- 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 10/3/24 at 11:20 am to Squirrelmeister
Posted on 10/3/24 at 11:20 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:
I don’t think Paul and James are contradictory on this subject.
I seldom agree with you, but on this I do.
I think you correctly identify the clash between “salvation by faith alone” and James’s admonition that genuine faith in Jesus Christ will naturally engender “good works”.
There is nothing in James’s epistle that suggests those kinds of “good works” earn salvation and plenty elsewhere in Holy Scripture to suggest salvation cannot be earned by “works” of any sort.
I think the real culprit in these discussions is “once saved, always saved”. It’s an invitation to antinomianism and a cop out to justify willful sin and unrighteousness. I’m always asking myself why are there warnings about falling away from Christ if there’s no danger of it.
In fairness to Foo I think you’re too hard on him and mistaken to imply he’d not give of his treasury or the clothes off his back to a genuinely needy person. However one may disagree with him, insofar as I have seen, he’s always been courteous and gracious in discussions.
0
Posted on 10/3/24 at 11:59 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:There's a big difference between biblical interpretation and scientific inference. Science says that people don't come back to life days after being really and truly dead. The Bible says that Jesus was raised from the dead. Bible interpretation doesn't require modern beliefs about the natural world.
Let’s reject modern knowledge in favor of the Christian theological interpretation for centuries! Let’s go back to the earth being the flat disk center of the universe with the sun traversing the firmament holding back the waters of heaven! Because those ancient theologians know the truth!
quote:Who said that I believe the dragon in the text is literally a dragon? The dragon represents Satan and his attacks on the Church.
So the dragon is literally a dragon. But the woman giving birth to the male child was not literally a woman and a male child. You are certifiably retarded.
You apply allegory where none is meant, like in revelation 12, and you apply literalism where allegory is meant, like Genesis 2-3
Genesis 2-3 is not written in the same style as Revelation. Genesis is written as a historical narrative. Those who believe it is allegorical do so because they don't want to accept what it teaches about history due to have other beliefs about history shaped elsewhere.
quote:I have never said otherwise. You are the one picking and choosing what you will accept from what the Bible teaches.
Hey we agree on something! It’s really you just finally admitting what the Bible says, but it’s a start!
Yes, the people of Israel frequently rejected the God that delivered them out of Egypt and God frequently judged and punished them for worshipping idols. The book of Judges is all about that cycle. This isn't some hidden secret but a constant theme.
quote:El Elyon is the same as Yahweh. We've gone over the titles of God before. That aside, there is a difference between Israelites rejecting the God that created them and adopting gods of other tribes and nations and those gods being or belonging equally to Israel.
Uh oh, you turned stupid again. The main original god of Israel was El Elyon, and you forget Nehushtan the snake god and others.
quote:
As recorded by the chief scribes and priests in Jerusalem wanting to centralize power and money in Jerusalem. You eat up their revisionist history! Lapping up the lies of the scribes like a dog drinking water out of a hose. Jeremiah even mentions the lying pen of the scribes making their scriptures into lies. You ignore Jeremiah and Jesus and accept wholeheartedly the revised scriptures of the Hellenistic second temple priests!
what? You are making claims without proof on this one. Jesus referred to the Scriptures of the Old Testament as the Word of God and then claim that I don't listen to Jesus on this? Jeremiah didn't say that the Bible was re-written. He condemned the scribes and false prophets who wrote was was false and spread it as truth. You believe Jeremiah was talking about the Old Testament when he said that, and yet you accept the words of Jeremiah that are included in that same Bible? More cherry-picking on your part.
quote:The Canaanites were separate tribes and groups inhabiting the land of Canaan. Israel also inhabited that land. Israel and Canaanites are separated for a reason and you are equivocating when you talk about the two as if they were the same thing when saying the false gods that some Israelites worshipped against the law of Yahweh were "their" gods (of Israel). Israel had one God, Yahweh. Individual Israelites abandoned God and worshipped the gods that belonged to the tribes and nations around them, but they were never gods of Israel.
The Israelites were Canaanites. This is confirmed in the archaeological record.
quote:Now who is revising history? (you are) You seem to forget the many conversations we've had in the past.
I agree you should. And quit trying to say you ever disproved me of anything
quote:More unsupported claims. That's all you ever you. You pull a statement out of thin air and pass it along as accepted fact that everyone knows except Christians. You are the one who needs the Bible to be false, because if it's true, you are in for an eternity of suffering.
Think about it. You believe an uneducated fisherman who couldn’t read or write the language he spoke (if he even existed) grew up and learned Greek and learned to write enough to write Revelation in some terrible Greek, and then I guess went back to college and learned to write as good as Homer to write his gospel? And he must’ve lived for 150 years because 1 John and 2 John were written in the mid second century to whine and complain about Marcion and Gnostic heresies. That’s ridiculous. But that’s what you need. You need to believe ridiculous bullshite
quote:You don't. You present speculation as fact and truth and then act incredulous when people don't accept it. Like I keep saying, you're a conspiracy theorist. You try to piece together little bits of information and form an entire theory that makes sense in your own mind of why the Bible isn't true so that you don't have to submit to your creator. It's quite pathetic and I feel so sorry for you that you are so self-deceived that you have to stoop so low.
