FooManChoo

What about the "violence" of theft or trespassing? Apparently "violence" is whatever we don't like.

"Hell" isn't too far off. I would find it hard to believe that these women adhere to a biblical, Christian worldview. I hope these women all submit to Christ as Lord and King.

Watering it down would be worse than not passing it at all. If a watered down version doesn't actually secure elections, then the talking point is that elections are safe because of this, and no one should complain.

quote:

---

I should reply to Champagne to show him how you prioritize the traditions developed over 5 centuries post-Jesus of the Catholic Church rather than the Bible itself. You don’t see how hypocritical you are being because your brain doesn’t process logic correctly.

---

I didn't prioritize history over the Bible. I mentioned history as a supporting factor on this topic precisely because it is a universally-held doctrine. Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, and so on have the Trinity as a defining doctrine that is fundamental to the faith. It's also a marker for orthodoxy that excludes Mormonism and other cults that claim to be Christian but have a false view of God.

quote:

---

All you do is “debate” what you believe is settled.

---

Not necessarily. I recognize there are valid and understandable differences in beliefs even within Christianity, though I believe I adhere to the right one (I also admit I could be wrong, and I'm open to reform from the Scriptures).

The Trinity is another matter. That's not really a Christian debate outside of maybe Oneness Pentecostals, but it's a widely-settled doctrine throughout broader Christianity.

quote:

---

I disagree. Paul never uses the word for “born” for Jesus. To him (and the author of Hebrews) Jesus was a created being that was given a body of flesh made by God.

---

He didn't have to. The context defines the use of the word translated as "born". When he writes that Jesus was "born/made of a woman" (Gal. 4:4), the context is adoption as sons and heirs. Paul is writing that just as we are sons, Jesus is a son, and was even born of a woman as we are. He needed to be one of us to redeem us. Paul also says that Jesus was "sent" to do this, which doesn't make a lot of sense to the reader if Paul was saying that Jesus merely went from one heaven to another, without explanation as to why.

On top of that, the same verb is used elsewhere to convey the idea of birth. Genesis 21:5 and Job 1:2 in the Septuagint use the same word, and they are translated as "born" due to context. The semantic range is there, especially since in Galatians 4:4, Paul uses the preposition "of" or "from" (ek) a woman (gynaikos). Whatever Paul meant by "made" has the woman as the focal point of what that means. The natural rendering, therefore, is that he is talking about birth, because it would make sense to refer to a baby being "made of a woman" in speaking of birth, but it wouldn't make sense that Jesus was "made of a woman" in the same sense that He was "made of David's sperm", as you seem to think Paul is teaching, especially given the way Paul uses the "seed" language is consistent with genealogy rather some supernatural creation from sperm.

As I said in another thread a while ago, in Galatians 3:16, Paul says that Jesus is the "seed" of Abraham. For your interpretation of Paul to be correct regarding his usage of "seed" being literal sperm, you would have to conclude that Jesus was made of multiple parts: one part sperm of David, and one part sperm of Abraham, and even some part of "a woman", in heaven. You have to see how ridiculous this view is, and how it relies so heavily on a mythicist conclusion already existing, and then selecting interpreting the evidence in that light.

Also, Paul says here that Jesus was born/made "under the law". That phrase is talking about the Torah law, given to the children of Abraham through Moses. Given Paul's Jewish background, it makes more sense for him to be referring to Jesus being under the law given to Israel--which occurred during Jesus' life on earth, in Israel, as a Jew--rather than keeping this law in some heavenly place, away from the earthly Jewish nation.

quote:

---

I’ll give you the win that the AoI doesn’t say God crafted a body for Jesus out of the sperm of David (that was straight up Paul alone plus the author of Hebrews who wrote God had prepared a body for Jesus but doesn’t mention the sperm of David). My bad bro! I think that’s about 6,000-1 win-loss ratio against you. Good for you getting a win.

