not comprised of “3 individual persons” (which it clearly is not) then, logically, neither is God.

In which case, your offering of some kind of strange and arbitrarily-contrived idea of what you call a "real trinity" of the human form, is a non sequitur that has nothing to do with the point I was making.
_______

[Belinda]

Bahman wrote:

I don't believe in trinity.

The choice is larger than believing in Trinity, or not believing in Trinity. Your thoughts are free. Trinity might be a nice idea for you and might help you to make decisions. There is no need to presume ideas such as Trinity are the sole property of religions.

[gaffo]

since you seem to know of Eastern Religions (Jainism/Hinduism/Buddism) - which this forum is lacking, i'd welcome your views of the 7? encarnations of God (I know by name only 2 of the seven - Rama and Krisha).................I'm a hellbound Atheist, but have interest in religions (i lack knowledge in the Eastern ones, but know more than most Believers - from Christians to Jews and Muslims - though know more of Judiasm, and a little less of Islam/Christianity - read all those books decades ago - well most of.....my personality conforms more to Judaism (Recipocity) - i do not love those the hate me, so no christian mentally.

again, if you can inform me and this forum about the Eastern Hindu's theology of the seven? incarnations of "God", i'd love to read/learn via your reply.

I am not interested on discussion the "seven? incarnations of 'God' " which is going off topic. Note,

• Re Trinity is Hinduism
  The most well known Hindu Trinity (trimurti) is Brahma the Creator, Vishnu the Preserver, and Shiva as Judge. The impersonal Brahman of the Upanishads represents the Godhead in this view.
  No Hindu has ever worshiped an undifferentiated One, just as no Greek ever worshiped Aristotle’s unmoved mover. (In fact, Shankara, the Hindu father of absolute monism, was a devout Shaivite and wrote wonderful hymns to his personal Lord Shiva.) The theological basis of Hindu personal theism is the Purusha hymn of the Rig-Veda (10.90) and trinitarian formulations of this personal Godhead developed in both the religions of Shiva (Shavism) and the religion of Vishnu (Vaishnavism).
  
  Hindus who follow Shiva worship him as Creator, Preserver, and Judge, and timeless interpenetration of these three modes of existence is roughly equivalent to the perichoresis of the Christian Trinity.

"No Hindu has ever worshiped an undifferentiated One.." because this is like starring at the Sun [most powerful physical thing] all day. This is why the majority comprising a wide range of spiritual maturity direct their attention of the Trinity, incarnations and manifestations [idols] of the all powerful [they are aware of] which they can effectively connect with and benefit from.

thanks for rely, and i welcome understanding, and members that do of Restern Reiligions in this forum - whcih lacks such.

if you are willing - and to be frank all you said to me is utter greek - i no nothing outside of my posts prior - and would love to understand more, but = if you are willing, to "school" me. as an ignoranous, so i may understand your above - which i honestly do not.

I', here to both say my views on things, and to learn, i see you know and i don't per Eastern Religions, and would love to learn from you more about said religions.

if you are willing.

if not, that fine, my lose, i affirm freewill, so only a request not a demand.

That is the problem and disadvantage with Islam where everyone is forced to stare at the Sun [one and only Allah] every moment which is a torture to most Muslims and leading to so many Muslims committing terrible evil acts upon non-Muslims.

i think i understand, but not sure here, and would welcome clarification on the matter if willing.

If you are a non-theist [atheist], Buddhism-proper [no God involved] would be more relevant to you. Buddhism-proper focus on how to increase one's well being and be a better person in alignment with the well-being of humanity.
There are many forms of Buddhism but the more advanced Buddhism, which is more effective, is AT PRESENT a bit too ahead for the majority of people.

Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25193

I understand, and why i respect Buddism - be it theist or non-theist, its tenents are all about knowing yourself (which is Wisdom), so that religions' value of is the same as mine.

of course there are millions of foolish Buddists (just born into it), and wise Chrstians/Jews/Muslims/Athiests/etc.

the last thing i will ever do is claim i an wise, only that i strive to be more wise today that i was prior - and even so, i do not affirm that, i have backslide in my life, and when i did i forgot the wisdom i had (sadly).

