- 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 6/2/26 at 11:35 pm to PastorJ
Posted on 6/2/26 at 11:35 pm to PastorJ
quote:
There are contemporary records of Jesus's followers talking to people who would have been alive during the timeframe of Jesus. Not once does anyone say "Who are you talking about? No Jesus like that was here." Not to mention records from Romans of that timeframe.
What records are you talking about?
2
Posted on 6/2/26 at 11:47 pm to Mo Jeaux
I don't want to answer for the guy, but it seems obvious he is talking about Paul's letters.
You've also got all four gospels having been written in the first century. And while they came a good bit after Christ's death, these are relatively recent to his death and they weren't disputed. Early church leaders treated him as a recent historical figure and even a few non-Christian sources that treated him as a recent historical figure with no surviving text from the time denying him as a historical figure.
The fact is that the overwhelming majority of scholars treat Jesus as a likely historical figure. Those denying it do so dishonestly.
Squirrel tries to pass himself off as some sort of historian or scholar to be taken seriously, but this one claim "denying Christ as a historical figure" totally obliterates any credibility he thinks he has.
You've also got all four gospels having been written in the first century. And while they came a good bit after Christ's death, these are relatively recent to his death and they weren't disputed. Early church leaders treated him as a recent historical figure and even a few non-Christian sources that treated him as a recent historical figure with no surviving text from the time denying him as a historical figure.
The fact is that the overwhelming majority of scholars treat Jesus as a likely historical figure. Those denying it do so dishonestly.
Squirrel tries to pass himself off as some sort of historian or scholar to be taken seriously, but this one claim "denying Christ as a historical figure" totally obliterates any credibility he thinks he has.
This post was edited on 6/2/26 at 11:50 pm
Posted on 6/2/26 at 11:52 pm to Mo Jeaux
Tacitus for one. Got to step away but Ill be back later to post links and such about this subject.
Posted on 6/3/26 at 12:14 am to PastorJ
quote:
Tacitus for one. Got to step away but Ill be back later to post links and such about this subject.
That’s ok. I’m familiar with the Tacitus, Josephus, Suetonius, and Pliny references to Jesus. I just wasn’t sure what you were referring to.
Posted on 6/3/26 at 1:03 am to Mo Jeaux
quote:
That’s ok. I’m familiar with the Tacitus, Josephus, Suetonius, and Pliny references to Jesus. I just wasn’t sure what you were referring to.
Oh ok cool. If anyone may be interested I do have those recourses I could share.
Posted on 6/3/26 at 1:05 am to AlterEd
quote:
I don't want to answer for the guy, but it seems obvious he is talking about Paul's letters.
You've also got all four gospels having been written in the first century. And while they came a good bit after Christ's death, these are relatively recent to his death and they weren't disputed. Early church leaders treated him as a recent historical figure and even a few non-Christian sources that treated him as a recent historical figure with no surviving text from the time denying him as a historical figure.
The fact is that the overwhelming majority of scholars treat Jesus as a likely historical figure. Those denying it do so dishonestly.
Well said.
quote:
Squirrel tries to pass himself off as some sort of historian or scholar to be taken seriously, but this one claim "denying Christ as a historical figure" totally obliterates any credibility he thinks he has.
Seen that many times. Usually it's from seeing something on social media and running with it. But his position here really doesn't hold up at all.
Posted on 6/3/26 at 1:14 am to PastorJ
Yeah, I figured that was a pretty well established issue. The guy isn't a fool. I think he's just very dishonest. He gave a long list of figures most scholars will say are mythical hero types and then lumped Jesus in there with them likely knowing full well that the overwhelming academic consensus contradicts him. It's a false equivalency, bad analogy, guilt by association argument, whatever, take your pick. Oh, he tossed in a couple others he said were likely real to make it look like he was being impartial too.
The guy is arguing in bad faith and as I've been saying over and over, he is off topic the entire way. He is also condescending and just a prick about it all in general.
The guy is arguing in bad faith and as I've been saying over and over, he is off topic the entire way. He is also condescending and just a prick about it all in general.
