- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Do you think Great Apes could eventually evolve enough to have their own Stone Age?
Posted on 6/24/25 at 6:32 pm to Harald Ekernson
Posted on 6/24/25 at 6:32 pm to Harald Ekernson
quote:
Harald Ekernson
Your comprehension of the Bible is modest at best. You’ve posted so many incorrect assumptions and have cited zero sources. This stuff is easily verifiable yet you keep spouting off non sense.
quote:
but we know *our* gospel of Matthew was written in Greek (and copied word for word in Greek from Mark in many cases
This is still up for debate as scholars agree on both sides to be Hebrew/Aramaic vs Koine Greek. You don’t know anything definitively so stop it.
quote:
The gospel of Mark is based on Paul’s epistles in the format of Homer’s Iliad.
Completely false
quote:
Is the Gospel of Mark modeled on Homer’s Iliad or Odyssey?
Short answer: This is a minority scholarly theory, and it is highly debated and not mainstream.
This idea was advanced most notably by Dennis R. MacDonald in the early 2000s, who argued that Mark mimicked Homer’s epic style and motifs (like sea journeys, divine revelations, hero suffering) to present Jesus as a kind of counter-cultural hero.
He claims Mark used a “mimesis” (literary imitation) of Homer to give Jesus a familiar heroic shape for Greco-Roman readers—but this theory is not widely accepted among New Testament scholars.
Critics say the parallels are often vague, forced, or too generic (e.g., both heroes go on journeys or face trials).
For you laughing what the other poster posted
quote:
The Gospel of Mark is generally believed to have been written around 70 AD. This date is supported by scholarly analysis of the text, particularly Mark 13, which is interpreted as referring to the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 AD. While some scholars propose slightly earlier dates, such as the late 60s, the destruction of the temple remains a key point of reference for dating the text
I’m going to stop here as I’m tired and you are not worth arguing with but be sure to cite your sources as well. I will continue tomorrow if you’d like me to crush your analysis further
I’ll throw this in I guess
quote:
Most experts would argue that Paul didn’t talk about Jesus’ life on earth because those stories hadn’t yet been invented.
Ahh I see where you are going here. You refuse to believe anything because you’ve made up your mind already. Confirmation bias. I see why you have a hard time because you’ve done zero research on the matter
This post was edited on 6/24/25 at 6:40 pm
1
Posted on 6/24/25 at 6:46 pm to FutureMikeVIII
quote:
You’re just making shite up. We get it, you don’t understand evolution.
Yeah, because my side is the one making stuff up so a theory cant be disproven:
Punctuated equilibrium
Extending the age of the Earth (multiple times)
Linear evolution
Branching evolution
Pongidae disassociation
Genetic drift
Age of convergence
Great droughts of Africa that reduced sapiens to 600 people (this is my favorite)
Then magically evolution brought us to the same point on Earths timeline where evolution and the after effects of the Great Flood miraculously collided
Both created man and evolved man ended up in the same spot on Earth, began controlling crop production and animal domestication, establishment of villages, cities, towns, use of symbols, and language diversity, and population growth (because sapiens had been reduced to 600 prior. Otherwise, there would have been millions of hominids roaming the planet).
All of the evolutionist created this theory in the last 150 years, while it had been recorded on paper by the creationists for 8,000 years or more prior
Posted on 6/24/25 at 8:08 pm to WigSplitta22
quote:
That would be if it were true and provable. Infinite space is though as we know the universe appears (from measurements) flat and not curved which would be creating a loop. So we know from it being flat that it's most likely infinite which is hard to wrap your mind around
We don’t know that the universe is flat. Though our best technology cannot currently detect a curve, we have to add a “yet” to any conclusion. Our measurements cannot conclusively determine its shape.
If Inflation Theory is correct, the universe is so unimaginably big that the observable parcel we’re in is only 1/10^20 of it. That makes determining its shape exceedingly difficult.