All we can do is be Humble, and try our best to know ourselves in order to become "wise-ish"

----------

serously, you stated stuff above i have no knowledge of, and i welcome more understanding of Bubbism and Hinduism from you - assuming you know of them - so i may become more knowledgabe tomorrow than today.

thanks for reply Sir!

[gaffo]

sure..I don't think U R even worthy of my suffering for IT.

i may have spoken too soon aveross.



well hope springs eternal in this i think aveross was the more civil, and att got snippy for some reason, when he should have just returned the civility instead.

I like you Att, just think being an as honest abserver as i can be here.

I'll reserve my right to be 'snippy',

snippyis fine if in response to a prior snippy - and equal to. i'm all about resiprocity (Never start a fight, but when others NEVER reply beyond the offense, nor ignore it - reply equal to the offense..............then if they stand down, all is good, they learned their lessen, if not, and they escalate, return the offense...........until they learn or you and they are exausted from fighting and they learn nothing from the experience...............so be it, at long as your reply is not more than the offense, they have no leg to stand on, and if they are too foolish to learn from "the dance" of offenses, so be it, you can't fix stupid.

all you can do is right via your personal conscience, i think you may be a christian? with Buddist - eastern sentiments, so not into Reciprocity (as i am). just sayin my mentality, as long as you don't "start it" and some other dick does, return his offense to him, is my non christian (verty Jewish - though i am not a Jew) view on the matter.

when I have answered his request re "Trinity" and he insists that he be garnered from the buy_bull..not from direct gnosis with the Supreme Being. (from whom I suffered greatly)

As in:-
Trinity?

God formed its own intelligence from chaos...hence why infinite regress is stifled.

..as it formed, from great suffering, it created a reality that life could evolve within, indeed eventually wo/man were designed.

God eventually saw a point in time where HE would grow as a human among men...and ensure that there is a REASON for his suffering mentally and physically...HE grew as CHRIST.

SO. Back to the Trinity - a trivial matter in consideration of such a degree of suffering on all accounts.

GOD - formed as a MAN - and created a COLD LOGIC system - THE HOLY SPIRIT.

GOD - CHRIST - HOLY SPIRIT (basically Gods technology - akin to A.I. that manifests ALL Matter)

i don't understand your theology, but interested if you are willing, i just think - your reply was out of order per his post - and so called you out on it.

if you deny it, that is up to you, i only posted a reply as a neutral observer.

peace to you.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Hume asserted the self is merely a bundle of activities and nothing more, i.e. he meant no substantial self such as a permanent soul.

That sounds no different than the materialistic blatherings of a modern-day neurophysiologist.

It is nothing more than the standard form of existential nihilism that offers no ultimate or eternal purpose for humans as individuals.

In other words, it will never work as the replacement for the “old paradigm religions” as was discussed in the “What causes Muslims to be violent?” thread.

Hume's definition of self is similar to Buddhism-proper's anatta.

Buddhism-proper provides a Life Problem Solving Technique that would deal with the existential issues that are grounded within the issue re “What causes Muslims to be violent?”...

Note Buddhism-proper is divorced from the idea of Rebirth, Buddhist heaven, gods, myths, spirits, etc., believed by various lower levels Buddhists.

We’re getting off topic here, but, you’re kidding, right?

I mean, how in the world can it be claimed that “Buddhism-proper” divorces itself from the idea of Rebirth when Buddha himself is said to have remembered a vast number of his past lives?

According to Wiki:

The Buddha and Rebirths

The texts report that on the night of his enlightenment the Buddha gained the ability to recall his previous lives. It is said that he remembered not just one or two, but a vast number, together with the details of what his name, caste, profession, and so forth had been in each life...

— Damien Keown, Buddhism: A Very Short Introduction

Setting aside any conflicting interpretations of Buddhism, the bottom line is that the individualization of personal, self-aware consciousness that was once known here on earth as Siddhartha Gautama (aka, the Buddha) is either alive right now in some higher context of reality...

...or...

...his personal consciousness and personal sense of self-awareness have been extinguished and no longer exist.

Which is it?

Pick one and explain why.