I don’t know if I have a good answer for you.
quote:You believe the Bible is no different than a government report. That's your problem, not mine. The Bible is the inspired and infallible word of almighty God. Hardly equivalent to a government commission report.
That’s what the text of the Bible mostly says, but is that really what happened? Do you believe in the official reports by the government of what happened at Pearl Harbor and 9/11 and Covid-19? Certainly there’s no way Covid was made in a Chinese lab and funded by the NIH through Eco Health Alliance because the official documents of what happened don’t mention that right? Try to be less gullible and more open minded and inquisitive.
quote:The whole Bible--from Genesis to Revelation--is trinitarian. There's no "playing". You just don't accept it.
Why you want to play like that? You know and I know and you know I know that that shite ain’t in there. Stop it.
quote:You purposefully twist the truth to make yourself feel better about your rejection for the truth. There is no hope for you outside of Jesus Christ. God has offered you mercy in the free offer of salvation through Jesus. If you reject the truth, you have no one to blame for your suffering except yourself.
I’ve been asked before “if you knew Christianity were true would you worship Jesus”. It’s a moot point, but I am certainly glad there is no truth in it. I would hate to think about a divine entity creating billions of people doomed to be tortured forever. If that kind of deity can build a torturous system like that, I’d hate to see what his heaven is like. He might be like P Diddy and you’d be his Justin Bieber… forever! That would suck, figuratively and literally!
Posted on 10/3/24 at 12:29 pm to Champagne
quote:While this is technically true, it ignores other teaching that those who are truly regenerated will also go through the process of sanctification in their lives by the same Spirit of Christ that applies justification through the instrumental cause of faith.
Young man is raised in your theology. Eternal Security. He walks through the list of things he has to do to be Saved through Bible Alone Faith Alone. According to you his Gift of Salvation is now eternally secure. He is going to Heaven no matter what sins he commits later in life.
quote:If he is truly regenerated, then yes, his sins are forgiven already. His repentance should be a natural fruit of that saving work in his life. In this scenario, there isn't time for that fruit to blossom because death occurs immediately following the sin.
The man matures, gets married and has 3 children. When the man is 35, he meets and falls in love with a young woman and begins an affair with her. They have sex once. The man sits alone in his wife's bedroom and says, "God, I'm sorry. Please forgive my sin." According to your theology, he's forgiven and going to Heaven.
quote:Correct, if the man is truly saved. Salvation doesn't mean sin won't occur any longer.
One month later, the man again meets the lovely young woman, and they meet in a hotel room to have sex again. Immediately after sex, the young man dies of a heart attack.
In your theology, the man is still going to Heaven, even though he has not had time to repent by asking God to forgive his sin.
What you seem to be having trouble with is the cause and effect of salvation and repentance. You seem to think that forgiveness of sin is based on an actual, conscious act of repentance for every sin committed when that is not the case. Forgiveness is based on the one-time work of Jesus Christ on the cross, received by faith. That forgiveness is received by a true and saving faith brought about by the work of the Holy Spirit of Christ on the elect person.
Repentance is the effect of salvation, not the cause of it.
quote:More proof that you don't actually understand the biblical teaching on this matter. I do not believe that a saved man would never have an affair. David was saved and yet committed murder and adultery. Saved Christians are certainly capable of sinning in every respect as an unbeliever. The difference is in both the fight against sin and the response to it. To an unbeliever, his sin is not a struggle for him, at least in terms of his relationship to God. He may struggle with other consequences of his sin, but he doesn't struggle with his offense to God. Likewise, he doesn't have a godly sorry and repentance for sin afterwards because he doesn't care if he offends God. The Christian should feel an actual sorrow for their sin against God, not just a worldly sorrow for the temporal consequences of it.
Your counter-argument to my scenario is to simply declare that because the man was Saved, he would never do such a thing as have an affair in the first place. There is no logic to that at all, but, Circular Logic.
So no, I do not believe that truly saved individuals are incapable of sinning like that.
quote:If you think this is why my theology is faulty, then perhaps you need to rethink things a bit since, as I just explained, I do not hold to this misconception you have.
That's why your theology is faulty and illogical - because it relies on circular logic i.e. the man is not sinful because he would never commit a sin because he is Saved.
quote:I don't base my theology wholly on the immature views of the early Church. I base them on the source for truth, itself, in the Bible.
Under your theology, you say that a sinful man with sins on his soul for which he has not asked for forgiveness is guaranteed to go to Heaven. That is a very different theology from what the Early Church preached.
