- 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: Religious Leaders Told to 'Prepare Now' for UFO Disclosure and 'Bible-Changing' Revelation
Posted on 5/13/26 at 12:34 pm to moneyg
Posted on 5/13/26 at 12:34 pm to moneyg
quote:
Christians believe Jesus is God. So, clearly this new savior is going to have a position on that.
My phrasing should inform you of just that.
And not all Christians believe Jesus is God.
quote:all you need to know is that the teachings of Jesus in this scenario did not encapsulate the full word of God, and this new savior is adding to the Canon in conflict with Christianity in places, similar to how Christianity was in conflict with Judaism in places.
My understanding to your hypothetical is that this guy IS the "new savior". In order to tell you how this impacts my Christianity, I would have to know what this "new savior" tells us about Jesus.
Nothing else needs to be discussed for this scenario for you to give an answer.
1
Posted on 5/13/26 at 12:36 pm to moneyg
quote:
I'm just trying to understand what you are laying out.
It is very simple.
You and he just keep fighting it to avoid deeper examination.
Although I'm curious how he'll respond to the "aliens are also in God's image" thought experiment, which specifically counters his dismissal of the very issue being discussed
Posted on 5/13/26 at 12:43 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
My phrasing should inform you of just that.
It doesn't. Please lay it out.
quote:
And not all Christians believe Jesus is God.
The large majority do, and I can only comment for those that do. I cannot comment for those that do not. My comments would not necessarily apply to them.
quote:
all you need to know is that the teachings of Jesus in this scenario did not encapsulate the full word of God, and this new savior is adding to the Canon in conflict with Christianity in places, similar to how Christianity was in conflict with Judaism in places.
You are asking me to explain how this would impact my Christianity. You don't get to tell me what I do and do not need to know. That's nonsensical.
What I'm saying is pretty straightforward.
If I'm accepting the premise that this guy IS the "new savior" and was sent by my "God", then I need to understand what this "new savior" tells us about Jesus. Obviously this "new savior" saying Jesus is God would impact Christians differently than him saying Jesus was a false prophet.
Lay out the scenario.
Posted on 5/13/26 at 12:43 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Even if God gave them this different Bible?
Well all Christians claim the bible was guided by divinity yet Christians cannot agree on which bible to use.
Protestant Bibles are different from Christian Bibles which are different from Orthodox Bibles which are different for the original bible.
But yet you sit there trying to argue with one who is the knowledge of all things Biblical.
You are very determined. I will give you that.
Posted on 5/13/26 at 12:44 pm to Squirrelmeister
That reminds me of the game Half-Life 2.
This post was edited on 5/13/26 at 12:47 pm
Posted on 5/13/26 at 12:45 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It is very simple.
You and he just keep fighting it to avoid deeper examination.
I'm not fighting anything. I'm trying to understand what you are describing.
It's just a hypothetical. So, lay it out in detail.
Posted on 5/13/26 at 12:47 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
I'm engaging in a theological discussion from a Christian perspective and providing what I believe to be gospel truths (from the Bible, itself) intended for the good of those who are perishing that they may be saved. If you think that sounds "proudly pious", then I can't help your perception. However, from a Christian perspective, it seems weird to condemn the preaching of the gospel for the salvation of sinners when that is what I believe is the kindest and most moral thing to do.
You are not preaching.
You are admonishing. If you think different, you should reread your posts and the verbiage used.
Posted on 5/13/26 at 12:54 pm to moneyg
quote:
It doesn't.
It does. They would not be the same thing, in that scenario.
quote:
You are asking me to explain how this would impact my Christianity.
I never asked about your specific view of Christianity.
quote:
You don't get to tell me what I do and do not need to know. That's nonsensical.
quote:
You don't get to tell me what I do and do not need to know. That's nonsensical.
We're discussing my hypothetical scenario. I do get to tell you what that hypothetical is, and you don't get to change it
quote:
If I'm accepting the premise that this guy IS the "new savior" and was sent by my "God", then I need to understand what this "new savior" tells us about Jesus. Obviously this "new savior" saying Jesus is God would impact Christians differently than him saying Jesus was a false prophet.
I specifically created a hypothetical where Jesus would not be a "fake prophet" just as Abrhaam and Moses would not be fake prophets.
quote:
and this new savior is adding to the Canon in conflict with Christianity in places, similar to how Christianity was in conflict with Judaism in places.
