1
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Score Board
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- 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
Posted on 8/30/26 at 8:32 pm to Mo Jeaux
quote:
Again, many scholars view Second Peter as pseudepigraphical.
Those with an agenda. Again, why did the church Fathers allow 2 Peter into the canon of scripture if they suspected it to be less than authentic?
This post was edited on 8/30/26 at 8:34 pm
Posted on 8/30/26 at 8:33 pm to Boom33
quote:
Yeah, that's why I am so protective of the 1st amendment. It's the best defense against these things, but we as a people have to uphold it.
That, we absolutely agree upon. I've been saying that about the constitution as a whole quite a bit lately.
quote:
see the problem as an immigration problem and the fact our leaders are allowing large amounts of people here without any indication they would assimilate or anything else.
I agree. But. Jihadist Muslims are terrorists. They are tied to terrorist organizations. That, makes them a national security issue along with an immigration issue.
quote:. This I believe, you're talking about our politicians, and the people supporting these, and the illegals from welfare groups. I think that you are spot on, here as well.
They are traitors to the American people, and they use the welfare system to bribe and reward them to come here.
quote:
Look at South America, largely Christian but we still do NOT want large amounts of them coming here because their culture is not the same and they need to assimilate if they want to come here. You bring in large numbers of them and they will never assimilate, they will only spread they own culture
This one I have direct experience with. Tho not Africans. My biological mother is Korean. Has lived in this country for over 50 years. Has Not assimilated. Doesn't speak English worth a darn, can't read English worth a darn, primarily shops Korean markets, primarily associates within the Korean community. 100% No they don't assimilate when in numbers.
quote:
you just attack the religion, you miss over the greater issue.
With a lot of religions, I could sort of agree. I have issues with a lot of religions, so I'll just leave it at that. But. When a religion brainwashese people into thinking they need to take over the world by way of the sword, and kill any that won't assimilated, it's a very serious threat.
Posted on 8/30/26 at 8:33 pm to Revelator
quote:
Like I posted previously, Peter himself commended Paul’s writings and wisdom.
2 Peter 3:
14 ¶ Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless;
15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you,
If Peter had any problems with Paul’s writings, he certainly wouldn’t have praised him in scripture.
Peter did not write 2 Peter. It's a 2nd century forgery composed around 120 AD to 150 AD.
Peter was killed in 64 AD.
Peter was considered uneducated and ordinary, and yet 2 Peter is written in upper class Hellenistic Greek.
This is also exposed in 2 Peter 3:16 when he cites "the rest of the Scriptures". But when Peter was alive that would have been references to the Old Testament.
It was forged to make Paul appear credible in the Pauline churches.
Posted on 8/30/26 at 8:35 pm to Revelator
quote:
Those with an agenda
No. Those looking at the texts without an apologetics lens.
This post was edited on 8/30/26 at 8:36 pm
Posted on 8/30/26 at 8:43 pm to Wolfwireless
quote:
I agree. But. Jihadist Muslims are terrorists. They are tied to terrorist organizations. That, makes them a national security issue along with an immigration issue.
I think the word terrorist is somewhat overused. For example, in the 1980s when Osama was doing those things to Russia, Reagan called them freedom fighters and we backed them financially.
When they do it to us, they are terrorists. But most so-called terrorist attacks aren't really terrorist attacks, they are just attacks on military assets in the middle east. They are attacks, they are acts of war, do not get me wrong. But it's not the same thing as attacking real civilians to bring about fear for political change.
If we go by that same definition, then suddenly the US and Israel become the world's largest supporters of terrorism. Israel especially, their entire country was formed with it. Once the country was formed, they were integrated into the IDF.
But I think there is a difference and the word is overused.
None of them should be allowed here, so I don't disagree with that part. But for the assimilation reason, even if they weren't attacking us.
I didn't respond to the rest because it seems like we are generally in agreement.
Posted on 8/30/26 at 8:45 pm to Boom33
quote:
Peter did not write 2 Peter. It's a 2nd century forgery composed around 120 AD to 150 AD.
I see where this is going and there is no more need to debate.
Basically, you either accept or reject the books of the bible you support and discard the rest. Got it.
Posted on 8/30/26 at 8:49 pm to Revelator
quote:
I see where this is going and there is no more need to debate. Basically, you either accept or reject the books of the bible you support and discard the rest. Got it.
Yes, historical and textual analysis be damned. You either believe it or you don’t. Posted on 8/30/26 at 9:03 pm to Boom33
quote:
I didn't respond to the rest because it seems like we are generally in agreement
All good. Yep, I agree with you that we agree on a lot of the points Some of the details, we have some differences of opinions on. But that's what makes reasonable discussion, so great.
In regards to "terrorism". The definition that I was taught for "terrorism" is an attack that is meant to instill fear, against a civilian population. Not as a military attack, maneuver, whatever.
Though... Some of those tactics can be used against military assets. But it's when used against civilians is where the term comes from.
Tactics such as strapping on a vest or backpack full of explosives, walking into a movie theater, and going boom have no military value. It's just to instill fear. Or... Terror.