Additionally, nature loves a sphere and abhors infinity. Anytime infinity or singularity is encountered in math, we know that something is amiss.
Posted on 6/24/25 at 9:43 pm to Howyouluhdat
quote:
cited zero sources
If I cited every source, would that influence your thinking? Would it change your mind? Are you open to other ideas or are you closed minded? I’ll agree to one topic at a time. Which source would you like?
quote:
This stuff is easily verifiable
We agree
quote:
This is still up for debate as scholars agree on both sides to be Hebrew/Aramaic vs Koine Greek. You don’t know anything definitively so stop it.
Are we talking about Matthew or Mark? Either way they were both composed in Greek and I wasn’t even aware this was even debated anymore. This is already settled to my knowledge. I sure would like to read some arguments for the other side (proponents of originally in Aramaic) so please do post a link for me.
quote:quote:Completely false
The gospel of Mark is based on Paul’s epistles in the format of Homer’s Iliad.
I should’ve been clearer. Mark is a (great, impressive) literary work based on Paul’s epistles, the sources of Mark’s stories about Jesus on earth. Look at the Lord’s supper from 1 Cor 11 and compare to Mark 14. Who is there in 1 Cor 11? Nobody! Paul says he only knows of Jesus and the gospel through 1. Visions of Jesus and 2. The Scriptures (Septuagint, 1 Enoch, and others he held authoritative). In Mark 14 there’s a bunch of people there with Jesus. Mark took Paul’s epistles and added details in his visions of Jesus to make stories of Jesus’ life.
So whoever wrote “Mark” wrote it in Koine Greek, evidently wasn’t even from Palestine (making some geographical mistakes in his writing), and wrote in a way that is excellent compositional Greek (experts who read Greek say this). It was also written in a chiasmic ring structure (a literary method of ordering from start to the middle and then middle to the end in reverse order) the same way great greek works such as the Iliad were written. And I’ve read that in ancient Palestine and in the Greek speaking world, anyone with enough practice in Greek composition capable of writing “Mark” back then would have studied the Iliad profusely during schooling.
quote:
Dennis R. MacDonald
I’m going to guess you never read his book.
quote:
but this theory is not widely accepted among New Testament scholars.
Sure, I’d bed religious fundamentalists and apologists which PhDs do not accept this. But it is the majority opinion of critical biblical scholars, and it is extremely easily verifiable - even to guys that don’t really know anything about this subject. Just put “chiasmic ring gospel mark” into the Google search.
quote:
The Gospel of Mark is generally believed to have been written around 70 AD. This date is supported by scholarly analysis of the text, particularly Mark 13, which is interpreted as referring to the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 AD. While some scholars propose slightly earlier dates, such as the late 60s, the destruction of the temple remains a key point of reference for dating the text
All the actual evidence points to somewhere between 70AD and about 150AD. We know it can’t be any earlier than 70AD. You posted a comment about it being earlier than that, which was funny to me. Even the crazy fundamentalists for the most part acknowledge the gospel to be post 70AD.
quote:
well. I will continue tomorrow if you’d like me to crush your analysis further
Give me a good crushing.
quote:
Ahh I see where you are going here. You refuse to believe anything because you’ve made up your mind already. Confirmation bias.
No, don’t deflect. And don’t accuse me of your own failings and closed mindedness.
quote:
I see why you have a hard time because you’ve done zero research on the matter
Buddy, if you only knew… lol
Paul wrote that Jesus was the Yom Kippur sacrifice in Romans 3 and he wrote Jesus was the Passover sacrifice in 1 Cor 5. What does Mark do? He takes those concepts, writes a historicized story of Yom Kippur where Jesus Christ is the perfect unblemished goat to be sacrificed as YHWH, and the other identical goat, named Jesus Barabbas (Jesus son of the Father) gets released to the wilderness to carry away the sins of Israel to Azazel the desert demon. Jesus is sacrificed as the Yom Kippur sacrifice… at Passover, according to the story in Mark.
