- 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: Impressive support for Intelligent Design
Posted on 4/4/26 at 5:56 am to Squirrelmeister
Posted on 4/4/26 at 5:56 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:You are clearly fading out. You are no longer responding to most of what I’m writing and your responses are dwindling down to ad hominem attacks with no substance.
Stupidity and lack of awareness all in one package. It doesn’t surprise me you would write something like that.
Looks like you’re down for the count. Just admit that your theory about Paul’s view of Jesus is garbage and you can’t actually defend it when the facts are laid to bare.
quote:Again, in that verse, Paul did not uses the word “Hades”, but he used that word elsewhere. He could have used it, but he didn’t.
Strong’s concordance calls it Hades. Your precious church fathers argue “Paul” means Hades in that context, even though it wasn’t written by the historical Paul.
This is the same argument you used against me for Paul using “made” instead of “born”, except my explanation is much more plausible given what else Paul says about Jesus, including His incarnation from the lineage of Abraham, Issac, Jacob, and David.
If you are going to argue for the use of one word over another, you need to be consistent, and be able to explain the grammar based on its context, rather than inserting meaning based on your own presuppositions.
quote:I’m alleging you are butchering or flat out ignoring the grammar of the text, which is the most important part of interpretation. You are doing that, and I believe I have conclusively shown that you are, by looking at what the words are and how they are used in context.
No, that’s you as usual alleging other people are guilty of the crime you commit.
You ignore all that and are trying to reach for those last straws of hope that Paul created a myth about Jesus so that you won’t be held accountable by Him. You will, so you better bend the knee to your King right now while salvation is possible. Else, you will be forced to bend the knee when salvation is no longer an option.
1
Posted on 4/4/26 at 7:04 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:There was no conflict at all. John used the word “made” when saying the word was made flesh (John 1:14), and yet he clearly also taught that Jesus had an earthly ministry (which is what his gospel was about), and had an earthly mother and brothers. The words are not mutually exclusive, and as always, we have to use the context to interpret the meaning.
Let me fix that for ya: It makes sense that he differentiates the creation of Jesus’ body from the birth of all other humans precisely because Jesus was made, not begotten, according to Paul, which is why this topic had to be “settled” at Nicea as Paul’s gospel conflicted with the gospels of Matthew and Luke if taken literally.
The context Paul uses of Jesus is natural generation from a human and Jewish heritage, not in heaven, but on earth, as I’ve pointed out with his use of “seed”.
quote:Not exactly. It is the Greek word that both means literal sperm and offspring (children). The Bible is full of the Greek word sperma being used of children or descendants.
“Seed” in English is the Greek word “sperm” and you know that.
Of all the uses of the word, it is used for biological descent about 90% or so of the time. Another 5% or so is used to refer to agriculture, and less than 5% of the time it is talking about semen. When it speaks of semen, it is very clear, and it is only mentioned that way in the Old Testament.
So no, Paul isn’t speaking of literal sperm or semen.
quote:He does, but “according to the flesh” speaks to his biology. He was saying that according to human biology, he is Jewish, descending from Abraham. Gentiles were those who did not descend from Abraham “according to the flesh”. Paul specifically says that Jesus—the Christ—is of their race “according to the flesh” in Romans 9:5. He’s talking about the Jews and how Jesus was a Jewish man.
Paul simply means he is a Jewish man, not a gentile adopted into Judaism.
quote:He doesn’t need to use the word “begotten” because the other words he uses drive to the same conclusion.
He definitely believed the body God created and prepared for Jesus was that of the substance of a Jewish kingly/messiah male. It doesn’t indicate earthly lineage because he never once uses “begotten” to describe Jesus but always “made”. And you know this.
In all of the Bible, the same conclusion exists: that Jesus is God incarnate through the womb of Mary, a Jew, on earth. That conclusion is supported in several ways, but one of them is Paul’s usage of the word “seed”, which is in alignment with the rest of the Bible regarding physical lineage.
It is incumbent upon you to prove that Paul means a physical sperm rather than natural generation, and you cannot prove it. You merely assert it because you believe the Ascension of Isaiah (or at least part of it) reflects Paul’s thoughts more than Peter, John, and the gospel writers who were the name things.
