- 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 3/23/26 at 6:19 pm to Squirrelmeister
Posted on 3/23/26 at 6:19 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:Whether they are formally anonymous or not is irrelevant. The tradition of the authors have been universal and constant from early on, as the internal context clues support the authors that the texts bear the name of.
The canonical gospels were anonymous until they were given names around the time of Irenaeus and after Markion.
quote:This is an a-historical take. You reject the truth.
Jesus never existed as a man, and his disciples were fabricated or borrowed from John the Baptist.
quote:Again, you made the concession. My point of mentioning Ignatius was to show that from the late first century and early second century, there were already historical accounts of Jesus' earthly life and ministry, from both Christian and non-Christian sources. You rejected every other example I provided, even though you are going against even the God-hating secular scholars in doing so. You just can't let go of this lie.
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:
The secular consensus, if that’s what they believe, is wrong.
You have built your entire reputation on following the science and going by the evidence, and even citing the consensus of scholars in other areas that supposedly contradict the historical Christian narrative. You live to fall in line with the scholars every opportunity you can, so why not on this topic? It's because you think you've stumbled upon a powerful refutation of Christianity, even if it does make you sound like a conspiracy theorist that goes against all history.
quote:You mean, you agree with the minority because it best suits your own perverted interpretation of the Bible.
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.
You can't get away from this. The reason Bart Ehrman and others like him accept earlier (but not orthodox-early) dates is because of the evidence they see. You just follow the evidence, right?
quote:I have looked it up. It's why I referenced it.
Since you like the scholarly consensus today. Go look it up. It’s uncertain and it’s dated based on paleography to 100-250CE.
1
Posted on 3/23/26 at 7:02 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:It's what I believe, because it's what Paul was saying.
That’s what you believe, not based on evidence, but rather a willingness to believe in anything that justifies your dogmas.
And boy, aren't you the pot calling the kettle "black"? You take a crazy fringe position about the Bible and the Apostle Paul's teaching about Jesus exactly because it justifies your dogma, which is that the Bible has to be wrong.
quote:Glad you agree that you don't know what "fan fiction mythology" is.
Sure.
quote:There is no contradiction. In Acts 9, it says that Paul went to Jerusalem (before the Council in chapter 15) and met with "the apostles". It didn't say he met with all the apostles.
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.
In Galatians 2, it just says the met with Peter and James. Two apostles, plural. Or in other words, he met with "the apostles".
14 years later, Paul met with them again, and John.
As usual, you are confused.
quote:When I use inferences, it is based on the totality of the Bible, not on a verse here and there, as you are doing. You ignore important texts that influence conclusions necessarily and stick to a few cherry-picked passages that you then draw inferences from.
It’s something you can’t or are unwilling to do.
quote:You need to support your claim.
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:"Gaining ground"
That Simon Magus may have been a fictional version of Paul is gaining ground in scholarly circles. Sorry this is inconvenient for you.
Yeah, anyone can claim whatever they want. It's still mere speculation, and you grab hold to anything and everything that discredits the Bible, no matter how outlandish it is. You are married to your dogma, after all.
Also, are you running back to the scholars again, when they seem to start moving in your favor? Sounds a bit like special pleading. Those scholars that support your understanding are correct (even if in the minority) while those who reject your position are wrong, even if they are in the majority.
I don't care about what secular scholars say. I only use that to show how your own apparent standard doesn't always support your position.
quote:Oh I know that you don't actually believe anything written in the Bible, but you are the one using the language of "hallucinations". Paul wrote of hundreds of people seeing Jesus appear at once, so according to your own description of what Paul meant, you think he was talking about mass hallucinations.
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.
"That’s what was necessary to be an apostle - one must have had visions and hallucinations of the celestial Jesus."
"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."
LINK
quote:Yeah, the evidence points in that direction. You are the one ignoring the evidence.
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:I don't think it's a forgery, but even if the complimentary portion of the text was added later, it doesn't take away from the point I was making, that the consensus is that the mention of the historical Jesus by Josephus is legitimate.
So it’s a forgery, but maybe the whole thing isn’t entirely a forgery, so we should take it as credible?
quote:It affirms the biblical concept of the Trinity and the hypostatic union. You realize that those ideas weren't created out of thin air, right? They were from the teachings of the Bible. It's why Christians today teach those things by citing Scripture, not Council decisions.
