- 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: Trump: "Saint Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle."
Posted on 10/7/24 at 3:01 pm to Squirrelmeister
Posted on 10/7/24 at 3:01 pm to Squirrelmeister
Dude, you are going to be kneeling on rice in front of the blackboard until the End of Time once you get to Purgatory AND you'll have a Nun nagging you about all of your bad deeds in life.
1
Posted on 10/7/24 at 3:02 pm to Mr. Misanthrope
Yeah, I stopped taking him seriously when he tried to hit me with Matthew 28:19 being an "obvious forgery." His evidence was Eusebius of Caesara, a man who started out as something of a proto-Arian in the debate at the Council of Nicaea, and who therefore might have had something of an agenda when quoting Matthew 28:19.
Posted on 10/7/24 at 3:27 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:What Jesus is clearly telling His disciples is to not rely on themselves to provide for their journey but that God will provide what they need. It was a lesson in trusting God rather than in themselves for what they needed.
So your argument is that they shouldn’t acquire extra stuff they don’t already have on their person. You say maybe the disciplines were already holding a walking stick, and Jesus meant not to get an extra walking stick. Let me tell you why that’s stupid. So if they already had bags of gold silver and copper on their belt, then they can bring that, right? They can bring their existing bags they were already carrying, existing sandals (possibly more than one pair), and existing staves. Hell they might have each had 5 staves, but Jesus said “don’t get any extra staves”.
What the narratives between Mark, Luke, and Matthew tell us (if we allow for God to actually be inspiring the text) is that the disciples were allowed to bring the shoes on their feet, a single walking stick, and one tunic. They were not allowed to carry excess so that they would rely on the gracious provision of God on their journey.
Whether more than one walking stick or multiple (the staff and the rod had different purposes but were described with the same word), the point was not to bring anything extra that might hinder the speed of their journey or give reason for them to trust in themselves and their own provisions rather than the provision of God.
quote:Of course you think so. You're a fool, lacking knowledge of the truth, so the truth doesn't make sense to you.
Sorry but your argument is retarded.
quote:You completely refuse to read the Bible within its own context. The only context you allow for is extra-biblical context. No wonder you think that Christians who read the Bible according to its own context are liars. You wouldn't recognize the truth if it hit you in the face.
You are the liar, the fabricator, and the twister of the text.
quote:The arguments for the reality of the existence of Jesus are overwhelmingly compelling to me. Just because you aren't convinced doesn't mean the truth is a lie. It just means you don't believe the truth.
If you can’t show it to be the truth, then you have to stop calling it the truth, else you are lying.
Posted on 10/7/24 at 7:43 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
His evidence was Eusebius of Caesara, a man who started out as something of a proto-Arian in the debate at the Council of Nicaea, and who therefore might have had something of an agenda when quoting Matthew 28:19.
That’s the kind of tactics Foo related. Cite Eusebius and force you to counter by discrediting Squirrel’s authority by exposing his potential bias as an Arian. What ever was under scrutiny, Matthew 28:19 in your example, is lost in an octopus’s cloud of ink ending up probably talking about how Eusebius was on the path to true Gnosticism or some such silliness.
I sometimes chat with him on here. I have a burden for his soul I guess and hope Christ Jesus uses something one of us writes to help bring him back to his Creator..
Plus, I can’t abide how his abilities are wasted on nonsense sometimes.
Posted on 10/7/24 at 10:01 pm to Champagne
quote:
you'll have a Nun nagging you about all of your bad deeds in life.
Might be alright as long as she isn’t rapping me on the knuckles with her ruler.
Posted on 10/7/24 at 10:10 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
What Jesus is clearly telling His disciples is to not rely on themselves to provide for their journey but that God will provide what they need.
Yes of course and I agree but so what? In Mark he tells them not to take all their crap except they could take a staff. In Matthew, Jesus tells them not to take a staff. It’s still a contradiction and both cannot be historically accurate.
quote:
Whether more than one walking stick or multiple (the staff and the rod had different purposes but were described with the same word), the point was not to bring anything extra that might hinder the speed of their journey or give reason for them to trust in themselves and their own provisions rather than the provision of God.
Your point is moot. My point was that there’s a contradiction that cannot be reconciled unless you do like you always do and ignore what it actually says.
quote:
You completely refuse to read the Bible within its own context. The only context you allow for is extra-biblical context.
It’s not one book. It’s tens or maybe hundreds of authors and editors with a wide range of theologies written over a period of 800 years. You are the one that refuses. You don’t even acknowledge what the earliest Christian’s regarded as sacred scripture. You reject the foundational Essene and Christian scripture of 1 Enoch. You don’t even understand your own religion.
quote:
The arguments for the reality of the existence of Jesus are overwhelmingly compelling to me
Ah so if some dude puts on a wig and claims he’s a woman, you would believe him right and call him “madame”.
