- 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 3/21/26 at 9:01 pm to Azkiger
Posted on 3/21/26 at 9:01 pm to Azkiger
quote:
If there ever was an example of educated idiots it's the academics that imagined up/pushed this tranny bullshite.
Little known fact: Neil deGrasse Tyson flunked out of the PhD program in astrophysics at the University of Texas. HIs UT professors urged him to consider other careers
A woke Ivy League school (Columbia) threw him a bone and let him finish his PhD there.
0
Posted on 3/21/26 at 9:32 pm to RebelExpress38
quote:
Harvard and Google spent 10 years mapping it. The imaging alone took 326 days.
There's a lot of awesome in this post, but the fact that it took literally just over one earth-year to do the imaging alone, is wild. I mean, there are signs everywhere and maybe that's just another "coincidence" but it sure looks like a sign.
And the quote about "smaller than a grain of rice" is a bit of an understatement. In total size, a 1mm square of tissue is roughly one-sixth the size of a grain of rice, making this even the more impressive.
GOD knew what He was doing, folks. And the more that science and archeology advance, the more they're aligning with the texts in the Holy Bible.
I still greatly fear for the future of humanity though. When I was a kid in the 1980s and 90s, we were a society that was overcoming racism and dreaming of flying cars. Today, race relations are in the toilet and people are arguing about whether or not men belong in the girls' bathroom.
Posted on 3/21/26 at 9:36 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:Paul was blinded by the light of glory, so he didn't see anything. However, Jesus spoke with Paul because Jesus appeared to Paul. Paul was really there and heard the real voice of Jesus. Paul referred to that encounter as Jesus appearing to him after his resurrection, as I said. It wasn't some hallucination of something that didn't actually happen.
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:I don't think you know what "fan fiction mythology" actually is. It is a historical account with many facts about persons, places, and events that have documental historical attestation. It was written as a history of the early church. Your ignorance and bias is showing here.
I DGAF about Acts. It’s fan fiction mythology. None of it is historical.
quote:That "vision" was attested to in Acts as an external action happening to Paul, not some internal hallucination happening in Paul's brain that was not tied to reality. The Prophets of the old testament had visions that were God really speaking to them.
In a vision
quote:Ah, there it is. It was merely your biased inference based on nothing more than your own speculation. You assumed James and Peter hated Paul, but there is no evidence that they did. There was evidence that Paul and Barnabas had a falling out, but not James and Paul, or Peter and Paul. Peter was corrected by Paul, but Peter referred to Paul's writings as Scripture, and Paul even spoke highly of Peter and the other Apostles, even though he thought himself as a lesser apostle.
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 and your "inferences"...
quote:More "inferences", I suppose?
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.
Paul did not teach anything opposed to good works. In fact, he said they were required, just not as a basis for salvation. He was explicit that Christians were created to do good works.
You must hate being called out for your lies, because you have been reduced to nothing more than speculation at this point.
quote:He included himself in the "another gospel" condemnation. Galatians 1 includes a "we" statement. I think you need to go back and check before you keep making these speculative statements. It's not very academic to miscite sources over and over again.
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:That was an actual inference of what you claimed abut Paul's "vision". Paul said that Jesus appeared after His resurrection to Peter, the other apostles, then to several hundred people at once, and then to Paul. You said previously that the word used by Paul for "appear" was more like a vision or hallucination, so the only explanation for all those people seeing Jesus at once has to be a mass hallucination.
Straw man? I never made that argument.
quote:He was born about 20 years after the resurrection. He was alive during the time when eye-witnesses were still around. And, as a historian, I'm sure he didn't relay as historical narrative whatever myths anyone could come up with. He obviously knew of Pontius Pilate. In fact, his writings shows that he was meticulous in cross-checking accounts and distinguished between hearsay and myths. He was a skeptic, and is seen as a very credible source. You, again, are wishcasting here.
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:Apparently you don't take historical accounts by hostile witnesses to Christianity as seriously as the academics do. Strange.
