- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- 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: Interesting how "Evangelicals" are separating themselves from "Protestants".
Posted on 10/8/25 at 10:20 pm to Squirrelmeister
Posted on 10/8/25 at 10:20 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:
Token doesn’t realize he has a bass guitar or that he can play it well just because he is black and cartman
Yep shite was funny asf
0
Posted on 10/8/25 at 10:30 pm to Prodigal Son
quote:
I’m not taking sides here. I haven’t read through your conversation- just saw you posted in this thread and was curious. I always enjoy your posts. I just thought I’d point out that “This is my body/blood” could be a metaphor. Like when He says “I am the vine” and refers to Jews and Gentiles as branches- it’s clearly a metaphor. Forgive me if I’m misunderstanding you.
Jesus underestimated the people who seek him. His metaphors and parables are too complicated and unclear and low to interpretation.
I actually believe when “Jesus” said this…
quote:
When he was alone, those around him with the twelve asked him about the parables. And he said to them, ‘To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables, so that “‘they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand, lest they should turn and be forgiven.
That this was a clue that the entire gospel of Mark was a parable that was something for outsiders who weren’t ready for the “meat” of the “real” Jesus who was killed by the archons in heaven.
Back to the body/blood thing. It was obviously supposed to mean symbolism - a wafer of bread doesn’t become human flesh literally - but the Catholics say the Eucharist is literally the body of Jesus. Maybe he was made out of bread. But because it wasn’t clearly written what it means, it’s now open to interpretation and thousands of Christian denominations and sects because no one can agree and they all think they are the only one who got it right.
Jesus is supposed to be Melchizedek. How did Melchizedek celebrate his religious rituals with Abraham? He didn’t kill a goat and burn it, rather they gave thanks to El Elyon with bread and wine.
Posted on 10/8/25 at 10:53 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:
Jesus underestimated
quote:
but for those outside everything is in parables, so that “‘they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand, lest they should turn and be forgiven.
I take this to mean that Jesus is not going to force you into fake love. It’s hard to explain (I’m not smart enough), but it’s kind of like you saying that if you had evidence, you’d believe. You wouldn’t be believing because you want to(free will), you’d be forced into believing. I also think that it has to do with God’s perfect timing. As much as I’d love for you to repent and believe the gospel of Jesus Christ- it just may not be time yet. Or, maybe your time has passed, and you’ve been given over to a debased mind.
Not for me to say. I hope for the former, though. quote:
That this was a clue that the entire gospel of Mark was a parable that was something for outsiders who weren’t ready for the “meat” of the “real” Jesus who was killed by the archons in heaven.
Will someone please teach me the “eye roll” emoji?
quote:
Back to the body/blood thing. It was obviously supposed to mean symbolism
I agree.
quote:
but the Catholics say the Eucharist is literally the body of Jesus.
Wait- aren’t you a Roman Catholic atheist?
I often wonder how different you’d be if you were brought up in a mildly nondenominational church vs the strict dogma of Rome. quote:
Maybe he was made out of bread.
I love your sense of humor.
quote:
But because it wasn’t clearly written what it means, it’s now open to interpretation and thousands of Christian denominations and sects because no one can agree and they all think they are the only one who got it right.
Right on. And there are so many scriptures that tell us to be charitable towards each other- but are ignored. It really makes you question one’s motives. Jesus said to love God, and your neighbor as yourself. All the law and the prophets rest on these two commandments. It doesn’t take a theologian to figure that out.
quote:
Jesus is supposed to be Melchizedek. How did Melchizedek celebrate his religious rituals with Abraham? He didn’t kill a goat and burn it, rather they gave thanks to El Elyon with bread and wine
Mel is an interesting character for sure. Love the reference. Spot on.
Posted on 10/8/25 at 11:02 pm to somethingdifferent
quote:quote:Other than it being recorded in the word of God multiple times said by Jesus and the Apostles. John 3:16, romans 10:9, Acts 16:30-31
Faith Alone doesn't pass hard analytical scrutiny
You missed the part where “Jesus” says that not everyone who simply believes in him - not everyone who says to Jesus “Lord, Lord” will be saved. He said one must follow every dot and iota of the Torah and he ratchets it up a notch saying one must be more righteous than the Pharisees to be saved.
There’s two main ways to resolve this.