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.
And yes, the Didache supports the earthly ministry of Jesus by referring to Jesus' teachings that were recorded in the gospel writings, including the Lord's Prayer, that He prayed during His life. It refers to Christ as God's servant, which supports the teachings of the Gospels and the rest of the Scriptures. It also says to pray the Lord's Prayer as He commanded in His gospel.
It certainly doesn't teach that Jesus was some mythical being.
quote:It doesn't "suck", because it isn't necessary for him to quote exactly. He heard of them and their teachings, and was familiar enough to refer to them. He didn't need to have a copy of them in his house in order to show familiarity with them.
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 not illogical. Paul didn't teach what you claim. Hebrews didn't teach what you claim. All you have is the Ascension of Isaiah, which doesn't even teach what you claim Paul taught, since even that writing provides a similar tale of Jesus as a child on earth, being crucified in Jerusalem:
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.
"And I indeed saw a woman of the family of David the prophet, named Mary, and Virgin, and she was espoused to a man named Joseph, a carpenter, and he also was of the seed and family of the righteous David of Bethlehem Judah."
...
"And when He had grown up he worked great signs and wonders in the land of Israel and of Jerusalem."
...
"And after this the adversary envied Him and roused the children of Israel against Him, not knowing who He was, and they delivered Him to the king, and crucified Him, and He descended to the angel (of Sheol)"
In Jerusalem indeed I was Him being crucified on a tree:
And likewise after the third day rise again and remain days.
LINK
Boy, you can't even get your weird conspiracy theories right
Posted on 3/23/26 at 9:27 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
FooManChoo
Damn you and your ridiculously long posts.
quote:
There were different forms of Docetism.
Paul wasn’t a docetist. He believed Jesus really had been given a human body (a garment of sinful flesh, as he would call it) made of Jewish kingly messianic material and that he really suffered and died. He simply believed all that happened in heaven, exactly the same as the parallel Osiris mystery savior cult. And Paul’s gospel is preserved in the Ascension of Isaiah.
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
Can we at least agree that Paul believed Jesus was a pre-existent celestial being, and never once mentioned Jesus’ ministry, never once mentioned Jesus interacting on earth with anyone, never mentioned Jesus killed by Romans, never mentioned Pontius Pilate, but did write that Jesus was killed as part of God’s secret plan by the archons of this aeon, which resided in heaven? Can you admit that Paul never wrote that he witnessed Jesus walking around on earth before his death or that he walked, talked, or ate with Jesus after his resurrection and didn’t actually witness him ascend to heaven? And that he knew of Jesus through direct revelation of the Lord and through reinterpretation of scriptures? None of that is my interpretation, but the direct words written by Paul. Can we share some common ground? Are you capable of admitting what your scriptures say?
quote:
You are ignorant of Christianity and have spent more time researching heretical sects
I love the heretical sects. Weird cults are interesting, especially the Calvinists.
quote:
Luke details Mary's genealogy
Can we agree he that he never mentions Mary in the genealogy and can we clarify that you just made that shite up out of convenience?
quote:
Yes, he did. He spoke several times of the incarnation, which was Jesus' descent to earth, taking on a human nature.
Foo, if Jesus being give a human body means Jesus had to have been on earth since that’s where humans belong, then Enoch, Elijah, Moses, and Paul had to all been angels or deities since they went to heaven according to the Bible. Paul went to the third heaven. Let’s talk about that. Focus, Foo. What do you think it means that Paul went to the third heaven? Why do you reject biblical cosmology and the divine word of God?
quote:
Ephesians 4 also clearly teaches that Jesus then ascended into Heaven
From Sheol, not from earth.
quote:
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?
Well, he was quoting psalm 68, about Yahweh on Mount Sinai. Yes it’s a “hidden message” you idiot. It wasn’t originally about Jesus. Paul is making it about Jesus. It’s his pesher.
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
:retard alert, class!:
quote:
Second, it doesn't say Jesus then ascended into the 7th Heaven, but that He ascended far above all the Heavens,
The Jews at the time believed in 7 firmaments, with each of them called a heaven, so there were multiple heavens, 7 to be exact. Paul said he made it to the third heaven, where out of the body or in the body he didn’t know. It was the third heaven (in the ascension of Isaiah) where Isaiah’s body began to transformer from flesh into an angelic body.
quote:
Where does he call out James and Peter?
