quote:
No, you don’t. You have opinions and conjecture. The best you could do is to agree with me, in that neither of us can prove anything beyond doubt.

You have no scientifically verifiable evidence. There is scientifically variable evidence to the contrary. Modern theories such as gravity theory, germ theory, newton’s laws of motion, thermodynamics, and biological evolution, etc. all disprove the Bible. We know demon possession doesn’t cause seizures. We know the earth is a sphere and rotates around the sun, and that there was never a global flood and that humans evolved from earlier mammals. To deny that is to deny reality.

quote:
So, literally every culture has their own version of the Great Flood- and you dismiss it out of hand? So, everybody’s wrong? Absolutely no one got it right?

Easily verifiable using science. There is no such evidence of a global flood ever found, so such a false claim can be dismissed without evidence.

You think Noah caught some polar bears and penguins and koalas and sloths and fed them, then sent them back to the North Pole, South Pole, Australia and South America? The flood lasted 40 days, 150 days, or close to a year depending on the Bible verse. Everything died right? What were all those animals supposed to eat?

It’s a fable, a myth.

quote:
Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny, and (ironically) Bart Ehrman would disagree.

Doctored ancient writings. On Bart Ehrman, he’s an outlier. He believes there was a historical man named Jesus but doesn’t believe in the tomb. He actually has some articles and speeches on the subject of Roman crucifixion and about how the purpose was to leave the bodies up to rot and to be eaten by scavengers. If that find is real, it would be the exception and not the norm.

quote:
And Darwin developed his “theory” of evolution with today’s equivalent of a third grader’s understanding of the complexity of the human cell

Why put theory in quotes? A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that can be or has been repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Evolution is in the company of germ theory, theory of relativity, atomic theory, and theories of plate tectonics and gravity.

quote:
This was not about physical illness-

Jesus didn’t know about microscopic life or germs. I disagree with you.

quote:
It’s legit? Because it was copied in several languages? Dianetics has been copied into 54 languages. Yet it is still outright dismissed as

The Ascension of Isaiah is legitimate in that it was widely shared and copied in many languages and is an ancient document to around 100CE and it must’ve been believed by many. It is not legit in its content being reality, but neither are any of the other gospels consistent with reality either.

Dianetics? You think that is foolish eh? How you feel about Dianetics is how I feel about your Bible and beliefs. Imagine that!

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by Prodigal Son

Member since May 2023

1602 posts

Posted on 8/1/23 at 11:24 pm to Squirrelmeister

quote:
Paul doesn’t state that. He says the archons killed the lord of glory. He doesn’t say they ordered a hit

Paul’s letters are complimentary to the gospel accounts of Jesus’ crucifixion, and addressed to believers. There was no need for Paul to reiterate what was already known. However, if he was trying to proclaim a different message, regarding the crucifixion, he would have needed to specifically mention these cockamamie ideas that you espouse. He doesn’t.

quote:
I never said he denies the physical crucifixion. I think Paul really believed Jesus was crucified physically. I just don’t believe he believed it was on earth.

Based on what?

quote:
the Ascension of Isaiah

Ohhh…. right. The pseudepigrapha. False writings. I’m sure that there is truth to be found in the pseudepigrapha, with some theological deception sprinkled in. The Holy Canon of Scripture warns us about these things, and those who promote them:
2 Timothy 4:3–4 (NASB95): For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires,
4 and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.

Couple that with:
Acts 20:29–30 (NASB95): I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock;
30 and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.

Not to mention the several verses on false prophets and false teachers.

quote:
This is Paul. Notice “appearance as a man”. He didn’t say he was a man.

I actually LOL’d at this. Honestly, you make me laugh often. Thank you for that.

quote:
This again aligns with the gospel Ascension of Isaiah

Of course it does. (Eyeroll)

quote:
Paul doesn’t write about Pilate

1 Timothy 6:13 (NASB95): I charge you in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who testified the good confession before Pontius Pilate,

As I was reading, this also seemed pertinent to our discussion:
1 Timothy 6:3–5 (NASB95): ?If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness,
4 he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions,
5 and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain.

quote:
how would it make any sense for Jesus to be descended from David?

quote:
Why do the two conflicting genealogies go back to David when Jesus isn’t the biological offspring of any of them and certainly not Joseph.