1. These were letters and stories by people with different theologies and contradictory claims and it’s all myth.
2. All the verses where Jesus says one must have faith in him - none of them say one must have faith alone. Just that they have faith, and they simply don’t address the other things they must have such as good deeds and works of the Torah. Other verses clarify that one must have faith but must also be righteous in the Law.
quote:
The only way to make it work is to ignore significant parts of the Bible and to use very incoherent logic to explain away other parts of the Bible? So all of the brightest theologians and pastors have somehow overlooked this patently obvious and elementary hermeneutical observation? That is ridiculous.
You absolutely hate it when I use the consensus of biblical scholars and here you use the consensus of theologians and pastors. Don’t be a hypocrite.
At any rate, the “sola fide” people just outright ignore and reject the plain meaning of what they claim to believe as Jesus’ own words when Jesus rejects “faith alone” and explains one must actually DO good deeds and follow the Jewish Law and instead latch onto Paul’s teachings… a guy who never even met the historical Jesus (well, no one has
). quote:quote:It's from scripture. He didn't make up sola fide. He coined a term from God's word
Add to that the fact that it was Martin Luther who added the word "alone" in his translation of the Bible into German
He added “alone” (in German of course) to Romans 3:28.
Posted on 10/8/25 at 11:17 pm to Squirrelmeister
We are saved by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone.
A saving faith is one that produces good works as an evidence that the faith is saving, rather than merely an intellectual assent to facts.
It’s incredible how those who are so adamantly against the solas of the Reformation do not even understand what they mean.
A saving faith is one that produces good works as an evidence that the faith is saving, rather than merely an intellectual assent to facts.
It’s incredible how those who are so adamantly against the solas of the Reformation do not even understand what they mean.
Posted on 10/8/25 at 11:27 pm to Prodigal Son
quote:
Wait- aren’t you a Roman Catholic atheist?
Yup
quote:
Mel is an interesting character for sure. Love the reference. Spot on.
Thanks.
If you’re not afraid, you should read and or research the Melchizedek Scroll 11Q13 from the Dead Sea scrolls community of Qumran who lived by the Dead Sea in the first and second centuries BCE. These “children of light”, who knew Melchizedek well, wrote of him as the divine priest king and heavenly high priest in the heavenly temple who would one day save them by atoning for their sins and then come to earth to judge the wicked and purge the earth of them… some time in the first half of the first century CE. In this scroll, they also talk of Beliar, the leader of the heavenly archons who Melchizedek would one day defeat.
It’s the same Beliar who in the ascension of Isaiah gospel of God’s beloved son taking on the body of flesh and being killed by Beliar and his archons in heaven but it was all part of God’s secret plan.
Don’t try to connect any of that with 1 Corinthians 2 or the epistle to the Hebrews!
Unless you want to end up a Godless heathen like me.
Posted on 10/8/25 at 11:29 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
We are saved by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone.
But Foo, that’s not what Jesus said. Why do you hate Jesus so much but suck from the tit of Paul?
Posted on 10/8/25 at 11:32 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:You don't care what Jesus said. You care what conspiracy theorists say when they attempt to discredit Christianity.
But Foo, that’s not what Jesus said. Why do you hate Jesus so much but suck from the tit of Paul?
Posted on 10/8/25 at 11:33 pm to Squirrelmeister
The problem is that many view Melchizedek as a theophany, and not a Canaanite priest king.
Posted on 10/8/25 at 11:40 pm to Tunasntigers92
quote:
The problem is that many view Melchizedek as a theophany, and not a Canaanite priest king.
Maybe he was or wasn’t. Melchizedek as the Qumran community thought of him was Yahweh. They applied OT scriptural verses of Yahweh (Tetragrammaton as well as “Elohim”) to Melchizedek, same as the author of the epistle to the Hebrews.
Posted on 10/8/25 at 11:49 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
You don't care what Jesus said
You don’t get tired of projecting?
You literally don’t care what “Jesus” said when he says not everyone who simply believes in him will be saved and that to be saved, one must follow all the restrictions of the Law, every dot and tittle, and exceed the works of the Pharisees to be saved. You just don’t give a crap because it’s more convenient and easy to just go with Paul’s idea.
I do seem to remember something about the narrow gate. Enter through the narrow gate or something. You want to take the easy route and go through the big wide gate. There are may trying to get in - many attempting to be saved through that big wide easy gate but it’ll lead to theirs and your destruction fellow.
You better quit eating fried shrimp and pulled pork sandwiches and observe the Shabbat.
None of this is a problem for me at all because it’s just ancient mythology. But not doing what Jesus said in favor of the apostle who never met Jesus should be a problem for you.
Posted on 10/9/25 at 12:21 am to Squirrelmeister
Your ignorance of Christianity, and especially biblical interpretation, shows with every post you make. You sound like someone who only knows what he's read on atheist websites, because you don't demonstrate a functional knowledge of the Scriptures as a whole.