The text of Paul’s writings does not support your conclusion.
quote:Non-physical doesn’t necessarily mean allegorical. Christians are really and truly Abraham’s spiritual offspring, and we are entitled to the promises given to Abraham. That was Paul’s point. However, the issue isn’t about what type of offspring/children we are, but that Paul was referring to offspring and not semen.
Yes this is clearly allegorical. Applying the same to Jesus would mean Jesus is an allegorical adopted son, not a biological offspring.
Once you agree that Paul is talking about children or lineage of some kind and NOT literal semen, we can move on to why Jesus is the physical descendent of Abraham and David. You need to stop deflecting, though. It seems you are already conceding that Paul is speaking of descendants. And he is, because that is what the context demonstrates. You can’t get around it by selectively redefining meanings without proving it from the grammar.
Posted on 4/4/26 at 9:12 am to FooManChoo
quote:
You are clearly fading out. You are no longer responding to most of what I’m writing and your responses are dwindling down to ad hominem attacks with no substance
You deserve it, for stating you think Paul, who wrote Christians shouldn’t get married due to the last days and end of the world, and the person who wrote pseudepigrapha saying a bishop should be married, are the same author. It’s like take a staff and don’t take a staff. You’re disingenuous.
quote:
Looks like you’re down for the count. Just admit that your theory about Paul’s view of Jesus is garbage and you can’t actually defend it when the facts are laid to bare.
Foo, you have no facts and you live in a fantasy bubble.
quote:
Again, in that verse, Paul did not uses the word “Hades”, but he used that word elsewhere. He could have used it, but he didn’t.
You remind me of the fact Paul always uses “made” for Jesus’ body even though he uses “begotten” many times elsewhere even in the same chapters. He could have used “begotten” for Jesus but he didn’t.
The “lower regions (of) the earth” do not day “earth” as you want it to do badly. Tertullian, Irenaeus, Origen, and other church father all wrote commentaries that “Paul” meant “Hades”. I’m air quoting Paul’s name because he obviously didn’t write Ephesians.
And that letter was written after Justin, Polycarp, and Ignatius lived and wrote so they never got to comment on Ephesians.
quote:
If you are going to argue for the use of one word over another, you need to be consistent
quote:
You ignore all that and are trying to reach for those last straws of hope that Paul created a myth about Jesus so that you won’t be held accountable by Him
I don’t think he created the myth of Jesus. The Dead Sea scrolls sect and guys like Philo were already worshipping Jesus (though he hadn’t yet been exalted and earned that name of above names yet) way before Paul. Paul didn’t write the Ascension of Isaiah - that was one of his sources. The epistle to the Hebrews also had Jesus dying in heaven with the resurrection implied by him becoming Melchizedek the high priest forever.
There were Christians in the BC time period, and those groups were very diverse. Some of them invented the story of Jesus being crucified and resurrected, and Paul latched on to it.
1 Peter, Jude, James, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Didache don’t even mention the resurrection, much less the fleshly Jesus on earth conducting a ministry. Something as important as the Didache - an instruction manual for how and why to worship Jesus - doesn’t mention him ever being on earth, dying for our sins, or being resurrected. For Paul, Jesus’ death and resurrection was central to his faith. The author of the didache didn’t know anything about it or if he did, he didn’t care because Paul was a competing sect with different beliefs.
You have a lot of problems, Foo, with consistency. You reject all the times Yahweh loved the sacrifice of animals, even the smell of burning flesh. You use examples of Yahweh rejecting Saul’s animal sacrifice but you take it out of context because the story has Yahweh pissed that Saul didn’t follow his exact instructions. You ignore how much Yahweh lived Solomons’ burning dead animals and Noah’s burning dead animals. You quote scripture where it says Yahweh doesn’t condone or want animal sacrifice, and you purposely ignore verses where he commands animal and even human sacrifice and brags about how he commanded Israelites to sacrifice their children. You say God abhors human sacrifice, and are oblivious to God proving you wrong when he sacrificed his “only” son.