If you don’t have evidence to back up your assertion, and you are plainly relying on faith, and if you can’t show that something is evidently true, and you call it the truth, you are a liar. It’s fine if you say you believe it or you believe it is the truth, but quit calling it “the truth” because frankly it’s retarded.
Posted on 10/7/24 at 10:50 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
Yeah, I stopped taking him seriously when he tried to hit me with Matthew 28:19 being an "obvious forgery."
Well it is. Here you have a 4th century idea inserted probably in the 4th century.
Think about it. It wasn’t until the first Nicene council that it was agreed that Jesus is in some kind of way divine. Fast forward to the first council of Constantinople in 381 - that was when they decided that Jesus was equal to the Father and that the Holy Spirit was also co-equal and co-eternal. We have no surviving fragments of any copy of Matthew dating to older than late second century.
What about 1 John 5:7-8?
Can you spot the forgery?
quote:
7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
quote:
7For there are three that testify: 8the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.
The first was from the KJV and the second was from the ESV which uses the best most original manuscripts based on modern scholarship.
The trend to forge/edit is always in a way that suits the theology and dogma of the scribes.
quote:
His evidence was Eusebius of Caesara, a man who started out as something of a proto-Arian in the debate at the Council of Nicaea
Ad hominem attack. And maybe, just maybe, his views might have been derived from the versions of scripture he was reading, ya know without the trinitarian stuff inserted.
And in no response to Eusebius do we have anyone anywhere calling him out for “deleting the trinitarian formula”.
quote:
who therefore might have had something of an agenda when quoting Matthew 28:19.
Maybe those trinitarians in the late 4th century had an agenda?
It is an absolute fact that early Christians were making up scripture as they went. Hell there are 70 gospels. Probably even more epistles than that that aren’t in the canon because the orthodox sect of Rome declared them to be non inspired and/or forgeries. Forging documents was the Christian scribe way of life. Half the epistles attributed to Paul weren’t written by Paul. See a pattern?
Posted on 10/8/24 at 12:24 am to Squirrelmeister
I was raised in the United Church, went to bible camp; never really took to the gospel.
Saw this thread and wondered why it keeps popping up. Its parochial, pastorial, informational and fun.
Keep up the good work, everyone.
In spite of not being overly devout i do prescribe and subscribe to the system of values being talked about. And I think we need more discussion of this in our daily lives not less. I do not think we need ever make it a tenant or a promise or some minutia to be bickered about. So long as we hold the faith that righteousness need not be justified or proclaimed, but simply right we should all be fine
Saw this thread and wondered why it keeps popping up. Its parochial, pastorial, informational and fun.
Keep up the good work, everyone.
In spite of not being overly devout i do prescribe and subscribe to the system of values being talked about. And I think we need more discussion of this in our daily lives not less. I do not think we need ever make it a tenant or a promise or some minutia to be bickered about. So long as we hold the faith that righteousness need not be justified or proclaimed, but simply right we should all be fine
Posted on 10/8/24 at 6:21 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:Again, it's not necessarily a contradiction if a plausible explanation is apparent, which it is (that they were told not to bring anything extra for their journey, including multiple staves).
Yes of course and I agree but so what? In Mark he tells them not to take all their crap except they could take a staff. In Matthew, Jesus tells them not to take a staff. It’s still a contradiction and both cannot be historically accurate.
What you're doing is denying the explanation as going against the plain reading as you see it and therefore falling back to a contradiction. I think the "extra" explanation fits perfectly with the notion that Jesus was telling them to rely on God's provision rather than their own.
quote:Basic biblical hermeneutical principles include reading the text within its immediate context, within the context of the book, within the author, and within the entire Bible. You interpret harder passages by the easier ones and unclear by the clear.
Your point is moot. My point was that there’s a contradiction that cannot be reconciled unless you do like you always do and ignore what it actually says.
Since the Bible is written by many human authors but inspired by the singular author of God, who cannot lie, and therefore cannot logically contradict Himself, then whenever there is an apparent contradiction, more study is needed to understand how to understand it.
You see a paradox (the apparent contradiction) and assume it's a contradiction. I see it and look for the best way to explain why it's actually consistent. You don't see the need to do that so of course you're going to come to a different conclusion.
quote:There are many human authors but one divine author that guided the pens of each human author. That's why I see one book and not 66. You deny the divine authorship from the beginning which is why you assume 66 books are all different or even contradictory because they are written by different fallible authors. That's not the Christian position.