As I said previously, we are not forgiven because we merely ask for forgiveness, but we ask for forgiveness because we are forgiven. God first works in our hearts to change us to see our sin for what it is, which drives us to the cross of Christ in repentance. Repentance comes after faith, not before it. Repentance is a fruit of the tree of saving faith, not the tree that produces the fruit of faith.
This post was edited on 10/3/24 at 2:33 pm
Posted on 10/3/24 at 4:52 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Who said that I believe the dragon in the text is literally a dragon? The dragon represents Satan and his attacks on the Church.
Whatever. Literally Satan or literally a dragon. But metaphorically a women and metaphorically her son in heaven. Yeah. You picker and chooser
By the way, real scholars know that the reference in revelation 12 to the dragon is literally the seven-headed dragon called Leviathan elsewhere in the Bible which Yahweh defeats and also crushes the heads of Rahab (which revelation refers to as the water beast). Leviathan the fleeing serpent, leviathan the twisting serpent from Isaiah 27:1 is copied and pasted from source material shared with what archaeologist found at ancient Ugarit, but Leviathan is called Liathanu and he does have 7 heads in the Ugaritic version too. They even have the same god killing Leviathan - a god the northern Canaanites called Baal than later Israelite Canaanites renamed to Yahweh.
quote:
Genesis 2-3 is not written in the same style as Revelation. Genesis is written as a historical narrative
Genesis 2-3 is filled with ahistorical allegory and was sneakily filled with imagery of the first temple period by Levite scribes. The garden represented the first temple, and the tree of life and tree of knowledge represented Asherah and Nehushtan (the queen of heaven and the snake-healing god respectively). The first temple cult of El Elyon and Yahweh and Asherah (father, son, and Holy Spirit) were cast out of the temple by the new priests of the Persian offshoot of Judaism. Everybody know that boy.
quote:
Those who believe it is allegorical do so because they don't want to accept what it teaches about history due to have other beliefs about history shaped elsewhere.
The only people that don’t want to accept facts are guys like you that have an aversion to reality. Free thinking people accept whatever is observably factual based on the overwhelming preponderance of evidence.
quote:
El Elyon is the same as Yahweh. We've gone over the titles of God before.
We know El is what the Babylonians, Assyrians, and Canaanites called the high god and father of their pantheon. El divided the world into nations of people and assigned the nations to each be ruled by one of his sons. The particular son that inherited Israel was Yahweh. This is detailed in Deuteronomy 32:8-9 for anyone else reading this.
You asserting something without evidence, while your assertion contradicts Deuteronomy 32:8-9 and contradicts the consensus of secular scholars, is not a convincing argument to me. I award you no points.
quote:
what? You are making claims without proof on this one. Jesus referred to the Scriptures of the Old Testament as the Word of God and then claim that I don't listen to Jesus on this?
Did Jesus name all the books of the Old Testament? Jesus refers to “scriptures”, no necessarily the Old Testament of the KJV. To Jesus, the scriptures most likely included different versions of the Torah and definitely included Enoch as his brother James refers to as scripture too. Jesus (who in reality most likely did not exist as a historical person) told the Pharisees and priests that they did not know the scriptures. What did he mean? I think he meant that they were using the WRONG scriptures. The definitely were not using Enoch which was the single most important scripture to early Christians.
quote:
The Canaanites were separate tribes and groups inhabiting the land of Canaan. Israel also inhabited that land. Israel and Canaanites are separated for a reason and you are equivocating when you talk about the two as if they were the same thing when saying the false gods that some Israelites worshipped against the law of Yahweh were "their" gods (of Israel)
The Israelites were Canaanites in the same sense as the Italians are Latin and the Quebecois are French and the Danes are Vikings. Same genetics, very slightly evolved language and customs and pottery and clothing and weapons etc. Asherah and Nehushtan and Baal and El were as much Israelite gods as Yahweh before some revisionist scribe tried to erase their history.
quote:
More unsupported claims. That's all you ever you. You pull a statement out of thin air and pass it along as accepted fact that everyone knows except Christians. You are the one who needs the Bible to be false, because if it's true, you are in for an eternity of suffering.
Oh no don’t deflect. Tell us all how John went from an uneducated illiterate fisherman speaking Aramaic to a composer of Greek to rival Homer. You know it’s true that 1 John and 2 John were responding to second century heresies. You know “John” didn’t write the gospel, the apocalypse, and the epistles attributed to him.
quote:
The whole Bible--from Genesis to Revelation--is trinitarian. There's no "playing". You just don't accept it.
I can’t accept it because it is laughably absurd and untrue. And it is so evidently NOT true that the church clergy had to argue about it for 400 years before they came to an agreement. And it was all about apologetics - trying to make sense of things that evidently conflict and can’t be reconciled.
quote:
The Bible is the inspired and infallible word of almighty God
Sure FoolaneCraig, and we know it is because it says it is, right?
Posted on 10/3/24 at 6:57 pm to StrongOffer
quote:
Galileo had well-documented disagreements with the Church
Yes, and he wrote that how the Bible described the earth and cosmos and nature was all horseshite.
quote:
Even that didn't change his faith in God.