Also not contemporary. Also parroting stated beliefs of Christian about their mythical founder.
quote:I don't think you get the connection here. Suetonius records an account where there were riots or disturbances about Christ which led the Jews to be kicked out of Rome. Acts 18 says that some Christians were impacted by the Jews getting kicked out of Rome (supporting the historical reality). The logical inference is that the pattern of Acts, where Christians would preach of Christ and the Jews would riot and try to kill the Christians led to the Jews being kicked out of 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:Even the mention of Jesus appears to be authentic. What is disputed is the addition of Jesus as the Christ, not the mention of Him, or His brother, and that's the point I was making.
Except the part about Jesus, sure!
quote:Nope, but it was a liturgical document as a help to the Church, not a theological writing meant to explain it all. My point in mentioning the Didache was to show that it confirmed Jesus' life on earth.
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:Yes, it does, in the sense that both mean that Jesus was from the line of David on earth. Jesus had a human nature and descended from the line of David.
Vine of David. Sperm of David. Sounds about equivocal to Paul on this particular matter.
quote:
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.
one false conspiracy theory at a time. Yes, it affirms Jesus' ministry. He commanded the trinitarian baptism, and the Trinity was present at His baptism, as recorded in the Scriptures. quote:He didn't quote them. He paraphrased them, alluding to Jesus' words that were found in the Gospel writings, so Clement was absolutely familiar with the source material.
He never not once quotes the gospels but does quote the Old Testament or alludes to OT verses.
quote:It's all about the evidence. Polycarp's statements are consistent with the gospel accounts that were already circulating and maintained as the majority position throughout the last 2,000 years. If you want to side with the minority, you need to plead your case as to why rather than assume that the minority were correct because it sounds better to condemn the historicity of the accounts of Christ.
So we just are supposed to believe polycarp? Why not believe those other Christians who said Polycarp is bullshite?
Posted on 3/21/26 at 9:45 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:The account was never taken seriously by the Church precisely because such an account didn't have the apostolic pedigree and receipts. The teachings of the Apostles were supported by eye-witness accounts, which Luke goes out of his way to show. It's suspected that those random people Luke mentions by name in his gospel narrative are listed precisely so that they could be questioned for the accuracy of the account. There whole of the New Testament is consistent, and consistent as progressive revelation from the Old Testament, but those weird writings that you are so fond of holding up over the Bible have never been accepted as credible and authoritative precisely because the early church knew where the NT Scriptures came from.
The celestial-Jesus Christians also had a gospel where Jesus was crucified on a tree… in HEAVEN.
quote:You even said I got that one right. That's quite a concession, if I say so myself.
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:I think you might have some sort of reading comprehension problem. Maybe you should look into that.
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.
I said that the Gospel writings, themselves, have a secular consensus as being written before Ignatius. That means they are a witness of a historical Jesus before Ignatius.
quote:The P52 manuscript scrap is confidently dated to the first half of the first century, and it was found in Egypt, which means it likely was likely written several decades at least before making its way there. It's why so many scholars see it as evidence of a late 1st century writing, not something from the 140s or 150s.
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:You have to think about more than just the date of the writing. It isn't claimed to be an original manuscript from John, so it has been understood to be older than 140. It had to be written, sent elsewhere, copied, and potentially sent elsewhere again. It likely took decade, so it goes back further than 140.
No dummy it just had to be before about 140.
quote:
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.
no you don't! You go with the consensus on every other subject and appeal to scholars all the time. You are taking a fringe minority position on this because it better suits your goal. The evidence points to a historical Jesus. You are ignoring the evidence.
Posted on 3/22/26 at 12:41 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
FooManChoo
Hi there. This may be a slight hijack but I wanted to get your interpretation of something. Anyone else, please feel free to free to chime in as well.
Before receiving the Eucharist, Catholics say, "Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.”
This is rooted in Matthew 8 and the story of The Faith of the Centurion. I understand that the Centurion shows great faith in Jesus but I’m curious about the “not worthy to enter under my roof” part. This could be explained by evolving social norms but wouldn’t it be more polite to invite Jesus into one’s home? The passage implies that would almost be arrogant. Idk… is it pompous to invite guests inside one’s home?