Read the words posted.
Posted on 5/13/26 at 12:57 pm to moneyg
quote:
I'm not fighting anything.
You keep, literally, fighting a very simple hypothetical
And I've been very patient and kind with you in this endeavor.
quote:
I'm trying to understand what you are describing.
I've explained this very simple concept about 10 times by now.
quote:
It's just a hypothetical. So, lay it out in detail.
This is all the detail you really need, if you're paticipating honestly.
quote:
A better question is how significant a fact/variable would need to be in order to have an impact on Christianity by being left out of the Bible
A new holy book?
A new savior?
A proclamation of polytheism?
Clearly these would significantly change Christianity as it's understood on Earth, correct?
These are the very easy examples. There would be more complicated ones, naturally, to determine " how significant a fact/variable would need to be in order to have an impact on Christianity by being left out of the Bible". A new savior or book would CLEARLY impact Christianity on Earth. This is the incredibly easy portion of the Q&A, like asking if 4 is the answer to 2+2.
Posted on 5/13/26 at 1:08 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It does. They would not be the same thing, in that scenario.
What would not be the same thing? You aren't being clear. Just lay out the scenario you want me to opine on.
quote:
I never asked about your specific view of Christianity.
The underlying question is whether or not something (in this case the scenario you are describing) would have a major impact on Christianity. While I admit I can't speak for all Christians, It's my belief that the large majority will agree with me.
quote:
We're discussing my hypothetical scenario. I do get to tell you what that hypothetical is, and you don't get to change it
But, you have to lay it out in detail. I'm telling you that what this new savior says about Jesus is necessary for me to answer your question. Are you saying that this "new savior" does not address the topic and that I have to answer without this information?
I mean, at its core, Christianity is about belief in Jesus Christ so any discussion would seem to have to include some statement about Jesus.
quote:
I specifically created a hypothetical where Jesus would not be a "fake prophet" just as Abrhaam and Moses would not be fake prophets.
Neither Abraham nor Moses were considered God, or the Son of God. Are you saying that this "new savior" states that Jesus was not the "Son of God" and is not "God" but was a prophet?
Posted on 5/13/26 at 1:13 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
This is all the detail you really need, if you're paticipating honestly.
That's ridiculous.
Answer my questions specifically. Either give me an answer...or do what you did to some of my questions and say that I don't get to know that.
I'm asking some pretty down the middle of the fairway questions here. You are asking about impacts on Christianity and I'm asking what the "new savior" is claiming about Jesus.
This shouldn't tie you in so many knots.
Posted on 5/13/26 at 1:15 pm to moneyg
quote:
What would not be the same thing? You aren't being clear
You're just lost and forgot what was being discussed.
Jesus and God would not be the same thing, in that scenario. My language made this clear.
quote:
But, you have to lay it out in detail.
I laid out the important details. The rest aren't relevant. You're just trying to focus on the irrelevancies for some reason.
quote:
Neither Abraham nor Moses were considered God, or the Son of God.
Again, a distinction without a difference.
You need to work on responding relevantly.
quote:
Are you saying that this "new savior" states that Jesus was not the "Son of God" and is not "God" but was a prophet?
You REALLY need to work on responding relevantly.
Posted on 5/13/26 at 1:18 pm to moneyg
quote:
That's ridiculous.
No it focuses us on the important parts and not attempts at obfuscation and focusing on irrelevant digressions
Posted on 5/13/26 at 1:52 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
From my perspective, I believe God is the source of all knowledge and wisdom, and that we cannot understand reality apart from Him. This is often times referred to as the transcendental argument for the existence of God: the proof of God's existence is that if He didn't exist, you couldn't prove anything.
That sounds like textbook circular reasoning.
Another example is:
Hypothetical you: “God wrote the bible”
Hypothetical me: “How do you know”
Hypothetical you: “Because it says so in the bible”
Posted on 5/13/26 at 1:54 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
That's why something like aliens being left out presents the potential for conflict with the Bible.