Got questions.org/Son of David
“ The answer is that Christ (the Messiah) was the fulfillment of the prophecy of the seed of David (2 Samuel 7:12–16). Jesus is the promised Messiah, which means He had to be of the lineage of David. Matthew 1 gives the genealogical proof that Jesus, in His humanity, was a direct descendant of Abraham and David through Joseph, Jesus’ legal father. The genealogy in Luke 3 traces Jesus’ lineage through His mother, Mary. Jesus is a descendant of David by adoption through Joseph and by blood through Mary. “As to his earthly life [Christ Jesus] was a descendant of David” (Romans 1:3).”
To fulfill prophecy, Jesus was legally Joseph’s Son (Jews are big into legality), and by blood through Mary. The genealogies do not conflict. Rather, they compliment each other.

quote:
The only thing that makes sense to me

1 Corinthians 2:14 (NASB95): But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

John 6:44 (NASB95): “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.

Who knows what a day brings forth; for I also once was lost, but now I’m found. As long as there is breath in your lungs- there is hope. I believe Peter, when he says:
2 Peter 3:9 (NASB95): The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

Good night, my friend.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Squirrelmeister

Member since Nov 2021

3429 posts

Posted on 8/2/23 at 7:09 am to Prodigal Son

quote:
Paul’s letters are complimentary to the gospel accounts of Jesus’ crucifixion, and addressed to believers. There was no need for Paul to reiterate what was already known.

Paul states the crucifixion was physical. Paul states Jesus descended down from heaven. Paul states that what they were up against was the rulers and principalities and powers in the sky/heavens. Paul states the rulers of this age (which resides in the sky) killed Jesus. We know Jesus would have been descending from the highest heaven. We can use context clues to understand that when Jesus crossed the domain of the rulers (archons) that they killed Jesus while he eas passing through their domain. This is exactly how it is spelled out in the Ascension of Isaiah gospel.

quote:
Ohhh…. right. The pseudepigrapha. False writings. I’m sure that there is truth to be found in the pseudepigrapha, with some theological deception sprinkled in. The Holy Canon of Scripture warns us about these things, and those who promote them: 2 Timothy 4:3–4

We can see you don’t put any trust or faith in pseudepigrapha. Yes I agree that the Ascension of Isaiah is pseudepigrapha. However, most of the canonical scriptures are pseudepigrapha, including the very next book 2 Timothy from which you were quoting. Maybe you didn’t realize it, and if so, I’d implore you to do a little personal research on the subject.

quote:
quote:This is Paul. Notice “appearance as a man”. He didn’t say he was a man.
I actually LOL’d at this. Honestly, you make me laugh often. Thank you for that.

It wasn’t meant to be funny. Words matter. Appearance of a man is different from actually being a man. For instance, a biological female could have a double mastectomy and get roided and man appear as a man but isn’t actually a man. “Appearance of a man” was used for hundreds of years by church fathers to argue that Jesus wasn’t really a man… until the orthodox view of Jesus being fully man and also fully divine simultaneously won out around 400 years after Paul’s writings.

quote:
“ The answer is that Christ (the Messiah) was the fulfillment of the prophecy of the seed of David (2 Samuel 7:12–16). Jesus is the promised Messiah, which means He had to be of the lineage of David. Matthew 1 gives the genealogical proof that Jesus, in His humanity, was a direct descendant of Abraham and David through Joseph, Jesus’ legal father.

I have to disagree with that. Paul states Jesus’ body was made of the sperm of David. This implies a biological connection of Jesus to David himself. Matthew then claims Jesus was not a biological descendent of David nor was he made of the sperm of David but rather he was linked only through adoption. It’s a contradiction between Paul and Matthew, but really it is Matthew trying to overwrite Paul, in the same way Matthew overwrote Mark, and Luke overwrote Paul, Mark, and Matthew.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Prodigal Son

Member since May 2023

1602 posts

Posted on 8/3/23 at 6:37 am to Squirrelmeister

Are you an atheist, or a Gnostic?

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Squirrelmeister

Member since Nov 2021

3429 posts

Posted on 8/3/23 at 8:37 am to Prodigal Son

Rather than answering directly, I’ll quote from scripture (ESV).

1 Corinthians 2:

quote:
6Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. 7But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. 8None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

1 Corinthians 3:

quote:
1But I, brothers,a could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ. 2I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it. And even now you are not yet ready, 3for you are still of the flesh. For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving only in a human way?