Posted on 3/22/26 at 2:10 pm to FooManChoo
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.
Wrong. Not Docestism. Paul wrote that he believed Jesus had a real body made out of human flesh, which I clearly stated and you quoted me as stating such. Try again.
quote:
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.
That right there might have been some Docetic or Gnostic teachings, but that wasn’t what I had mentioned.
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
I don’t know what you’re arguing. Jesus wasn’t a biological descendant of David (not of the sperm of David)? If he’s not a biological descendent, then he’s an allegorical descendant like every other Jewish man? None of that makes a lick of sense Foo. It’s gobbledygook.
quote:
Luke's genealogy is typically understood by Christian theologians as speaking to Mary's genealogy, though it uses Joseph's name,
Apologetic nonsense. It’s a simple contradiction between Matthew and Luke, Mr. Mental Contortionist.
quote:
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.
A myth like that might be important to you, but the historical Paul and the authors of Hebrews, Revelation, Jude, James, Colossians, Ephesians, and 1 Peter didn’t hold your belief.
quote:quote:He sure did. Ephesians 4:10 explicitly says Jesus descended and then ascended
Except Paul never ever said Jesus ascended into heaven
Let me clarify. Paul never says Jesus ascended from Earth into heaven or the heavens. Ephesians 4:10 comes from Paul’s misinterpretation of Psalm 68, probably because he was using the Septuagint which mistranslated Psalm 68… the Hebrew has Yahweh ascending and receiving tribute (sacrifice) from the Israelites. The Septuagint has Yahweh giving tribute to the people. Paul uses the mistranslation and then reinterprets that into some kind of hidden message about Jesus in scripture. Paul tells us over and over he knows of Jesus through revelation and through (reinterpretation) of existing Jewish scripture.
Ephesians 4:8-10 isn’t about Jesus ever being on earth. Go read up on Irenaeus’ and Tertullian’s commentaries. It is about Jesus giving the people a gift (of salvation) by (first dying, then) descending into Sheol, and the being raised and exalted to the highest heaven. Remember they believed in 7 heavens… and remember Paul wrote that he had been to the 3rd heaven… Heaven was the name given to the firmament, which you deny exists because you prioritize your dogma over the scripture (while you claim to prioritize scripture, which is why you are a hypocrite).
quote:
You are on the fringe, latching on to something ahistorical because it best fits your hatred of the truth.
Says the guy who believes the earth is 6,000 years old, dinosaurs were on the mythical ark, and who believes in talking snakes and talking donkeys.
quote:
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.
You’re full of shite. In that chapter, Paul is specifically talking about the other gospel messages from the super-apostles James and Peter, telling the Corinthians not to listen to them. Paul calls it “my gospel”.
quote:
It's just your own speculation flowing from your refusal to accept the text for what it is.
You are the conspiracy theorist rejected objective scientific facts based on a dogma of belief in an ancient book written by a civilization that thought slaughtering animals and even humans was what God wanted.
I accept the text for what it is. You make it out to be more than it really is.
Posted on 3/22/26 at 8:56 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
Before receiving the Eucharist, Catholics say, "Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.” This is rooted in Matthew 8 and the story of The Faith of the Centurion. I understand that the Centurion shows great faith in Jesus but I’m curious about the “not worthy to enter under my roof” part. This could be explained by evolving social norms but wouldn’t it be more polite to invite Jesus into one’s home? The passage implies that would almost be arrogant. Idk… is it pompous to invite guests inside one’s home?
First of all, Foo isn’t a Catholic. He’s a heretic.
Secondly, the roof or under one’s roof refers to one’s body. Paul sometimes calls the body one’s temple, or an earthly tent. It’s allegory. Similarly, many earthly Christians even all the way back to the pre-Christian Dead Sea Scrolls community called the body their garments, or clothing. They called what we have a garment of sinful flesh, which is perishable. They believed they would shed their garments of flesh and put on garments of light or of the Lord, which is imperishable.
