- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Interesting how "Evangelicals" are separating themselves from "Protestants".
Posted on 10/10/25 at 9:50 am to somethingdifferent
Posted on 10/10/25 at 9:50 am to somethingdifferent
quote:
He does not say he's quoting from 1 Enoch. You are reading something into the text that's not there which is eisegesis.
Ok. Let’s check it out.
Here’s Jude:
quote:
14It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones,
15to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”
Here’s 1 Enoch, Book of Watchers, Chapter 1 Verse 9:
quote:
9 And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones to execute judgement upon all, And to destroy all the ungodly: And to convict all flesh Of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed, And of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.
It’s not a word for word quote. We don’t even know if the version of 1 Enoch that Jude has was the exact same version or even in the same language. After all, 1 Enoch was found in Gaez, Aramaic, Syrian, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin all over the eastern Mediterranean. Every modern scholar acknowledges that Jude was quoting 1 Enoch.
Jude said Enoch prophesied, which means divinely inspired. Jude would never met Enoch (no one did, he was ahistorical) but Jude believed what came from Enoch was divinely inspired, and since he never spoke with Enoch, all he would have had was what was believed to be what was recorded about what Enoch said, as in a written record.
You’re not even trying to read the text or even being sensible. Jude wrote that Enoch said, “…”. Do you understand what it means to quote something or someone? Frankly you’re being obtuse.
This post was edited on 10/10/25 at 9:51 am
1
Posted on 10/10/25 at 9:57 am to somethingdifferent
quote:quote:Historically false. Do you know why he was excommunicated?
there wasn’t one until Marcion of Sinope made a canon
I’m not responding to the rest of your crap. You have your head squarely up your arse.
That Marcion made the first canon and the first bible is not even debated based on the available evidence. Even jackasses like FooLaneCraig probably admit this. The orthodox/catholic church responded to Marcion, who they viewed as a heretic, by crafting their own canon and bible but used Marcion’s as a starting point.
Posted on 10/10/25 at 10:03 am to Mr. Misanthrope
quote:Given that he didn't chop his arm off and say eat/drink this, it should be pretty self evident
What do you base that on?
quote:No, but it does show the dearth of substantiation from antiquity. Catholics don't even have the lowest hanging fruit on this matter, and pretty much every matter, FTR
Is Patristic support the final arbiter of Holy Scripture?
quote:No you didn't. You read into the text and I rejected it because it makes no sense. If the elements were his actual body, why would he need the elements at all? He could have just performed a miracle with his body
I provided the support of Holy Scripture. You reject it out of hand
quote:Why didn't any of the Apostles or Patristics agree with the transubstantiation view? There's little to no evidence they thought the elements were the actual body. Again, Catholics have no biblical justification and no clear support from the Apostles or the Patristics. Why would anyone put any stock into something that doesn't have clear, unequivocal support straight from Jesus or his disciples? Because it's about emotional attachment to the man made institution, not theological or historical objectivity
I exhibited the Scriptural witness the RCC uses to support “The Real Presence” in response to a post that said they had neither Jesus’s words nor Apostolic words supporting any RCC doctrine
Posted on 10/10/25 at 10:09 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:The vast majority of people who have lived since that time would disagree with you, especially people from the West
His metaphors and parables are too complicated and unclear
quote:Ugh. Jesus' followers, the eyewitnesses, did not believe it was a parable and perpetuated his teaching as if it were real history.
That this was a clue that the entire gospel of Mark was a parable
quote:lol
Jesus who was killed by the archons in heaven.
quote:Who told you that?
Jesus is supposed to be Melchizedek
Posted on 10/10/25 at 10:34 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:I'm not missing any parts
You missed the part
quote:If you know the traditional conception of faith, you know this quote is not it
not everyone who says to Jesus “Lord, Lord” will be saved
quote:I'm not even going to address that because you started from a false premise.