It’s not one book. It’s tens or maybe hundreds of authors and editors with a wide range of theologies written over a period of 800 years.
quote:It doesn't matter to me what the earliest Christians regarded as Scripture. It matters what is Scripture, because only that which is Scripture (that which is God-breathed) is authoritative to the Christian.
You are the one that refuses. You don’t even acknowledge what the earliest Christian’s regarded as sacred scripture.
quote:1 Enoch is "foundational" to Christianity? It's referenced by the Bible but so are pagan philosophers. That doesn't mean they are "foundational".
You reject the foundational Essene and Christian scripture of 1 Enoch. You don’t even understand your own religion.
You are overemphasizing that text in order to discredit the Bible altogether, or at least undermine the historic Christian teaching on what is Scripture. You seem to think that the Essenes were representative of Jewish and Christian belief at the time of Christ and the early Church rather than as a fringe sect, but you seem to do that all the time: you take the fringe and pretend it is mainstream and just merely lost or rejected over time, to support your conspiracy theories.
quote:Nope.
Ah so if some dude puts on a wig and claims he’s a woman, you would believe him right and call him “madame”.
quote:Um.. that doesn't follow logically. I'm not a liar just because I can't persuade you of what I believe to be the truth, and there is a difference between proof and persuasion. You conflate the two, thinking that if you are not persuaded, then there is no proof.
If you don’t have evidence to back up your assertion, and you are plainly relying on faith, and if you can’t show that something is evidently true, and you call it the truth, you are a liar.
quote:I decided to wear shorts and a long-sleeve shirt today. That's the truth even if I am not presenting you with any substantiating evidence/proof other than my personal testimony. If you decide not to believe me, that doesn't make me a liar. It just means you don't believe the truth.
It’s fine if you say you believe it or you believe it is the truth, but quit calling it “the truth” because frankly it’s retarded.
Posted on 10/8/24 at 10:01 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Again, it's not necessarily a contradiction if a plausible explanation is apparent
If you can dream up some bullshite explanation to explain a contradiction to appease your dogma, then go right ahead. But it’s still a contradiction, not an apparent contradiction nor a paradox.
quote:
I think the "extra" explanation fits perfectly with the notion that Jesus was telling them to rely on God's provision rather than their own.
So if they are carrying a belt filled with gold and silver, take that with them, but just don’t get any extra gold, right? That’s your logic. It isn’t logical.
quote:
It doesn't matter to me what the earliest Christians regarded as Scripture. It matters what is Scripture, because only that which is Scripture (that which is God-breathed) is authoritative to the Christian.
So you would rather take the canon as presented by the Catholic Church of the 5th century as modified by Martin Luther than consider as scripture what the earliest Christians and apostolic fathers considered scripture. I understand you fully!
quote:
1 Enoch is "foundational" to Christianity? It's referenced by the Bible but so are pagan philosophers. That doesn't mean they are "foundational".
Well… not only is 1 Enoch the foundation of the Christians and the New Testament, but yes pagan philosophy made a contribution as well. After all most of the NT authors were highly educated in Greek composition (not Aramaic fishermen). Paul and whoever wrote the canonical gospels would have been educated in Homer’s odyssey and Iliad and the writings of Aristotle and Plato and Socrates, and they would have been educated on the stories of Julius Caesar dying and rising and becoming and god and ascending to heaven with hundreds of eyewitness accounts.
Have you read and studied 1 Enoch? I don’t see how you could have. You embrace the scriptures of the Pharisees and Sadducees knowing full well “Jesus” told them they did not know the scriptures. The Jerusalem sects operated on the Babylonian lunar calendar and rejected the existence of a messiah. But you’re going to follow their scripture. The sects of “Jesus” like the Essenes wrote about how they awaited the return of the messiah - the Jewish king annointed by God - who would free them from oppression and clean house in the Jersusalem temple and restore the uncorrupted original religion and usher in the kingdom of God on earth and return to the solar calendar. You really don’t know anything man it’s really sad. You should read 1 Enoch, and if you’re not going to be a hypocrite, embrace it as scripture rather than letting a pope or a rebellious monk dictate to you what is scripture. You will learn about the watchers and the Nephilim that the writers of Genesis 6 just gloss over, and you’ll learn about where sin and evil come from and you’ll learn what’s really going on during the day of atonement with the two goats. You might even learn about what Jude was talking about with his thousands of angels coming with Yahweh (who they later named “Jesus” after he was resurrected and highly exalted) to judge the living and the dead, and you might better understand what flat earth Paul was talking about with his visit to the third firmament.
I recommend for you The Lost Prophet: The Book of Enoch and Its Influence on Christianity by Margaret Barker. All her books are great, and they give you a foundation of the first temple polytheistic religion of Israel prior to the exile and Persian corruption.