Thirdly, the “not worthy” part is just them saying that as a sinner they are unworthy of Jesus to enter their body. Everybody has sinned, and so everyone is unworthy.
Posted on 3/22/26 at 9:12 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
The account was never taken seriously by the Church precisely because such an account didn't have the apostolic pedigree
The canonical gospels were anonymous until they were given names around the time of Irenaeus and after Markion.
Jesus never existed as a man, and his disciples were fabricated or borrowed from John the Baptist.
quote:quote:You even said I got that one right. That's quite a concession, if I say so myself.
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.
There is no concession. I’m the one that brought up Ignatius as the first to mention a historical Jesus. You accidentally got one right. I never said Ignatius didn’t mention a historical Jesus… he did. But he didn’t quote from any of the versions of the canonical gospels we have today. Go back and check the chat history.
quote:
I said that the Gospel writings, themselves, have a secular consensus as being written before Ignatius. That means they are a witness of a historical Jesus before Ignatius.
The secular consensus, if that’s what they believe, is wrong. I don’t just blindly follow Bart Ehrman. He’s not my Jesus. Just because he says Luke was written around 100 and John around 110 doesn’t necessarily make it so. I agree with a different set of scholars that the gospels were much later with John in the 140-150 range.
quote:
The P52 manuscript scrap is confidently dated to the first half of the first century, and it was found in Egypt, which means it likely was likely written several decades at least before making its way there. It's why so many scholars see it as evidence of a late 1st century writing, not something from the 140s or 150s.
Since you like the scholarly consensus today. Go look it up. It’s uncertain and it’s dated based on paleography to 100-250CE.
Posted on 3/22/26 at 10:08 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Paul was really there and heard the real voice of Jesus. Paul referred to that encounter as Jesus appearing to him after his resurrection, as I said. It wasn't some hallucination of something that didn't actually happen.
That’s what you believe, not based on evidence, but rather a willingness to believe in anything that justifies your dogmas.
quote:
I don't think you know what "fan fiction mythology" actually is. It is a historical account with many facts about persons, places, and events that have documental historical attestation. It was written as a history of the early church. Your ignorance and bias is showing here.
Sure. Paul wrote he had the revelation and went to Arabia for 3 years, then went back to Damascus, then went to Jerusalem to meet with Kephas and only saw one other apostle (Iakobon, the Adelphoi of Kyriou). Acts says that Paul went with Barnabas to Jerusalem and met with many apostles and the Jerusalem council immediately after his vision. Just one example to show Acts isn’t history, if you believe Paul’s legitimate letter.
quote:
You and your "inferences"...
It’s something you can’t or are unwilling to do. Paul was at the throats of the “super-apostles”. If you can’t understand they were at odds after reading Paul’s genuine letters, then…
quote:
You must hate being called out for your lies, because you have been reduced to nothing more than speculation at this point.
That Simon Magus may have been a fictional version of Paul is gaining ground in scholarly circles. Sorry this is inconvenient for you.
quote:
You said previously that the word used by Paul for "appear" was more like a vision or hallucination, so the only explanation for all those people seeing Jesus at once has to be a mass hallucination.
You are confused. I never said anything of the sort. Go find it and link to it if you think you can find where I wrote anything of the sort. That mass hallucination nonsense is an apologetic straw man argument that I’ve seen before. I’ve consistently argued on here that Paul writing down that all that stuff happened doesn’t mean it actually did.
quote:
I don't think you get the connection here. Suetonius records an account where there were riots or disturbances about Christ which led the Jews to be kicked out of Rome.
Chrestus, a man in Rome, was stirring up the Jews to riot. Chrestus was a common Roman name. Get it? Of course you don’t. You think this is about your god man from Galilee from 20 years earlier who in reality never existed.
quote:
Even the mention of Jesus appears to be authentic. What is disputed is the addition of Jesus as the Christ, not the mention of Him, or His brother, and that's the point I was making.
So it’s a forgery, but maybe the whole thing isn’t entirely a forgery, so we should take it as credible?
quote:
Yes, it affirms Jesus' ministry.