1 Cor 1:12 Paul calls out Apollos and Peter. Those two at a bare minimum were his “super apostles”. I lump James in with Peter as it seems the two are aligned and James was the leader of the Jewish Christians.
quote:
God isn't pleased by the blood of bulls and goats, but by the faith that precedes such sacrifices.
Let’s check that.
quote:
8And Aaron’s sons the priests shall arrange the pieces, the head, and the fat, on the wood that is on the fire on the altar; 9but its entrails and its legs he shall wash with water. And the priest shall burn all of it on the altar, as a burnt offering, a food offeringa with a pleasing aroma to the LORD. 10“If his gift for a burnt offering is from the flock, from the sheep or goats, he shall bring a male without blemish, 11and he shall kill it on the north side of the altar before the LORD, and Aaron’s sons the priests shall throw its blood against the sides of the altar. 12And he shall cut it into pieces, with its head and its fat, and the priest shall arrange them on the wood that is on the fire on the altar, 13but the entrails and the legs he shall wash with water. And the priest shall offer all of it and burn it on the altar; it is a burnt offering, a food offering with a pleasing aroma to the LORD. 14“If his offering to the LORD is a burnt offering of birds, then he shall bring his offering of turtledoves or pigeons. 15And the priest shall bring it to the altar and wring off its head and burn it on the altar. Its blood shall be drained out on the side of the altar. 16He shall remove its crop with its contentsb and cast it beside the altar on the east side, in the place for ashes. 17He shall tear it open by its wings, but shall not sever it completely. And the priest shall burn it on the altar, on the wood that is on the fire. It is a burnt offering, a food offering with a pleasing aroma to the LORD.
As usual, you’re full of shite.
quote:
Animal sacrifices never took away sins.
quote:
3But in this way Aaron shall come into the Holy Place: with a bull from the herd for a sin offering and a ram for a burnt offering. 4He shall put on the holy linen coat and shall have the linen undergarment on his body, and he shall tie the linen sash around his waist, and wear the linen turban; these are the holy garments. He shall bathe his body in water and then put them on. 5And he shall take from the congregation of the people of Israel two male goats for a sin offering, and one ram for a burnt offering.
6“Aaron shall offer the bull as a sin offering for himself and shall make atonement for himself and for his house. 7Then he shall take the two goats and set them before the LORD at the entrance of the tent of meeting. 8And Aaron shall cast lots over the two goats, one lot for the LORD and the other lot for Azazel.a 9And Aaron shall present the goat on which the lot fell for the LORD and use it as a sin offering, 10but the goat on which the lot fell for Azazel shall be presented alive before the LORD to make atonement over it, that it may be sent away into the wilderness to Azazel.
Posted on 3/23/26 at 9:49 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Whether they are formally anonymous or not is irrelevant. The tradition of the authors have been universal and constant from early on, as the internal context clues support the authors that the texts bear the name of.
Wrong. The gospels being anonymous is absolutely relevant. It means Irenaeus made up the traditions out of a desire for credibility which the gospels didn’t have - they were considered cleverly devised myths to many Christians. Welp, there are 4 cardinal directions and 4 winds, therefore Matthew Mark Luke and John wrote the only 4 gospels we should all have.
Posted on 3/23/26 at 9:58 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
It's not illogical. Paul didn't teach what you claim. Hebrews didn't teach what you claim. All you have is the Ascension of Isaiah, which doesn't even teach what you claim Paul taught, since even that writing provides a similar tale of Jesus as a child on earth, being crucified in Jerusalem: "And I indeed saw a woman of the family of David the prophet, named Mary, and Virgin, and she was espoused to a man named Joseph, a carpenter, and he also was of the seed and family of the righteous David of Bethlehem Judah." ... "And when He had grown up he worked great signs and wonders in the land of Israel and of Jerusalem." ... "And after this the adversary envied Him and roused the children of Israel against Him, not knowing who He was, and they delivered Him to the king, and crucified Him, and He descended to the angel (of Sheol)"
This was the only part of your retard post worth responding to. If you knew what you were talking about, you’d know the part you quoted is the “pocket gospel” (as scholars call it) which was a later Christian addition made in the Ethiopic Ge’ez language and isn’t found in the copies in Aramaic and Greek and Syriac.
