re: Trump: "Saint Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle."

quote:

---

Sure she is

---

you think having a good looking girl is a big deal? are you some piece of trash done good or something?

you support abortion?

quote:

---

But you fake conservatives need to stfu about it. Its a losing strategy

---

no nation is worth child sacrifice.

going along with it for "muh prosperity" is still a horrible thing. i'll still vote for trump just like last time. i don't worship trump, america or the dollar like some of you.

quote:

---

You sound like an idiot

---

i can see where someone like you would think that.

quote:

---

Christ talks about the coming of a New Covenant at the Last Supper in Matthew 26.

---

But he also says that every dot and tittle of the law is to be followed until heaven and earth pass away and a new heaven and new earth is built by god ushering into his kingdom. Last I checked we still have the same earth. Jesus also said he who doesn’t follow the Torah will be least in the kingdom of God. All of those old covenants are also said to be everlasting and eternal.

quote:

---

The Great Commission of Matthew 28, where Christ tells his disciples to go out and make disciples of all nations - baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

---

That’s a good one because Matthew 28:19 is a straight up forgery. Eusebius, the bishop of Caesarea in the early 4th century CE quoted from this verse. In fact we have the records to show he quoted this verse in his writings 17 times. Here’s what that verse originally said before someone changed it:

quote:

---

Go and make disciples of all nations in my name.

---

Uh oh, looks like we caught someone altering the scripture to put trinitarian language into the gospel where it doesn’t exist.

quote:

---

The controversy in the early Church had more to do with the fact that the disciples thought the Jews would convert first and THEN they would go out and preach to the Gentiles

---

There were many controversies. One of the main ones was apostolic succession. I’d say Peter and James most likely hated Paul and the feeling was mutual. Peter and James were the proponents of the Torah and circumcision. Paul said the Torah was a curse and couldn’t be followed and wasn’t necessary and could bring salvation. Later on you had orthodox, Markionites, and Gnostic groups forming all with different ideas and theologies, from Jesus is Yahweh incarnate, to Yahweh is Satan and Jesus came to rescue the Jews from their evil god.

Paul always had little man syndrome. He said and I not free? Am I not an apostle? have I not seen the Lord? I’m paraphrasing because I didn’t look it up but what he was saying was that he had as much authority as Peter and James because - like them - he too had seen / visions of the Lord. At that point in time, the stories of the man Jesus walking around with the 12 stooges hadn’t yet been invented. This entire religion started with the religion and prophecies and expectations of the Essenes at Qumran of Dead Sea Scrolls fame. Then at some point, several guys like Peter, James, and Paul said they’d seen the visions of the heavenly Jesus who said it was all about to go down and Jesus was about to come to judge the living and the dead.

Pay close attention to the writings of Paul (7 genuine undisputed letters) plus 1 Peter plus James plus Revelation and Hebrews. All these books were written before the gospels. Not a single one mentions Jesus healing the sick or raising the dead or teaching in the temple or turning a couple fish to a feast. Not a single one references the “return” or “coming back” of Jesus. None. They all talk about the “coming” of the Lord Jesus.

quote:

---

But he also says that every dot and tittle of the law is to be followed until heaven and earth pass away and a new heaven and new earth is built by god ushering into his kingdom.

---

That's not exactly what he said. His true words were the following:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”

Christ is saying a couple of things here. First, which should be obvious, he is claiming to be the fulfillment of the Law of Moses. Now, what does the word "fulfill" mean? According to Webster's, it is defined thusly: "the achievement of something desired, promised, or predicted."

This is him confirming to his following that he is the promised Messiah and that everything that has come before has been building up to him. The Mosaic Law, the Prophets, everything that the Jews have fought for and held faith for all lead to him. And while one can definitely take from the second part of his passage that the Law will remain in place until the end of time, you are forgetting one important thing - he IS the Law of Moses. In the flesh. And here he is hinting at the New Covenant that Paul talks about in his epistles.

And that New Covenant is born when Christ sacrifices himself on the cross. Remember how he says, "until all is accomplished" in the verse I quoted up above? What does Christ say shortly before he bows his head and dies?

"It is accomplished."

quote:

---

That’s a good one because Matthew 28:19 is a straight up forgery.

---

This view does not have any widespread acceptance in biblical scholarship. All known Greek manuscripts, going back to the oldest ones in existence, have the Trinitarian formula in them. We also have the work of second century Church Fathers - such as Tertullian and Hippolytus - referring to Matthew 28:19 and supporting its Trinitarian formula.

On top of their writings, we also have the words from the Didache - a late first century/early second century Christian document that uses the Trinitarian formula for baptism:

“But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize. Having first recited all these precepts, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in running water; but if thou hast not running water, baptize in other water, and if thou canst not in cold, then in warm. But if thou hast neither, pour water thrice on the head in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” (Didache 7:1-4).

Most scholars place the Didache between the years AD 50-100, making it one of the oldest Christian documents found outside the New Testament.

quote:

---

There were many controversies. One of the main ones was apostolic succession. I’d say Peter and James most likely hated Paul and the feeling was mutual. Peter and James were the proponents of the Torah and circumcision.