---

I don't think you quite grasp the significance of this "loss". This isn't about winning and losing a debate, but sticking up for the truth. You have been consistently antagonistic towards biblical Christianity on this site, and have sought to support your criticisms through presenting yourself as a neutral person studying the issues without bias and coming to a logical conclusion. One of your biggest criticisms of Christians has been that we have faith absent evidence, and even in spite of the evidence, as far as you're concerned. What this "loss" demonstrates isn't just that you were wrong, but that you were using as a critical evidence of your unbiased criticisms of historic, orthodox Christianity, something that you either didn't read (you did claim you read it, so I'll assume you did), that you didn't understand but used it anyway, or just went with someone else's opinions on the matter because doing so supported your already-made conclusion (showing bias). Clearly your conclusion wasn't based on the text of the AoI, itself.

On top of that, this "loss" removes all weight from your objection to the orthodox Christian view of Paul teaching about the earthly incarnation of Jesus, because now your argument lies entirely with the writings of Paul, himself, which Christians have interpreted against your conclusion for 2,000 years, and it hasn't even been a documented debate that there was confusion about what Paul meant.

Richard Carrier's position (since you've cited his site a few times, I assume you take his position) is that Jesus had to have been made from David's literal sperm (using the "seed" language Paul uses) because Jesus never made it to earth, and therefore Paul couldn't have meant David's genealogical bloodline through natural birth of a woman. Without the seed interpretation from the AoI, your (Carrier's) position amounts to assuming Jesus never had an earthly live/ministry first, and then interpreting His birth in light of that. Without the AoI, you just have Paul's words and a massive interpretative assumption.

Finally, you have to interpret Paul's words about "seed" and "according to the flesh" outside of how Paul uses it elsewhere. Multiple times, Paul uses "seed" to refer to natural, blood-relatives, and not one time does it refer to "sperm", but offspring based on a natural reading of the texts. Same for "according to the flesh". He says that phrase multiple times, referring to kinsmen, not natural and literal sperm.

Clearly you aren't a neutral and unbiased spectator, innocently studying data with fresh and untainted eyes. This isn't just a "loss", but an uncovering of who you really are and what you are doing here.

quote:

---

Claiming that an eternal, one sided, and specific promises of possession of a specific land to a specific ethnicity can be metaphorically fulfilled is nonsensical.

---

It isn’t metaphorical, it’s typological. The New Testament tells us how the promises are fulfilled: in Christ, and through Him, expanded and not canceled. Jesus is the true seed of Abraham (Gal. 3:16), the great High Priest (Heb. 7), and the Son of David who reigns forever (Luke 1:32-33). In Him, the inheritance itself is enlarged: Abraham is heir not merely of Canaan, but of the world (Rom. 4:13). The true heirs of Abraham are no longer defined by bloodline but by faith: if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise (Gal. 3:29). The land was never the end and goal of the promise, and even Abraham himself looked for a better, heavenly country (Hebrews 11:16).

I believe covenant theology is a superior way of interpreting scripture as a singular text with continuity from the one, unchanging God.

I’m not offended as much as annoyed at his ignorance after studying these things for years. God has one covenant people. All who trust in Christ by faith are His people, whether Jew or Gentile. The promises are not to the Jew alone, and Christianity is the fulfillment of the promises to Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and David.

quote:

---

I am mocking you, not trolling.

---

No, you're a troll. I'll explain below.

quote:

---

Your mind can’t fathom how someone could research a topic and come to a different conclusion than the one you hold dear.

---

There's a big difference between saying the Trinity isn't a doctrine found in the Bible and saying you just aren't persuaded by the evidence from the Bible. You can interpret it differently, but you can't say it's not there at all, since Christians take the doctrine directly from those dozens of verses.

And no, I'm not going to debate the Trinity with you. It's a basic doctrine that is foundational for Christianity that has been supported time and time again, and as I showed from the link, there are dozens of texts that provide a basis for the doctrine. I'm not going to convince you of something your hard head and hard heart won't accept no matter what, especially given this new and incredible evidence that you had no idea what you were talking about in regards to the "sperm hypothesis" (I'm calling it that now).