Posted on 3/27/26 at 10:43 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:There's a lot of garbage to sort through and refute. Stop writing so many falsehoods and I won't need to spend as much time responding.
Damn you and your ridiculously long posts
quote:Do you have a solid understanding of how Paul can write that Jesus was from Abraham's seed and from David's seed yet? You seem to think this "messianic material" was comprised of David's literal sperm but haven't been able to nail down how Paul can be talking about "seed" in a genealogical sense, as his writings demonstrate.
Paul wasn’t a docetist. He believed Jesus really had been given a human body (a garment of sinful flesh, as he would call it) made of Jewish kingly messianic material and that he really suffered and died. He simply believed all that happened in heaven, exactly the same as the parallel Osiris mystery savior cult. And Paul’s gospel is preserved in the Ascension of Isaiah.
No, Paul didn't teach that Jesus only existed in Heaven and was killed there.
You haven't proven that 1 Timothy is not Paul's writing, and there is really good reason why Christians have always believed it to be from his hand. In that writing, he refers to Jesus standing before Pontius Pilate.
All of the plain readings of his writings that you do accept also have to be butchered for you to come to the conclusion that you do. It's why I keep calling you a conspiracy theorist. You base the entire reading on a writing that was of Jewish origin but rejected by the Jews, and updated by alleged Christians, but was rejected by Christianity. You interpret Paul in light of that, rather than in light of his own writings and the rest of Scripture.
quote:No, we can't agree on that at all, and I've been explaining to you why your perverted view being forced on Paul is both irrational in light of the historical evidence, as well as ignores the textual evidence.
Can we at least agree that Paul believed Jesus was a pre-existent celestial being, and never once mentioned Jesus’ ministry, never once mentioned Jesus interacting on earth with anyone, never mentioned Jesus killed by Romans, never mentioned Pontius Pilate, but did write that Jesus was killed as part of God’s secret plan by the archons of this aeon, which resided in heaven? Can you admit that Paul never wrote that he witnessed Jesus walking around on earth before his death or that he walked, talked, or ate with Jesus after his resurrection and didn’t actually witness him ascend to heaven? And that he knew of Jesus through direct revelation of the Lord and through reinterpretation of scriptures? None of that is my interpretation, but the direct words written by Paul. Can we share some common ground? Are you capable of admitting what your scriptures say?
And yes, it IS all your interpretation. If it weren't, it wouldn't be such a fringe-kook view.
quote:Calvinists are directly in-line with Paul and the rest of the Scriptures. I think you are confused.
I love the heretical sects. Weird cults are interesting, especially the Calvinists.
quote:I explained this already. And no, I didn't make up anything. It's a historical understanding of the genealogy, not some made up idea that originated in my brain.
Can we agree he that he never mentions Mary in the genealogy and can we clarify that you just made that shite up out of convenience?
It's incredible that you still don't understand the difference between a view you disagree with and a view that is novel.
quote:I didn't argue that humans with human bodies can't be in Heaven. Jesus has a glorified human body in Heaven right now.
Foo, if Jesus being give a human body means Jesus had to have been on earth since that’s where humans belong, then Enoch, Elijah, Moses, and Paul had to all been angels or deities since they went to heaven according to the Bible. Paul went to the third heaven. Let’s talk about that. Focus, Foo. What do you think it means that Paul went to the third heaven? Why do you reject biblical cosmology and the divine word of God?
You are accusing me of saying something that I didn't say. That makes sense, because you're getting frustrated with the length of my posts and how thoroughly your arguments are being torn to shreds. All you have is a conspiracy theory based on your fringe belief that Paul believed and taught things that the early church fathers clearly did not believe. You have to believe that Paul was both a super influential person in the Christian religion as well as completely dismissed and ignored early on, because this view you claim he held to was not held by the early church.
quote:That's not what the text says. That's you forcing something outside the text into the text. The text of Ephesians 4 says "the earth", not some lower heavenly realm above the earth.
From Sheol, not from earth.
quote:It's not a hidden message at all. Progressive revelation isn't "hidden". It is clarifying. That's how it works. It's what Jesus did all the time, interpreting the Old Testament as pointing to Him.