2 Corinthians 4:4

quote:
3And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

Galatians 1:

quote:
1Paul, an apostle—not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead— 2and all the brothers who are with me,
……
11For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel. 12For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Ephesians 3:

quote:
1For this reason I, Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus on behalf of you Gentiles— 2assuming that you have heard of the stewardship of God’s grace that was given to me for you, 3how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I have written briefly. 4When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. 6This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel. 7Of this gospel I was made a minister according to the gift of God’s grace, which was given me by the working of his power. 8To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God, who created all things, 10so that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places.

Ephesians 6:12

quote:
For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.

Colossians 1:

quote:
24Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church, 25of which I became a minister according to the stewardship from God that was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known, 26the mystery hidden for ages and generations but now revealed to his saints.

Then we get to Mark 4:

quote:
10And when he was alone, those around him with the twelve asked him about the parables. 11And he said to them, “To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables, 12so that “‘they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand, lest they should turn and be forgiven.’”

In summary, Paul says he has hidden secret knowledge to distribute, but he can’t simply tell everyone about it… they have to be mature in his church. They get little pieces of info, parables, “milk”, until they are mature enough for “meat”. He learned about all this secret hidden knowledge not by or from any man, but direct hallucinations or visions. Paul says we struggle not against flesh and blood, but against the archons of age who crucified Jesus. The god of this age (the chief ruler, maybe Satan) has blinded the minds of unbelievers. Then we get to Mark and realized the “Jesus” character in Mark is talking in parables and giving “milk” to newcomers just like Paul. Is it possible Mark itself is entirely a parable??? Parable to help people understand that Jesus was the unique son of God who saves them from their sins, without having to understand all the cosmic stuff????

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Prodigal Son

Member since May 2023

1602 posts

Posted on 8/3/23 at 1:00 pm to Squirrelmeister

quote:
Rather than answering directly, I’ll quote from scripture (ESV).

I expected nothing less! In our first posts, you proclaimed that there is no God, and that science proves it. Now you’re speaking as though there is- just not the God of the Bible, and that Gnosticism is the truth. I’m having a hard time shaking the thought that you are just desperately searching for some way- any way, other than faith in Jesus, to escape the Truth.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Squirrelmeister

Member since Nov 2021

3429 posts

Posted on 8/3/23 at 2:55 pm to Prodigal Son

Not desperately searching. Not even searching.

Escape the “Truth” with a capital “T”? That’s a job off of people of faith in magic supernatural beings.

Early Christian history is fascinating to me. I think Paul - the actual real man - had what you might call “Gnostic” beliefs but even that is a continuum of beliefs. Paul believed the great archangel descended from the 7th heaven (Paul himself claims to have visited the 3rd heaven

) in a body God made for him of the sperm of David to purposely trick the archons in the lowest heaven into killing him to use his blood as a final sacrifice to renew creation. Blood of a divine archangel was way more effective than the yearly sacrifice of goats. Paul believed God (the father, El Elyon, god most high) resurrected his archangel and then exalted him to sit at his right hand and bestowed on him the name Jesus. Paul purported to believe he had a vision of Jesus who gave him the secrets and hidden wisdom of personal eternal salvation. It’s all in Paul’s epistles if you read Paul for Paul rather than trying to mix in the myths and fabrications of the later gospels.

Most of the later Egyptian gnostics in the 150-400CE timeframe actually believed the god of the Hebrew Bible was the god of this age (Satan). They called him the demiurge. Marcion had the most popular version of gentile Christianity and he thought the same thing about Yahweh being the demiurge. Paul differed from those beliefs in the Paul thought Jesus was Yahweh. That’s why I’m saying there was a Gnostic continuum- not all gnostics held the same beliefs.

I was actually talking with a guy yesterday and he brought up his faith without me commenting or saying anything. He said he knows it’s probably all fake, and that religion is for weak people, but he is weak and he has to believe in something. That’s the kind of honest people we need in society, and not intolerant people telling others to repent or they’ll burn in eternal hellfire.