Y’all don’t understand. Up until the 1900s, there was no such thing as an atheist. At least not one that publicly claimed to be one.
Galileo was to God and the church as Kamala is to the 2nd amendment. She believes in the governments prohibition from infringing on your rights BUT she’s going to take all your guns except maybe your great grandfather’s muzzle loading musket. Galileo certainly might have believed in a god or creator of some sort but he definitely would have denied biblical inerrancy and would have denied the scriptures were divinely inspired because he did admit that much so he couldn’t have been a devout Catholic.
quote:
The fact is religious people are the fathers of the scientific method
Yes hundreds of years ago if you were anybody and wanted to be respected you had to outwardly profess to be a Christian.
Posted on 10/3/24 at 7:14 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Paul also wrote Ephesians
Not according to people who are experts, like biblical scholars. The consensus is that the guy that wrote Romans and Corinthians and Philemon did not write Ephesians.
quote:
You miss as badly as Roman Catholics do on this.
No, I can read what “James” wrote. It’s pretty easy to plainly read it and understand it.
quote:
James says that saving faith produces good works.
“James” is writing that part of his letter as a response to people like you saying works of kindness are not necessary for salvation. If he wasn’t trying to convey his message that works of kindness are necessary, there would’ve been no reason for him to bring up the topic. “James” is saying if there’s no good works to accompany the faith, then there is no real faith, and so no salvation.
Posted on 10/3/24 at 7:25 pm to FooManChoo
Why are you arguing with him dude? He’s literally said he’s here to atheistically evangelize. Nothing you say will change his mind. His stated goal is to convert everyone he meets to atheism. I hate to say it but you’re wasting your time here.
This post was edited on 10/3/24 at 7:26 pm
Posted on 10/3/24 at 9:30 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:
Jesus (who in reality most likely did not exist as a historical person)
quote:
Jesus…told the Pharisees and priests that they did not know the scriptures. What did he mean? I think he meant that they were using the WRONG scriptures.
No. He meant they didn’t comprehend them because they testified of him.
quote:
And the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favour.”
And he rolled up the scroll and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him.
And he began to say to them, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.”
And all spoke well of him and marvelled at the gracious words that were coming from his mouth. And they said, “Is not this Joseph's son?”
So far, so good. They marveled at his “gracious” words. By the way who’s reading this scroll here? Joseph’s son, Jesus of Nazareth? The person who never existed here on earth in flesh and blood?
Now the problems start.
quote:
And he said to them, “Doubtless you will quote to me this proverb, ‘Physician, heal yourself.’ What we have heard you did at Capernaum, do here in your home town as well.”
And he said, “Truly, I say to you, no prophet is acceptable in his home town.
But in truth, I tell you, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah, when the heavens were shut up three years and six months, and a great famine came over all the land, and Elijah was sent to none of them but only to Zarephath, in the land of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow. And there were many lepers[a] in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha, and none of them was cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian.”
When they heard these things, all in the synagogue were filled with wrath. And they rose up and drove him out of the town and brought him to the brow of the hill on which their town was built, so that they could throw him down the cliff.
Again, which flesh and blood person is threatened with being hurled off a cliff?
Which segues into the Jews lack of comprehension of the scriptures. They were engaged because he pointed out that in their scriptures which they professed to revere God had shown extravagant mercy, compassion, and love to Gentiles. They were not only enraged but were apparently surprised. Yet the first woman mentioned in Jesus’s lineage is Rahab the harlot followed by Boaz’s mother, a Moabitess.
Posted on 10/4/24 at 12:49 am to Mr. Misanthrope
Misanthrope, more than likely, the historical Jesus of the four gospels that Irenaeus of Lyon selected (because there are four winds) to be the Christian canon did not exist as a real person on planet earth. As an atheist my entire adult life I never once could have imagined that there wasn’t some crazy rabbi that the religion was based on wandering around Galilee as a preacher. When I started to read up on the historical Jesus - actual scholarly works on the subject - I was shocked and amazed. All the evidence I had “heard” referenced a historical Jesus turned out to be forgeries and the ones that weren’t forgeries just didn’t reference the Jesus man at all. The few non Christian early sources attesting to the man Jesus by Christian apologists reference early Christians but not the man Jesus.
The truth is that pre-gospel documents we have… the 7 authentic Pauline epistles, a couple of forged Pauline epistles like Ephesians and Colossians, 1 Peter, James, Hebrews, Revelation, and the non canonical epistle of Clement of Rome make no mention of an earthly man named Jesus. To the writers of the letters I mentioned, Jesus was the firstborn of creation and helped to create the rest of the cosmos. Jesus took on a body of flesh, descended down from the highest heavens (Paul himself said he visited the third heaven) with a secret plan that the “rulers of this age” (deities in the lowest heaven/firmament) did not know. Jesus was killed by these archons “rulers” in heaven. He was resurrected in heaven and was highly exalted by his father. He earned his name “Jesus” after he was resurrected and is seated now at the right hand of God and will one day come to judge the living and the dead and will reap the earth of non believers and evildoers and establish a new earth and new heaven and new kingdom of God. That’s what the earliest Christians believed.