Well, he was quoting psalm 68, about Yahweh on Mount Sinai. Yes it’s a “hidden message” you idiot. It wasn’t originally about Jesus. Paul is making it about Jesus. It’s his pesher.
quote:Another earth-shattering rebuttal!
:retard alert, class!:
quote:Again, he said "far above all the Heavens", not into the 7th Heaven. Far above all the Heavens would mean above this 7th Heaven that you claim Paul is referring to.
The Jews at the time believed in 7 firmaments, with each of them called a heaven, so there were multiple heavens, 7 to be exact. Paul said he made it to the third heaven, where out of the body or in the body he didn’t know. It was the third heaven (in the ascension of Isaiah) where Isaiah’s body began to transformer from flesh into an angelic body.
You have to read the actual text. That seems to be a consistent struggle for you.
quote:Ah, so Paul doesn't actually condemn them at all. You are just assuming. Gotcha. Thanks for the confirmation
1 Cor 1:12 Paul calls out Apollos and Peter. Those two at a bare minimum were his “super apostles”. I lump James in with Peter as it seems the two are aligned and James was the leader of the Jewish Christians.
quote:"For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins." -Hebrews 10:4
Let’s check that.
As usual, you’re full of shite.
Abraham was justified by his faith, not by any sacrifices he did. Jesus' sacrifice takes away sins because only the God-man can do it. Bulls and goats are not of infinite value to take away sins.
The sacrifices of the OT were not pleasing to God in themselves, but for what they represented. God despised the sacrifices of the hypocrites, which couldn't happen if the sacrifice did anything in and of itself.
In response to Saul's disobedience, he was rebuked: "Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to listen than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of divination, and presumption is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, he has also rejected you from being king.” -1 Sam. 15:22-23
Isaiah 1:11 and following describes God rejecting the sacrifices of Israel because of their faithlessness demonstrated by hypocrisy and oppression.
Hosea 6:6 says "For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings." Amos 5 repeats this theme.
Proverbs 15:8 says "The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord"
This is why you need to read the Bible in light of the Bible, because you cannot read it in it's own context otherwise.
Posted on 3/27/26 at 10:45 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:You are reading into Irenaeus more than there is there to read into. The Church didn't accept those gospels only on the word of Irenaeus, but I guess that doesn't matter to you, since you aren't concerned with truth. You want to grab on to every reason imaginable to not be held accountable for your sins. You can't run from the truth forever.
Wrong. The gospels being anonymous is absolutely relevant. It means Irenaeus made up the traditions out of a desire for credibility which the gospels didn’t have - they were considered cleverly devised myths to many Christians. Welp, there are 4 cardinal directions and 4 winds, therefore Matthew Mark Luke and John wrote the only 4 gospels we should all have.
Posted on 3/27/26 at 10:48 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:So you're telling me that a document that started as a Jewish fan-fiction and then was added to as Christian fan-fiction was then further added to by Christians to make the fan-fiction sound more orthodox is a true representation of what Paul believed, because certain parts of the writing may represent an interpretation of Jesus only being in Heaven and never actually coming to earth (though that isn't the scholarly view), and so we can have confidence that Paul taught what you think he taught and not what is consistent with Christian teaching from the beginning? OK
This was the only part of your retard post worth responding to. If you knew what you were talking about, you’d know the part you quoted is the “pocket gospel” (as scholars call it) which was a later Christian addition made in the Ethiopic Ge’ez language and isn’t found in the copies in Aramaic and Greek and Syriac.
Posted on 3/28/26 at 4:18 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
So you're telling me that a document that started as a Jewish fan-fiction and then was added to as Christian fan-fiction was then further added to by Christians to make the fan-fiction sound more orthodox is a true representation of what Paul believed,
It’s all fan fiction, including your Bible.
Posted on 3/29/26 at 1:11 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:
Can you ask coherent and thoughtful questions?
Don’t mistake your inability to read texts with others’ ability to ask coherent and thoughtful questions.
A previous poster interjected a question about the centurion in Mt. 8: “. . . wouldn’t it be more polite to invite Jesus into one’s home? . . .” Mt. 8:13, “But the centurion replied, “Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof, but only say the word, and my servant will be healed.”