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by Prodigal Son

Member since May 2023

1602 posts

Posted on 8/4/23 at 6:53 pm to Squirrelmeister

quote:
Not desperately searching. Not even searching

Fair enough. So, you’re absolutely sure that there is no God? Or, perhaps deep down you believe that there is- but that you will catch Him on your way out? Buzzer beater? I mean, the question of the afterlife is the most important question to answer, no? After all, we will spend infinitely more time there than here.

quote:
Early Christian history is fascinating to me.

Me too. What’s your motivation?

quote:
I think Paul - the actual real man - had what you might call “Gnostic” beliefs

I think we will have to agree to disagree. Since, neither of us can prove it. (Seems to be a recurring theme throughout our conversation)

quote:
Most of the later Egyptian gnostics in the 150-400CE timeframe actually believed the god of the Hebrew Bible was the god of this age (Satan).

No surprise here, as Gnosticism and Christianity are opposed to each other.

quote:
Marcion had the most popular version of gentile Christianity

Gnosticism, atheism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, etc.. There are many vehicles traveling the broad path to destruction.

quote:
was actually talking with a guy yesterday and he brought up his faith without me commenting or saying anything. He said he knows it’s probably all fake, and that religion is for weak people, but he is weak and he has to believe in something

I got saved when I was 12. Did good for 4 years. Had sex. I lived as a hypocrite for a couple of years before I convinced myself that I had to be hot or cold. I chose cold. That was well over 20 years ago. During those 20 years, I would have agreed with you, or anyone else who could help me hide from God. I wasn’t searching for the truth then either. I really liked to party.
Then, I got married and had kids. I didn’t immediately start thinking “Man, I need to get back in church.” To the contrary; Life was great- I was making money, had a beautiful wife and children, great friends- we still partied - a truly privileged life. But in my rare moments of sober solitude… I knew that something was missing. I began to realize the effect that my poor choices were having on my beloved family and friends. I began to realize the true cost of my decisions.
I fought harder- drank more, smoked more, partied harder and more often. God never gave up on me. A few years ago, I finally decided to go back to Him. Because I knew that I would find true peace nowhere else. It’s been a process, but, I can say with all certainty that there absolutely is peace in Jesus Christ. Everyone close to me has benefited from this decision. My family and friends are seeking Him- and I see the difference in their lives. That’s all I want for everyone. That is my motivation.

Ask yourself- even if you don’t believe, why would you want to destroy the hopes of others; something that delivers people from addiction encourages them to live a morally correct life? What is the pro/con breakdown of, not only living the Christian life, but merely allowing others to? What is your motivation?

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by FooManChoo

Member since Dec 2012

46064 posts

Posted on 8/11/23 at 11:10 am to Squirrelmeister

quote:
Hope this helps.

This YouTube video (by a religious science-denying nut) is a very good explanation of what the Bible says is the firmament. I think it’ll help you to correct your ignorance on the subject.
Firmament in scripture

Didn't help. I'm not a "flat earther" and there are several interpretations of what the firmament actually is, because the Bible uses unscientific, broad terms to discuss reality at times due to the limitations of the people who initially received the revelation from God.

quote:
quote:
You aren't interested in truth.

No, that’s literally you.

No, that's literally you, because you deny the truth when it is presented to you. You don't provide rational arguments for why you deny it, only that you prefer to deny it. You then support your lack of interest in the truth with appeals to other authorities and use your skewed interpretation to dictate what is true rather than letting the only unbiased, objective, and perfectly truthful source of truth (God) help you out in that area.

quote:
Arguing by stating known observable and repeatable scientific facts doesn’t work on nutcases. You wouldn’t believe in hard proven sciences of evolution or genetics or geology if it slapped you in the face.

Here you wrongly assume that "facts" are brute, but they aren't. All information must be interpreted, and this is where that bathtub analogy comes back into play. You interpret facts in light of your naturalistic and materialistic presuppositions and therefore you come to different conclusions than I do when I interpret facts according to my presuppositions based on my commitment to the revelation of a truthful, unchanging, and all-knowing God. You think you are neutral, but you aren't. It's precisely why you can't fathom anyone thinking any differently than you when it comes to scientific pursuits, because there must only be one way to interpret things (your way), and anyone else must be a "nutcase"

quote:
The strategy is to find something you believe that really does exist, and show you the Bible refutes your own beliefs.

It always comes down to authority. I believe that God has the authority to give us the truth and to interpret the truth (which is why I use the Bible to interpret the Bible), while you believe that man is the ultimate authority in all things (and why you use yourself or other men outside the Bible to guide your interpretation of the Bible).