There are a lot of words that have become overused. Or used more broadly than they should be. A lot of us are as guilty of that, as those that we oppose.
Posted on 8/30/26 at 9:07 pm to Revelator
quote:
I see where this is going and there is no more need to debate.
Basically, you either accept or reject the books of the bible you support and discard the rest. Got it.
Ok, so what is your evidence that Peter wrote it?
It was a known fake the entire time. Even the guy who translated the bible into Latin noted that many people rejected it for the reasons I mentioned.
It was only accepted specifically for the purpose of trying to pretend there was no rift between Paul and the actual disciples because the Romans were desperate to unite their fractured empire under a centralized state religion.
That centralization is also where and why so many Christian traditions line up with pagan stuff. Christmas and Easter for example or not Jewish holidays. In Rome at that time, December was dominated by Saturnalia, a festival of feasting and gift giving. And the birthday of Sol Invictus(the unconquered Sun God) that was celebrated in the winter solstice. So the church moved Jesus' birthday to the 25th to hijack the sun worship while incorporating pagan sysmbols like the evergreen tree, misletoe and holly.
Easter is the same kind of stuff, but for festivals of spring and fertility. It's where rabbits and eggs comes from.
The Sabbath was moved to "Sun-Day" which was previously a day reserved for Sol Invictus.
And they choose Paul over Jesus because Paul preached submission to the Romans and Satan while Jesus was a threat to those systems and taught people to rebel against them and said they weren't real authorities.
Posted on 8/31/26 at 2:22 am to Boom33
quote:
Ok, so what is your evidence that Peter wrote it?
I acknowledge this is directed to another poster (Revelator) but I'll respond to this part with one line of evidence. If someone wanted to fake it in Peter's name (pseudonymously), would they use some obscure name for Peter? The author of 2 Peter is "Simeon" Peter. This Hebraic form is used only one other time in Scripture (Acts 15:14). So those who think 2 Peter is pseudepigraphical would have to account for why this name is used.
The rest of your post seems like meandering train-wreck.
FTR, we (believers in Jesus of Nazareth), gather on the 1st day of the week (Sunday) for theological reasons, i.e., Jesus was resurrected on the first day of the week and it is described as "the Lord's Day" in the NT (Rev. 1:10).
Posted on 8/31/26 at 6:41 am to lake chuck fan
They all want to be martyrs...we should help facilitate their dreams.
Posted on 8/31/26 at 6:45 am to Boom33
quote:
500 fricking years ago you fricking imbecile
Yes, historically.
Once upon a time =/= historically
Historically humans gather in communities
We do not historically paint cave walls
Posted on 8/31/26 at 6:47 am to lake chuck fan
Which state is he running in under the DSA party?
Posted on 8/31/26 at 6:49 am to Revelator
quote:
I see where this is going and there is no more need to debate.
Basically, you either accept or reject the books of the bible you support and discard the rest. Got it.
This is the proverbial "taking the ball and going home because I was backed into a corner and can't adequately respond" maneuver
Posted on 8/31/26 at 6:56 am to Mo Jeaux
quote:
Luke 17:5-10.
This one?
quote:
7 “Suppose one of you has a servant plowing or looking after the sheep. Will he say to the servant when he comes in from the field, ‘Come along now and sit down to eat’? 8 Won’t he rather say, ‘Prepare my supper, get yourself ready and wait on me while I eat and drink; after that you may eat and drink’? 9 Will he thank the servant because he did what he was told to do? 10 So you also, when you have done everything you were told to do, should say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done our duty
The Greek word for slave being translated as servant.
Read it. Then reread it. This is not a pro-slavery stance. Not even close.
Posted on 8/31/26 at 7:14 am to UtahCajun
Yes, that one. At least you admit that the original Greek word used was the word for “slave”. Most posters here think that Jesus was referring to hired help.
Hmm. Ok. Imagine, the very son of god speaking, and he had a chance to tell the world about the evils of the institution of slavery. And the choice that he made?
quote:
Read it. Then reread it. This is not a pro-slavery stance. Not even close.
Hmm. Ok. Imagine, the very son of god speaking, and he had a chance to tell the world about the evils of the institution of slavery. And the choice that he made?
This post was edited on 8/31/26 at 7:15 am
Posted on 8/31/26 at 7:18 am to AlwysATgr
quote:
If someone wanted to fake it in Peter's name (pseudonymously), would they use some obscure name for Peter? The author of 2 Peter is "Simeon" Peter. This Hebraic form is used only one other time in Scripture (Acts 15:14). So those who think 2 Peter is pseudepigraphical would have to account for why this name is used.
Now discuss all the reasons why many believe that it’s pseudepigraphical.
Posted on 8/31/26 at 7:20 am to Boom33
quote:
I will fight against both; I do not have to choose one or the other.
Good luck.
Posted on 8/31/26 at 7:22 am to Boom33
quote:
Have you got an actual argument to make?
If course. But there’s no point in making it if you have no understanding of the material, nor the desire to.
Page 7 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News