I know why you think I don’t know what I’m talking about. It’s because you are at such a low level of knowledge compared to me, a lot of what I’m saying sounds outlandish. I get it. All I do is read a bunch of books. Imagine discussing with critical biblical scholar.
Do you think Barabbas first name being Jesus is just slightly peculiar? What about his last name “son of the Father”? Is that a little weird? Were you even aware of the meaning of Barabbas or that the criminal’s name was Jesus?
Posted on 6/24/25 at 10:27 pm to SPEEDY
Ha. I read that title as “Grape Ape” lol.
Posted on 6/24/25 at 10:35 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
it had been recorded on paper by the creationists for 8,000 years or more prior
Paper is only about 2000 years old. Papyrus goes back about 4500 years in Egypt, though up until the Iron Age in Mesopotamia and Canaan all they had was clay tablets.
quote:
the Great Flood
Posted on 6/25/25 at 2:09 am to Harald Ekernson
quote:
And how do we know Mark wrote the story that we call “the gospel according to Mark” understanding that the words written in the gospel don’t state who wrote it, and it’s written in the third person voice.
For one, the early Church didn’t doubt or dispute it. Not just Mark either. Certainly not dispositive for you but nothing will be will it?
quote:
Paul wrote in the 40’s through 60’s most experts agree.
True. So perhaps as few as fewer than ten and no more than thirty years after the events.
Paul was also, according to Luke, a participant in the stoning of Saint Stephen, a Deacon in Christ’s Church-a very early event in Church history.
quote:
Those same experts - critical textual scholars and historians - have shown conclusively that the four canonical gospels were dependent on Paul and written after 70 AD and maybe as late as the 140s-150s. And they also have shown that Matthew and Luke are redacted versions of Mark - which is why they earned the name “synoptic gospels”.
No. Perhaps some “critical textual scholars and historians-generally those hostile towards the New Testament texts holding them to far more rigorous standards than other ancient texts of similar age (and with far fewer documentary evidence than the New Testament )-by no means all “textual scholars and historians”.
Even John’s gospel once held out as being as old as nearly 200 AD, has over the years steadily fallen back and has settled in around 90-95 AD. (I believe a case can be made for as early as 75 AD.)
As far as the “140s-150s” goes, again some critics, not all. Why, given those ridiculous late dates, do you suppose, there’s not a single mention of Jerusalem’s destruction by the Romans in 70 AD? Or in the Epistles? It would certainly be a feather in their cap to say, “Look we told you Jesus was the Messiah, he prophesied what happened to Jerusalem 40 years before the fact.”
Luke’s gospel, especially taken alongside Acts, is so comprehensive and detail rich it shows an almost historical/journalistic methodology taking statements from living witnesses to the events. Given his detailed account of Jesus’s birth and the events surrounding it, a case can be made he spoke with Jesus’s mother.
The issue of Paul’s well developed Christology coinciding with John’s was dismissed as scholars have shown otherwise. Again, some scholars, not all. If Paul and John share a so called “late” high view of Jesus’s Diety, perhaps it’s because they both share the same understanding of who Jesus is.
The final two gems are what tip your hand.This.
quote:
Do you have any sources who are not from apologists?
An apologist is simply a person who makes an argument in defense of a position held. They are as scholarly qualified as the scholars hostile to their position. Do you consider reading any scholarly works of critics, scholars, or historians not hostile towards the New Testament texts and who treat them just like all other ancient texts of the period?
And this-
quote:
Most experts would argue that Paul didn’t talk about Jesus’ life on earth because those stories hadn’t yet been invented.
Your mind is made up. No “apologist” is going to persuade you with evidence or arguments contrary to the position you already hold. Isn’t it a little disingenuous and a bit hypocritical to claim the fellow you were debating only used “apologists” favorable to his position when you do precisely that?