One point is Buddhism-proper recognizes humanity comprises humans with a wide range of tendencies in different conditions and have spiritual awareness ranging from 0.1/100 to 99.9/100 with the majority at less than 30/100.

Unlike the Abrahamic religions with ONE FIXED and ONLY WAY, Buddhism-proper [also in Hinduism and others] allow Buddhists of all levels to believe and adopt practices that suit their level of spiritual propensity -as long there are no evil elements.
This is why there are wide ranging of beliefs and practices within Buddhists with the imputed condition of continuous improvements from whatever their base are.

This is why there are 3 main schools of Buddhism, i.e. Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana with hundreds of sects and sub-sects within them.

If there are to be disputes, then Buddhists will fall back on Buddhism-proper and its core principles.

Two of the main core principles are that of anatta and annica.

In Buddhism, the term anattā (Pali) or anātman (Sanskrit) refers to the doctrine of "non-self" — that there is no unchanging, permanent self, soul, or essence in phenomena.[1][2] It is one of the seven beneficial perceptions in Buddhism[3] and one of the three marks of existence along with dukkha (suffering) and anicca (impermanence).
-wiki

If there are no permanent [anicca] and no self/soul [anatta], what is there to be reborn?

So yes,
"...his personal consciousness and personal sense of self-awareness have been extinguished and no longer exist."

But those Buddhists with lower level of spiritual competence have not attained the state of realization of the concepts of anatta and anicca, thus they still have the very strong proclivity to cling to the idea of a soul that can be reborn with elements in other living things, etc.

There are even some sects of Buddhism [Pure Land] which are Christianity-like [probably they in the BCE predated Christianity] where one is promised eternal life [not like the Christian soul] in heaven upon merely believing in the Buddha!

The compromise for those of with lower spirituality to believe in all sort of non-evil nonsense is to enable them to deal with their inevitable existential crisis [sufferings - dukkha] with the hope that they can progress and graduate to higher levels i.e. the 'PhD' level.
One good compromise is the Buddha-Story which is a Myth to represent and explain the main principles of Buddhism proper to the layman and it is not a real story.

Some will progress but others may not, but since Buddhism is overridingly pacifist, there is no real issues of evilness to humanity in contrast to Islam [high evilness] and Christianity [low negatives].

I have the confidence to express the above because of the research I have done on Buddhism-proper, I claim to be a reasonable expert on the subject.
I also adopt and practice a major portion [not all] of Buddhism-proper doctrines, philosophy and practices.

[Veritas Aequitas]

thanks for rely, and i welcome understanding, and members that do of Restern Reiligions in this forum - whcih lacks such.

if you are willing - and to be frank all you said to me is utter greek - i no nothing outside of my posts prior - and would love to understand more, but = if you are willing, to "school" me. as an ignoranous, so i may understand your above - which i honestly do not.

I', here to both say my views on things, and to learn, i see you know and i don't per Eastern Religions, and would love to learn from you more about said religions.

if you are willing.

if not, that fine, my lose, i affirm freewill, so only a request not a demand.

serously, you stated stuff above i have no knowledge of, and i welcome more understanding of Bubbism and Hinduism from you - assuming you know of them - so i may become more knowledgabe tomorrow than today.

thanks for reply Sir!

I am not into the above approach.
With our current advancements and reach of the internet, it is very easy to research any subjects, e.g. Eastern religions, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.

My current project is an in depth research into Morality and Ethics, thus not much time for others. So far I have spent 14 months full time on that.

I believe you can do it yourself to understand almost anything these days via the internet, i.e. Wiki, Youtube, blogs, relevant sites, etc.

Here is the fishing methods:
If you follow every links, notes, and references in the following link below you would or could be an expert on Eastern religions in time if you put in the effort for full time 6 months or 12 months if part-time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_religions

Contents

• 1 Indian religions
  • 1.1 Hinduism
    1.2 Buddhism
    1.3 Jainism
    1.4 Sikhism
  2 East Asian religions
  • 2.1 Taoism
    2.2 Shinto
    2.3 Confucianism
    2.4 East Asian Buddhism
  2.5 Vietnam
  3 See also
  4 Notes
  5 References