- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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: Impressive support for Intelligent Design
Posted on 3/19/26 at 1:08 pm to Champagne
Posted on 3/19/26 at 1:08 pm to Champagne
quote:
I understand your answer. Thanks.
If you’re truly interested in understanding biblical cosmology, this Christian fundamentalist explains it very well in 15 minutes:
The FIRMAMENT | Waters Above?!
quote:
I don't condone name-calling, however.
Cut me some slack. Foo is literally slow. He thinks taking a stick and not taking a stick have identical meanings.
0
Posted on 3/20/26 at 10:23 am to Squirrelmeister
We've been through this many times now. It's a shame that you are so blinded to the truth that you would rather accept conspiracy theories than historical truth.
Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, and Josephus are all non-Christian sources that speak to Jesus as a real historical person in the late first century and early second century. Early Christian writings and writers like the Didache, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, and Ignatius of Antioch all refer to Jesus as having a real and earthly ministry, referring back to the the events recorded in the Gospel writings. The Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles are also first century, referring to Christ's earthly life and ministry, and there is evidence to support the Christian (compared to the secular) view of an early dating of those writings to early 60's AD at the latest (the abrupt ending of Acts having Paul in prison indicates that he wasn't yet executed), meaning written records intended to provide historical narrative of Christ and the early church (including the thousands of converts recorded during times of eye-witness verification or falsification) were there early on before Paul could have "corrupted" the narrative.
So in your words, "quit lying".
1 Peter does mention Christ's sufferings on earth, because he just spent a few verses in chapter 4 giving encouragement to Christians who share in Christ's sufferings (meaning, they are persecuted as Jesus was). He's tying physical suffering of the Christian back to the suffering of Jesus Christ, which Peter then goes on to say he was a witness of in 5:1
Maybe one day you'll see that context of the Bible matters, and you can't just pick verses and words out here and there and twist them to mean whatever you want them to mean.
There are no theological or content contradictions between the writings, so any differences between the areas of focus can be explained through purpose of writing or other factors common in all writings.
Paul was writing in the 40's-60's, and the writings themselves attest to meetings between the Apostles. Acts references Paul meeting with the Apostles in chapter 9, and they met during the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. Paul mentions this, himself, in Galatians 1 and 2. So, Peter would have known Paul, personally, not just read about him. And Paul's letters were written to be read aloud in the congregations. No doubt they were copied and sent on to other churches. It wouldn't have taken more than a few months to start spreading his letters after first writing them, and only a few years for the other apostle's to have heard about them or read them, themselves. Since Peter knew that Paul was an Apostle at the time of his writing, he would have known that Paul's writings were inspired by God, even if he hadn't read them all, himself.
quote:No I don't know that, and neither do you. You're talking about secular scholarship that rejects divine inspiration and assumes that differences in writing style can only indicate that Peter's epistle wasn't his, or Paul's additional writings aren't really his.
No, they didn’t. And you and I both know that in…
quote:Yes, they do. You reject that fact because you want to hold on to this false notion that Paul invented some view of Jesus as only existing in Heaven, and that Peter and everyone else bought into it because they weren't actually witnesses to Christ. You interpret their clear words differently because you want to believe that Jesus wasn't a real and historical figure, but you can't get around the fact that he was.
What secular scholars consider the 7 genuine letters of Paul, plus Colossians, Ephesians, James, Jude, Hebrews, Revelation, and 1 Peter…
Not a single one references Jesus’ earthly life. Not one. So quit lying.
Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, and Josephus are all non-Christian sources that speak to Jesus as a real historical person in the late first century and early second century. Early Christian writings and writers like the Didache, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, and Ignatius of Antioch all refer to Jesus as having a real and earthly ministry, referring back to the the events recorded in the Gospel writings. The Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles are also first century, referring to Christ's earthly life and ministry, and there is evidence to support the Christian (compared to the secular) view of an early dating of those writings to early 60's AD at the latest (the abrupt ending of Acts having Paul in prison indicates that he wasn't yet executed), meaning written records intended to provide historical narrative of Christ and the early church (including the thousands of converts recorded during times of eye-witness verification or falsification) were there early on before Paul could have "corrupted" the narrative.
So in your words, "quit lying".
quote:The primary uses of the Greek word is as a legal eye-witness, not in the sense of a believer and proclaimer of a truth claim. Peter makes this claim about Himself, about how He witnessed Jesus' sufferings, while Paul did not make such a claim. Paul claimed to see Jesus appear to him after his resurrection, but not during his ministry on earth. It would make sense given that Paul wasn't an eye-witness to Christ's ministry.
Ok dumb dumb. Look at the Greek word translated into witness. Martus, from where we get the word Martyr. 1 Peter is a witness in the same sense the Jehovah’s Witnesses are witnesses to the Lord. 1 Peter mentioned nothing about suffering (patheon, ie passion) on planet earth. It could have just as easily been the same as Osiris’ passion which occurred in the heavens.
1 Peter does mention Christ's sufferings on earth, because he just spent a few verses in chapter 4 giving encouragement to Christians who share in Christ's sufferings (meaning, they are persecuted as Jesus was). He's tying physical suffering of the Christian back to the suffering of Jesus Christ, which Peter then goes on to say he was a witness of in 5:1
Maybe one day you'll see that context of the Bible matters, and you can't just pick verses and words out here and there and twist them to mean whatever you want them to mean.
quote:You really have to stop stating your interpretations as "fact". In the case of the differences between 1 Peter and 2 Peter, there are several reasons why the writing, style, and syntax can vary even from the same writer. There are different purposes and audiences to account for, as well as even the possibility of the apostles using amanuenses (secretaries) to write for them. You can't just state that because the writings appear different that they are automatically from different authors. You seem to accept 1 Peter is authentic while denying 2 Peter, but in 1 Peter, Peter says he is writing through an amanuenses (Silvanus) in 5:12. If 2 Peter was written by his own hand, or if he used a different amanuenses, that would explain some of the differences.
2 Peter is pseudepigrapha and wasn’t even written by the same person a whole wrote 1 Peter. This is an objective fact, and can be ascertained simply by comparing grammar, syntax, style, and vocabulary between the two texts. Plus you have the theological and content differences.
There are no theological or content contradictions between the writings, so any differences between the areas of focus can be explained through purpose of writing or other factors common in all writings.
quote:Paul acknowledges that he confronted Peter to his face for his cow-towing to the Jews (Gal 2:11). Paul wasn't trying to earn credibility, but he was expressing the credibility that he had, even to the point of confronting an eye-witness to the ministry of Christ (Peter) because of his error in practice. And again, Peter acknowledged Paul's writings as Scripture.
And if you believe Paul was a historical figure who wrote his 7 genuine letters and if you read and understand who Paul was and how he constantly was vying for credibility as an apostle because Peter and James (who Paul called the “super apostles” as a jab)… simply from Paul’s own writings you can tell Peter thought Paul to be illegitimate. Paul called the Galatians “foolish” for doing what Peter and his disciples were teaching. It’s patently retarded for you to believe the real Peter would have considered Paul’s letters as scripture just based on differences in their theology as described by the historical Paul.
quote:Your ignorance of history of the Church and the Bible, itself, is astounding, which goes to show that your statements of factual knowledge are vastly overstated or plain false.