In none of the the letters and books I mentioned is there any reference at all to an earthly Jesus trying to talk some sense into some boneheaded Aramaic speaking fishermen. And every saying they attribute to Kyrios Kristos “the Lord Jesus” is a saying Yahweh said in the Hebrew Scriptures the Christians used which at the time were most of the books of what we’d call the Old Testament plus other books like Enoch, Jubilees, Giants, Moses, and more.
1 Corinthians chapter 2:
Don’t give me the sad argument “hey squirrel the rulers were the Romans”. They weren’t. Paul never mentions not once a Roman soldier or Jews crucifying Jesus, he never mentions once Pontius Pilate, and never mentions an empty tomb. He damn sure would have puked reading the gospel accounts of a fleshly Jesus risen from the dead walking around in flesh and blood with holes for doubting Thomas to finger. Paul tells us that when Jesus was resurrected, it was a transformation from the decaying flesh to a new spiritual perfect body that doesn’t decay and was not made of “sinful flesh”.
So who were these “rulers”? Let’s check Ephesian 6:12
If you want to believe Jesus fed the 5000, fine. But there’s absolutely zero evidence of Jesus the man walking the earth, and the gospel accounts of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John in that order were crafted from Paul’s letters and other OT sources and used the copy/paste feature so we know none of them are independent accounts of the life of a man named Jesus.
Think I’m crazy for doubting Jesus’ existence? What if we were able to find a hidden gospel of the first followers of (the heavenly version of Jesus) where he was killed in heaven by the archons? Hebrews is kind of an outlier a little in that Jesus was killed as a sacrifice in the temple located in heaven, but let’s skip Hebrews for now. What if we could find a gospel that explains how the archons of this aeon “rulers of this age” killed Jesus… in heaven? Then we’d know for sure the early Christians believed in the heavenly Jesus all along.
It would be nice, but no one has found it yet.
Well, except for the gospel found in Egypt called the “Ascension of Isaiah” where Isaiah is taken up to heaven to view things to come in heaven (like Paul’s visit to the third heaven). In the AoI, Isaiah is taken up and sees all the wonders of the 7 heavens each separated by a firmament. Isaiah gets to the 7th heaven and sees the “beloved” - the firstborn of creation and highest ranked archangel. In this gospel account, Jesus puts on a body of flesh that his father made for him and descends to the lowest heaven where his is killed by the archons there because they didn’t know of the secret plan. Sound familiar? Then Jesus is resurrected, gets a new spiritual body, is then called “Jesus”, and rises back through the heavens to the highest heaven and sits as gods right hand and high priest Melchizedek forever. Isaiah witnessed all this as a future event and wrote it all down.
You can get the English translation on Amazon, along with other non canonical books found at Nag Hammmadi.
The truth is that pre-gospel documents we have… the 7 authentic Pauline epistles, a couple of forged Pauline epistles like Ephesians and Colossians, 1 Peter, James, Hebrews, Revelation, and the non canonical epistle of Clement of Rome make no mention of an earthly man named Jesus. To the writers of the letters I mentioned, Jesus was the firstborn of creation and helped to create the rest of the cosmos. Jesus took on a body of flesh, descended down from the highest heavens (Paul himself said he visited the third heaven) with a secret plan that the “rulers of this age” (deities in the lowest heaven/firmament) did not know. Jesus was killed by these archons “rulers” in heaven. He was resurrected in heaven and was highly exalted by his father. He earned his name “Jesus” after he was resurrected and is seated now at the right hand of God and will one day come to judge the living and the dead and will reap the earth of non believers and evildoers and establish a new earth and new heaven and new kingdom of God. That’s what the earliest Christians believed.
In none of the the letters and books I mentioned is there any reference at all to an earthly Jesus trying to talk some sense into some boneheaded Aramaic speaking fishermen. And every saying they attribute to Kyrios Kristos “the Lord Jesus” is a saying Yahweh said in the Hebrew Scriptures the Christians used which at the time were most of the books of what we’d call the Old Testament plus other books like Enoch, Jubilees, Giants, Moses, and more.
1 Corinthians chapter 2:
quote:
6Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. 7But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. 8None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
Don’t give me the sad argument “hey squirrel the rulers were the Romans”. They weren’t. Paul never mentions not once a Roman soldier or Jews crucifying Jesus, he never mentions once Pontius Pilate, and never mentions an empty tomb. He damn sure would have puked reading the gospel accounts of a fleshly Jesus risen from the dead walking around in flesh and blood with holes for doubting Thomas to finger. Paul tells us that when Jesus was resurrected, it was a transformation from the decaying flesh to a new spiritual perfect body that doesn’t decay and was not made of “sinful flesh”.