ETA: both Paul and James call Jesus “the lord of glory”. You won’t find that term in the OT. Guess where you can find that term used for Yahweh, the great guardian angel of Israel, a name used over 10 times?
ETA2: have you read Leviticus 16? The day of Atonement was the most important holy day for the first temple Israelites. Two identical goats are used - one as a sacrifice to Yahweh, and the other goat was cast out alive into the wilderness for Azazel. Your Bible may render Azazel as “scapegoat”. Leviticus doesn’t really explain what Azazel is (the author figures the reader would already know Azazel so no explanation is necessary). All the sins of Israel would be focused into the second goat and it would be sent to Azazel where all sin belongs. Why? Because Azazel was the ringleader of the deities responsible for human sin. Sin belongs to Azazel, so the sins of Israel are sent to him where sin belongs. You won’t find any other references to Azazel in your Bible, but… if you want to find out anything (and everything) about Azazel you can crack open the book of Enoch.
ETA3: “Hell” as Christians understand it is a place of burning fire where all sinful souls go to be tortured for eternity. Did Christians just make that shite up? It ain’t in the Bible. Maybe it is in some other text? Oh yeah 1 Enoch 54 says how Enoch was shown a valley of fire where all the host of Azazel and the sinful will be cast. Christians didn’t just make up shite that wasn’t in the current New Testament. Their scriptures included Enoch, while the Sadducees and Pharisees of King Herod’s time had rejected that work because it conflicted with the power of the priesthood.
This post was edited on 10/9/24 at 7:57 am
Posted on 10/8/24 at 10:07 pm to stout
quote:
do thou, O Prince of the heavenly hosts, by the power of God, cast into hell Satan, and all the evil spirits, who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.
Posted on 10/9/24 at 10:25 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:It's not necessarily a logical contradiction if there is a way to explain it, and that's my point. You want there to be a contradiction to show that the Bible is not infallible so you won't accept any potential ways to explain away a contradiction.
If you can dream up some bullshite explanation to explain a contradiction to appease your dogma, then go right ahead. But it’s still a contradiction, not an apparent contradiction nor a paradox.
quote:Not for the gold, no. They were specifically told not to bring any gold because gold could be used to buy things. However the "extra" applies to sandals, tunics, and staves, according to the texts.
So if they are carrying a belt filled with gold and silver, take that with them, but just don’t get any extra gold, right? That’s your logic. It isn’t logical.
quote:I take what God has given us as Scripture with certain defining marks that are not present in writings like Enoch.
So you would rather take the canon as presented by the Catholic Church of the 5th century...
quote:What did Luther "modify"? He included the Apocrypha in between the Old and New Testaments (but rejected them as canon) and included the New Testament books that even had doubts about. What modification did he make?
...as modified by Martin Luther...
quote:I don't think you do understand me. I don't think you understand history, either. You have concocted a fiction in your own mind and then accuse everyone who doesn't agree with you of doing the same thing.
...than consider as scripture what the earliest Christians and apostolic fathers considered scripture. I understand you fully!
While there are several lists of books considered canonical from fairly early on, I'm not aware of any that include any of the Enochian writings. While a few early Fathers regarded those writings as helpful to the Church, they did not believe they were canonical and inspired by God. That was true for several other writings, too.
quote:
Well… not only is 1 Enoch the foundation of the Christians and the New Testament, but yes pagan philosophy made a contribution as well.
no, 1 Enoch is not foundational. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are foundational but not deuterocanonical and especially not pseudepigraphal books like Enoch. I have no doubt that the Enochian writings, like many other non-canonical writings, were popular in the day of the Apostles and that they were familiar with them. Jude, in particular, quotes from 1 Enoch.
quote:I have, actually. My former pastor was close with Michael Heiser and used to preach and teach on this more than anything else for a while. I've read quite a bit about the Nephilim, the Watchers, and so on. I'm quite familiar with all the things you've mentioned in this post and others like it. I found the book Noah Primeval by Brian Godawah to be an entertaining take on the Noahic story based on these very things.
Have you read and studied 1 Enoch?
1st and 2nd Enoch were not written until shortly before Jesus' incarnation. While they were familiar writings to the early Church, they were not ever considered canonical as the word of God.
Posted on 10/9/24 at 3:06 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
It's not necessarily a logical contradiction if there is a way to explain it, and that's my point
You rationalizing a contradiction using your imagination just doesn’t make it not a contradiction.
quote:
You want there to be a contradiction
I don’t want or not want there to be a contradiction. I don’t care. Whatever is real and evidently true, I would like to know it. Whatever is an irreconcilable contradiction I will recognize it.
quote:
to show that the Bible is not infallible
It’s not infallible, in fact, it’s nearly all mythological.
quote:
Not for the gold, no. They were specifically told not to bring any gold because gold could be used to buy things. However the "extra" applies to sandals, tunics, and staves, according to the texts.