Then you also have to consider the historical Peter would have been dead long before Markion of Sinope compiled the letters of Paul to publish them so that people could start reading them. The historical Peter would have never read Paul’s corpus of letters.
Paul was writing in the 40's-60's, and the writings themselves attest to meetings between the Apostles. Acts references Paul meeting with the Apostles in chapter 9, and they met during the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. Paul mentions this, himself, in Galatians 1 and 2. So, Peter would have known Paul, personally, not just read about him. And Paul's letters were written to be read aloud in the congregations. No doubt they were copied and sent on to other churches. It wouldn't have taken more than a few months to start spreading his letters after first writing them, and only a few years for the other apostle's to have heard about them or read them, themselves. Since Peter knew that Paul was an Apostle at the time of his writing, he would have known that Paul's writings were inspired by God, even if he hadn't read them all, himself.
Posted on 3/20/26 at 10:25 pm to FooManChoo
quote:quote:Yes, they do.
What secular scholars consider the 7 genuine letters of Paul, plus Colossians, Ephesians, James, Jude, Hebrews, Revelation, and 1 Peter… Not a single one references Jesus’ earthly life. Not one. So quit lying.
Not one single reference to the earthly Jesus, you lying dog-faced pony soldier.
quote:
You reject that fact because you want to hold on to this false notion that Paul invented some view of Jesus as only existing in Heaven, and that Peter and everyone else bought into it because they weren't actually witnesses to Christ
It’s accepted by Christians that Paul never met the earthly Jesus. The truth is none of the other apostles did either. Peter and James begrudgingly accept Paul as an apostle because he bankrolled the Jerusalem church with gentile money, meanwhile going behind Paul’s back and teaching Paul’s churches like the Galatians they should cut off their dick skin and don’t eat pork or shrimp. Paul constantly replies to attacks on his apostolic authority, but he never has to reply to Peter’s or James’ accusations that they really know what Jesus meant because they walked and talked and ate with Jesus. That idea didn’t exist yet. Paul wrote “Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen the Lord?” That’s what was necessary to be an apostle - one must have had visions and hallucinations of the celestial Jesus.
quote:
Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, and Josephus are all non-Christian sources that speak to Jesus as a real historical person in the late first century and early second century.
I would love to say that “you’re better than that”, but you aren’t. None of those are eyewitnesses to a historical Jesus, but are simply witnesses that at their time there were Christians. And I don’t understand the use of Josephus as an apologetic as it’s quite obvious that the Jesus references are later Christian interpolations of the 4th century. A devout Pharisee at the turn of the second century isn’t going to write that Jesus wasn’t really a man and that he was the messiah.
pathetic quote:
Early Christian writings and writers like the Didache, Clement of Rome, Polycarp
Nope, nope, and nope. And the Didache oddly doesn’t mention anything about Jesus’ sacrifice or atoning for sins in the instructions for doing the Eucharist or anything else in there. The Eucharist is a celebration of what the Lord provides (like crop fertility). None of those three mention Jesus doing anything on earth. Clement writes “the Lord says…” such and such but it is always a quote or reference from the Septuagint and Clement never mentions Jesus ever being on earth or doing anything on earth. To the Didache author and Clement and Polycarp, Jesus was a celestial deity, subordinate to God.
quote:
and Ignatius of Antioch all refer to Jesus as having a real and earthly ministry
Congrats, you got one right. Ignatius wrote after all the others mentioned but before the gospels. Ignatius not once in any of his letters directly quotes from any gospel we have today, canonical or apocryphal. He lived at a time the ideas of an earthly Jesus started to spread but before any of those tales were written.
quote:
The Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles are also first century
Foo, “Luke” is a later revision of Markion’s Evangelion, which wasn’t released until about 140 CE.
quote:
The primary uses of the Greek word is as a legal eye-witness, not in the sense of a believer and proclaimer of a truth claim. Peter makes this claim about Himself, about how He witnessed Jesus' sufferings
Ok I think you agree he’s a believer and proclaimed of his beliefs. But you say he doesn’t use the word in that sense. Maybe you’re right. Let me throw you a bone. “Peter” stopped short of mentioned where and how he witnessed the suffering though. So you do you and I’ll continue to believe that like Paul, this “Peter” believed he witnessed Christ’s suffering through revelation and hallucinations.
quote:
1 Peter does mention Christ's sufferings on earth, because he just spent a few verses in chapter 4 giving encouragement to Christians who share in Christ's sufferings (meaning, they are persecuted as Jesus was).
Paul in Romans, Philippians, 2 Corinthians, and Pseudo-Paul in Colossians wrote he shared in Christ’s suffering too. But Paul never knew the “historical Christ”. The fact is you’re full of shite, Foo, and it is your wishful thinking that “Peter” could be referencing an earthly Jesus, when he doesn’t actually mention any reference to Jesus on earth.
quote:
You really have to stop stating your interpretations as "fact". In the case of the differences between 1 Peter and 2 Peter, there are several reasons why the writing, style, and syntax can vary even from the same writer
So… you must believe the Acts of Peter, the Gospel of Peter, and the Apocalypse of Peter were all written by the real Peter then. If not, tell us why you don’t believe they were written by Peter.
This post was edited on 3/20/26 at 10:45 pm
Posted on 3/20/26 at 11:13 pm to JacieNY
quote:
If to you God is where science has yet to tread then God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance.
Neil deGrasse Tyson
"Gender is not biological, it is a matter of how you feel in the morning."
-- Neil deGrasse Tyson
Posted on 3/21/26 at 12:26 am to Lou
quote:
"Gender is not biological, it is a matter of how you feel in the morning."
-- Neil deGrasse Tyson
If there ever was an example of educated idiots it's the academics that imagined up/pushed this tranny bullshite. Science post 2010ish, especially 2020s+ is basically a punch bowl with a turd in it. It's only a fraction but its still ruined everything.
Posted on 3/21/26 at 5:02 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:See this is where it gets silly.
Not one single reference to the earthly Jesus, you lying dog-faced pony soldier.
Paul speaks with authority and confidence of an Apostle because he has met Jesus, though not in Earthly form. That is the Jesus he addresses, because he can do so first hand ... as an Apostle. There is no denial by Paul of the Disciples personal accounts, nor is there any question as to the Disciples existence. Proof in and of itself Paul is not refuting Jesus' earthly presence.
However:
Paul also notes having met James, Jesus' brother. "I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother." That statement is clear as a bell. Add to it, James is repeatedly noted as Jesus' sibling elsewhere in scripture, and one has to engage in absurd mental contortions to deny the message. Yet you say nah-uh, Paul wrote that all Christians were brothers of the Lord. Of course, in that interpretation, injection of "the Lord’s brother" would be ridiculously redundant.
Paul refers to the Last Supper, his words becoming pretext for our modern Eucharist. He speaks to events that night, including the betrayal. Paul isn't trying to write a biography or a history of the night. He is correcting the Corinthians because they were getting drunk and excluding the poor during their community meals. He evokes the "Last Supper" tradition to remind them of the solemnity of the ritual, not to provide a narrative of the arrest.
Yet you say nah-uh, "Paul never called it the "Last" Supper, and he never used the word "betrayal", the word translated as “betrayed” simply means “handed over”. As in, God handed Jesus over to the archons to be sacrificed and it was a willing sacrifice and part of the master plan, no betrayal necessary" .... those are your words. But of course in your own words, "archons" would still be "necessary" as those to whom Jesus was delivered, and who would they be? Again, your contention requires absurd mental contortions, twist and shout.