So who were these “rulers”? Let’s check Ephesian 6:12
quote:
12For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.
If you want to believe Jesus fed the 5000, fine. But there’s absolutely zero evidence of Jesus the man walking the earth, and the gospel accounts of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John in that order were crafted from Paul’s letters and other OT sources and used the copy/paste feature so we know none of them are independent accounts of the life of a man named Jesus.
Think I’m crazy for doubting Jesus’ existence? What if we were able to find a hidden gospel of the first followers of (the heavenly version of Jesus) where he was killed in heaven by the archons? Hebrews is kind of an outlier a little in that Jesus was killed as a sacrifice in the temple located in heaven, but let’s skip Hebrews for now. What if we could find a gospel that explains how the archons of this aeon “rulers of this age” killed Jesus… in heaven? Then we’d know for sure the early Christians believed in the heavenly Jesus all along.
It would be nice, but no one has found it yet.
Well, except for the gospel found in Egypt called the “Ascension of Isaiah” where Isaiah is taken up to heaven to view things to come in heaven (like Paul’s visit to the third heaven). In the AoI, Isaiah is taken up and sees all the wonders of the 7 heavens each separated by a firmament. Isaiah gets to the 7th heaven and sees the “beloved” - the firstborn of creation and highest ranked archangel. In this gospel account, Jesus puts on a body of flesh that his father made for him and descends to the lowest heaven where his is killed by the archons there because they didn’t know of the secret plan. Sound familiar? Then Jesus is resurrected, gets a new spiritual body, is then called “Jesus”, and rises back through the heavens to the highest heaven and sits as gods right hand and high priest Melchizedek forever. Isaiah witnessed all this as a future event and wrote it all down.
You can get the English translation on Amazon, along with other non canonical books found at Nag Hammmadi.
Posted on 10/4/24 at 12:50 am to Mr. Misanthrope
Sorry had to break this into two posts.
That’s your interpretation, but let’s check out how it’s written. Let me try to convince you otherwise:
Now you say the Sadducees don’t comprehend them. I say literally don’t know the scripture because Jesus is talking about a scripture they don’t have or use. You will not find an Old Testament reference to this passage of Jesus in Matthew. Look all you want, it’s not there. Now there is this other non canonical text you may have heard of - Enoch - that was the single most important scripture of the early Christian movement. Here’s what 1 Enoch 15:5-7 says:
How many points do I win?
You are presupposing the gospels are accurate and historical. You have no reason to treat them that way other than that you were indoctrinated into believing it. It’s just a fictional story.
Do you believe Paris really killed Achilles by shooting him in the heel with an arrow? Do you believe Harry Potter really flew around on a broomstick? Why not? It says it happened in the story.
quote:
No. He meant they didn’t comprehend them because they testified of him.
That’s your interpretation, but let’s check out how it’s written. Let me try to convince you otherwise:
quote:
23The same day Sadducees came to him, who say that there is no resurrection, and they asked him a question, 24saying, “Teacher, Moses said, ‘If a man dies having no children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother.’ 25Now there were seven brothers among us. The first married and died, and having no offspring left his wife to his brother. 26So too the second and third, down to the seventh. 27After them all, the woman died. 28In the resurrection, therefore, of the seven, whose wife will she be? For they all had her.” 29But Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.
Now you say the Sadducees don’t comprehend them. I say literally don’t know the scripture because Jesus is talking about a scripture they don’t have or use. You will not find an Old Testament reference to this passage of Jesus in Matthew. Look all you want, it’s not there. Now there is this other non canonical text you may have heard of - Enoch - that was the single most important scripture of the early Christian movement. Here’s what 1 Enoch 15:5-7 says:
quote:
5 And for this reason I give men wives; so that they might sow seed in them, and so that children might be born by them, so that deeds might be done on the Earth. 6 But you, formerly, were spiritual, living an eternal, immortal life, for all the generations of the world. 7 For this reason I did not arrange wives for you; because the dwelling of the spiritual ones is in Heaven.
How many points do I win?
quote:
They marveled at his “gracious” words. By the way who’s reading this scroll here? Joseph’s son, Jesus of Nazareth? The person who never existed here on earth in flesh and blood?
You are presupposing the gospels are accurate and historical. You have no reason to treat them that way other than that you were indoctrinated into believing it. It’s just a fictional story.
Do you believe Paris really killed Achilles by shooting him in the heel with an arrow? Do you believe Harry Potter really flew around on a broomstick? Why not? It says it happened in the story.
Posted on 10/4/24 at 11:07 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:This is all patently false lol. It’s pretty crazy how ignorant you are on this topic. Do a little research of Galileo and Copernicus, friend.
Y’all don’t understand. Up until the 1900s, there was no such thing as an atheist. At least not one that publicly claimed to be one. Galileo was to God and the church as Kamala is to the 2nd amendment. She believes in the governments prohibition from infringing on your rights BUT she’s going to take all your guns except maybe your great grandfather’s muzzle loading musket. Galileo certainly might have believed in a god or creator of some sort but he definitely would have denied biblical inerrancy and would have denied the scriptures were divinely inspired because he did admit that much so he couldn’t have been a devout Catholic.