The didache contains no mention at all of an earthly ministry of Jesus. None. That it says to baptize in the name of the father and son and Holy Spirit doesn’t mean there was a Jesus Christ walking around Galilee spitting in poor people’s eyes. And it doesn’t confirm the 4th century Trinity concept and hypostatic union.
quote:
He paraphrased them, alluding to Jesus' words that were found in the Gospel writings, so Clement was absolutely familiar with the source material.
He quoted the Old Testament. If the gospels were available to them he would’ve quoted from them. He didn’t quote the gospels. Sucks but that is the reality.
quote:
It's all about the evidence. Polycarp's statements are consistent with the gospel accounts that were already circulating and maintained as the majority position throughout the last 2,000 years.
You believe Polycarp is right, and that the other Christians who believed in the celestial model of Jesus (Paul, Hebrews, Ascension of Isaiah) are wrong, because you think you know Polycarp is right because he believes in the historical Jesus and so do you because of your dogma. Illogical, but you do you.
Posted on 3/23/26 at 12:30 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:
Paul wrote he had the revelation and went to Arabia for 3 years, then went back to Damascus, then went to Jerusalem to meet with Kephas and only saw one other apostle (Iakobon, the Adelphoi of Kyriou). Acts says that Paul went with Barnabas to Jerusalem and met with many apostles and the Jerusalem council immediately after his vision. Just one example to show Acts isn’t history, if you believe Paul’s legitimate letter.
Who are the "many apostles?" Where can we find mention of this "Jerusalem council?" How do we know it was "immediately after his vision?"
Posted on 3/23/26 at 12:42 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:
Secondly, the roof or under one’s roof refers to one’s body. Paul sometimes calls the body one’s temple, or an earthly tent. It’s allegory. Similarly, many earthly Christians even all the way back to the pre-Christian Dead Sea Scrolls community called the body their garments, or clothing. They called what we have a garment of sinful flesh, which is perishable. They believed they would shed their garments of flesh and put on garments of light or of the Lord, which is imperishable.
Are sandals allegory too?
Posted on 3/23/26 at 4:19 am to 4cubbies
quote:A Roman centurion approached Jesus, asking Him to heal his paralyzed servant. When Jesus offered to go to the centurion's house, the officer replied:
Hi there. This may be a slight hijack but I wanted to get your interpretation of something. Anyone else, please feel free to free to chime in as well.
Before receiving the Eucharist, Catholics say, "Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.”
This is rooted in Matthew 8 and the story of The Faith of the Centurion.
"Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof, but only say the word, and my servant will be healed."
As a Roman, the centurion was a Gentile, not a Jew. In that era, a Jewish teacher entering a Gentile's home would have been considered ritually "unclean."
In essence, the centurion had such faith in Jesus and his authority over disease that he acknowledged Jesus needn't task himself with entry into the Gentile's unworthy home. Just his word from afar would be favor enough to heal the servant, and it was.
As someone alluded in their response, the Catholic Church interpreted the episode allegorically, with "under my roof as a reference to the temple of the body." So for years, the lines recited at Eucharist were "Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed."
My feeling is the switch in wording was done to return to a truer reflection of Matthew's verse, and "under my roof," a reference to the church as well as those reciting the verse.
Re: wouldn’t it be more polite to invite Jesus into one’s home?
Sort of an every day analogy, not exactly on point, but close enough ... You and your friend each suffer from migraines and use the same medicine to relieve them. You feel one coming on, but realize you're out of pills. You call your friend and she volunteers to bring one of hers to you. You say "No, please, it's not necessary for you to go out of your way. I'll send someone over to save you the trouble."
Posted on 3/23/26 at 4:36 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
asking Him to heal his paralyzed servant.
A couple of things of note.
Jesus didn't condemn the Roman for having a slave.
The Roman cared about his slave enough to seek out the most radical help he could find.
Posted on 3/23/26 at 9:33 am to FooManChoo
quote:
you can't refute the reality that Paul taught the historical Jesus who was on earth and suffered.
I have refuted it, but you refuse to accept it. The actual reality is Paul never mentioned an earthly Jesus or his ministry.
quote:
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.