Re-read the passages. Jesus doesn’t differentiate between gold and a staff. In Matthew Jesus says not to bring gold nor a staff. Your rationalization of how in Matthew they could bring a staff but not an “extra” staff (why the frick would each person need two walking sticks anyway???) but couldn’t bring not just “extra” gold but not any gold is staggeringly hypocritical and stupid. You are inserting words and ideas into the text that aren’t there and creating your own false gospel. I can understand why you would do that though because creating false gospels from imagination is what Christians do.
quote:
I take what God has given us as Scripture with certain defining marks that are not present in writings like Enoch.
You claim to be anti-authority - Mr Sola ScripturaLaneCraig - yet accept the authority of the church and Martin Luther to tell you what is and what isn’t scripture. You’re a hypocrite.
quote:
What did Luther "modify"? He included the Apocrypha in between the Old and New Testaments (but rejected them as canon) and included the New Testament books that even had doubts about. What modification did he make?
Dude just quit being an obtuse a-hole. You know Martin Luther is responsible for your Protestant Bible having less books than the Catholic Bible. Just be honest for once.
quote:
While there are several lists of books considered canonical from fairly early on, I'm not aware of any that include any of the Enochian writings
The Ethiopian Christian church includes 1 Enoch. They were shielded from Roman meddling and the councils that set the canon and stripped away Enoch. Look it up.
quote:
While a few early Fathers regarded those writings as helpful to the Church, they did not believe they were canonical and inspired by God. That was true for several other writings, too.
That’s just a lie.
quote:
1 Enoch is not foundational.
You are unconsciously incompetent. It’s sad, really. You don’t know anything at all about the origins of your own religion. It’s shameful. You are inserting words denial.
quote:
especially not pseudepigraphal books like Enoch.
Dude they are all pseudepigrapha or anonymous, save for about 7 epistles of Paul. In reality.
quote:
I have, actually. My former pastor was close with Michael Heiser and used to preach and teach on this more than anything else for a while. I've read quite a bit about the Nephilim, the Watchers, and so on.
I don’t think you read any of my post giving you three major examples of 1 Enoch’s foundational status to Christianity. Your denial is only surpassed by your ignorance unfortunately. No amount of logic can help you to convey a coherent thought. I don’t know why I waste my time writing to you.
Posted on 10/9/24 at 5:57 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:It's not my imagination. Imaginative rationalizing is what you do when you completely ignore the context of the Bible to import other beliefs into the text. I'm merely discussing the different accounts within the Bible, itself, and commenting on its grammar, providing a rational explanation as to why a contradiction is not necessary. You just don't want to admit that that's the case.
You rationalizing a contradiction using your imagination just doesn’t make it not a contradiction.
quote:You do care and you do want there to be a contradiction. How many times do you support the Bible's claims against other atheists or enemies of Christ when their attacks are faulty? I haven't seen any. You, however, are eager to bring up alleged contradictions seemingly out of the blue when threads about Christianity or the Bible occur. It's almost as if you look for every opportunity to trash the Bible.
I don’t want or not want there to be a contradiction. I don’t care. Whatever is real and evidently true, I would like to know it. Whatever is an irreconcilable contradiction I will recognize it.
What you also fail to see is the difference between evidence and truth. Evidence is not brute but must be interpreted. People interpret evidence towards false conclusions all the time. Truth is an objective reality that may or not have evidence to support it, or it may or may not have sufficient evidence to persuade you of its truthfulness. That doesn't mean it isn't true.
quote:No, it's documented reality and truth. You just enjoy making false claims confidently as if your lies are true.
It’s not infallible, in fact, it’s nearly all mythological.
quote:I have. Several times.
Re-read the passages.
quote:He doesn't say "not to bring". He says "acquire no...". That's an important grammatical distinction.
Jesus doesn’t differentiate between gold and a staff. In Matthew Jesus says not to bring gold nor a staff.
quote:First, I'm not adding words to the text. I'm explaining how "extra words" may be inherent in the message. Leaving out a detail is not changing the message if the detail is assumed by the speaker and the audience.
Your rationalization of how in Matthew they could bring a staff but not an “extra” staff (why the frick would each person need two walking sticks anyway???) but couldn’t bring not just “extra” gold but not any gold is staggeringly hypocritical and stupid. You are inserting words and ideas into the text that aren’t there and creating your own false gospel. I can understand why you would do that though because creating false gospels from imagination is what Christians do.