Jesus is speaking to whom when he says: "the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed (?handed over?) took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”? Further, reference to the "Lord's Supper" and the "handing over" would be nonsensical as a sentinel event had the Corinthians not already been well familiar with the tradition of the Last Supper. Who taught them of that tradition? Paul did.
I could go on, but this gets exactly at what I've pointed out. You and Foo are are each taking text with obvious meaning, putting your fingers in your ears and saying nuh-uh, those words mean something other than what they obviously mean. That's fine. It is what it is.
But then you both further that premise by contending your BELIEF is FACT, and anyone who BELIEVES differently is at least wrong, and often stupid.
This post was edited on 3/21/26 at 5:08 am
Posted on 3/21/26 at 7:21 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Paul speaks with authority and confidence of an Apostle because he has met Jesus, though not in Earthly form.
I believe Kephas and Iakobon also both believed they met Jesus in the same way Paul did - they saw him in visions. That was the key apostolic credential Paul used and threw around.
quote:
There is no denial by Paul of the Disciples personal accounts, nor is there any question as to the Disciples existence. Proof in and of itself Paul is not refuting Jesus' earthly presence.
There was nothing to refute. When Paul wrote his letters, those myths of the earthly Jesus hasn’t been invented yet. All we have left is one-sided trash talking of the “mythicist” (celestial Jesus) Christians starting with Ignatius of Antioch who wrote of these Christians and polemicized against them saying (paraphrasing) “Jesus really was born, and he really walked and talked and ate on earth, and he really was killed by Romans under Pontius Pilate.” That is an admission that there we’re Christians who denied Jesus was really born on earth and killed by Romans.
quote:
Paul also notes having met James, Jesus' brother. "I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother." That statement is clear as a bell. Add to it, James is repeatedly noted as Jesus' sibling elsewhere in scripture, and one has to engage in absurd mental contortions to deny the message. Yet you say nah-uh, Paul wrote that all Christians were brothers of the Lord. Of course, in that interpretation, injection of "the Lord’s brother" would be ridiculously redundant.
I think it is you guys that are doing mental gymnastics on this subject. I count 23 times other than Galatians 1:19 he refers to “adelphoi” of Kyriou or in Kristos. You want to contort your mind and say “this one time out of 24 times he means a biological brother”. I don’t think that makes any sense and is illogical.
I’m not really concerned about elsewhere in scripture, really just what language Paul used in this context. However, if you want to throw other scripture in there, let me use this one:
Hebrews 2:11
quote:
For both He who sanctifies (Jesus) and those who are being sanctified (his followers/believers) are all of one, for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brothers,
The the author of Hebrews explains in detail why Jesus himself calls his followers “brothers”, and it ain’t because they are all biological siblings.
Also, how does James being a biological brother of James square with the later Christian belief of Mary being a virgin? Maybe you are a Christian who doesn’t believe in Mary as a perpetual virgin.
quote:
But of course in your own words, "archons" would still be "necessary" as those to whom Jesus was delivered, and who would they be? Again, your contention requires absurd mental contortions, twist and shout.
If you believe Paul wrote Ephesians, check chapter 6 verse 12. If you want to learn more, read Psalms 82 and 89. And of course, read Deuteronomy 32:8-9, which describe the other sons of God which He assigned lordship over the other nations of the world. No contortions. Sorry you feel that way, maybe because it conflicts with the gospels. Hebrews also conflicts with the gospels and with Paul as it describes Jesus being sacrificed in the temple in heaven.
quote:
Jesus is speaking to whom when he says: "the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed (?handed over?) took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”
That’s a good question I was about to ask you. Paul mentions no one else there, but doesn’t deny any else being there. But remember, Paul knows of Jesus only through scripture and from dreams and hallucinations. Paul says “his” gospel is not of man, but of direct revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ. How do we know this? Paul tells us.
quote:
For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread…
So it was not based on apostolic tradition and Paul makes no mention of anyone else being there. And we know from context Paul believed Jesus was killed by the heavenly archons (sons of God). I think Jesus was speaking to Paul in his vision. And I believe this is a big deal for Paul in that it “corrects” the way Christians were already celebrating the Eucharist (see the Didache, which makes no mention of Jesus’ sacrificial atonement or the Eucharist being the body and blood of Jesus).
Also see Paul in 1 Cor:
quote:
10I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. 11For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. 12What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.
So some followed Kephas/Peter but had never heard about the Lord’s supper from Peter.
of course Paul says he is the one who brought it to the Corinthians. quote:
But then you both further that premise by contending your BELIEF is FACT, and anyone who BELIEVES differently is at least wrong, and often stupid.
I believe what I believe is most likely. Foo is the one who believes his beliefs are fact. To be fair, everyone believes others if believe differently are wrong, including you. You have laid out the very best arguments for Paul believing in a historical Jesus, but I feel I’ve adequately refuted them. The evidence best points out that Paul believed in a celestial-only Jesus. Your arguments aren’t insane though. I can understand where you’re coming from.
This post was edited on 3/21/26 at 8:14 am
Posted on 3/21/26 at 11:20 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:There are several, but you refuse to accept them because you interpret them wrongly as referring to something else.
Not one single reference to the earthly Jesus, you lying dog-faced pony soldier.
When Paul says in Galatians 4:3 that Jesus was "made of a woman, made under the law", he is talking about being born under the law given to Moses, which is why he speaks of the law being given over 400 years after Abraham in chapter 3. In Romans 3, Paul speaks to the Jews having the law where the Gentiles don't. That means the law was given to the Jews and passed down to their children and children's children. Therefore, when Paul says that Jesus was made/born under the law, he is speaking of Jesus being born as a human Jew who was taught the law and obligated to keep it, which He did for our sake.
But to one of your favorite heresies: you claim that "made of a woman" doesn't mean that Jesus was born on earth of a woman (Mary). The context of Galatians 4 is about being born of a woman, which is why it's typically translated that way. Paul says as much in chapter 3 when he points out that the promise of salvation was given to Abraham's seed (sperma, as you like to point out), but Paul says that "seed" is Jesus (3:16). You claim that Jesus was made from the literal sperm of David (Rom 1:3), but how can that be if the seed of Abraham is Jesus? If there is some supernatural creation of Jesus in Heaven by David's literal sperm, as you wrongfully say, then what about Abraham's sperm? Is Paul confused between David and Abraham? No, you are simply wrong that Paul is teaching some heavenly sperm creation. Paul is speaking of natural generation from father/mother to child. Jesus was born of a woman on earth.
Next, Paul references teachings from Jesus that were recorded in the Gospel accounts. In 1 Cor. 7:10, Paul says he gives a command from the Lord that parallels what Jesus taught in the Gospel narratives, such as Matthew 19:3 and Mark 10:2-12.
He also refers Jesus' teaching on those who preach the word should be paid for such. In 1 Cor. 9, Paul spends a whole chapter defending his right to get paid, and in verse 14 that the Lord (Jesus) should get paid, which refers back to Jesus' teaching in Luke 10:7 and Matthew 10:10. Was was familiar with Jesus' earthly teachings.
Paul refers to Jesus' teaching on love being the fulfillment of the whole law. Jesus said this as recorded in Matthew 22, and Paul referred to it in Romans 13:8-10 and Galatians 5:14.