Posted on 6/25/25 at 2:22 am to RobbBobb
quote:
Yeah, because my side is the one making stuff up
Yes that’s correct
Posted on 6/25/25 at 2:56 am to RobbBobb
quote:
Yeah, because my side is the one making stuff up
Yes, it is.
Posted on 6/25/25 at 7:45 am to Harald Ekernson
quote:
If I cited every source, would that influence your thinking? Would it change your mind?
It would at the very least make you seem a little more intelligent.
quote:
Either way they were both composed in Greek and I wasn’t even aware this was even debated anymore
I can agree to this as the majority view
quote:
Mark took Paul’s epistles and added details in his visions of Jesus to make stories of Jesus’ life.
I cannot agree to this. Paul’s letters are not biographies and do not tell stories of Jesus’ life like the Gospels do.
quote:
Scholar James D.G. Dunn summarizes it like this: “The evangelist may have been influenced by Pauline theology, but he is clearly drawing on oral Jesus traditions and shaping them into narrative, not rewriting Paul.”
quote:
I’m going to guess you never read his book.
For strong reasons
quote:
Just put “chiasmic ring gospel mark” into the Google search.
Do you realize early gospel audiences heard it and not read it. This wouldn’t even make sense.
quote:
All the actual evidence points to somewhere between 70AD and about 150AD.
Please cite this.
quote:
What does Mark do? He takes those concepts, writes a historicized story of Yom Kippur
quote:
Scholarly Views
Richard Hays: Mark echoes biblical themes of suffering and vindication, not necessarily Paul.
John Dominic Crossan: Mark constructs Jesus’ death in symbolic opposition to temple authorities, but not in Pauline atonement terms.
N.T. Wright: Sees Mark’s Gospel as theologically resonant with Paul, though not derivative.
This post was edited on 6/25/25 at 7:46 am
Posted on 6/25/25 at 7:53 am to Howyouluhdat
quote:
I cannot agree to this. Paul’s letters are not biographies and do not tell stories of Jesus’ life like the Gospels do.
So then you agree with what Harald said.
This post was edited on 6/25/25 at 7:54 am
Posted on 6/25/25 at 9:22 am to Mo Jeaux
quote:
So then you agree with what Harald said.
He said he took Paul’s Apistles and added to them which is not true. He didn’t take anything from Paul as they are a completely different narrative. Try and keep up
Posted on 6/25/25 at 9:30 am to Howyouluhdat
You’re such a pompous arse just because people are questioning your beliefs. Here’s the exchange:
Harald said that Mark took the epistles and added details about Paul’s visions to make stories about Jesus’ life (i.e., a biography). You said that you can’t agree with that because Paul’s letters are not biographies. You’re agreeing with him.
quote:
quote: Mark took Paul’s epistles and added details in his visions of Jesus to make stories of Jesus’ life.
I cannot agree to this. Paul’s letters are not biographies and do not tell stories of Jesus’ life like the Gospels do.
Harald said that Mark took the epistles and added details about Paul’s visions to make stories about Jesus’ life (i.e., a biography). You said that you can’t agree with that because Paul’s letters are not biographies. You’re agreeing with him.
Posted on 6/25/25 at 10:59 am to BigNastyTiger417
quote:Do not follow history, do not you?
Don’t follow history, don’t you?
Posted on 6/25/25 at 11:09 am to Howyouluhdat
quote:
Paul’s letters are not biographies and do not tell stories of Jesus’ life like the Gospels do.
Paul’s letters don’t even mention Jesus interacting with anyone or being in any particular place on earth. It’s because those stories were invented at the time of Paul’s writings.
Paul writes “am I not an apostle, have I not seen the Lord?” to the church in Corinth to some who challenge his apostolic credentials. That’s what made an apostle an apostle - having visions of the risen Lord. Paul states that he only knows Jesus through scriptures (the LXX and 1 Enoch and such) and visions. How powerful of an argument have been if his detractors said “we knew the earthly Jesus and you didn’t!”? Paul never has to respond to that argument because it didn’t exist. Paul, like all the other apostles, only knew Jesus through scripture and visions only after Jesus’ resurrection as he described in chapter 15.
quote:quote:Do you realize early gospel audiences heard it and not read it. This wouldn’t even make sense.