I never was completely confident on that. It always was a possibility the meaning was metaphorical - Jesus being created from human messianic flesh, but not literally the biological descendant of David. Think about it for a second - if the books of Samuel are historically accurate, and Solomon had 1000 wives and concubines 1000 years before Jesus, then literally every single person in Jerusalem would in some way be a descendant of David… in the same way you and I and someone from Iraq and another from Lithuania and another from China are all literal biological descendants of Ghengis Khan. Being a descendant of David 1000 years after David wouldn’t have even been special. Being a descendant of David would just mean someone is probably Jewish. At that point it is metaphorical.
And we do have the parallel myth of the Saoshyant in Zoroastrianism, who the myth goes was created by Ahura Mazda out of the literal sperm of Zoroaster that had been preserved in a lake. And we all know (well, except you because you are in denial) that post-exilic Judaism is a product of the Persians and the Zoroastrian religion, and this was even recognized by the gospel authors who had Zoroastrian priests being the infant Jesus gold, frankincense, and myrrh.
quote:
Jesus isn't Osiris. Paul didn't teach Jesus was Osiris.
If it walks, looks, and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck. No Paul didn’t teach Jesus was Osiris, but the model for how Jesus was a thought of as a celestial being, was made incarnate, walked the earth, suffered, died, and was resurrected, and that the earthly story was a complete allegory, could be found just 300 miles west of Jerusalem. Jesus was a Jewish version of the Mediterranean mystery savior cults.
quote:
1 Peter and 2 Peter are entirely consistent with their messaging and tone.
False. 1 Peter doesn’t mention once the earthly Jesus or his ministry or anything from the canonical gospels. 1 Peter doesn’t mention Paul even once. 2 Peter does mention the historical Jesus and politicizes against the other groups of Christians who said the gospels were cleverly devised myths. 2 Peter describes Paul’s letters as divine scripture. The problem there is we know that Paul and the real Peter were at odds (from Paul’s legit letters) and so having “Peter” state he was essentially wrong and that Paul is correct in his theology doesn’t make any sense. The other problem is if you go by tradition of Peter dying in the reign of Nero in the 60s, that doesn’t allow any time for Paul’s letters to be rounded up and compiled to be read by anyone. Most likely it was Markion that collected and published Paul’s letters in the 140-ish range. You like to use the scholarly consensus lately so take that for what it’s worth - 2 Peter is the very last book of the NT to have been written, and that puts it in the 150-180CE range, which would’ve been a century after the historical Peter would have died.
quote:
Any differences in the Greek can be chalked up to Peter having a secretary help him write
Apologetic wishful thinking. According to Greek experts, the language of 2 Peter is much harsher and different vocabulary is used. It was definitely a different person who wrote the second Peter. Your stupid scribe idea doesn’t hold water as the scribe is supposed to faithfully record what the dictator is dictating.
The mocking you receive is well deserved.
Posted on 3/23/26 at 9:54 am to AlwysATgr
quote:
Who are the "many apostles?" Where can we find mention of this "Jerusalem council?" How do we know it was "immediately after his vision?"
Acts 9 and 15
Posted on 3/23/26 at 9:56 am to AlwysATgr
quote:
Are sandals allegory too?
Can you ask coherent and thoughtful questions?
Posted on 3/23/26 at 10:02 am to TrueTiger
quote:
Jesus didn't condemn the Roman for having a slave
Why would he. “Jesus” told slaves to obey their masters. Paul said the same thing, too (which was the material the gospel author probably used). Being a slave didn’t matter. No one needed to even get married and have children because they were in the last days and the whole world was about to get remade and all believers were about to be transformed.
Posted on 3/23/26 at 10:14 am to NC_Tigah
quote:This makes a lot of sense.
Sort of an every day analogy, not exactly on point, but close enough ... You and your friend each suffer from migraines and use the same medicine to relieve them. You feel one coming on, but realize you're out of pills. You call your friend and she volunteers to bring one of hers to you. You say "No, please, it's not necessary for you to go out of your way. I'll send someone over to save you the trouble."