In Romans 12:14, 17, Paul echos the words of Jesus from the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5 by telling Christians to bless those who persecute you and to not repay evil for evil.
Paul refers to Christ's teaching about His second coming suddenly, as like a thief in the night in 1 Thessalonians 5, which mirrors Jesus' teaching about Himself in Matthew 24.
Next, Paul recounts Jesus' teaching at the Last Supper, as recorded in Matthew 26, Mark 14, and Luke 22, which he talks about the death of Christ in 1 Corinthians 11. Who was Paul teaching that Jesus was speaking to, and offering the bread and the cup to? The Gospel narratives refer to Jesus speaking to His disciples in the upper room before His physical crucifixion at the hands of the Romans. He even said "on the night that He was betrayed", which is a reference to both the time of day that was recorded in the Gospels, but the betrayal of Judas Iscariot, a disciple and Apostle of Jesus during His earthly ministry.
Lastly, Paul speaks to Christ being crucified. You seem to agree that he taught this, but you claim the crucifixion happened in Heaven. This doesn't make sense, as crucifixion was a strictly Roman execution at the time, and the Gospel narratives proclaim Him being killed by Romans under the historical governor Pontius Pilate. Paul's reference to a Roman execution in Heaven doesn't seem likely given everything else said by Paul.
You have to hold to some conspiracy theory that was quickly abandoned by Christians for you to think that Paul was teaching something other than a physical and earthly ministry of Jesus Christ.
In addition, the other books you mentioned also refer to Jesus' earthly life, but you just refuse to acknowledge that's what they're doing. The author to the Hebrews in chapter 2 speaks of Jesus' flesh and blood, being made in the likeness of His brothers (humans) so that He could be our high priest. He repeats this in chapter 4:14-16 where it says Jesus was like us and tempted like us in every way, again referring to the events recorded in the Gospels. This is further confirmed in Hebrews 5, when the author writes that Jesus was acting as high priest and offering up prayers "in the days of His flesh" (v 7). In chapter 7, the author says that Christ descended from the tribe of Judah, therefore not being a Levitical priest, but was a priest after the order of Melchizedek, referring to Jesus being born to a priesthood, but not of the Levites. I could go on, as this book is dedicated to Christ being the fulfillment of the law given to the Jews for His people.
I'll end this section with this: Revelation 5:5 also claims Jesus is "the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David", further confirming the consistent teaching of Jesus' human nature as the fulfillment of the promises to Abraham and David as the natural, human "seed" that would come forth to represent humanity to save us. Your conspiracy theory about Jesus being created from David's sperm is just that: a conspiracy theory. The rest of your false theory falls from there.
Posted on 3/21/26 at 11:26 am to FooManChoo
quote:
Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, and Josephus are all non-Christian sources that speak to Jesus as a real historical person in the late first century and early second century.
Except that they don’t.
Posted on 3/21/26 at 11:33 am to NC_Tigah
For most of my atheist life, which is most of my life, I’ve never questioned there being a historical Jesus on which Christianity is based. It’s only in the last 4-5 years that I realized Christianity is not based on a historical figure, but a heavenly revelatory deity, and that honestly has been the biggest trigger for my studies in history and Christian origins.
Are some of the gospel stories based on historical person(s)? Almost certainly so. Are some of the gospel stories modeled on Greek epics, first temple Yahwism, Egyptian and Babylonian myths, and the general Mediterranean mystery savior cults? Absolutely. On the historical person topic, there very well could have been an apocalyptic rabbi named “Yeshu”… so named after the deity they were already worshipping.
I believe most likely there really was an apocalyptic rabbi prophet figure named Iohanan the dipper (John the Baptizer). John prepared the way of Yahweh. John forgave people's sins. John had 12 disciples. Some thought he was Elijah reincarnated. Many thought John was a messiah. John was killed by the government. Many including one of the Herods believed he was raised from the dead. How do we know all that???? Check the gospels. There is still a religion that exists today where John the Baptist is the primary and final prophet of God and they do ritual baptisms. And Josephus writes a great deal about John the Baptizer, unlike the interpolated-forged Testimonium Flavianum. Just about all the good John the Baptist material was co-opted by Christians in the writings of the gospels. They sought not to alienate the John disciples but to incorporate them into the Jesus followers since their religions were so similar at that point. They even made John and Jesus cousins. Oh yeah both of them had myths of an angel announcing their births. The parallels are undeniable. Both sets of followers were pulling from the same source material or the Jesus followers simply copied and rebranded the John myths.
Are some of the gospel stories based on historical person(s)? Almost certainly so. Are some of the gospel stories modeled on Greek epics, first temple Yahwism, Egyptian and Babylonian myths, and the general Mediterranean mystery savior cults? Absolutely. On the historical person topic, there very well could have been an apocalyptic rabbi named “Yeshu”… so named after the deity they were already worshipping.
I believe most likely there really was an apocalyptic rabbi prophet figure named Iohanan the dipper (John the Baptizer). John prepared the way of Yahweh. John forgave people's sins. John had 12 disciples. Some thought he was Elijah reincarnated. Many thought John was a messiah. John was killed by the government. Many including one of the Herods believed he was raised from the dead. How do we know all that????
Check the gospels. There is still a religion that exists today where John the Baptist is the primary and final prophet of God and they do ritual baptisms. And Josephus writes a great deal about John the Baptizer, unlike the interpolated-forged Testimonium Flavianum. Just about all the good John the Baptist material was co-opted by Christians in the writings of the gospels. They sought not to alienate the John disciples but to incorporate them into the Jesus followers since their religions were so similar at that point. They even made John and Jesus cousins. Oh yeah both of them had myths of an angel announcing their births. The parallels are undeniable. Both sets of followers were pulling from the same source material or the Jesus followers simply copied and rebranded the John myths.
Posted on 3/21/26 at 12:22 pm to FooManChoo
I ain’t got time today to respond to all your nonsense but I’ll try.
No, he means Jesus was made a human body (made of woman) and it was a Jewish body (made under the law).
The literal sperm of David thing is a possibility and yes I’ve argued for it here, though it isn’t the only possibility. It could be that it’s allegorical. All the seed of Abraham stuff is definitely allegorical. The seed of David could be allegorical too, but David himself was of the seed of Abraham but he was a messiah. So Paul could be saying Jesus’ body was fabricated out of real human Jewish-messiah material.
The gospel authors used Paul, obviously. Not even the most retarded apologists claim the gospels were written before Paul. The command from the Lord is “not man’s gospel” as Paul wrote. He didn’t get it from anyone except the Lord Jesus himself. If you want to talk about 1 Cor 7 though, let’s talk about how Paul tells Christians they don’t need to get married because the world is about to end anyway.
They are using Paul’s letters as sources.
Ok I’m done with you.
quote:
When Paul says in Galatians 4:3 that Jesus was "made of a woman, made under the law", he is talking about being born under the law given to Moses,
No, he means Jesus was made a human body (made of woman) and it was a Jewish body (made under the law).
quote:
You claim that Jesus was made from the literal sperm of David (Rom 1:3), but how can that be if the seed of Abraham is Jesus? If there is some supernatural creation of Jesus in Heaven by David's literal sperm, as you wrongfully say, then what about Abraham's sperm? Is Paul confused between David and Abraham?