If Jesus is who the centurion thinks He is, then his house, i.e., “under his roof,” is not worthy to host Jesus. He doesn’t speak on the level of hospitality or manners or decorum, but on the level of moral character. It’s a means of expressing how highly he thinks of the Lord Jesus. In your view, this is allegory. In Matthew’s view, it is the precursor for the centurion’s expression of faith.
BTW, this would be a good line of repentance for you – “I am not worthy.”
A similar sentiment is given in Matthew from John the Baptist who states with respect to Jesus, “. . . whose sandals I am not worthy to carry” (Mt. 3:11). Again, it is not a matter of whether a servant ought to carry his master’s sandals. Of course he should. But John the Baptist frames it in terms of essential being: because of who Jesus is in His person, I am not worthy to perform even the most menial of servant duties. Perhaps one of your scholarly knuckleheads can tell you if the same Greek word is used in both pericopes.
So, was the question “are sandals allegory too” coherent and thoughtful?
Posted on 3/29/26 at 7:24 pm to AlwysATgr
quote:
So, was the question “are sandals allegory too” coherent and thoughtful?
I lost track of what was argued and what your response was about. The gospel of Mark was 100% allegory - “cleverly devised myth” as the author of 2 Peter cites his adversaries (the Christians who believed Jesus was a celestial deity who had never come to earth as a man.
Posted on 3/29/26 at 7:42 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
You haven't proven that 1 Timothy is not Paul's writing, and there is really good reason why Christians have always believed it to be from his hand. In that writing, he refers to Jesus standing before Pontius Pilate.
One third of the Greek vocabulary of 1 Timothy is unique compared to the seven “genuine” Pauline epistles. Also consider the difference in theology - in 1 Timothy “Paul” describes the requirements of a bishop is to be married to one wife, but the real Paul wrote that Christians should not get married at all because it didn’t matter because the world was about to end.
quote:
Calvinists are directly in-line with Paul and the rest of the Scriptures. I think you are confused.
quote:
I explained this already. And no, I didn't make up anything. It's a historical understanding of the genealogy, not some made up idea that originated in my brain.
No you didn’t make it up yourself but you could have considering it’s fabricated nonsense.
quote:
you're getting frustrated with the length of my posts and how thoroughly your arguments are being torn to shreds.
quote:
That's not what the text says. That's you forcing something outside the text into the text. The text of Ephesians 4 says "the earth", not some lower heavenly realm above the earth.
No retard, it says the lower regions of the earth or something like that (I ain’t looking it up for you). It means Sheol. It doesn’t say just “the earth” you liar.
quote:
Again, he said "far above all the Heavens", not into the 7th Heaven. Far above all the Heavens would mean above this 7th Heaven that you claim Paul is referring to. You have to read the actual text. That seems to be a consistent struggle for you.
You struggle to understand biblical cosmology especially the seven firmaments.
quote:
The sacrifices of the OT were not pleasing to God in themselves, but for what they represented. God despised the sacrifices of the hypocrites, which couldn't happen if the sacrifice did anything in and of itself.
Yeah, God detests animal sacrifice so much (you scripture cherry-picker
) and human sacrifice so much that he doesn’t like the smell of those 14 clean animal burnt offerings after the ark and he doesn’t send his “son” as a sacrifice to be killed. Posted on 3/30/26 at 1:12 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Do you have a solid understanding of how Paul can write that Jesus was from Abraham's seed and from David's seed yet? You seem to think this "messianic material" was comprised of David's literal sperm but haven't been able to nail down how Paul can be talking about "seed" in a genealogical sense, as his writings demonstrate
Paul could’ve meant that God had preserved David’s literal sperm from his testicles to fabricate a body for Jesus. Or he could’ve been writing metaphorically, as in all Christians (even gentiles) are adopted sons of Abraham. In Galatians 4 when Paul is writing or metaphorical mothers, Paul uses the Greek word “made” for Jesus’ body specifically and uses “begotten” for humans on earth. The author of Hebrews specifically says Jesus’ body was made by God.
Every single time Paul describes Jesus it is “made” or “come into being” from the seed of David or Abraham or “made” of woman.
Every single time Paul describes a human on earth is it “begotten” or “born” from the seed of so and so or “begotten” or “born” of woman.
Posted on 3/30/26 at 11:44 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:
I lost track of what was argued and what your response was about. The gospel of Mark was 100% allegory - “cleverly devised myth” as the author of 2 Peter cites his adversaries (the Christians who believed Jesus was a celestial deity who had never come to earth as a man.