Thanks for the insight
Posted on 3/23/26 at 5:13 pm to 4cubbies
quote:I won't speak to why Catholics say that before taking the Eucharist other than that it is a sign of humility, which I agree with.
Before receiving the Eucharist, Catholics say, "Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.”
This is rooted in Matthew 8 and the story of The Faith of the Centurion. I understand that the Centurion shows great faith in Jesus but I’m curious about the “not worthy to enter under my roof” part. This could be explained by evolving social norms but wouldn’t it be more polite to invite Jesus into one’s home? The passage implies that would almost be arrogant. Idk… is it pompous to invite guests inside one’s home?
Regarding your question as to why the Centurion would not have just invited Jesus into his house: I wouldn't say that it was arrogance on display, but quite the opposite. It seems that the Centurion was actually demonstrating humility. Centurions were important men, as they were officers in the Roman army and commanded upwards of 100 soldiers (a "century", which is why they were called Centurions). They were men of good reputation in the army, brave, and battle-tested. They were capable of leadership and were very disciplined. They were well respected.
This can actually be seen in the passage you referenced. Immediately following the quote you referenced, he went on to say, "For I too am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. And I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes, and to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.”"
The Centurion recognized Jesus' authority as God, and he had such strong faith that Jesus could miraculously heal his servant with a word that Jesus didn't even need to lay His hands on the man, for He could have merely said a word and command the healing to occur, as the Centurion could command a company of soldiers with his word.
So yes, the Centurion could have invited Jesus into his house, but the goal wasn't mere hospitality. It was for healing, and the Centurion showed great humility in stating that his house was not worthy to be graced with the presence of Jesus, the Lord. That was high praise, coming from a man who was highly honored by his peers and subordinates. This humble faith of a man of prestige was recognized by Jesus, calling out that this non-Jewish Roman had greater faith than many Jews, who had received the law and the promises of the Messiah. It's a great example of faith.
Also, don't listen to Squirrelmeister. He has no idea what he's talking about.
This post was edited on 3/23/26 at 7:03 pm
Posted on 3/23/26 at 6:06 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:There were different forms of Docetism. Pure Docetism was what I explained. Other forms included that the spirit of Jesus entered into a human man and left him before the crucifixion. Other forms included someone else entirely being crucified in Jesus' place, and another was that Jesus had a body but didn't actually suffer on the cross.
Wrong. Not Docestism. Paul wrote that he believed Jesus had a real body made out of human flesh, which I clearly stated and you quoted me as stating such. Try again.
What you're describing seems to be a form of all of this, where Jesus only appeared to be crucified or to suffer to the disciples through visions, but didn't suffer as they described.
quote:Yeah, you are wrongly saying that Paul taught that Jesus didn't actually live on earth, but that some people had some weird visions about a guy who never walked around contradicting the Jewish leads of the time, never gathered followers, and never was put to death by Pontius Pilate. Jesus was just a hallucination.
That right there might have been some Docetic or Gnostic teachings, but that wasn’t what I had mentioned.
quote:You are ignorant of Christianity and have spent more time researching heretical sects to lie about what Christianity teaches than what Christians have wrestled with for 2,000 years.
I don’t know what you’re arguing. Jesus wasn’t a biological descendant of David (not of the sperm of David)? If he’s not a biological descendent, then he’s an allegorical descendant like every other Jewish man? None of that makes a lick of sense Foo. It’s gobbledygook.
Luke details Mary's genealogy, so Jesus was biologically descended from David's line. He was also the legal son of Joseph, who was the biological descendent of David. So either way you slice it, Jesus had the biological and/or legal right to the throne of David through lineage, either directly through Mary, or legally through Joseph. In both ways, Jesus was from the "seed" (lineage) of David and Abraham.
quote:Everything that doesn't make sense to you is a contradiction
Apologetic nonsense. It’s a simple contradiction between Matthew and Luke, Mr. Mental Contortionist.
quote:Yes, they did. I've now shown this time and time again. You just don't accept a consistent interpretation that aligns with the teaching of the entire New Testament because this other interpretation better supports your rejection of a divine judge who will condemn you to Hell forever for rejecting Him. I understand why you want to come up with any excuse whatsoever to not believe the truth.