Second, I've already explained why an extra staff might be needed. Some staves were used purely as walking sticks while others--often translated as "rods"--were more as weapons. The word for both "staff" and "rod" is the same in the Greek. You can see it translated as "staff" in Matt. 10, Luke 9, and Mark 6, while it's translated as "rod" in 1 Cor. 4:21 and Rev. 2:27 and elsewhere. Carrying a staff and a rod would be prohibited here because the staff would be for traversing terrain on a long journey while a rod would be for self defense, which would not be necessary. Since both words have the same word used, it's not hard to see which one (rod or staff) is in mind given the context. Bring a walking stick but leave a rod.
quote:Not at all. You again fail to see the truth. I don't accept the Bible because someone said it was the Bible, but because the Bible, itself, is self-authenticating and has certain marks that prove it to be the word of God.
You claim to be anti-authority - Mr Sola ScripturaLaneCraig - yet accept the authority of the church and Martin Luther to tell you what is and what isn’t scripture. You’re a hypocrite.
Martin Luther wasn't a big fan of the book of James. I happen to like James. It has nothing to do with authority. Enoch is not an authoritative book.
quote:Really? He included the Apocrypha in his Bible but modern Protestant Bibles don't include it.
Dude just quit being an obtuse a-hole. You know Martin Luther is responsible for your Protestant Bible having less books than the Catholic Bible. Just be honest for once.
In fact, the Apocrypha was included in most Protestant Bibles until probably the 1800s because they had historical value to the Church. Because they were not canonical, eventually they stopped being included in the bindings of Scripture, but it was a long while after Luther that this was the normative practice.
quote:I have. Evidence suggests that it was entrenched in the Ethiopic canon by the 7th or 8th centuries and highly regarded for a few centuries before that. However, for the first few hundred years there is no evidence that they embraced it as canonical. The canon took several hundred years to be received. But like I said, the early lists from prior to the 4th century don't include Enoch, to my knowledge.
The Ethiopian Christian church includes 1 Enoch. They were shielded from Roman meddling and the councils that set the canon and stripped away Enoch. Look it up.
quote:No it's not. Jerome, for instance, made the distinction between books helpful to the Church and books that are canonical back in the 300's. He disagreed with the Apocryphal books being included in the canon but was persuaded in interpreting them into Latin for the Church.
hat’s just a lie
quote:You have anything of substance to add or are insults and prejudicial conjecture all you've got?
You are unconsciously incompetent. It’s sad, really. You don’t know anything at all about the origins of your own religion. It’s shameful. You are inserting words denial.
quote:Hmm. I'm talking about a specific, recognized class of writings, not your own opinions. Enoch was written a couple of thousand years after Enoch lived. Had Enoch actually written those writings and passed them down, they would have had to have been passed down to Noah, who would have preserved them on the ark, and then passed down to Abraham (who grew up in a pagan culture, not one that worshipped Yahweh) who then would have passed it down to his people, the eventual Israelites. Considering all that and the fact that Enoch wasn't even included in Josephus' list of books considered Scripture by the Jews of his time, I find it hard to believe that it was written by Enoch (or at least passed down orally for a few thousand years) and was Scripture.
Dude they are all pseudepigrapha or anonymous, save for about 7 epistles of Paul. In reality.
quote:You're free to stop wasting your time whenever you want. I'd prefer if you stopped repeating the same speculative conspiracy theories in every thread you participate in regarding Christianity. I may have to start copying/pasting responses to you.
I don’t think you read any of my post giving you three major examples of 1 Enoch’s foundational status to Christianity. Your denial is only surpassed by your ignorance unfortunately. No amount of logic can help you to convey a coherent thought. I don’t know why I waste my time writing to you.
Posted on 10/9/24 at 9:22 pm to Mr. Misanthrope
quote:
That’s the kind of tactics Foo related. Cite Eusebius and force you to counter by discrediting Squirrel’s authority by exposing his potential bias as an Arian. What ever was under scrutiny, Matthew 28:19 in your example, is lost in an octopus’s cloud of ink ending up probably talki
I forgot to add the other day:
Acts 2:38
quote:
And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
The non-Trinitarian formula here supports Eusebius quotes of of Matthew 28:19.
Posted on 10/9/24 at 10:10 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
It's not my imagination
It is.
quote:
I'm merely discussing the different accounts within the Bible, itself, and commenting on its grammar, providing a rational explanation as to why a contradiction is not necessary.
You aren’t. You can’t comprehend the grammar. Take nothing except a staff. Do not take a staff. There’s a difference. You aren’t also hung up on the English translated “acquire” from Matthew 10:9 among other things, but this word that is translated in the ESV and NASB as “acquire” is translated as “possess” and “take along” in the many other translations. The grammar is clear that Mark-Jesus says to take nothing but a staff, and Matthew-Jesus says not to take a staff. Make up a story in your head to rationalize the contradiction all you want.