Posted on 6/3/26 at 1:21 am to AlterEd
quote:
Yeah, I figured that was a pretty well established issue. The guy isn't a fool. I think he's just very dishonest. He gave a long list of figures most scholars will say are mythical hero types and then lumped Jesus in there with them likely knowing full well that the overwhelming academic consensus contradicts him. It's a false equivalency, bad analogy, guilt by association argument, whatever, take your pick. Oh, he tossed in a couple others he said were likely real to make it look like he was being impartial too.
Ah, I see. Pile up a bunch of stuff, throw in your own personal bias "as fact" and hope no one notices. Yeah, there's a ton of problems, as you listed. He is not on solid ground and from what you said about him I think he knows that but is trying it anyway.
quote:
The guy is arguing in bad faith and as I've been saying over and over, he is off topic the entire way. He is also condescending and just a prick about it all in general.
It seems most debates on the Internet trend this way, which is why I really do not get into debates online too much.
This post was edited on 6/3/26 at 1:22 am
Posted on 6/3/26 at 4:21 am to AlterEd
I havnt dove into the actual propulsion outside of what Lazar has talked about. Most of it is way above my head so pretty much just went with whatever Lazar said. Thanks for the new rabbit hole though,. Cheers
Posted on 6/3/26 at 7:22 am to AlterEd
quote:
The guy isn't a fool. I think he's just very dishonest.
This is the correct answer.
No Christian on this board should engage him in dialogue IMO because doing so gives him a platform to deliberately spread lies, which is what he's doing.
Posted on 6/3/26 at 8:54 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:
So you must use your interpretative lens. Do you think Yahweh is telling Moses he will make him a divine spirit being who can traverse the heavens and ride the clouds, or is the author using figurative language
I think you are trying to force your understanding of the word Elohim. It has a broader range of meaning and use than you are willing to admit. Just as we might call a superior athlete, actor or musician a “star” today while in no way understanding them to be a celestial ball of gas, this word was stretched in meaning and applied in metaphorical ways. That’s how all languages work. You even admit it to be figurative language. You are basing your whole understanding of a faith tradition on your 21st century reading a of a 3500 year old text in a language you don’t fully comprehend.
quote:
quote: Also, in a couple of other places in Torah, the judges for legal cases are called elohim This is incorrect.
quote: which is why the disputed Psalm 82 passage is sometimes interpreted that way
It’s interpreted that way because the newly “monotheistic” Jews during the time of the Roman occupation didn’t like the fact that their scriptures contained a multitude of deities.
At best, you can say that the first is debatable based on interpretation. If you want to demand your view is correct, by all mean do so, but that is not a good faith discussion.
As for your second claim, modern linguistic and religious scholarship don’t base interpretations on the opinions of first century Jews. It’s disingenuous to suggest that this is only the position of a bunch of long dead Hebrews who didn’t like their own scriptures. This kind of argument that takes a position which assumes that modern enlightened people like ourselves can better understand the thinking and beliefs of “unsophisticated” people from the past is no more provable than the view of divine inspiration.
None of this is meant as an attack on you personally, btw. Too much message board “discussion” devolves into sides and name calling. I’m not interested in that, but I enjoy discussion.
Posted on 6/3/26 at 9:21 am to AlterEd
quote:The topic of this thread was "religious leaders told to 'prepare now' for UFO disclosure and 'Bible-changing' revelation"
But as to the point about biological life from elsewhere negatively impacting Christianity, that isn't exactly what happened. It was the better part of 40 pages where you went back and forth with someone who was claiming that aliens coming to earth would invalidate the Bible. This is not the topic of the thread. That was 40 pages of just exhaustive reading that had no real bearing on the topic at hand.
The OP was about the impact on the Bible (and Bible-based beliefs) with the release of information pertaining to non-human biological life on other planets, including advanced technologies.
I've been involved in many discussions about the Bible and Christianity that had very little to do with the OP, but the discussion about the impact of Christianity in light of the existence of alien life was very closely related to the OP. I think you are demanding too much by claiming such discussions are "off topic" when they are directly related to the topic of the thread (UFO disclosure and its impact on understanding of the Bible).
quote:I think you misunderstand Christian theology on this matter. The issue of multiple religions isn't a problem with the Bible, but with those who read it. There is a doctrine called 'original sin' (which I'm sure you've heard of), which touches not just on the shared guilt that all humanity has due to our federal representative, Adam, but also that the fall of man has impacted all of being as humans, including our morality and faculty to understand spiritual things rightly.