Posted on 4/4/26 at 9:17 am to FooManChoo
quote:
Non-physical doesn’t necessarily mean allegorical. Christians are really and truly Abraham’s spiritual offspring, and we are entitled to the promises given to Abraham
You are too internally inconsistent to argue with. You believe the YOMs from Genesis 1 are literal 24 hour days but Genesis 2 YOM about in the day Adam eats of the fruit - death he will die - is allegorical based on Platonic soul philosophy but in the day he eats of it - his eyes will be open possessing divine knowledge of good and evil - that’s literal. Go spend time with your family instead of embarrassing yourself further on here.
Posted on 4/4/26 at 10:39 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:I'm not disingenuous at all. I have said time and time again that my comments aren't my own, but the historical interpretations and explanations of the Scriptures. Your lack of understanding and/or your lack of acceptance does not mean I'm being disingenuous. But more to the point...
You deserve it, for stating you think Paul, who wrote Christians shouldn’t get married due to the last days and end of the world, and the person who wrote pseudepigrapha saying a bishop should be married, are the same author. It’s like take a staff and don’t take a staff. You’re disingenuous.
Paul did not teach that Christians should not get married. He taught that it would be better that everyone remain single like he was, but he didn't forbid it. In fact, he both taught that it was good to be married, especially for those without the gift of celibacy (those without the longing for marriage and the sexual lusts make singleness difficult), and he taught that it was a doctrine of demons to forbid marriage.
So no, your interpretative conclusion is off, as usual, because you aren't familiar with the Bible, but only what you read from whatever source you are referring to.
quote:I've listed fact after fact. I've provided the Greek. I've provided the grammatical context. I've provided the word usage. I've given a list of evidences that demonstrate your position is not supportable. You're responded by either ignoring what I've said, or adding in something else that doesn't work, and I've consistently shown you why you are wrong.
Foo, you have no facts and you live in a fantasy bubble.
quote:Yes, he could have. That's the point I was making, which is why I drew attention to it. I've also shown why "made" doesn't mean non-birthed in context. You can't show why Paul was actually referring to Hades/Sheol rather than merely the earth, though.
You remind me of the fact Paul always uses “made” for Jesus’ body even though he uses “begotten” many times elsewhere even in the same chapters. He could have used “begotten” for Jesus but he didn’t.
quote:
The “lower regions (of) the earth” do not day “earth” as you want it to do badly. Tertullian, Irenaeus, Origen, and other church father all wrote commentaries that “Paul” meant “Hades”. I’m air quoting Paul’s name because he obviously didn’t write Ephesians.
it's hard to take you seriously when you keep repeating your silly conspiracy theories, like Paul didn't write this book or that book that he clearly wrote and have been accepted as being written by him by the church since the beginning. quote:They appear to have referenced or alluded to the letter even without quoting it, as there are several overlapping themes at play. Marcion appears to have included it in his list around 140 AD, and Tertullian rejected Marcion's misnaming of it.
And that letter was written after Justin, Polycarp, and Ignatius lived and wrote so they never got to comment on Ephesians.
The internal evidence is strong that the letter was early and from Paul. You just can't take it as such, so the obvious method you are using is to just reject it outright so that you don't have to accept what it says.
quote:Ah, so you are just making stuff up again. Gotcha.
I don’t think he created the myth of Jesus. The Dead Sea scrolls sect and guys like Philo were already worshipping Jesus (though he hadn’t yet been exalted and earned that name of above names yet) way before Paul. Paul didn’t write the Ascension of Isaiah - that was one of his sources. The epistle to the Hebrews also had Jesus dying in heaven with the resurrection implied by him becoming Melchizedek the high priest forever.
Hebrews doesn't say he became Melchizedek. It says he was a priest after the order of Melchizedek, meaning that he was a priest from God not through the line of Levites, and that his priesthood is forever by its nature.
And no, the Essenes did not worship Jesus. He wasn't mentioned in their writings at all. They had an expectation of a messiah like all Jews did, and may have had two in mind, but they didn't not worship Jesus explicitly.
And no, Paul didn't reference the Ascension of Isaiah. You keep making these things up because it's convenient for you to reject Christianity if you think it was just another cult that refused to die off like the rest.
quote:Please provide your sources and evidence for this.
There were Christians in the BC time period, and those groups were very diverse. Some of them invented the story of Jesus being crucified and resurrected, and Paul latched on to it.
quote:Not true. 1 Peter opens with a mention of the resurrection (1:3, 21).