The literal sperm of David thing is a possibility and yes I’ve argued for it here, though it isn’t the only possibility. It could be that it’s allegorical. All the seed of Abraham stuff is definitely allegorical. The seed of David could be allegorical too, but David himself was of the seed of Abraham but he was a messiah. So Paul could be saying Jesus’ body was fabricated out of real human Jewish-messiah material.
quote:
Next, Paul references teachings from Jesus that were recorded in the Gospel accounts. In 1 Cor. 7:10, Paul says he gives a command from the Lord that parallels what Jesus taught in the Gospel narratives, such as Matthew 19:3 and Mark 10:2-12.
The gospel authors used Paul, obviously. Not even the most retarded apologists claim the gospels were written before Paul. The command from the Lord is “not man’s gospel” as Paul wrote. He didn’t get it from anyone except the Lord Jesus himself. If you want to talk about 1 Cor 7 though, let’s talk about how Paul tells Christians they don’t need to get married because the world is about to end anyway.
quote:
He also refers Jesus' teaching on those who preach the word should be paid for such. In 1 Cor. 9, Paul spends a whole chapter defending his right to get paid, and in verse 14 that the Lord (Jesus) should get paid, which refers back to Jesus' teaching in Luke 10:7 and Matthew 10:10. Was was familiar with Jesus' earthly teachings.
They are using Paul’s letters as sources.
Ok I’m done with you.
Posted on 3/21/26 at 12:40 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:No it's not. The Bible clearly teaches that Paul saw the resurrected Jesus, and Paul attests to that, himself. Acts 9, 22, and 26 have Paul attesting to his conversion experience where Jesus appeared to him, and he claims to have saw Jesus in 1 Cor. 9 and 15. Galatians 2 has Paul describing how he was taught directly from Christ, as well, likely through the Holy Spirit.
It’s accepted by Christians that Paul never met the earthly Jesus.
quote:Yes they did. You just reject it.
The truth is none of the other apostles did either.
quote:Where do they teach this, or is this just an inference you are making?
Peter and James begrudgingly accept Paul as an apostle because he bankrolled the Jerusalem church with gentile money
quote:No one was going behind his back. Peter gave into the fear of man and was called out for not being consistent with the truth.
meanwhile going behind Paul’s back and teaching Paul’s churches like the Galatians they should cut off their dick skin and don’t eat pork or shrimp.
quote:Paul wasn't replying to attacks by the other apostles. He was responding to those in the church who taught differently than Paul from Christ's revelation and led others astray in doing so. Paul didn't make himself greater than Peter or the other Apostles, but referred to himself as a fellow Apostle. He actually refer to himself as lesser than the others in 1 Corinthians 15.
Paul constantly replies to attacks on his apostolic authority, but he never has to reply to Peter’s or James’ accusations that they really know what Jesus meant because they walked and talked and ate with Jesus. That idea didn’t exist yet. Paul wrote “Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen the Lord?” That’s what was necessary to be an apostle - one must have had visions and hallucinations of the celestial Jesus.
Also, there was no mass "hallucination". In 1 Cor. 15, Paul speaks of Jesus really appearing to many, including several hundred people who he refers to as witnesses. This, he says, is in conjunction with his death, burial, and resurrection, not merely a vision.
quote:False. Tacitus was a Roman historian and no friend to Christians, and he wrote, "Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus". While he wrote about Christians, he spoke specifically of Jesus.
I would love to say that “you’re better than that”, but you aren’t. None of those are eyewitnesses to a historical Jesus, but are simply witnesses that at their time there were Christians. And I don’t understand the use of Josephus as an apologetic as it’s quite obvious that the Jesus references are later Christian interpolations of the 4th century. A devout Pharisee at the turn of the second century isn’t going to write that Jesus wasn’t really a man and that he was the messiah. pathetic
Pliny the Younger was a Roman governor and wrote about Christians and their beliefs, but specifically mentioned their worship of Christ as a god. He makes note that they worship Jesus and refused to worship the Roman gods, leading to their deaths. Within about 80 years of Jesus' crucifixion, a Roman writes about Jesus being worshipped as a god by His followers.
Suetonius mentions "Chrestus", which is a variant or even misspelling of Christus (Christ), and how at His name, His followers were causing disturbances amongst the Jews under Emperor Claudius which led to the expulsion of the Jews from Rome. This was recorded in Acts 18:2, and is dated to be about 49 AD. So within two decades of the crucifixion of Jesus, there were already followers of Jesus who made their way to Rome who were expelled and that was recorded in the book of Acts. The mention of Christ and an event recorded in the Bible is important.
Josephus' history is understood to be authentic. What is debated is not the mention of Jesus (which is what I'm calling attention to), but the elaboration of how Jesus is described. I'm fine with the exaggerations that are disputed, but the mention of Jesus is not debated.
All this to say, that we have early non-Christian attestation by historians to the reality of Jesus.
quote:The Didache references Jesus moral teachings as described in the Gospel accounts, particularly loving God and neighbor, not committing murder, adultery, etc., and blessing those who curse you.
And the Didache oddly doesn’t mention anything about Jesus’ sacrifice or atoning for sins in the instructions for doing the Eucharist or anything else in there. The Eucharist is a celebration of what the Lord provides (like crop fertility).
In addition, it teaches that Jesus was a real person, who was God's "servant", from the "vine of David". It also speaks to the expected return of Jesus that was taught throughout the New Testament. The trinitarian baptismal formula is also a reference to Jesus' ministry and teaching.
quote:Clement points to the body and blood of Jesus for our salvation multiple times. He even refers back to the gospel accounts of Jesus' teachings found in Matthew and Luke in chapter 13.
None of those three mention Jesus doing anything on earth. Clement writes “the Lord says…” such and such but it is always a quote or reference from the Septuagint and Clement never mentions Jesus ever being on earth or doing anything on earth. To the Didache author and Clement and Polycarp, Jesus was a celestial deity, subordinate to God.
Polycarp was even more explicit: he said, "Everyone who does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is antichrist”", which echo what the Apostles John wrote. He also said "He bore our sins in his own body on the tree", in reference to Jesus' bodily crucifixion. He even referred back to Jesus' teaching on forgiveness and other things from the gospels in his letter to the Philippians.
So we have early attestation to Jesus as a real person within 100 years of the crucifixion by both Christian and non-Christian writers.
quote:
Congrats, you got one right. Ignatius wrote after all the others mentioned but before the gospels. Ignatius not once in any of his letters directly quotes from any gospel we have today, canonical or apocryphal. He lived at a time the ideas of an earthly Jesus started to spread but before any of those tales were written.
what a concession. So your theory is that the gospel accounts weren't written until after Ignatius? The scholarly consensus--which I don't agree with--is that the gospel accounts were written between 70-100 AD. I believe the internal evidence demonstrates earlier dates, but you claiming that they didn't exist at all until after Ignatius is just laughable. quote:Your ultra-late dating is fringe and has been abanonded by scholars with more evidence coming to light. The fragment of John, labled as P52, blows that out of the water. Also, John was quoted by Justin Martyr, so had to have been written and made its way to Justin before the 160s, which means it was likely written before the 2nd half of the first century. If John was the last of the gospels to be written, the others had to come even earlier.
“Luke” is a later revision of Markion’s Evangelion, which wasn’t released until about 140 CE.