And don't give me any shite about the biblical word being immutable or definitive. If that were the case there wouldn't be 3 separate religions based on the source material and hundreds of different Christian denominations
In other words, the reason for multiple religions, and even many different beliefs within Christianity, is due to our sinful nature, not because the Bible is in error. You can disagree with that all you like, but that's the Christian reasoning.
Posted on 6/3/26 at 9:29 am to TigerAxeOK
I agree. Would upvote again.
Posted on 6/3/26 at 10:03 am to Crimson K
quote:
I think you are trying to force your understanding of the word Elohim. It has a broader range of meaning and use than you are willing to admit.
Elohim was a term that could be used in singular sense or plural sense depending on pronouns and verb conjugations around it. It always refers to a non-mortal spirit entity. Yahweh and his father and mother and sisters were called Elohim. Subordinate/lesser spirit beings such as seraphim, cherubim, and ophanim were Elohim. Spirits of dead persons were also called Elohim.
The one passage in exodus where Yahweh says he will make Moses a Elohim to Pharoah is the closest one to an alive human being referred to as an Elohim, and it is figurative since Moses didn’t suddenly gain the ability to not have to eat, or to be able to fly or turn invisible. Every other use of Elohim in the OT and in pre-biblical texts of Israel and Canaan refer to literal spirit beings.
Translating Elohim as (human) judges is outdated and obsolete, and modern English translations correct this problem with the KJV.
quote:
Just as we might call a superior athlete, actor or musician a “star” today while in no way understanding them to be a celestial ball of gas
Biblical authors thought stars were angels, angels that could fall out of the sky.
quote:
At best, you can say that the first is debatable based on interpretation. If you want to demand your view is correct, by all mean do so
That’s true, and I will.
quote:
but that is not a good faith discussion
I don’t like the hypocrisy on this site. “You arrogant atheists think you are always right.” Which is not true - we are open minded and can be persuaded by evidence. Theists though are close minded, will believe whatever they want based on their dogmas, and can’t be persuaded. So it is you guys that argue in bad faith, while projecting your faults onto others.
quote:
None of this is meant as an attack on you personally, btw
Whether you meant it or not, you stated I argued in bad faith. I interpret that as an attack on me personally.
Posted on 6/3/26 at 10:10 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:
“You arrogant atheists think you are always right.” Which is not true - we are open minded and can be persuaded by evidence
Posted on 6/3/26 at 10:15 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:
I don’t like the hypocrisy on this site. “You arrogant atheists think you are always right.” Which is not true - we are open minded and can be persuaded by evidence. Theists though are close minded, will believe whatever they want based on their dogmas, and can’t be persuaded. So it is you guys that argue in bad faith, while projecting your faults onto others.
This has to be one of the most ironic statements ever penned on this website.
Posted on 6/3/26 at 11:54 am to AlterEd
quote:
This is not true. There are other points I could pick with your post, but if you can't get even this much correct it's obvious you don't know what the frick you're talking about.
These guys are the one's that started all of this talk. They claim to have been "briefed" by intelligence officials. Now, there have been claims of it being at the white house, and claims of it being elsewhere, but that's all semantics, as the meeting, itself, did not happen. And there is no reason the intelligence community would give a rip about "warning" these fake pastors about anything.
Posted on 6/3/26 at 12:16 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:
I don’t like the hypocrisy on this site. “You arrogant atheists think you are always right.” Which is not true - we are open minded and can be persuaded by evidence. Theists though are close minded,
If you are an Atheist, you are just as close-minded as a Theist.
quote:
A theist is a person who believes in the existence of a god or deities. An atheist is the exact opposite; they are a person who lacks the belief in, or positively denies the existence of, any gods.
If you don't believe in God, to be open-minded, you'd be an agnostic.
Posted on 6/3/26 at 12:23 pm to Enadious
quote:
you are an Atheist, you are just as close-minded as a Theist
I honestly thought that atheism was just an angsty teenage phase that rational people eventually grew out of.
Posted on 6/3/26 at 12:24 pm to Metaloctopus
As I said, I'm moving on. Good luck with whatever you're bitching about.
Page 63 of 71
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News