1 Peter, Jude, James, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Didache don’t even mention the resurrection, much less the fleshly Jesus on earth conducting a ministry.
What you're also missing is that those documents are adding to the foundation, not relaying it each time. They don't have to mentioned Jesus' earthly life in the same detail that the gospel narratives did, because they assume those as true. The teachings are consistent with an assumed earthly ministry and resurrection of Jesus, and His being ascended into glory.
quote:Like the other documents, it assumes it. The document itself is written for practical living and worship. It wasn't a theological treatise.
Something as important as the Didache - an instruction manual for how and why to worship Jesus - doesn’t mention him ever being on earth, dying for our sins, or being resurrected.
quote:See above.
For Paul, Jesus’ death and resurrection was central to his faith. The author of the didache didn’t know anything about it or if he did, he didn’t care because Paul was a competing sect with different beliefs.
quote:Not at all. I interpret the Scriptures within their greater context while you don't. You see that as an inconsistency by taking verses as a part of the whole, because you see them as all being disconnected from each other. You are the outlier here, not me. I'm consistent with how Christians have interpreted the Bible from the beginning. You are taking a modern (and small minority) approach to higher criticism of the Bible, that even the higher critics of the 19th and 20th centuries eventually abandoned.
You have a lot of problems, Foo, with consistency.
quote:I don't reject those at all. You misunderstand because you don't know what you're talking about.
You reject all the times Yahweh loved the sacrifice of animals, even the smell of burning flesh...
I didn't say God wasn't pleased by sacrifices. I said He wasn't pleased by mere sacrifices, as if the sacrifices in and of themselves were pleasing to God.
What I said was that God was pleased by the faith that those sacrifices flowed from, and that those sacrifices were evidences of that faith. God isn't pleased with hypocritical sacrifices and faithless obedience, which is what I was calling attention to. That isn't a contradiction or inconsistency, but a unifying way of interpreting the Scriptures that makes sense both of God being pleased with sacrifices and hating sacrifices. But again, all you see is disjointed and disconnected writings, so you can't see the forrest for the trees.
Posted on 4/4/26 at 10:46 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:Pot, meet kettle.
You are too internally inconsistent to argue with.
I'm actually consistent because of the biblical hermeneutic I employ, which is derived from the Scriptures, themselves.
You treat the Bible as a collection of unrelated writings that are not meant to be understood in light of each other, so the only consistent way to interpret it is on its own without any other context. That's why you keep falling on your face.
quote:I interpret the Bible based on the context. You have no response to my argument as to why the "days" of Genesis 1 are 24-hour days, because that's what the text clearly demonstrates.
You believe the YOMs from Genesis 1 are literal 24 hour days but Genesis 2 YOM about in the day Adam eats of the fruit - death he will die - is allegorical based on Platonic soul philosophy but in the day he eats of it - his eyes will be open possessing divine knowledge of good and evil - that’s literal.
The "day" of Genesis 2 doesn't have the same descriptors associated with it. There is no "morning", "evening", or a number associated with the day. That opens it up to more options for interpretation. So no, that isn't an example of inconsistency. It's an example of consistency, where interpretation is always based on context.
quote:I spend a lot of time with my family. We went out and did some fun things today, in fact.
Go spend time with your family instead of embarrassing yourself further on here.
I have plenty of time to show your laughable conspiracy theories being as such, and the inconsistency you show when you claim to only use "facts" and "evidence" while denying the facts and evidence that the majority of anti-Christian bible critics even see and agree are true. You are on the fringe in spite of the evidence precisely because you are hostile to your creator. You must repent and turn to Jesus by faith or you will certainly suffer in hell for eternity. It will be so much worse for you, too, since you reject the clear gospel message presented to you. You have no excuse.
Posted on 4/4/26 at 11:01 pm to RebelExpress38
You lost me at "Harvard".....