Jesus blew off his 'John the Baptist' as Elias comment and declined to succinctly address the idea of 'reincarnation'. I.e., that our current life is based on some pre-existing version and a judgement based on the eternal justice of being judged and rewarded or punished by OUR works. If God truly "numbers the hairs on our head" it would be ludicrous to assume that God would not be actively involved in determining where and who a particular individual was born as in a current or future life. As that determination essentially defines what said individual would likely become. Progressive Secularist use this as an argument for the non-existence of God, and therein, the "life's lottery" narrative required to address social injustice via DEI. Evil born into a form which THEY earned, are given a pass a "random" consequence of an amoral Nature.
Jesus surely knew that OT Jewish Theology believed in a "resurrection", and even today's Judaism believes such. I've listened to persuasive apologetics from very intelligent Jewish Rabbis and their arguments are both morally, practically and philosophically sound. Foo is far more able to address this than me; though I assume he discounts any 'reincarnation' theory out of hand. Albeit the philosophical and moral basis of the argument remains a curse on Christian Theology, which is exploited by Satan's Angels via a false pseudo altruism.
Regardless, if God's Truth is eternal and unchangeable, then the Judgement which Christians hope for into our next life, was by the same metric of 'Predestination' and justice wherein many of us appeared into this blessed (or cursed) life. I.e., our works, and not God's whims. God cannot be Unjust. Albeit the Mercy Card of Jesus is always in play, though "Grace is measured".
Bottom line: there are things that current Humanity cannot understand and put in a proper and total perspective. We would be confused and simplistic beliefs and systems would collapse, as an incomplete assessment of what is essentially a Paradoxical ("I create Evil...") Creative Paradigm would be counterproductive. Calamitous even, as even Trump admitted that "if you knew what I know, you wouldn't expose it either". Children cannot handle some truths.
IMO, such paradox also has a divine purpose, and one that we will only understand when we are able to judge from a more 'elevated' spiritual context. Which we will attain pretty soon. We'll have to, or else.
Posted on 5/13/26 at 2:36 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You're just lost and forgot what was being discussed.
Jesus and God would not be the same thing, in that scenario. My language made this clear.
It was not clear but thanks for clearing that up.
So, to summarize the scenario (let me know if I get this right)
* There is a "new savior" and the premise is that he's legit and sent from God. This is a premise that must be accepted.
* Nobody knows this definitively...but that is the Truth.
* The new savior has clarified that Jesus was not God or Christ. But, he was "holy" in some way in a similar capacity to the way Jesus spoke of Abraham or Moses.
Is that the scenario?
Posted on 5/13/26 at 2:51 pm to Willie Stroker
quote:
That sounds like textbook circular reasoning.
Another example is:
Hypothetical you: “God wrote the bible”
Hypothetical me: “How do you know”
Hypothetical you: “Because it says so in the bible”
Exactly.
However he sprinkles in outside sources when he feels it supports his worldview, additionally.
Posted on 5/13/26 at 2:52 pm to moneyg
quote:
Is that the scenario?
You're over complicating it and adding details that are not necessary, and some that I did not say.
Posted on 5/13/26 at 2:54 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You're over complicating it and adding details that are not necessary, and some that I did not say.
ok
Which ones? Clarify so that I can answer the question.
Posted on 5/13/26 at 3:06 pm to NashvilleTider
quote:quote:this is pure BS - the OVERWHELMING view of scholars is that there was a historical Jesus
There is a growing number of scholars who admit Jesus was a complete myth.
It’s not BS. You’re confused. There is absolutely a growing number of scholars who admit Jesus was a myth, while at the same time still the majority defends the position that Jesus was a historical person.
quote:
Even Bart Erman (dude is going to have quote the millstone tied around his neck when he dies - I'd hate to be him) says it's irrefutable that there was ahistorical Jesus.
Have you heard his arguments??? He says the gospels are completely unreliable about anything historical, that outside the gospels the historical Jesus isn’t really mentioned, that Josephus’ blurbs about Jesus were Christian additions. Basically he says there is no reliable information at all about Jesus, but come on man he must’ve existed. It’s an awful argument and isn’t scholarly. At best he should say there’s no way to know but he leans towards a historical model, but he acts like mythicists are idiots. He’s the idiot.
His colleagues and peers I’m positive are mythicists but they don’t want to offend the guy they idolize. After the older scholars kick the bucket in the next 15 years the mythicists will come out of the closet and it will be mainstream.
Page 39 of 44
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News