---

1. There is no evidence that Peter and James hated Paul after Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus. He spent two weeks with both of them upon his return to Jerusalem. Though it's certainly likely that both Peter and Paul had their disagreements considering they were both reportedly very stubborn men.

2. James was a proponent of the Torah; Peter road the middle ground. And yet both of them sided with Paul and Barnabas at the Council of Jerusalem.

quote:

---

What does Christ say shortly before he bows his head and dies? "It is accomplished."

---

Eli Eli Lama Sabachtani?

No, wait, he said Into your hands I commend my spirit!

quote:

---

For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”

---

You guys all skip over the part about heaven and earth passing away. The Law is in effect until heaven and earth pass away.

quote:

---

This view does not have any widespread acceptance in biblical scholarship.

---

False.

quote:

---

All known Greek manuscripts, going back to the oldest ones in existence, have the Trinitarian formula in them.

---

Sure, but that wasn’t my argument. But Eusebius in the late 300s was quoting from a different version without the trinitarian formula. Which do you think is most likely? An edit to add the trinitarian formula that they were all arguing about that eventually “won”, or do you think they edited the document to remove the trinitarian formula?

quote:

---

Most scholars place the Didache between the years AD 50-100, making it one of the oldest Christian documents found outside the New Testament.

---

I’ve read this is allegedly a second century manuscript but it doesn’t get mentioned by anyone else until the 4th century. Maybe it really is second century but it could date to the 4th. It could be source the source material for the “improvement” to Matthew.

quote:

---

There is no evidence that Peter and James hated Paul after Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus

---

Hell for that matter there is no evidence Paul was converted on the road to Damascus. An anonymous heresay tale about him (Acts) claims that’s where he saw Jesus, but Paul never actually mentions where he saw Jesus. Well that’s not entirely true neither because Paul does say he was taken up to the third heaven (whether in the body or out of the body he did not know). So Paul was a flat earther who believed in layers of firmaments and heavens above the earth. I’m getting off track.

Paul was writing letters to his churches addressing concerns his churches had that he was a false prophet. It must’ve been someone high up in the Christian community to cause that kind of concern in his churches. Who was higher than James and Peter? Paul said the Torah was a curse that didn’t lead to salvation. Peter and James saw the Torah as a gift. That’s a pretty big conflict. Maybe they didn’t hate each other but they thought the other was teaching a false gospel and that’s a pretty nasty accusation. Someone - probably James or Peter or someone high up and associated with them - called into question Paul’s apostolic authority. That’s for the most part why Paul wrote much of his letters.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Eli Eli Lama Sabachtani? No, wait, he said Into your hands I commend my spirit!

---

Or he could have said all three?

---

The very last words Jesus ever spoke would have and should have been theologically significant. The gospel writers that we have in our canon (and not the other 66 non canonical gospels with 66 other versions of Jesus’ last words) intentionally edited and redacted the text of the earlier gospel to make their own new and improved gospel have Jesus saying something different… and totally opposing the other/older last sayings of Jesus.

My god, my god, why have you forsaken me: kind of sounds like Jesus doesn’t know or understand why the Father is letting this happen to him.

Father into your hands I commit my spirit: this doesn’t portray Jesus not being in control and not knowing why or what’s going on.

It is finished: this makes out Jesus to know exactly what was going on and why it was happening.

Now I don’t believe any of that is historical. However, even if one of them was historical, for example especially John, then it wouldn’t make any logical sense for Jesus to also have said what he is alleged to have said in Mark and Matthew as his last words.

quote:

---

The law remains in effect. He is the Law of Moses. We've gone over this. His death and resurrection brought about a new covenant of that Law which he foreshadowed at the Last Supper.

---

You don’t know the scripture. And it’s weak that you say Jesus is the law of Moses. Sorry, your presuppositions and dogma blind you to these very plain and easy to read sentences:

quote:

---

18For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

---

The gospel Jesus in Matthew is clearly referring to the Torah, the law, the commandments. Heaven and earth haven’t passed away (yet). The commandments of the Torah are still in effect per this version of Jesus. Jesus is not a commandment. You are equating a fictional god-man with a written list of dos and don’ts. That’s just silly.

quote:

---

However, not only do we have writings from him QUOTING the Trinitarian formula,

---

Got a link?

quote:

---

True, Paul never gives a narrative tale like the one we see in the Book of Acts (a sequel to the Gospel of Luke), but in his letters he alludes multiple times to having seen the risen Jesus

---

Sure, and at least one of his visions he was in the third firmament above the flat earth.

quote:

---

bringing greetings to the Colossians in Paul's letter to them

---

That’s weird because Paul didn’t write the epistle to the Colossians we have in our Bible. Scholars called it Deutero-Pauline or Pauline Pseudopigrapha. It means it’s a forgery but likely forged by someone in Paul’s camp, and maybe a follower of Paul.

quote:

---

With all of that said, there is absolutely no evidence that Paul, Peter, and James were in any kind of theological conflict. As stated in an earlier post, we have direct evidence from the text that Peter and James agreed with Paul's theology

---

One said all the Old Testament laws given by Yahweh were a curse. The others embraced the OT laws given by Yahweh. A big point of contention was if the gentiles needed to get circumcised. After all, the Bible does say that circumcision is an everlasting covenant (Genesis 17:13). In fact the word used “Olam” as the everlasting covenant of circumcision is used as a name of God/a god as “El Olam”. Sometimes the word is translated as “forever”. You get the point. Or maybe you don’t.