Posted on 4/5/26 at 8:48 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
I'm not disingenuous at all
You are.
quote:
I have said time and time again that my comments aren't my own, but the historical interpretations and explanations of the Scriptures
You pick and choose. You’re a buffet Christian. I point out all the church fathers who agree with my point and you reject them. But when they agree with you it’s the Truth. You reject Paul’s own words - he says he visited the third firmament, but you reject biblical cosmology. Why don’t you endorse the historical interpretations and explanations of Justin and Tertullian of the flat earth with the firmament separating the waters above from the waters below? Because you’re a hypocrite and a fraud.
quote:
Paul did not teach that Christians should not get married.
quote:
8To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am. 9But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
Only those who have no self control should get married, so as not to sin, but ideally no one should get married, and they should not have sex, according to Paul. Why? Because they didn’t need to have kids or anything because the world was going to end very soon in their lifetimes, 2000 years ago.
quote:
In fact, he both taught that it was good to be married
No, see above. It is good for them to remain single as Paul is, according to Paul.
quote:
So no, your interpretative conclusion is off, as usual, because you aren't familiar with the Bible,
Any unbiased person can see you are full of shite.
quote:
I've listed fact after fact. I've provided the Greek. I've provided the grammatical context. I've provided the word usage.
Nope, any Greek expert and even anyone with access to a Greek concordance can see you’re full of shite - that Mark tells them to take a staff and Luke tells them not to take a staff.
quote:
I've given a list of evidences
Evidence. Singular noun. You and your ilk constantly use this word incorrectly, attempting to add an “s” on the end. Stop it.
quote:
You can't show why Paul was actually referring to Hades/Sheol rather than merely the earth, though.
In Ephesians 4:9, Paul uses “katotera” which used in conjunction with “mere tes ges” means Sheol/Hades. Strong’s concordance 2737. And your historical interpretations and explanations of scripture by the church fathers agrees with me, not you. You are the outlier, the skeptic, the conspiracy theorist on this subject. The church fathers agree with me and modern scholars agree with me and Strong’s concordance agrees with me.
Alright I’m done with you for the day.
See also 1 Peter 3:19 for the early tradition of Jesus descending to Hades.
This post was edited on 4/5/26 at 9:38 pm
Posted on 4/7/26 at 1:46 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:Not true. I always support my interpretation from the context, itself. The underlying assumption is that the Bible is God's word and cannot lie or contradict itself. Therefore, difficulties must be interpreted in light of that understanding. It's how Christians have interpreted the Bible for 2,000 years.
You pick and choose. You’re a buffet Christian.
quote:I'm fine with agreeing with the church fathers when they agree with Scripture, because Scripture is my highest authority. I've been entirely consistent there. I can disagree with the fathers that contradict the Bible as I see it, and that's not an inconsistency because I've never claimed the church fathers are an infallible rule for the faith.
I point out all the church fathers who agree with my point and you reject them. But when they agree with you it’s the Truth. You reject Paul’s own words - he says he visited the third firmament, but you reject biblical cosmology. Why don’t you endorse the historical interpretations and explanations of Justin and Tertullian of the flat earth with the firmament separating the waters above from the waters below? Because you’re a hypocrite and a fraud.
quote:More nonsense from you. It's as if you are just only familiar with those verses that support your claims, and you don't even read the verses immediately surrounding what you quote.quote:
Paul did not teach that Christians should not get married.quote:Only those who have no self control should get married, so as not to sin, but ideally no one should get married, and they should not have sex, according to Paul. Why? Because they didn’t need to have kids or anything because the world was going to end very soon in their lifetimes, 2000 years ago.
8To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am. 9But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
First, what Paul wrote didn't contradict what I said. I said Paul did not teach that Christians should not get married. He wrote that it is better to remain undistracted from serving the Lord in ways that are easier when one is single. From the same chapter (1 Cor. 7), Paul said, "I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit. But the married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord." (vvs 32-35)
Second, he didn't say they shouldn't have sex. He flatly contradicts that notion by saying that husbands and wives belong to each other and that they should not deny sexual rights to one another except for a short time of prayer. He says that in the opening verses of that same chapter (7).
quote:He said it was better to be married (for sex) than to burn with lust (1 Cor. 7:9), and to remain married for the sake of the children and an unbelieving spouse (7:12-16).
No, see above. It is good for them to remain single as Paul is, according to Paul.
Paul acknowledges that not everyone is gifted (with celibacy/singleness) as he is, which is why he maintains the goodness of the estate of marriage.