Posted on 10/4/24 at 12:28 pm to StrongOffer
quote:
This is all patently false lol
It’s not false and it’s not funny.
quote:
It’s pretty crazy how ignorant you are on this topic.
You are unconsciously incompetent on the subject matter. You fail to even realize what you do not know to the point of accusing people knowledgeable of the subject matter of ignorance. Shameful.
quote:
Do a little research of Galileo and Copernicus, friend.
You do the same. Here’s a link for you to get started.
Galileo quotes
It is an inconvenient fact for you that Galileo did not believe that the descriptions in the Bible of the earth and cosmos were accurate and factual. Neither do you, unless you believe the earth is flat and there’s a giant crystalline dome above the earth and that what we consider outer space is filled with water, and the sun and moon traverse the sky under this firmament and are equal in size to each other and are only several miles above the ground.
More facts: Galileo pissed off the pope and the inquisition and he was forced to recant (or be murdered) and spend his last days under house arrest. He had to be extremely careful about what he said. He could not (without being murdered) actually state what he believed but we know he did not believe the Bible was literally true - case in point his conflict with the pope and the inquisition based on what he was saying about biblical “truth”.
Put in the time and do the research if you actually want to learn and understand your reality.
Posted on 10/4/24 at 12:30 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:
…an earthly Jesus trying to talk some sense into some boneheaded Aramaic speaking fishermen.
Love it. Laughed and snorted coffee jackass!
That is a very apt description.
Read the historical gospels and you see glimpses of Jesus, perpetually palm-faced, in response to his disciples’s boneheadedness.
Disciples who eventually “turned the world upside down”.
quote:Does this apply to me all the time but to you only occasionally like when a gospel account’s historicity supports your argument?
You are presupposing the gospels are accurate and historical. You have no reason to treat them that way other than that you were indoctrinated into believing it. It’s just a fictional story.
quote:Who are the flesh and blood Sadducees talking to? Who is the flesh and blood Jesus talking to? Where and when on the earth is this recorded and reported conversation taking place?
Now you say the Sadducees don’t comprehend them. I say literally don’t know the scripture because Jesus is talking about a scripture they don’t have or use. (You then quote Matthew 22:23-30.)
quote:No comment.
How many points do I win?
Posted on 10/4/24 at 12:58 pm to Squirrelmeister
Serious question: did you read the link you think backs up your argument. The first paragraph states he wanted to be a Jesuit. And the first quote is "The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go."
The Bible isn’t a scientific book. Its purpose is not to “describe the cosmos”. Galileo and I have the same opinion. Are are absolutely wrong that he thought the Bible was not true. Your only argument is that you don’t believe his words because he feared death. That is a dishonest cop-out to discount anything said by someone that you wish they hadn’t said. There is no evidence he was scared of death for speaking his opinions. In fact, there is direct evidence of him disagreeing with the Catholic Church. Which proves he was NOT scared to speak his mind.
The Bible isn’t a scientific book. Its purpose is not to “describe the cosmos”. Galileo and I have the same opinion. Are are absolutely wrong that he thought the Bible was not true. Your only argument is that you don’t believe his words because he feared death. That is a dishonest cop-out to discount anything said by someone that you wish they hadn’t said. There is no evidence he was scared of death for speaking his opinions. In fact, there is direct evidence of him disagreeing with the Catholic Church. Which proves he was NOT scared to speak his mind.
Posted on 10/4/24 at 2:01 pm to Mr. Misanthrope
quote:
Love it. Laughed and snorted coffee jackass!
Thanks
quote:
Read the historical gospels and you see glimpses of Jesus, perpetually palm-faced, in response to his disciples’s boneheadedness.
Especially the gospel according to “Mark” - which is my favorite.
quote:
Does this apply to me all the time but to you only occasionally like when a gospel account’s historicity supports your argument?
I think the difference is that you and others presuppose the accuracy and historicity of the gospel accounts, while any semblance of me presupposing is due to the sake of my arguments. I don’t think Jesus was a real flesh and blood person on earth, but if I say something like “in Matthew, Jesus said XYZ” it is easier to write like that than to say “in whoever wrote what the Catholic Church called the anonymously-written ‘gospel according to Matthew’ the fictional character of Jesus said XYZ”.
quote:
Who are the flesh and blood Sadducees talking to? Who is the flesh and blood Jesus talking to? Where and when on the earth is this recorded and reported conversation taking place?