You say there’s no evidence of Paul’s theology conflicting with James and Peter. I guess you won’t believe Paul when you read that divinely inspired epistle to the Galatians.

quote:

---

11But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.a 13And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. 14But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

---

You could read that and say that Paul and James and Peter were in complete agreement? C’mon man you are smarter than that.

P.S. Cephas = Peter

quote:

---

You made that up. You made up your own false gospel. The prophets warned their followers to be wary of false gospel messages.

---

I'm not making anything up. That's just the plain grammar of the text.

quote:

---

Except the Jesus of “Matthew” says not to take a walking stick.

---

No it doesn't. The text says "acquire...no staff" in the translation you provided. It doesn't say that if you are holding one in your hand (which would have been common for Jesus and the disciples since they were walking all of the place all the time) that you can't use it. This speaks to excess, as I mentioned.

quote:

---

Let’s see what else you’re wrong about…

Jesus told them to bring a staff in “Mark” and not to bring a staff in “Matthew”. The part about extra you made up to rationalize what is irreconcilable without the presupposition of univocality, which itself is a result of your dogma, not based on any actual evidence of univocality in the many different manuscripts written and edited and appended by hundreds of authors (with varying theology and radically different agendas) for nearly 700-800 years.

---

Where are you showing me wrong here? You make the claim that Matthew and Mark contradict and I gave a plausible grammatical way to reconcile the two accounts. Technically, that's all that is needed to disprove a contradiction. A contradiction is where there is no plausible way to reconcile two diametrically opposite statements. You might not like or agree with my explanation but as long as it is plausible--or at least possible--then a contradiction is not necessary.

You want there to be a contradiction and so you're going to be dismissive of any possible explanation that gets in the way of that. It's why you keep saying that I'm making up something when I'm calling attention to what theologians have commented on for centuries, seeing the same things. I hate to disappoint you, but I don't have any unique thoughts on Christianity, and in my perspective, that's a good thing.

quote:

---

It’s why I’m taking my time to argue with you.

---

It seems to be not that you care about truth (why should you with your atheistic worldview?) but that you want to destroy the faith of Christians by attacking your creator. If you truly cared about the truth, you would argue a point until the end rather than making baseless claims and conspiracy theories and then moving on to the next subject as soon as you get some pushback, as you've done many times in the past. Your strategy seems to be to overwhelm your opponents with long posts filled with many different scatter-shot topics and ideas that make it so difficult to adequately respond to that you "win" by default. Few people take the time to respond to you in detail because of this. While I might be quite wordy in my own responses, I generally keep everything related to the conversation at hand, unlike you generally do.

quote:

---

Do you really want to get into John 8:44? You know the one where Jesus calls the Pharisees the children of the Devil, equates the Devil to Yahweh, and tells them they are not of the seed of Abraham? The Abraham who ate bread and drank wine with Melchizedek, the high priest of El Elyon? We can get into the weeds there if you want.

---

I don't want to get in to it again, no, because you didn't listen any time we've gone through it. I've shown you at least once from the text why your particular thoughts about the various gods of the Old Testament are not correct but you are incredulous because, again, your position contradicts the Bible and the orthodox teachings of Christianity for the past 2,000+ years. It seems to be your goal to make Christians (or anyone being evangelized by Christians) question the narrative. You and Dan Brown would probably be good friends.

quote:

---

I reject all your substandard apologetics. Does that count?

---

No. You need to reject the lies that you have read and concocted in your own mind.

quote:

---

There’s no truth in an imaginary Hellenistic Jewish dying and rising savior god, just like there’s no truth in Mithras or Osiris or Dionysus. Sorry but that is the truth. Reality, get you some!

---

There is truth in the historical reality of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, dying for the sins of His people. You are rejecting the truth and you will get what you want in Hell, though you won't be happy about it. Repent.

quote:

---

It seems to be not that you care about truth (why should you with your atheistic worldview?) but that you want to destroy the faith of Christians by attacking your creator. If you truly cared about the truth, you would argue a point until the end rather than making baseless claims and conspiracy theories and then moving on to the next subject as soon as you get some pushback, as you've done many times in the past. Your strategy seems to be to overwhelm your opponents with long posts filled with many different scatter-shot topics and ideas that make it so difficult to adequately respond to that you "win" by default.

---

quote:

---

It seems to be your goal to make Christians (or anyone being evangelized by Christians) question the narrative. You and Dan Brown would probably be good friends.

---

Those seem accurate descriptions and criticisms of Squirrelmeister’s tactics, methods, and motivations fairly presented. It’s disappointing to see God given rhetorical skills and intellectual gifts used to disavow their Giver.

1 Corinthians 16:13-14.