Paul elsewhere maintains that marriage is a picture of Christ and the Church, which is a good thing (Eph. 5), and that it is a doctrine of demons to forbid marriage (1 Tim. 4)
quote:I don't think you're qualified to make such a statement, considering you don't even align with the supposedly "unbiased" secular scholars on these things.
Any unbiased person can see you are full of shite.
With that said, no one is unbiased. Everyone has presuppositions that influence how they think and interpret reality. You are not unbaised.
quote:We've been over this before and I'm not going to keep rehashing the same thing over and over. The words are used differently: one is used to mean "take what you have" and another is used to mean "acquire what you don't have".
Nope, any Greek expert and even anyone with access to a Greek concordance can see you’re full of shite - that Mark tells them to take a staff and Luke tells them not to take a staff.
Also, it's a rather trivial example to hang your hat on, considering the passages are saying the same thing: do not gather supplies for your journey because God will supply all your needs. I'm just explaining how the language supports the overall message.
quote:I've provided many evidences to support my claims. Each verse and explanation is a separate piece of evidence that refutes your claims.
Evidence. Singular noun. You and your ilk constantly use this word incorrectly, attempting to add an “s” on the end. Stop it.
quote:Strong's merely assigns a number to Greek words for categorization. It's not an interpretative guide for Eph. 4:9. The context, itself, is how to understand the Greek, and the Greek, itself, does not indicate a descent into Hades. And as I already pointed out, the word for Hades was already used by Paul, so he could have easily said so if he intended that to be the interpretation.
In Ephesians 4:9, Paul uses “katotera” which used in conjunction with “mere tes ges” means Sheol/Hades. Strong’s concordance 2737. And your historical interpretations and explanations of scripture by the church fathers agrees with me, not you. You are the outlier, the skeptic, the conspiracy theorist on this subject. The church fathers agree with me and modern scholars agree with me and Strong’s concordance agrees with me.
I'm fine with being in a minority position because I'm not basing my beliefs on consensus, but you, on the other hand, have frequently said that you're just using facts and evidence (from a naturalistic perspective), and therefore you go where they lead. That's what consensus is all about, and when you buck consensus, that undermines your position.
quote:That verse doesn't say Jesus descended into Hades/Hell, though. I know many believe it can be inferred from that verse, but the verse doesn't say that on its face. There are several interpretations of what is being said there, but what is clear is that the verse in the Greek doesn't say that Jesus went to Hades.
See also 1 Peter 3:19 for the early tradition of Jesus descending to Hades.
This post was edited on 4/8/26 at 8:40 am
Posted on 4/8/26 at 11:07 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Not true. I always support my interpretation from the context, itself. The underlying assumption is that the Bible is God's word and cannot lie or contradict itself.
You’re a buffet Christian just like all Christians, accepting some things in the Bible and rejecting others.
quote:
I'm fine with agreeing with the church fathers when they agree with Scripture, because Scripture is my highest authority
John Calvin is your highest authority. You don’t give a damn what’s in the Bible, else you’d endorse flat earth biblical cosmology. You hate that Paul said he visited the third firmament, so you ignore it while lying to yourself and others saying “I hold the Bible in highest authority.”
quote:
I've been entirely consistent there.
quote:
I said Paul did not teach that Christians should not get married
And you’d be wrong. I quoted the verses for you. You even repeated them. You think Paul saying Christians should stay single and not get married… is not Paul telling them they should stay single and not get married. What you state on this site is ridiculous, therefore worthy of ridicule.
quote:
Second, he didn't say they shouldn't have sex. He flatly contradicts that notion by saying that husbands and wives belong to each other and that they should not deny sexual rights to one another except for a short time of prayer
Only for those who lack self control. What they should do is stay single and not get married. In lieu of that ideal circumstance - not being married - he permits them to get married so as to not be sinful.
quote:
Paul elsewhere maintains that marriage is a picture of Christ and the Church, which is a good thing (Eph. 5)
Not written by the historic Paul
quote:
and that it is a doctrine of demons to forbid marriage (1 Tim. 4)
Also not written by the historic Paul, but actually by someone with intent to override the historic Paul.
quote:
We've been over this before and I'm not going to keep rehashing the same thing over and over. The words are used differently: one is used to mean "take what you have" and another is used to mean "acquire what you don't have".