Reality: the writer of whomever wrote “the gospel according to Matthew” copied “Mark” and either purposely or accidentally changed what “Jesus” said.
quote:
It's almost as if you look for every opportunity to trash the Bible.
Gee golly, it’s almost as if you are out to get atheists and look for every opportunity to spout your arguments from authority and your worn out apologetic arguments you learned from Billy C.
quote:
Truth is an objective reality that may or not have evidence to support it, or it may or may not have sufficient evidence to persuade you of its truthfulness. That doesn't mean it isn't true.
Then it ain’t objective, jackass. It’s just your fricking baseless opinion.
quote:
No, it's documented reality and truth. You just enjoy making false claims confidently as if your lies are true.
You deny the flat earth when the Bible clearly teaches it. You just skip over the firmament separating the waters from the waters. You skip over how it is described as a hard cast iron mirror. You skip over the windows of the firmament to let the rain down to earth. You skip over Paul’s journey to the third firmament (another Enochian reference you ignore). You ignore the devil taking Jesus to a high mountain and he can see all the kingdoms of the earth, presumably even the Chinese and the Inca. The Bible couldn’t be further from reality. You are the definition of a hypocrite, picking and choosing what to believe and then attempting to cast stones at others as you accuse them of what you are guilty of.
quote:
He doesn't say "not to bring". He says "acquire no...". That's an important grammatical distinction.
Check the Greek. The Bible wasn’t written in English.
quote:
First, I'm not adding words to the text. I'm explaining how "extra words" may be inherent in the message. Leaving out a detail is not changing the message if the detail is assumed by the speaker and the audience
Re-read your own quotation.
if you think a detail is left out, you the audience can add extra words, and then claim you are not adding extra words. quote:
Not at all. You again fail to see the truth. I don't accept the Bible because someone said it was the Bible, but because the Bible, itself, is self-authenticating and has certain marks that prove it to be the word of God.
Let’s see if that holds up to scrutiny. You say all the canonical books (presumably of Protestant Christianity) are self-authenticating. Yet… for four hundred years, Christians argued about which scriptures were divinely inspired and canonical. And just about all Christian sects to this day dispute what is canon. So say your nutjob snake handling speaking-in-tongue sect is correct on what is cannon. That means that about 98% of Christianity is wrong, and what is self-evident to you is not self-evident to nearly all of Christendom. You don’t realize it, but you’re religious beliefs are your beliefs only because your parents and your parents’ church has indoctrinated you into thinking that your canon is the only true canon and that it is self-evident.
quote:
I find it hard to believe that it was written by Enoch
Me too. In fact, I don’t think anyone believes that. And no one I know argues for it. I find it hard to believe you’ve read it like you say you did, if you are making this argument. I’m not going to call you lazy, but I will paste for you the first two verses of 1 Enoch so that maybe you can grasp what is going on.
quote:
1 The words of the blessing of Enoch, wherewith he blessed the elect and righteous, who will be living in the days of tribulation, when all the wicked and godless are to be removed. 2 And Enoch, a righteous man whose eyes were opened by God took up his parable and said, "I saw the vision of the Holy One in the heavens, which the angels showed me, and from them I heard everything, and from them I understood as I saw, but not for this generation, but for a remote one which is for to come. "
Ok so this is written in the third person. Does that make sense to you now?
Jesus Christ!
Posted on 10/10/24 at 11:44 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:I've explained this already. You, again, are taking the contradiction path because it suits your narrative and desires. I don't have to prove that the texts are NOT contradictory to dispel the accusation of a contradiction. I just have to show that they do not have to contradict themselves based on grammar and meaning of the text. I've done that. The grammar does not necessitate a contradiction, but you are adamant that it must be a contradiction because of your hatred for the Truth.
You aren’t. You can’t comprehend the grammar. Take nothing except a staff. Do not take a staff. There’s a difference. You aren’t also hung up on the English translated “acquire” from Matthew 10:9 among other things, but this word that is translated in the ESV and NASB as “acquire” is translated as “possess” and “take along” in the many other translations. The grammar is clear that Mark-Jesus says to take nothing but a staff, and Matthew-Jesus says not to take a staff. Make up a story in your head to rationalize the contradiction all you want.
quote:I'm out to preach salvation to the atheist. If the Bible is true then the atheist who remains one until death will suffer for eternity. If the Bible is not true and the atheist is correct, then nothing will happen to me when I die and nothing really matters in the end. It makes sense for a Christian to preach salvation to an atheist. It doesn't make sense for an atheist to attempt to destroy the faith of a Christian.
Gee golly, it’s almost as if you are out to get atheists and look for every opportunity to spout your arguments from authority and your worn out apologetic arguments you learned from Billy C.