A myth like that might be important to you, but the historical Paul and the authors of Hebrews, Revelation, Jude, James, Colossians, Ephesians, and 1 Peter didn’t hold your belief.
quote:Yes, he did. He spoke several times of the incarnation, which was Jesus' descent to earth, taking on a human nature. Philippians 2, 2 Corinthians 8:9, and Galatians 4:4 speak to this clearly.
Let me clarify. Paul never says Jesus ascended from Earth into heaven or the heavens.
Ephesians 4 also clearly teaches that Jesus then ascended into Heaven, as does Philippians 2:9-11 and 1 Timothy 3:16.
quote:So you're interpreting this statement as a mistranslation for Paul? Whether you think Paul was wrong about the translation is irrelevant to whether or not Paul taught that there was a descent and an ascent of Christ. You danced around that and just called it a "hidden message". Is that what scholarly Bible interpretation looks like?
Ephesians 4:10 comes from Paul’s misinterpretation of Psalm 68, probably because he was using the Septuagint which mistranslated Psalm 68… the Hebrew has Yahweh ascending and receiving tribute (sacrifice) from the Israelites. The Septuagint has Yahweh giving tribute to the people. Paul uses the mistranslation and then reinterprets that into some kind of hidden message about Jesus in scripture. Paul tells us over and over he knows of Jesus through revelation and through (reinterpretation) of existing Jewish scripture.
quote:First, Paul doesn't say Jesus descended into Sheol here. He says Jesus descended into the lower parts of the Earth, which is just the Earth, either in the incarnation or in His death and burial, but both expressing Christ's humiliation.
Ephesians 4:8-10 isn’t about Jesus ever being on earth. Go read up on Irenaeus’ and Tertullian’s commentaries. It is about Jesus giving the people a gift (of salvation) by (first dying, then) descending into Sheol, and the being raised and exalted to the highest heaven. Remember they believed in 7 heavens… and remember Paul wrote that he had been to the 3rd heaven… Heaven was the name given to the firmament, which you deny exists because you prioritize your dogma over the scripture (while you claim to prioritize scripture, which is why you are a hypocrite).
Second, it doesn't say Jesus then ascended into the 7th Heaven, but that He ascended far above all the Heavens, which is to say Jesus was exalted above all creation by being given all authority in Heaven and on Earth as the God-man mediator.
quote:I'm not the one telling everyone I support the scientific consensus all the time. I'm actively arguing against humanistic and naturalistic interpretations, including the majority of scientists when it comes to unobservable inferences from history. You are the one trying to convince us all that you are just following the evidence. Being on the fringe doesn't help your case
Says the guy who believes the earth is 6,000 years old, dinosaurs were on the mythical ark, and who believes in talking snakes and talking donkeys.
quote:Where does he call out James and Peter?
In that chapter, Paul is specifically talking about the other gospel messages from the super-apostles James and Peter, telling the Corinthians not to listen to them. Paul calls it “my gospel”.
The Corinthians were being deceived by a false gospel by men pretending to be apostles. Paul says that if anyone who claims to be an apostle teaches differently than the gospel that was already proclaimed by the real Apostles (including himself), that they should be cut off. This is affirmed by Paul in Galatians 2, when he speaks of one gospel given to both the Jews and the Gentiles, and that James, Peter, and John all gave Paul their approval.
quote:Again, you don't know the Bible that you keep quoting to disprove it. God isn't pleased by the blood of bulls and goats, but by the faith that precedes such sacrifices. Animal sacrifices never took away sins.
You are the conspiracy theorist rejected objective scientific facts based on a dogma of belief in an ancient book written by a civilization that thought slaughtering animals and even humans was what God wanted.
quote:I interpret the Bible within the context of itself. You cherry pick verses here and there to form a spider web of mythology and then act as if the historical position of Christianity is the problem.
I accept the text for what it is. You make it out to be more than it really is.
Page 35 of 37
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News