Sadly, your scholars failed you.
They didn't teach you how to read texts or think critically, nor apparently how to follow a basic paper trail. But alas, it hasn't slowed you. True to form, you just pivot to some other unfounded claim.
Maybe you should study chemistry before you regale us with your next installment of jackassery. Or do your little scholar gods consider chemistry allegory also?
Posted on 4/2/26 at 3:58 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:The Bible is God's word. Your conspiracy theories about Paul are much closer to fan-fiction.
It’s all fan fiction, including your Bible.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 4:19 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:That's actually to be expected for a few different reasons, particularly due to the audience (writing to Timothy rather than an entire church or presbytery), and the topic (writing about church order, primarily). If it were written later in Paul's life, it could also account for some differences, as writing can change over time. There are more things I could say, but the point is that it has enough internal evidence to show that it's Paul's writing.
One third of the Greek vocabulary of 1 Timothy is unique compared to the seven “genuine” Pauline epistles.
quote:This is a poor argument, because Paul wasn't commanding bishops/elders to be married, but to be a husband of one wife. That speaks to monogamy, not a requirement for marriage.
Also consider the difference in theology - in 1 Timothy “Paul” describes the requirements of a bishop is to be married to one wife, but the real Paul wrote that Christians should not get married at all because it didn’t matter because the world was about to end.
quote:Please state your case. I'd much rather defend Calvinism than the basics of the Christian faith against conspiracy theories that no one accepts but a few looney skeptics who are hostile towards Christianity and history.
quote:You might as well say, "everything I disagree with is fabricated nonsense".
No you didn’t make it up yourself but you could have considering it’s fabricated nonsense.
You say that while you disagree with the majority report on the historicity of Jesus, clinging to the fringe ideas of a few "scholars". I don't think you should be telling anyone that you think they are making up nonsense.
quote:Well the Greek uses the word for Earth or land, not for Sheol.
No retard, it says the lower regions of the earth or something like that (I ain’t looking it up for you). It means Sheol. It doesn’t say just “the earth” you liar.
In fact, in the OT, the Septuagint uses the word hades as the Greek equivilent for the Hebrew Sheol. Paul uses hades in 1 Corinthians 15:55 when quoting from Hosea 13. So Paul could certainly have used Sheol (Hades) if he pleased, but he didn't.
Perhaps you should stop calling me a "retard" and a "liar" without checking the facts. Strange, since you keep saying you only care about the facts.
quote:It's not a struggle with cosmology. You are struggling with the grammar.
You struggle to understand biblical cosmology especially the seven firmaments.
quote:God likes worshipful obedience by faith. That was the point I was making. God approved of the sacrifices in the OT and Christ's sacrifice in the NT because of faithful obedience.
Yeah, God detests animal sacrifice so much (you scripture cherry-picker ) and human sacrifice so much that he doesn’t like the smell of those 14 clean animal burnt offerings after the ark and he doesn’t send his “son” as a sacrifice to be killed.
This isn't cherry-picking.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 4:31 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:The issue isn't actually with the word "made" vs. "begotten", since "made" simply means to come from or to be, and is used a lot. It makes sense that he differentiates the birth of Jesus from the birth of all other humans precisely because Jesus isn't a mere human. But again, that's besides the point.
Paul could’ve meant that God had preserved David’s literal sperm from his testicles to fabricate a body for Jesus. Or he could’ve been writing metaphorically, as in all Christians (even gentiles) are adopted sons of Abraham. In Galatians 4 when Paul is writing or metaphorical mothers, Paul uses the Greek word “made” for Jesus’ body specifically and uses “begotten” for humans on earth. The author of Hebrews specifically says Jesus’ body was made by God.
Every single time Paul describes Jesus it is “made” or “come into being” from the seed of David or Abraham or “made” of woman.
Every single time Paul describes a human on earth is it “begotten” or “born” from the seed of so and so or “begotten” or “born” of woman.
I want to focus on this laughable theory that you are fixated on, that Paul was thinking of literal sperm when he was talking about the word "seed".