There’s two main ways to resolve this
quote:There’s a chasm of a difference between Dan M appealing to an academic consensus on a YouTube short without providing the names of the scholars who disagree with that view, thus undermining his assertion, and acknowledging the witness of pretty much every theologian since the time of Jesus, with the exception of some later, misguided Catholics
here you use the consensus of theologians and pastors
quote:All of this is patently, completely false and based on juvenile, emotional misunderstanding of basically the entire NT
the “sola fide” people just outright ignore and reject the plain meaning of what they claim to believe as Jesus’ own words when Jesus rejects “faith alone”
quote:As a RESULT of transformation.
explains one must actually DO good deeds and follow the Jewish Law
quote:What passage are you referring to?
He said one must follow every dot and iota of the Torah
quote:Yes. Meaning their keeping of the regulations, like Catholics do, is not what makes them righteous or confers special grace upon them
one must be more righteous than the Pharisees to be saved.
quote:There is evidence that Jesus existed and there is not evidence that he didn't. Where are the eyewitness accounts from antiquity that contradict the biblical eyewitness testimony? It doesn't exist. Your whole belief is based on a lie.
Paul’s teachings… a guy who never even met the historical Jesus (well, no one has
quote:He didn't add anything. It's all over the NT
He added “alone” (in German of course) to Romans 3:28
Posted on 10/10/25 at 11:10 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:lol
If you’re not afraid
quote:This illustrates why the gnostic-like tendencies of the essenes prevented their beliefs from ever being fully accepted by the people of God
you should read and or research the Melchizedek Scroll 11Q13
Posted on 10/10/25 at 11:12 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:Yes it most certainly is. Jesus had heated debates with the Pharisees because they did not believe in sola fide
that’s not what Jesus said
Posted on 10/10/25 at 11:13 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:So what?
Melchizedek as the Qumran community thought of him
Posted on 10/10/25 at 11:14 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:They're not contradictory genius
why you can ignore Jesus in favor of Paul
Posted on 10/10/25 at 11:28 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:I've been asking for substantiation for about 10 pages now. I walked away sad because none was given
There is
quote:If by flustered you mean laughing, then sure. He's a buffoon that clearly has an axe to grind. His whole shtick is documentary hypothesis which was refuted about 100 years ago
Your Internet buddy has you flustered?
quote:You know sometimes this isn't for beneficial reasons, right?
is I think the most widely known and watched biblical scholar in the world
quote:I already laughingly mentioned this several pages ago. It's a pathetic argument from silence that has swayed about zero real scholars. I read that book about 20 years ago. I think it's currently a doorstop in the shed out back
You can maybe start here if you’re serious
quote:Yawn. How many of their Jewish buddies jumped on board? lol
These two guys are both PhDs and professors and Jewish and their credentials are too long to list
Posted on 10/10/25 at 11:32 am to Mo Jeaux
quote:Not only can I outline his case, I can even outline the refutations. GASP! There are people who disagree with his recycled nonsense which means there really isn't a consensus? GET RIGHT OUT OF TOWN
You can stop pretending that you’re at all familiar with his works
Posted on 10/10/25 at 11:32 am to Mo Jeaux
quote:Let us know when you want to grow up, little fella
What a sad way to go through life
Posted on 10/10/25 at 11:38 am to Mr. Misanthrope
quote:False
it had and still has Apostolic and Scriptural authority
quote:Meaning the gospel and its outworking, which matches then rest of scripture. Not a million miles of Catholic paperwork. Trying to stretch that word is eisegesis.
maintain the traditions
quote:How do you get the Magisterium from this? That is super eisegesis
That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels
Posted on 10/10/25 at 11:40 am to Mo Jeaux
quote:Prove it champ
You lie
quote:Prove it champ
It’s pretty clear that you do not
quote:That's the mo we know and love. Stay golden ponyboy. lol
I think you can go frick yourself
Posted on 10/10/25 at 11:51 am to somethingdifferent
quote:
Jesus is supposed to be MelchizedekWho told you that?
Check Hebrews chapters 5 through 7.