Just put “chiasmic ring gospel mark” into the Google search.
Even if I were to give you the “oral tradition first” argument, it still doesn’t change the undisputable fact that Mark is written in a chiasmic ring structure with rings inside of rings the same way the Iliad is written.
quote:
Richard Hays:
Methodist minister
Look I get it that the scholars you listed have opinions like everyone else.
It doesn’t change the fact that Paul viewed Jesus as both the atonement sacrifice which absolves us of sin (the Yom Kippur ritual sacrifice of two goats) and the Passover sacrifice (lamb) which saves us from death. In Mark, he creates a historicized version of the Yom Kippur sacrifice (two identical Jesuses, one sacrificed as YHWH and the other released to carry away sin) being on Passover. That’s not a coincidence.
Did you give any thought to the criminal being named Ieusous Barabbas (Jesus son of the Father)? It looks to me like you did not realize that or you would’ve commented on it.
Do you know anything about the first temple cult and their day of atonement when the king, who is also the high priest, called Melchizedek, who is Yahweh incarnate, atones for all the sins of Israel? It helps to understand Leviticus 16 to understand the story of Jesus Christ and Jesus Barabbas.
Posted on 6/25/25 at 12:18 pm to Harald Ekernson
quote:
Paul’s letters don’t even mention Jesus interacting with anyone or being in any particular place on earth
Correct
quote:
It’s because those stories were invented at the time of Paul’s writings.
Again I get it. You have your mind made up. There’s no reason to go any further but he had contact with people who did know Jesus, like Peter (Cephas) and James the brother of Jesus (Galatians 1:18–19).
quote:
written in a chiasmic ring structure with rings inside of rings the same way the Iliad is written.
This is not the consensus. I don’t know why you keep stating it as fact.
quote:
Did you give any thought to the criminal being named Ieusous Barabbas (Jesus son of the Father)? It looks to me like you did not realize that or you would’ve commented on it.
Forgive me but what exactly are you getting at. The deliberate irony between the two?
Posted on 6/25/25 at 1:29 pm to Mr. Misanthrope
quote:
As far as the “140s-150s” goes, again some critics, not all. Why, given those ridiculous late dates, do you suppose, there’s not a single mention of Jerusalem’s destruction by the Romans in 70 AD?
Mark 13, Matthew 24, and Luke 21 all contain Jesus’ “predictions” that the temple will be destroyed. That’s one of the many reasons critical scholars conclude they were all written (at least in their final forms) post 70AD when we know from other historical records is when the temple was destroyed by Rome. As John used these other gospels as source texts (though he didn’t copy and paste like Luke and Matthew did) then we logically must conclude John also is a post 70AD text and post all those other gospels. But even in John 2, Jesus talks of the temple being destroyed.
quote:
Or in the Epistles?
Oh it’s in there. The thing is - only the gullible actually believe that Paul wrote it:
“For you, brothers, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea. For you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose all mankind by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they might be saved—so as always to fill up the measure of their sins. But wrath has come upon them at last!”
So Paul believed (1 Cor 2) the “rulers of this age” who were the “archons” (divine beings) were the ones that killed Jesus. Some misinformed would argue “those rulers were human rulers” but to that I’d say “ok, were the Jews the rulers, or were they getting ruled by the Romans?” Either way you interpret 1 Cor 2, it wasn’t the Jews who killed Jesus. Paul himself was a Jew, and he wouldn’t be using terms like “them” and “they displease God”. And what’s he talking about this wrath coming to them (the Jews) at last? Of course whoever inserted this bit into 1 Thessalonians was anti-Jew and was post destruction of the temple. I personally think it might have been Marcion of Sinope who inserted those verses.
quote:
Given his detailed account of Jesus’s birth and the events surrounding it, a case can be made he spoke with Jesus’s mother.