BTW, I was into presuppositional apologetics from Van Til and Bahnsen long before I became familiar with Craig, who is a Molonist and seems to have major theological problems with the Trinity (the way he explains the Trinity is not orthodox). None of my apologetical training and study is based on WLC. If you want to really see where my apologetical background was formed, go look up the late Greg Bahnsen on YouTube. There are several videos of his classes and debates that teach or put into practice the material I benefited from years ago. He also wrote some good books on the subject, including two that I have read, Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith, and Presuppositional Apologetics Stated and Defended. Bahnsen was a student of Van Til, who developed the particular method from his study of Scripture.
quote:I think I understand at least in part why you are so adamant in your false statements: you don't know the difference between proof and persuasion. You assume that truth requires evidence that everyone can see and be persuaded by, and if a claim is made without sufficient persuasive evidence (in your mind, at least), then you default to it not being even possibly true. That is a seriously flawed way of thinking. I understand if you are not convinced that something is true, but to deny that it's even possible to be true because of the lack of sufficient evidence to persuade you is ridiculous.
Then it ain’t objective, jackass. It’s just your fricking baseless opinion.
quote:The Bible does not teach a flat earth. You always take the worst view of the text in order to make it fit your anti-God beliefs.
You deny the flat earth when the Bible clearly teaches it. You just skip over the firmament separating the waters from the waters. You skip over how it is described as a hard cast iron mirror. You skip over the windows of the firmament to let the rain down to earth. You skip over Paul’s journey to the third firmament (another Enochian reference you ignore). You ignore the devil taking Jesus to a high mountain and he can see all the kingdoms of the earth, presumably even the Chinese and the Inca. The Bible couldn’t be further from reality. You are the definition of a hypocrite, picking and choosing what to believe and then attempting to cast stones at others as you accuse them of what you are guilty of.
quote:ktaomai: Strong's definition: "a primary verb; to get, i.e. acquire (by any means; own):—obtain, possess, provide, purchase."
Check the Greek. The Bible wasn’t written in English.
quote:Explaining the text is not adding words to the text. It's adding words to the explanation that the text is teaching.
Re-read your own quotation. if you think a detail is left out, you the audience can add extra words, and then claim you are not adding extra words.
We do this all the time in quotations by adding words in brackets, such as "Coach [Smart] suspended him due to breaking the law". In that example, "Smart" is the name of the UGA football coach that was not given by the player in the hypothetical statement but it was assumed based on context, and so when quoting the player, adding the word helps the reader understand what was being said. The hypothetical quote does not lose its meaning by the player not saying the coach's name when in the context we know who he was referring to.
I'm sorry that you seem to be lacking in reading comprehension and grammar to the point that you have to be told how these things work.
quote:First, I'm not a Pentecostal and don't have Charismatic beliefs (I'm a cessationist), and I think it's important for you to know the truth about that because you have such a bad habit of telling lies.
Let’s see if that holds up to scrutiny. You say all the canonical books (presumably of Protestant Christianity) are self-authenticating. Yet… for four hundred years, Christians argued about which scriptures were divinely inspired and canonical. And just about all Christian sects to this day dispute what is canon. So say your nutjob snake handling speaking-in-tongue sect is correct on what is cannon. That means that about 98% of Christianity is wrong, and what is self-evident to you is not self-evident to nearly all of Christendom. You don’t realize it, but you’re religious beliefs are your beliefs only because your parents and your parents’ church has indoctrinated you into thinking that your canon is the only true canon and that it is self-evident.
Next, the Bible being self-authenticating does not mean everyone believes the authentication. The Bible clearly teaches a Trinitarian God but it took a few hundred years to develop the doctrine through study of the text to sufficiently define it in a way to be able to judge false beliefs and true beliefs about it. The truth of the doctrine existed hundreds of years prior to its clear acceptance, even though there are professing Christians to this day who deny that God is Trinity.
I'd also like to add for clarity, for my Roman Catholic friends, that the debate over what books were canonical versus ecclesiastical went on all the way until the Council of Trent.
Also note that I didn't say "self-evident". I said "self-authenticating".
quote:Actually the text itself points to Enoch being the claimed author. There are markers all throughout the text that indicate that fact. The fact that it's pseudepigraphal, itself, points to the claim that it was written by Enoch.
Me too. In fact, I don’t think anyone believes that. And no one I know argues for it. I find it hard to believe you’ve read it like you say you did, if you are making this argument. I’m not going to call you lazy, but I will paste for you the first two verses of 1 Enoch so that maybe you can grasp what is going on.
quote:Yes, he speaks of himself in the third person, just as Moses wrote the Pentateuch and speaks of himself in the 3rd person.
Ok so this is written in the third person. Does that make sense to you now?
Page 11 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News