You treat the Bible differently in your hermeneutical approach than I'm sure you do to any other writing or documented material. I'm sure you do what most rational people do by letting the author or writing explain (or interpret) itself by reading things within their context. However when you come to the Bible, you don't do that. You've shown time and time again that you are happy to point to a single passage, verse, phrase, or even word to support what you want the Bible to say while completely ignoring it's surround context. You become irrational when it comes to the Bible.

quote:
How can you make that statement? You can’t prove FSM doesn’t exist.

I can prove the FSM doesn't exist by necessary consequence (the impossibility of the contrary).

P1. Only the God of the Bible provides the necessary preconditions for intelligibility of human experience
P2. Human experience is intelligible
--------------
C1. The God of the Bible exists

And this leads to:

P3. The God of the Bible has revealed that there are no other gods besides Him (Isa 43:10; 44:6-8; 45;5; Deut. 32:39; 2 Kings 5:15)
P4. God cannot lie (Num. 23:19; 1 Sam. 15:29; Heb. 6:18)
--------------
C2. God is telling the truth that there are no other gods besides the God of the Bible (including the FSM)

There are a lot of other propositions and conclusions that are baked into these, such as the character and nature of God (perfection in all His attributes), but the point is that if the God of the Bible exists, then by necessary consequence, the FSM does not exist. And if Pastafarianism was anything more than a joke meant to mock religion broadly and Christianity specifically, I'd take it seriously enough to do an internal critique of it to show how it either doesn't claim anything necessary for it to comport with reality, or it contradicts itself to the point of being untrustworthy (not to mention that it was a "religion" created entirely to mock Intelligent Design arguments, so the existence of the FSM is based entirely on the mind of one person rather than on revelation from outside of the human experience).

quote:
you are the dumbest person on this message board. Sorry.

I might be, but truth isn't determined by how smart or dumb I am. Truth is truth regardless of whether I am persuaded by it (by intellect, emotion, or something else).

You, on the other hand, seem to be an intelligent person, yet you have rejected the truth because your problem isn't an intellectual one, but a moral one. You refuse to accept what is true because your heart (the seat of your desires) won't accept it. Your sinful nature prevents you from seeing the truth, and you desire to live in ignorance as much as possible and rebellion where ignorance isn't possible.

quote:
No, we don’t. My views are based on scientific facts. Your beliefs are from faith, because you have no evidence, but if you did and the evidence was verifiable, it wouldn’t be faith any longer.

You again seem to misunderstand the nature of the argument. You can't seem to grasp (or don't want to) that the issue is not in the "evidence", but in how such evidence is interpreted and understood. A rock is a rock, but it's our assumptions about that rock that lead us to one conclusion or another. You assume absolute uniformity in nature from a materialistic perspective, so that lends itself to different conclusions when when looking at radiocarbon dating assumptions, rock layer assumptions, and other things that you assume from the outset and then claim you are objective in your reasoning (from "scientific fact"). You don't prove the assumptions that you hold to prior to looking at the evidence; you just declare that the evidence supports your understanding because of your unstated assumptions.

quote:
I already told you 10 times there is subjective morality. Go back and re-read my posts.

If subjective morality is all there is, you have no rational basis for praising anything or condemning anything as if such things are objectively good or bad. All you can say is "I personally like what he did" or "I don't like that", but you can't say it's morally right or wrong to do anything.

You make comments on this forum like the God of the Bible is objectively immoral, yet claim that morality is subjective. You contradict yourself. If you admit that morality is entirely subjective, then that makes your condemnation of the God of the Bible absolutely meaningless, because it makes your critique nothing more than your personal preference. Just like your favorite flavor of ice cream provides no meaning to whether or not certain ice cream is the "best", so too your personal flavor of morality means nothing to what morality is "best".

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by Prodigal Son

Member since May 2023

1602 posts

Posted on 8/11/23 at 11:49 am to Squirrelmeister

quote:
Ask yourself- even if you don’t believe, why would you want to destroy the hopes of others; something that delivers people from addiction encourages them to live a morally correct life? What is the pro/con breakdown of, not only living the Christian life, but merely allowing others to? What is your motivation

Are you going to answer?

Page First 13 14 15