So were there shepherds in a barn for Jesus’ birth, under governor Quirinius, or were there Magi in a house for Jesus’ birth under King Herod? As these guys’ rule are separated by 10 years, if you could solve this problem that would be great. If you believe Luke, because you say he must’ve talked to Jesus’ mother, then you have to acknowledge at least that Matthew’s account is mistaken and inaccurate.
quote:
The issue of Paul’s well developed Christology coinciding with John’s was dismissed as scholars have shown otherwise.
A huge difference is that Paul believed Jesus was YHWH incarnate - Melchizedek- the great Jewish King and High Priest - which is why he called him Kyrios (the Lord) the same name used for the deity who led Moses out of Egypt. Paul believed Jesus to be the son of the Canaanite high God “El” (god most high). John on the other hand seems to have believed that Jesus was the son of the Lord, at least in some passages, because he talks about his father’s house (the temple) which was at that point dedicated to the Lord Kyrios. Paul and John both had Jesus as a pre-existent deity, but there were some differences.
quote:
Your mind is made up.
I’d say the same about you, and honestly almost everyone else. I have an open mind though, and am capable of being persuaded but it needs to be compelling evidence.
Posted on 6/25/25 at 2:07 pm to Howyouluhdat
quote:
he had contact with people who did know Jesus, like Peter (Cephas) and James the brother of Jesus (Galatians 1:18–19).
We have no authentic writings of the real Peter or James, but James the brother of Jesus did not means he was a biological brother. They were all brothers in Christ. They all called each other brothers. How powerful would it have been if Paul ever had to respond to other apostles claims that they knew the flesh and blood Jesus on earth?! Paul claims to have the exact same apostolic credentials as the other apostles (knew of Jesus through scripture and visions).
quote:quote:This is not the consensus. I don’t know why you keep stating it as fact.
written in a chiasmic ring structure with rings inside of rings the same way the Iliad is written.
You never even attempted to look up the topic for 3 seconds.
Chiasmic rings in Mark
quote:
Forgive me but what exactly are you getting at. The deliberate irony between the two?
It’s not irony. It’s a deliberate recreation of the Yom Kippur ritual. It’s not coincidence that the criminal’s name was “Jesus son of the Father” and is released.
Posted on 6/25/25 at 4:00 pm to Harald Ekernson
quote:
We have no authentic writings of the real Peter or James
Never said we did.
quote:
but James the brother of Jesus did not means he was a biological brother. They were all brothers in Christ. They all called each other brothers.
Never said this either
quote:
How powerful would it have been if Paul ever had to respond to other apostles claims that they knew the flesh and blood Jesus on earth?!
Pretty powerful I suppose. Where did I say that any of the Apostles knew Jesus personally?
quote:
You never even attempted to look up the topic for 3 seconds.
Your link is broken. I’ve already disputed this and so have most scholars. This theory came about 2 decades ago.
quote:
It’s not coincidence that the criminal’s name was “Jesus son of the Father” and is released.
There were a lot of people named Jesus back then and It was done deliberately to send a message. I don’t know what point you are trying to make here
We can agree to disagree. May I ask, what are your beliefs?
This post was edited on 6/25/25 at 4:10 pm
Posted on 6/25/25 at 4:32 pm to Howyouluhdat
quote:
Your link is broken. I’ve already disputed this and so have most scholars. This theory came about 2 decades ago.
Sorry I treed to get back in and couldn’t. Try this one instead:
Chiastic structures in Bible - GotQuestions.org
And this one
Chiastic structure examples in Mark - RayofLight
quote:
I’ve already disputed this and so have most scholars.
No, this is not true. You may have disputed it, but the facts are the facts. The chiastic rings in the Bible books are well known and acknowledged by the most fervent believers to the godless atheists. I don’t understand how you can say there aren’t chiastic structures in the gospels when it is so easily verifiable.
Page 12 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News