I don’t have any reason to believe the conversations described really took place. It appears that these are fictional accounts - stories - fan fiction. The 4 gospel accounts from Jesus’ birth to his death stretch from close to 10BCE in the gospel of Matthew (born during King Herod) to somewhere around 20-30 CE at his death. That’s when the stories are set, but the gospel stories weren’t written until after 70CE and up to around 140CE depending on how early and how late you date them. Myself I think they were composed starting around 90CE and the last one John would’ve been composed around 140CE. In a foreign land and in a foreign language around 80 to 140 years after the fictional accounts they portray.
quote:
No comment
The writer of “Mark” has Jesus quoting 1 Enoch. No way around it. The Sadducees and the eventual Masoretic Text didn’t include or preserve 1 Enoch, so we know the Sadducees weren’t using it as scripture. It was incompatible with their second temple religion. 1 Enoch is a messianic book that harkens to the days of the return of the Jewish king. The government run by the Sadducees couldn’t have a king - they had a high priest and he reported to the Roman governor or if we go back it was to the Greek governor and back further the Persian governor Zerubabbel.
The Dead Sea scrolls group viewed the Jersusalem temple and priests as corrupt. As in they corrupted their “real” religion. The Dead Sea scrolls group of Essene Jews preserved the scroll of 1 Enoch at a higher rate than any other book of what we call the Old Testament. That’s the version of Judaism that sprang forth Christianity.
Posted on 10/4/24 at 2:27 pm to Squirrelmeister
SM, give it up, go to Confession, go to Mass and receive Communion. Stop being such a BAD Catholic, my son.
Go now, and Sin no more.
Go now, and Sin no more.
Posted on 10/4/24 at 2:27 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:This accurately summarizes your entire post. You don't really care for accuracy or truth. You're here to destroy the faith of Christians, plain and simple. You don't care about truth or reason. You just want to spread your conspiracy theories to put doubt in the minds of the faithful so that you can create as much misery as possible as you continue on your way to eternal damnation, suffering in agony forever without hope of relief.
Whatever.
I honestly do hope you realize your sinfulness and desperate need for a savior. I honestly hope you repent of your sin and put your trust in Jesus Christ as a skydiver puts his trust in his parachute to save him. I hope to one day call you "brother", but if you continue down this path of unbelief and rebellion against your creator, you will deserve every second of suffering you will endure. Sin is a serious thing, and you will either realize that during this life and repent and turn towards Christ for forgiveness, or you will realize it in the life to come when it is too late for you to avoid it.
Posted on 10/4/24 at 2:29 pm to JiminyCricket
quote:I appreciate the concern. My responses to him are not just for his sake, though I do hope the Lord grants him mercy one day, but they are also for those reading this thread.
Why are you arguing with him dude? He’s literally said he’s here to atheistically evangelize. Nothing you say will change his mind. His stated goal is to convert everyone he meets to atheism. I hate to say it but you’re wasting your time here.
Posted on 10/4/24 at 2:53 pm to Squirrelmeister
I’m aware of your sources and the relative weight you give to them depending on your rhetorical needs.
The German poet Heinrich Heine penned these lines:
That is the impression given by your use of your God given intellectual and rhetorical skills-“better than their cause.”
Though I can’t speak for others, I do believe the gospel narratives are reliable and meet many criteria of first century biographical writings. I didn’t originally believe this but have been convinced of their reliability.
It’s my opinion that you are being intellectually disingenuous to use texts you believe are fictional to disprove what you already don’t believe.
It’s not for your benefit so one can conclude your mission, your “cause” as Heine put it, is to dislodge and weaken the faith of weak Christians and turn seekers from considering Jesus. It’s good for you, I guess, that the Jesus that never existed never warned his hearers If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come!
It’s odd and disconcerting to people on here who engage you, pray for you, and hope you might one day rediscover the living resurrected Jesus whom you now deny.
You are more extreme in your adamant denial of Jesus of Nazareth’s flesh and blood existence in time and space than Bart Ehrman.
The German poet Heinrich Heine penned these lines:
quote:
But war and justice
have far different laws,
And worthless acts
are often done right well;
The rascals' shots
were better than their cause,
And I was hit--and hit again, and fell!
That is the impression given by your use of your God given intellectual and rhetorical skills-“better than their cause.”
quote:
I think the difference is that you and others presuppose the accuracy and historicity of the gospel accounts, while any semblance of me presupposing is due to the sake of my arguments.
Though I can’t speak for others, I do believe the gospel narratives are reliable and meet many criteria of first century biographical writings. I didn’t originally believe this but have been convinced of their reliability.
It’s my opinion that you are being intellectually disingenuous to use texts you believe are fictional to disprove what you already don’t believe.
It’s not for your benefit so one can conclude your mission, your “cause” as Heine put it, is to dislodge and weaken the faith of weak Christians and turn seekers from considering Jesus. It’s good for you, I guess, that the Jesus that never existed never warned his hearers If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come!
It’s odd and disconcerting to people on here who engage you, pray for you, and hope you might one day rediscover the living resurrected Jesus whom you now deny.
You are more extreme in your adamant denial of Jesus of Nazareth’s flesh and blood existence in time and space than Bart Ehrman.
Page 8 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News