Why are you sticking with the tiny minority of scholarly consensus if not for your predisposition against the Bible?
quote:I am right. The context leads to that conclusion, as you would know if you read it.
Ok I think you agree he’s a believer and proclaimed of his beliefs. But you say he doesn’t use the word in that sense. Maybe you’re right.
Posted on 3/21/26 at 12:49 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:So you find it more likely that he "witnessed" Christ's suffering as a hallucination rather than in-person as the rest of history points to?
Let me throw you a bone. “Peter” stopped short of mentioned where and how he witnessed the suffering though. So you do you and I’ll continue to believe that like Paul, this “Peter” believed he witnessed Christ’s suffering through revelation and hallucinations.
quote:They speaking to sharing in Christ's sufferings, which extended beyond merely the crucifixion. Jesus suffered persecution all throughout His earthly ministry.
Paul in Romans, Philippians, 2 Corinthians, and Pseudo-Paul in Colossians wrote he shared in Christ’s suffering too. But Paul never knew the “historical Christ”. The fact is you’re full of shite, Foo, and it is your wishful thinking that “Peter” could be referencing an earthly Jesus, when he doesn’t actually mention any reference to Jesus on earth.
Peter said he witnessed Christ's sufferings, something that Paul didn't claim, which was my point. All Christians share in Christ's sufferings to one degree or another, but Peter witnessed them.
It's not "wishful thinking" when the historical belief about Jesus' earthly existence and ministry--supported by both Christian and non-Christian testiomny--is being referenced by both the Old Testament and New Testament writings. All the "wishful thinking" is on your end.
quote:Several reasons. Those writings post-dated the death of Peter. Their theological teachings contradicted the other Petrine epistles and the writings of the rest of the Bible. The "style" of them is absolutely bizarre and not just "different" from the other Petrine writings, but contrary to everything else in the New Testament. The oldest canon lists exclude those writings, and there is no evidence that they were accepted at all in the Church as a whole. This is in contrast to the two epistles of Peter that were widely accepted and quoted, that were internally consistent, and consistent with the rest of the Scriptures.
So… you must believe the Acts of Peter, the Gospel of Peter, and the Apocalypse of Peter were all written by the real Peter then. If not, tell us why you don’t believe they were written by Peter.
Posted on 3/21/26 at 12:50 pm to Mo Jeaux
quote:They do. See my follow up response.
Except that they don’t.
Posted on 3/21/26 at 1:09 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:Your take on the Bible is non-scholarly, and yet you claim to only be following the evidence. You are lying, even to yourself. The "nonsense" is all you provide.
I ain’t got time today to respond to all your nonsense but I’ll try.
quote:What is your evidence for this? I already provided my textual support for why Paul was referring to birth from the line of Abraham and David.
No, he means Jesus was made a human body (made of woman) and it was a Jewish body (made under the law)
quote:Wow, another concession. You've gone and done a U-turn from your past arguments on this. You were so adamant that I was lying and that Paul literally believed that Jesus was made from the sperm of David in Heaven. Now you're saying it's merely a possibility?
The literal sperm of David thing is a possibility and yes I’ve argued for it here, though it isn’t the only possibility.
OK, how is it still a possibility while Paul also referred to Jesus being from Abraham's seed? How can both be true at the same time? If not, then either Paul was contradicting himself, or there was some sort of literal/allegorical switcharoo going on and we can't know the difference. If only Paul knew how to communicate
quote:I hope you don't pull a muscle with all that contortion going on. You have to twist yourself into quite a pretzel in order to say what you just said here.
It could be that it’s allegorical. All the seed of Abraham stuff is definitely allegorical. The seed of David could be allegorical too, but David himself was of the seed of Abraham but he was a messiah. So Paul could be saying Jesus’ body was fabricated out of real human Jewish-messiah material.
Or, you could just accept that the most common interpretation is the most natural: that Paul was referring to the natural and legal genealogical line from Adam to Abraham to David to Jesus. This makes the most sense of the giving of the law through Moses, and the promise of the Messiah through David's kingly line. It's why the New Testament goes through Jesus' genealogy and says that Jesus is from the tribe of Judah, and line of David. What you are spouting is the definition of "nonsense", but it seems you are committed to "foolishness", as the Bible speaks of.
quote:I'm not saying that Paul was quoting the gospels. I'm saying that the gospels and Paul were referencing a common source, which ultimately was Jesus, Himself, during His ministry. Paul was taught these things through revelation after Jesus' resurrection and ascension into Heaven, while the Gospel accounts came from the eye-witnesses. Luke provided a thorough account from those who were around to see it.
The gospel authors used Paul, obviously. Not even the most retarded apologists claim the gospels were written before Paul. The command from the Lord is “not man’s gospel” as Paul wrote. He didn’t get it from anyone except the Lord Jesus himself.
My point was that Paul didn't create Christianity, but that he affirmed what was already true and circulating amongst the Christians based on Jesus' teachings.
quote:See above. You haven't provided evidence of this claim that Paul was the source of the gospel accounts. That's merely your assertion. Your historical accounting is not accurate, and your "consensus" mentality has also faltered, since you don't even align with the secular consensus.
They are using Paul’s letters as sources.
ETA: You claim that the gospels were using Paul as their source, and yet you think Paul clearly taught that Jesus didn't have an earthly ministry but was killed in Heaven by aeons and demons after having been created from the literal sperm of David, or Abraham, or something. The gospel accounts are quite specific that they do not teach these things, but teach an earthly ministry of Jesus, who was born of a woman in the family line of Abraham and David. Why did the gospel writers take a couple of verses from Paul on Jesus' teaching and reject almost everything else he taught, if they were using him as a source?
quote:Oh, if only that were true. I'm sure you'll be back here in no time, interjecting the same "Jesus was created from the literal sperm of David...or Abraham" nonsense, acting as if you have scholarship on your side while you continue to make yourself look crazier than you are trying to make me look.
Ok I’m done with you.
You have to know how ridiculous your arguments sound. But, because you are spiritually lost and don't want to be judged by your maker one day, it's easier for you to pretend that God doesn't exist and that His revelation is nothing more than the ramblings of a crazy guy named Paul, and that Jesus didn't actually exist.
You will be judged one day for your sins. You will stand before the Jesus you claim is a myth and He will condemn you to Hell for eternity for your rejection of His gospel promises of salvation. All you need to do to avoid that fate (which you fully deserve) is to turn from your rebellion against Him, confess your sins to Jesus, and call out to Him by faith, trusting that His literal death on the cross at the hands of the Jews and Romans was done to pay the sin-debt you owe, and to provide you with His own perfect righteousness so you can stand before a holy God and be in His presence forever.
Repent and beleive in Jesus today, before it is too late for you.
This post was edited on 3/21/26 at 1:21 pm
Posted on 3/21/26 at 3:13 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
I hope you don't pull a muscle with all that contortion going on. You have to twist yourself into quite a pretzel in order to say what you just said here.
Coming from the grandmaster of mental gymnastics himself.