No, and you’re disingenuous or perhaps patently retarded for using this debunked language. Mark and Luke use the exact same word for “take” conjugated in third person (Mark) and in the second person (Luke). It’s very sad you keep repeating this falsehood.
quote:
Also, it's a rather trivial example to hang your hat on, considering the passages are saying the same thing: do not gather supplies for your journey because God will supply all your needs. I'm just explaining how the language supports the overall message.
Except they aren’t saying the same thing on the subject of the staff. The overall theme of the parallel (copied/pasted and edited by the synoptic authors) verses has no bearing on whether or not they contradict on the subject of taking a staff or not. The point is that this is one of or maybe the simplest contradiction to show in the entire Bible, impervious to apologetics. It’s why you keep bringing up language in Matthew (the “acquire” word). Forget Matthew. Mark and Luke use the same word. Next week, you will probably restate Matthew uses a different word again.
quote:
I've provided many evidences to support my claims
In the English language, “evidence” is always singular. It’s an uncountable noun. It has no English plural form, not in Webster’s dictionary or in Oxford’s. How do you not comprehend this? Why not simply use proper English?
quote:
Strong's merely assigns a number to Greek words for categorization. It's not an interpretative guide for Eph. 4:9. The context, itself, is how to understand the Greek, and the Greek, itself, does not indicate a descent into Hades.
As usual you are being obtuse. You reject a letter you believe to be scripture and divinely inspired and written by Paul, in favor of whatever human tradition your Calvinist buddies can drum up, Eph 4:9 is absolutely about Jesus’ descent to Hades, to the realm of the dead (to preach to the spirits in the underworld).
When Homer writes of Odysseus visiting Hades to talk to the spirits of the Greek heroes, he also calls it “the lower parts of earth” - the same words used in Eph 4:9 to describe Hades / realm of the dead. The “lower parts of the earth” and “the depths of the earth” and “far beneath the earth” are all Ancient Greek ways of saying the “realm of the dead” aka “Hades”. It’s very common in Ancient Greek literature, and anyone taught how to read and write and compose Greek would have known that “the lower parts of the earth” was the realm of the dead. To deny that is just you sticking your head in the sand.
quote:quote:That verse doesn't say Jesus descended into Hades/Hell, though. I know many believe it can be inferred from that verse, but the verse doesn't say that on its face. There are several interpretations of what is being said there, but what is clear is that the verse in the Greek doesn't say that Jesus went to Hades.
See also 1 Peter 3:19 for the early tradition of Jesus descending to Hades.
The church fathers mostly believed this was a reference to Jesus visiting the dead spirits in Hades. Quit being so obtuse and hard headed. Jesus died, became a spirit, and then visited the other spirits - the dead people - to preach to them. Where exactly did Jews believed the dead went when they died? They went to Sheol, which the Greek speaking Jews called Hades.
Posted on 4/9/26 at 12:25 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:
In the English language, “evidence” is always singular. It’s an uncountable noun. It has no English plural form, not in Webster’s dictionary or in Oxford’s. How do you not comprehend this? Why not simply use proper English?
It's shown in Merriam-Webster - see in "c" at: Merriam-Webster
Posted on 4/9/26 at 7:18 am to AlwysATgr
quote:
It's shown in Merriam-Webster - see in "c" at: Merriam-Webster
Thank you for those informations. You know what they say - knowledges are power.
I missed it, but “evidences” is in Webster’s as a slang term. It also includes “gyat” and “skibidi” and other slang terms that aren’t properly English.
“Evidence” is an uncountable quantity akin to “equipment”, “furniture”, “advice”, “sand” and “rice”. Used properly, those words are all singular and only have singular forms.
Posted on 4/15/26 at 12:31 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:Nope. A disagreement on interpretation is not the same thing as accepting an interpretation and rejecting it, which is what you're essentially getting at by saying I'm a "buffet Christian".
You’re a buffet Christian just like all Christians, accepting some things in the Bible and rejecting others.
quote:This is a clear evidence that you don't know what you are talking about, and certainly don't understand what I'm saying, though I've been very clear about it.