First of all, Paul didn't just say that Jesus was "made" of a woman from sperm. Paul was referring to natural generation. You can tell this from Romans 9:3, when Paul refers to himself as a Jew "according to the flesh", which is the phrase he uses to refer to Jesus as the seed of David, "according to the flesh" in Romans 1:3. Paul wasn't indicating that he was one with his countrymen (the Jews) as someone created from sperm, but coming from the same lineage. Just a few verses later in Romans 9, Paul speaks to Jesus descending from the fathers (of Israel) "according to the flesh", so he didn't even speak of "seed" in that verse. It's clear he's referring to Jesus as a Jew, which indicates earthly lineage.
You have to use the rest of the language Paul uses, not just focus on one word.
In addition, in 2 Corinthians 11:22, he says that he, himself is the "seed of Abraham". Is he referring to himself as sperm here? In Galatians 3:29, he says that if you (Christians) belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed.
Is he saying I'm Abraham's literal sperm? Or, is it just when he's talking about Jesus in one verse than he's referring to literal sperm? Or when speaking of the one verse about David's sperm?
I think you need to rethink this conspiracy theory, since it just doesn't work.
This post was edited on 4/2/26 at 11:37 pm
Posted on 4/3/26 at 7:51 am to AlwysATgr
quote:
Sadly, your scholars failed you.
Don’t need a scholar to tell me Mark is entirely an allegorical myth - he states as much. You’re one of the outsiders he mentions - you believe the mythical tale as history rather than understanding the deeper cosmic meaning, so you won’t be saved. I also don’t need a scholar to tell me that some christians were insiders who knew the gospels were cleverly devised myths - because the second century forger of 2 Peter was an outsider who was duped into believing the myths were historical.
Posted on 4/3/26 at 8:23 am to FooManChoo
quote:
This is a poor argument, because Paul wasn't commanding bishops/elders to be married, but to be a husband of one wife. That speaks to monogamy, not a requirement for marriage.
Stupidity and lack of awareness all in one package. It doesn’t surprise me you would write something like that.
quote:
Well the Greek uses the word for Earth or land, not for Sheol. In fact, in the OT, the Septuagint uses the word hades as the Greek equivilent for the Hebrew Sheol. Paul uses hades in 1 Corinthians 15:55 when quoting from Hosea 13. So Paul could certainly have used Sheol (Hades) if he pleased, but he didn't. Perhaps you should stop calling me a "retard" and a "liar" without checking the facts. Strange, since you keep saying you only care about the facts.
Strong’s concordance calls it Hades. Your precious church fathers argue “Paul” means Hades in that context, even though it wasn’t written by the historical Paul.
quote:
It's not a struggle with cosmology. You are struggling with the grammar.
No, that’s you as usual alleging other people are guilty of the crime you commit.
Posted on 4/3/26 at 10:06 am to FooManChoo
quote:
The issue isn't actually with the word "made" vs. "begotten", since "made" simply means to come from or to be, and is used a lot. It makes sense that he differentiates the birth of Jesus from the birth of all other humans precisely because Jesus isn't a mere human.
Let me fix that for ya:
It makes sense that he differentiates the creation of Jesus’ body from the birth of all other humans precisely because Jesus was made, not begotten, according to Paul, which is why this topic had to be “settled” at Nicea as Paul’s gospel conflicted with the gospels of Matthew and Luke if taken literally.
quote:
I want to focus on this laughable theory that you are fixated on, that Paul was thinking of literal sperm when he was talking about the word "seed".
“Seed” in English is the Greek word “sperm” and you know that.
quote:
First of all, Paul didn't just say that Jesus was "made" of a woman from sperm. Paul was referring to natural generation. You can tell this from Romans 9:3, when Paul refers to himself as a Jew "according to the flesh"
Paul simply means he is a Jewish man, not a gentile adopted into Judaism.
quote:
It's clear he's referring to Jesus as a Jew, which indicates earthly lineage.
He definitely believed the body God created and prepared for Jesus was that of the substance of a Jewish kingly/messiah male. It doesn’t indicate earthly lineage because he never once uses “begotten” to describe Jesus but always “made”. And you know this.
quote:
In addition, in 2 Corinthians 11:22, he says that he, himself is the "seed of Abraham". Is he referring to himself as sperm here? In Galatians 3:29, he says that if you (Christians) belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed.
Yes this is clearly allegorical. Applying the same to Jesus would mean Jesus is an allegorical adopted son, not a biological offspring.
Page 36 of 37
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News