I’m not sure if the Jewish tradition was made of the literal sperm of David or if it was a figurative sperm of Abraham and/or David but regardless what I am sure of is he believes God fabricated a body of real human flesh for Jesus to wear so he could come down into the firmament wearing a disguise and be slain by the archons as part of a secret plan, and the reason I believe that is what believes is because Paul tells us just that literally in his letters.
quote:
It's why the New Testament goes through Jesus' genealogy and says that Jesus is from the tribe of Judah, and line of David. What you are spouting is the definition of "nonsense"
So you are saying Jesus was not born of a virgin but impregnated by Joseph?
quote:
I'm not saying that Paul was quoting the gospels. I'm saying that the gospels and Paul were referencing a common source
Well that isn’t what the evidence shows. The gospels actually copied Paul’s letters.
quote:
Paul was taught these things through revelation after Jesus' resurrection and ascension into Heaven,
Except Paul never ever said Jesus ascended into heaven.
quote:
My point was that Paul didn't create Christianity, but that he affirmed what was already true and circulating amongst the Christians based on Jesus' teachings.
You must’ve never read Paul’s comments about his gospel is not man’s gospel, how his gospel is the one true gospel better than the others and his congregations shouldn’t listen to any else’s gospels else be cursed.
quote:
Why did the gospel writers take a couple of verses from Paul on Jesus' teaching and reject almost everything else he taught, if they were using him as a source?
My guess is drugs and a wild imagination.
ETA: on the subject of drugs and imagination, to unit Christians they needed elements of Paul’s theology and the Jersusalem theology which differed. That’s why we get some many contradictions. They are trying to say all these different ideas are of the same origin and are all equally true and valid. And remember, the gospel narrative, especially the first proto-Mark/Markionite gospel, and even the final version of our canonical mark (minus the 4+ different “endings” added on by later scribes) were all designed to be read by initiates as a historical events, but to the initiated - to the “mature in Christ” they knew the gospel of the earthly Jesus was completely allegory. Paul even wrote they “fed the babies milk” but the mature in Christ were fed “meat”. The milk was the gospels of the historical Jesus to convey spiritual and moral ideas. The mature knew that the gospels of the earthly Jesus were made up.
This post was edited on 3/21/26 at 5:53 pm
Posted on 3/21/26 at 3:18 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
as the rest of history points to?
dumbass quote:
Jesus suffered persecution all throughout His earthly ministry
Not according to Paul or the others I mentioned which do not mention an earthly Jesus in their letters. Osiris suffered… in heaven. And then they wrote a gospel of the earthly Osiris also suffering, and Plutarch wrote about how the earthly Osiris was a fabricated allegory of the “real” Osiris.
quote:
Several reasons. Those writings post-dated the death of Peter. Their theological teachings contradicted the other Petrine epistles and the writings of the rest of the Bible. The "style" of them is absolutely bizarre and not just "different" from the other Petrine writings, but contrary to everything else in the New Testament.
You’re too stupid to see that all the very valid reasons you just gave about how those “Peters” weren’t authentic can and should be applied to biblical 1 Peter and 2 Peter.
Posted on 3/21/26 at 4:02 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
No it's not. The Bible clearly teaches that Paul saw the resurrected Jesus, and Paul attests to that, himself
Paul claims to have had a vision of a divine being Jesus after his resurrection. A vision of a divine being, not a physical meeting of a man on earth.
quote:
Acts 9, 22, and 26 have Paul attesting to his conversion experience where Jesus appeared to him
I DGAF about Acts. It’s fan fiction mythology. None of it is historical.
quote:
he claims to have saw Jesus in 1 Cor. 9 and 15. Galatians 2 has Paul describing how he was taught directly from Christ
In a vision
quote:quote:Where do they teach this, or is this just an inference you are making?
Peter and James begrudgingly accept Paul as an apostle because he bankrolled the Jerusalem church with gentile money
2 Cor 8-9 and Romans 15 talks about the gentile churches supporting the Jerusalem church. Paul bankrolled them. And Paul was teaching material contrary to the beliefs of James and Kephas, so I inferred that James and Peter begrudgingly accepted the money from the guy they hated.
You know, the real Paul was most likely Simon Magus. Both were blinded. Both tried to pay the Jerusalem church. Both believed in being saved was from belief alone, not good works. Hypothesis: when the Orthodox Church under guys like Irenaeus tried to consolidate the Marcionites, they had to accept Paul’s letters hence they co-opted Paul, but wanted to keep telling the stories of the moral troubles of Paul, so they invented Simon Magus, giving him many of the attributes of the real Paul so they could attack Pauline thought without attacking the man Paul.
quote:
He actually refer to himself as lesser than the others in 1 Corinthians 15.
Paul was slick. One day he’s the least of the apostles. The next, if anyone listens to those other apostles teaching circumcision, let them be accursed!
quote:
Also, there was no mass "hallucination"
Straw man? I never made that argument.
quote:
Tacitus was a Roman historian and no friend to Christians, and he wrote, "Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus".
Not contemporary with the earthly Jesus or Paul or Peter or James and didn’t have access to Jewish records and was parroting the myth of the man.
quote:
Pliny the Younger was a Roman governor and wrote about Christians and their beliefs, but specifically mentioned their worship of Christ as a god. He makes note that they worship Jesus and refused to worship the Roman gods, leading to their deaths. Within about 80 years of Jesus' crucifixion, a Roman writes about Jesus being worshipped as a god by His followers.
Also not contemporary. Also parroting stated beliefs of Christian about their mythical founder.
quote:
Suetonius mentions "Chrestus", which is a variant or even misspelling of Christus (Christ), and how at His name, His followers were causing disturbances amongst the Jews under Emperor Claudius which led to the expulsion of the Jews from Rome
Let’s check it out!
quote:
Since the Jews were constantly making disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.
So some dude in the 40s-50s named Chrestus (common Roman name) was instigating some shite… IN ROME. You got it now Foo! You done proved Jesus was the son of God!
quote:
Josephus' history is understood to be authentic
Except the part about Jesus, sure!
quote:
The Didache references Jesus moral teachings as described in the Gospel accounts, particularly loving God and neighbor, not committing murder, adultery, etc., and blessing those who curse you.
How does it describe the Eucharist, Foo? It explains it in great detail. Does it mention Jesus as a substitutionary atonement sacrifice or that the bread and wine was Jesus’ body and blood???
quote:
In addition, it teaches that Jesus was a real person
Vine of David. Sperm of David. Sounds about equivocal to Paul on this particular matter.
quote:
The trinitarian baptismal formula is also a reference to Jesus' ministry and teaching.
No, it isn’t and doesn’t mention Jesus’ ministry or teaching on earth. It does parallel the Philonic and Qumran style recognition of the father (El Elyon) and the son (Yahweh, later renamed Yahushua) and the Holy Spirit (the mother goddess of wisdom, symbolized as a dove, aka Asherah). And we all know the word for “dove” in Greek was “Perishtar” which means “bird of Ishtar” and of course Ishtar and Asherah were thought to be the same mother goddess.
quote:
Clement points to the body and blood of Jesus for our salvation multiple times. He even refers back to the gospel accounts of Jesus' teachings found in Matthew and Luke in chapter 13.
He never not once quotes the gospels but does quote the Old Testament or alludes to OT verses.
quote:
Polycarp was even more explicit: he said, "Everyone who does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is antichrist”", which echo what the Apostles John wrote
So we just are supposed to believe polycarp? Why not believe those other Christians who said Polycarp is bullshite?
quote:
He also said "He bore our sins in his own body on the tree", in reference to Jesus' bodily crucifixion.