Posted on 10/10/25 at 12:03 pm to somethingdifferent
quote:quote:If you know the traditional conception of faith, you know this quote is not it
not everyone who says to Jesus “Lord, Lord” will be saved
False
quote:quote:What passage are you referring to?
He said one must follow every dot and iota of the Torah
Sermon on the Mount, Matthew chapter 5. You should read it.
quote:quote:Yes. Meaning their keeping of the regulations, like Catholics do, is not what makes them righteous or confers special grace upon them
one must be more righteous than the Pharisees to be saved.
You’re not understanding anything. Read Matthew chapter 5. The previous sentence to being more righteous than the Pharisees is him telling his followers for anyone relaxing any regulation of the Law - the Torah - will be least in his kingdom. Catholics eat pork and shrimp and don’t keep the sabbath and so on. Catholics aren’t following the Law as Jesus says to do in Matthew.
quote:
There is evidence that Jesus existed and there is not evidence that he didn't.
The evidence is stronger Jesus didn’t exist, and the evidence shows Jews were worshipping a heavenly Jesus figure, who they called Kyrios (Lord) or the Logos and Melchizedek (depending on Greek or Hebrew speaking communities) as early as the first century BCE.
quote:
Where are the eyewitness accounts from antiquity that contradict the biblical eyewitness testimony? It doesn't exist.
I forgot you believe all claims of eyewitness accounts, which is why you believe Muhammad had visions of God or Gabriel and that Joseph Smith had visions of Moroni. You are gullible.
I hope you are never a member of 12 jurors of your peers.
quote:quote:He didn't add anything. It's all over the NT
He added “alone” (in German of course) to Romans 3:28
He did. This is easily verifiable by anyone and it is acknowledged by Martin Luther because he defended his addition. Take some time, actually look some of this stuff because you look worse than a fool.
ETA: this is what Martin Luther wrote about his addition of “alone”.
quote:
Wenn nun dein Papist daherläuft und schreit: Du, Martinus, sagst: allein! Ist es doch das Wort nicht in Paulus geschrieben usw.,
so antworte ihm kurz:
Doctor Martinus will’s so haben; und spricht: Papist und Esel sind einerlei.
quote:
If now your papist comes running and shouts: 'You, Martin, say: alone! But the word is not written in Paul, etc.',
then answer him briefly:
Dr. Martin wants it that way; and says: papist and donkey are the same thing.
So quit talking out of your arse. You are alleging things false that are easily verifiable and agreed on by both religious nuts and atheists.
This post was edited on 10/10/25 at 1:54 pm
Posted on 10/10/25 at 12:51 pm to somethingdifferent
quote:
And this is of course a logical fallacy called argumentum ad verecundiam
Notice how Mo and squirrel have yet to outline the contrasting position/advocates which completely undermines the claim of "consensus"
More bullshite and lies. Par for the course.
Posted on 10/10/25 at 12:55 pm to somethingdifferent
quote:
It's a pathetic argument from silence that has swayed about zero real scholars. I read that book about 20 years ago. I think it's currently a doorstop in the shed out back
More bullshite. Posted on 10/10/25 at 1:28 pm to gaetti15
quote:You mean according to scripture. God's word and the words of Jesus
Everything the Church does is interpretedly wrongly according to you folks
quote:No such thing. Show me the quote from Jesus
Ill stick with the visible Church that was created by Jesus Christ
quote:Where is the substantiation for this? Quotes from them about pedobaptism or the Magisterium or Apostolic succession or indulgences or anything distinctively Catholic
and carried out by his apostles
quote:So 1 Catholic defender quits without providing quotes from Jesus. But then continues to be Catholic. Just as I thought. It's emotional not objective
Im done with this thread
Posted on 10/10/25 at 1:30 pm to Mo Jeaux
quote:You haven't provided anything of substance mo. You just criticize people. It's pathetic. You have nothing except juvenile retorts
A person not only admitting their ignorance
Page 29 of 33
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News