I'd rather spend the time to simply discredit you and show others that you are a poser and a fool (in a biblical sense).

quote:

---

Hey I may have made a mistake. You got me. The legit AoI doesn’t say God made Jesus a body from the sperm of David.

---

And now we get to the point where it's obvious you are a troll. Your entire schtick here has been that you are an honest critic of Christianity, rejecting it due to your extensive research as a neutral scholar. Your entire premise for continually teaching that Paul believed in this ancient sperm hypothesis was that it's what the early church taught, supported entirely by the AoI as evidence. Now you are admitting that critical piece of evidence doesn't say what you've said it has said over and over again for months, if not years, and all I had to do was ask you to read it again and cite it for everyone to read for ourselves.

I see that as a major piece of evidence that you are not a serious scholar at all, because this critical argument for the early church's view of Jesus was based primarily on one text that you haven't even studied. I'm curious if you ever even read it before now :lol:

So here we have it: you have been trying to convince everyone that you are a serious, neutral, and unbiased scholar simply going where the evidence points you, while holding to the fringe view that Jesus wasn't even a historical person, and adamantly clinging to this weird notion that the early Christians believed that Jesus didn't have an earthly ministry, but that He was created from the literal sperm of David in Heaven, based on a text that it seems you never even read before.

Whatever you think Paul has taught now is absolutely out the window, as you have completely discredited yourself on that topic. You interpreted Paul in light of the AoI, and interpreted the AoI in light of Paul (yes, it's circular), but now you admit that the AoI didn't say anything about the literal sperm of David, but was speaking to David's family lineage, which is the typical way the word "seed" is used in Greek, especially in the Bible (as Paul uses it).

Thanks for finally admitting what I already knew: you are an unserious person who is only concerned with destroying the faith of Christians, and you'll use any tactic and argument you can to make it happen, even if you haven't studied it, yourself.

quote:

---

I don’t give a shite if you think you are the infallible Calvinist Pope, your inaction shows you are full of shite and you know it deep down. Logic dictates that it if we’re all over the Bible. It wouldn’t have taken them 5 centuries of councils and excommunications and exiles and violence to get there.

---

"Infallible Calvinist Pope" :lol: you are a troll

Inaction? You're the one refusing to do your own research. Is it because it's not a topic that interests you, like biblical figures' sperm?

Here's a quick search for you. I'm not going to spend 20 minutes writing out a defense of the Trinity only for you to ignore it and talk about how people are created from the sperm of people who died hundreds and thousands of years earlier.

The Trinity

And it didn't take 5 centuries to come up with the Trinity. You don't even know how councils work. The doctrine was already in the Bible, but in order to clarify the teaching of the Bible against those who abused and twisted it (like you), councils were convened to do that important work.

quote:

---

You can’t simply admit that some early Christians held the belief that Jesus’ body was crafted from the sperm of David. It’s an inconvenient for you but it is true.

---

I'll throw you a bone and continue this as a pretended serious discussion. Why don't you quote for me the passage (in context) where the Ascension of Isaiah says that Jesus was created from the sperm of David. I believe it's chapter 11. Go for it, and make your case as to why you believe early Christians thought Jesus came from the literal, physical sperm of David.

(Double post)

quote:

---

A doctrine like the holy trinity is a new revelation centuries later by your definition. It isn’t in the bible, and was formed in three basic stages

---

It’s all throughout the Bible, OT and NT. The word “Trinity” is not there but the concept of one God in three persons is all over Scripture.

Therefore, that is not an example of what I was talking about.

quote:

---

quote:

---

If I am in sin, show me by the Scriptures and I’d be happy to repent.

What sin are you charging me with?

---

Vanity

---

Ok, that’s quite the charge. My motivation of posting on this site is to give glory to God, not myself, so you will have to provide evidence for the charge of sin you’ve leveled at me.