The celestial-Jesus Christians also had a gospel where Jesus was crucified on a tree… in HEAVEN.
quote:
what a concession. So your theory is that the gospel accounts weren't written until after Ignatius?
There is no concession. Ignatius was the first to whine and bitch about Christians who didn’t believe Jesus ever came to earth. And he wrote about it. He was the very first, and then along came Polycarp.
quote:
The scholarly consensus--which I don't agree with--is that the gospel accounts were written between 70-100 AD. I believe the internal evidence demonstrates earlier dates, but you claiming that they didn't exist at all until after Ignatius is just laughable.
Well there’s no evidence of even an earthly Jesus tradition until Ignatius wrote in about 110 and even then he doesn’t actually quote any of the gospels.
quote:
Also, John was quoted by Justin Martyr, so had to have been written and made its way to Justin before the 160s
I agree. There were several versions of John but the “final” version dates to around 140-150, which is earlier than the very last scripture of the NT which is 2 Peter.
quote:
which means it was likely written before the 2nd half of the first century.
No dummy it just had to be before about 140.
quote:
Why are you sticking with the tiny minority of scholarly consensus if not for your predisposition against the Bible?
I try not to fall victim of the fallacy of appeal to authority. I prefer to look at the evidence and let it speak for itself.
Posted on 3/21/26 at 8:34 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:There are no gymnastics going on. My beliefs are entirely orthodox for Christianity and comport with historical biblical hermeneutics. You, on the other hand, continually claim to be in accord with science, reason, and evidentialism, citing scholarly consensus to support your views about the Bible, while absolutely destroying reasonable and typical reading of the text by ignoring the biblical context, rejecting writings that have been historically accepted by Christians, and interpreting the Bible according to the minority and rejected (by scholars) views.
Coming from the grandmaster of mental gymnastics himself.
quote:What you're referring to is the ancient heresy of Docetism, which John and others condemn outright. It's the teaching that Jesus didn't actually have a physical, human body, but that He only seemed to live and die like a human. The problem is that none of those heretics actually taught that Jesus didn't at least appear to have an earthly ministry, like you are claiming. Some taught that Jesus fooled the crowds by secretly switching with someone on the cross, and some other outlandish things, but regardless, none of that is what Paul was teaching.
I’m not sure if the Jewish tradition was made of the literal sperm of David or if it was a figurative sperm of Abraham and/or David but regardless what I am sure of is he believes God fabricated a body of real human flesh for Jesus to wear so he could come down into the firmament wearing a disguise and be slain by the archons as part of a secret plan, and the reason I believe that is what believes is because Paul tells us just that literally in his letters.
quote:Nope, I'm saying that the historical understanding is that Jesus was legally the son of Joseph, from the line of David, and therefore Jesus had the legal right to the throne. Luke's genealogy is typically understood by Christian theologians as speaking to Mary's genealogy, though it uses Joseph's name, and that she was also from the line of David. What is most important, though, is that Jesus was born of a woman (Mary), grew up with a human nature, and physically suffered and died on the cross in Jerusalem. The emphasis is on Jesus' lineage from David and Abraham as a human being who was biologically Jewish, not some spirit being that only existed in heaven.
So you are saying Jesus was not born of a virgin but impregnated by Joseph?
quote:The evidence doesn't show that at all
Well that isn’t what the evidence shows. The gospels actually copied Paul’s letters.
There are so many unique characteristics and differences between Paul's writings and the Gospel writings that it is fantastical to actually claim what you are claiming. The scholarly consensus is not on your side here. You are on the fringe, latching on to something ahistorical because it best fits your hatred of the truth.
quote:He sure did. Ephesians 4:10 explicitly says Jesus descended and then ascended. 1 Cor. 15 speaks of all the parts prior to the ascension, and Paul's teaching about Christ sitting at God's right hand in Heaven currently close the loop there.
Except Paul never ever said Jesus ascended into heaven
quote:I think it is YOU who are not familiar with Paul and the rest of the Bible. Clearly you are either using AI or some weird websites devoted to this docetic, mythist viewpoint that ignores the rest of the Bible, because you clearly aren't familiar with these things.
You must’ve never read Paul’s comments about his gospel is not man’s gospel, how his gospel is the one true gospel better than the others and his congregations shouldn’t listen to any else’s gospels else be cursed.
In 2 Cor. 11:4, Paul tells the church in Corinth to reject any gospel other than what he and the others (not just Paul, by himself) proclaimed to them, so he wasn't taking credit for a unique gospel message. Likewise in Galatians 1, where Paul says that there is no other real gospel. He went to on say in chapter 2 that the one gospel was confirmed by the other apostles, and was the same one that was being preached to the Jews.
Again, you need to try reading more than those individual verses that are referenced on whatever site you are using, because it's clear you aren't familiar with the actual text.
quote:Is that the scholarly consensus again, or just your own speculation flowing from your refusal to accept the text for what it is?
My guess is drugs and a wild imagination.
quote:I see you answered my question here. It's just your own speculation flowing from your refusal to accept the text for what it is.
ETA: on the subject of drugs and imagination, to unit Christians they needed elements of Paul’s theology and the Jersusalem theology which differed. That’s why we get some many contradictions. They are trying to say all these different ideas are of the same origin and are all equally true and valid. And remember, the gospel narrative, especially the first proto-Mark/Markionite gospel, and even the final version of our canonical mark (minus the 4+ different “endings” added on by later scribes) were all designed to be read by initiates as a historical events, but to the initiated - to the “mature in Christ” they knew the gospel of the earthly Jesus was completely allegory. Paul even wrote they “fed the babies milk” but the mature in Christ were fed “meat”. The milk was the gospels of the historical Jesus to convey spiritual and moral ideas. The mature knew that the gospels of the earthly Jesus were made up.
Posted on 3/21/26 at 8:45 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:Ad hominem attacks are a sure sign that your arguments are falling apart. You can't support your speculations, so you wind up attacking me personally. It's not the weapon of the intelligent, but of the brute.
dumbass
quote:I already showed how this is false. You can't support your speculations, and you can't refute the reality that Paul taught the historical Jesus who was on earth and suffered.
Not according to Paul or the others I mentioned which do not mention an earthly Jesus in their letters.
You've finally resorted to claiming the possibility that Jesus was created from David's sperm, somehow, backing away from your previously confident position that Paul taught that nonsense.
quote:Jesus isn't Osiris. Paul didn't teach Jesus was Osiris. Paul taught the historical Jesus who was born of a woman, suffered as a man, died on the Roman cross, and was raised from the dead before ascending into Heaven.
Osiris suffered… in heaven. And then they wrote a gospel of the earthly Osiris also suffering, and Plutarch wrote about how the earthly Osiris was a fabricated allegory of the “real” Osiris.
What other conspiracy theories do you have in your pocket?
quote:Nope, because they are as similar to one another as apples and astronauts.
You’re too stupid to see that all the very valid reasons you just gave about how those “Peters” weren’t authentic can and should be applied to biblical 1 Peter and 2 Peter.
1 Peter and 2 Peter are entirely consistent with their messaging and tone. Any differences in the Greek can be chalked up to Peter having a secretary help him write, but anyone who has read the Petrine epistles in the Bible and those gnostic writings can spot the difference a mile away. There's a reason those writings were never considered authentic or considered for canonicity.
Page 34 of 37
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News