John Calvin is your highest authority. You don’t give a damn what’s in the Bible, else you’d endorse flat earth biblical cosmology. You hate that Paul said he visited the third firmament, so you ignore it while lying to yourself and others saying “I hold the Bible in highest authority.”
quote:I'm not wrong. There's a difference between a preference and a command. Paul did not forbid marriage, but even condemned those who did forbid marriage. You know what he said. Instead of reconciling his words with one another using standard textual interpretation, you choose to either accept a contradiction or to do what you accuse me of, by being a "buffet" atheist when it comes to the Bible.
And you’d be wrong. I quoted the verses for you. You even repeated them. You think Paul saying Christians should stay single and not get married… is not Paul telling them they should stay single and not get married. What you state on this site is ridiculous, therefore worthy of ridicule.
quote:Yeah, and that's most people. Those who have sexual desires are the majority, not the minority, and Paul refers to singleness as a "gift". He recognizes that not all are as he is, though he wished that they were.
Only for those who lack self control. What they should do is stay single and not get married. In lieu of that ideal circumstance - not being married - he permits them to get married so as to not be sinful.
quote:Yes, it is.
Not written by the historic Paul
quote:Yes it is written by the historic Paul.
Also not written by the historic Paul, but actually by someone with intent to override the historic Paul.
quote:"Asked and answered". It's about how the words are used, and it's entirely acceptable to use the as I've stated.
No, and you’re disingenuous or perhaps patently retarded for using this debunked language. Mark and Luke use the exact same word for “take” conjugated in third person (Mark) and in the second person (Luke). It’s very sad you keep repeating this falsehood.
quote:The theme is important because it helps us understand the specifics. I've already gone over this with you. You assume a contradiction because you want it to be one.
Except they aren’t saying the same thing on the subject of the staff. The overall theme of the parallel (copied/pasted and edited by the synoptic authors) verses has no bearing on whether or not they contradict on the subject of taking a staff or not. The point is that this is one of or maybe the simplest contradiction to show in the entire Bible, impervious to apologetics. It’s why you keep bringing up language in Matthew (the “acquire” word). Forget Matthew. Mark and Luke use the same word. Next week, you will probably restate Matthew uses a different word again.
quote:It can be used in the plural, which someone else pointed out to you.
In the English language, “evidence” is always singular. It’s an uncountable noun. It has no English plural form, not in Webster’s dictionary or in Oxford’s. How do you not comprehend this? Why not simply use proper English?
quote:That is your claim, and yet you only assume it is based on extra-biblical writings. I gave you valid reasoning for why it wasn't Hades. You reject it in favor of your own perverted desires. That's nothing new.
As usual you are being obtuse. You reject a letter you believe to be scripture and divinely inspired and written by Paul, in favor of whatever human tradition your Calvinist buddies can drum up, Eph 4:9 is absolutely about Jesus’ descent to Hades, to the realm of the dead (to preach to the spirits in the underworld).
quote:Again, Paul had already used the word "Hades", so he could very well have used it there. He didn't. And even if he did mean Hades, that is different than the lower levels of Heaven.
When Homer writes of Odysseus visiting Hades to talk to the spirits of the Greek heroes, he also calls it “the lower parts of earth” - the same words used in Eph 4:9 to describe Hades / realm of the dead. The “lower parts of the earth” and “the depths of the earth” and “far beneath the earth” are all Ancient Greek ways of saying the “realm of the dead” aka “Hades”. It’s very common in Ancient Greek literature, and anyone taught how to read and write and compose Greek would have known that “the lower parts of the earth” was the realm of the dead. To deny that is just you sticking your head in the sand.
quote:The Scriptures don't teach that. That's an assumption you are making based on extra-biblical ideas and then you are forcing it back into the text.
The church fathers mostly believed this was a reference to Jesus visiting the dead spirits in Hades. Quit being so obtuse and hard headed. Jesus died, became a spirit, and then visited the other spirits - the dead people - to preach to them. Where exactly did Jews believed the dead went when they died? They went to Sheol, which the Greek speaking Jews called Hades.
Like I keep saying: you don't interpret the Bible by itself, but by other writings. You might as well interpret it according to the Book of Mormon
Page 37 of 37
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News