Posted on 10/9/25 at 12:23 am to FooManChoo
The interpretation of the bible is meant to be subjective, no?
Posted on 10/9/25 at 12:29 am to Prodigal Son
quote:
I’m not taking sides here. I haven’t read through your conversation- just saw you posted in this thread and was curious. I always enjoy your posts. I just thought I’d point out that “This is my body/blood” could be a metaphor. Like when He says “I am the vine” and refers to Jews and Gentiles as branches- it’s clearly a metaphor. Forgive me if I’m misunderstanding you.
Ditto on enjoying your posts.
I don’t think you’re misunderstanding me.
Is the Vine/Branches example a metaphor as we commonly understand metaphors?
Consider Isaiah 11, the entire chapter in its Messianic fullness and glory, and especially There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit.
In your example, Jesus is clearly (I believe ) using the Great I AM formulary to say he is Jesse’s Vine bearing fruit uniting the two branches-Jews and Gentiles-in himself claiming in one “metaphor” to actually be Moses’s Great I AM and the prophesied Messianic King ushering in God’s Kingdom. A simple metaphor at first glance-vine and branches-but at its core a declaration of who Jesus really is. I think it’s metaphor turned inside out and stood on its head because he is actually the Branch and everything that entails.
One man’s opinion, so take it for what that’s worth.
As to blood and wine: Jesus refers to two discrete particular things, bread and wine, and says they are something else, his flesh and his blood, two discrete particular things. His pronouncement isn’t in any way comparative like a simile, it’s declarative.
I find chapter 6 of St. John’s gospel compelling. Early on in the chapter John makes a point and lays the groundwork that it was the time of the Jewish Passover leading into Jesus’s discourse on I AM the bread of heaven. Eat my flesh. Drink my blood. And so forth.
I think, taking his discourses in chapter 6 and their elaboration in the Passover/Exodus context of chapter 6, Jesus’s words at the first Holy Communion take on special significance and teach something about Holy Communion as mysterious as The Trinity. The Real Presence.
Just a reminder, I’m not Roman Catholic, so I’m not trying to speak for them or their theological particulars.
This post was edited on 10/9/25 at 12:49 am
Posted on 10/9/25 at 6:23 am to FooManChoo
quote:
Your ignorance of Christianity, and especially biblical interpretation
Come on Foo Lane Craig, address my point rather than resorting to throwing monkey crap. Explain to us your position on why you can ignore Jesus in favor of Paul.
This post was edited on 10/9/25 at 6:44 am
Posted on 10/9/25 at 6:54 am to Tunasntigers92
quote:
The interpretation of the bible is meant to be subjective, no?
No. Foo clearly believes that his interpretation, and his interpretation alone, is the sole correct interpretation of scripture.
Posted on 10/9/25 at 7:16 am to Tunasntigers92
quote:The interpretation of the Bible is meant to align with its objective meaning. Christians are supposed to study the Bible to understand what it means. We aren’t supposed to make it mean whatever we want it to mean.
The interpretation of the bible is meant to be subjective, no?
Posted on 10/9/25 at 7:18 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:I’m not interested in debating you. I took the time to explain (again) why you were wrong about Paul teaching against the gospel account of the earthly ministry of Jesus and you showed yet again why you are a troll and conspiracy theorist rather than someone who should be taken seriously. I don’t need to do that again.
Come on Foo Lane Craig, address my point rather than resorting to throwing monkey crap. Explain to us your position on why you can ignore Jesus in favor of Paul.
Posted on 10/9/25 at 10:10 am to LockDown
quote:I did. Jesus never said there was something authoritative outside of scripture and he quoted only scripture as authoritative. I can't make it any simpler for you. That's both positive evidence and negative evidence against Sacred Tradition - from Jesus himself. Ditto the Apostles
If Scripture established it, then provide the textual proof
quote:But that explains the nonsense of what is being asserted - that there is something outside of the authoritative word of God necessary for salvation. That God somehow neglected to have the most important spiritual information recorded in his word by his messengers. Absurd
What is not proof are repetitions of personal opinions of "it doesn't make sense, therefore it's not true."
quote:So Jesus himself testifies that scripture is the only authority, which comes either directly from God or from him. How is that a "misrepresentation"? I'm quoting Jesus through an Apostle, not omitting anything and not adding anything. You will never win this point. There has never been a command from Jesus or an Apostle to practice any of the Catholic distinctives. Appealing to the word "tradition" in the NT fails because no one can prove that reference is NOT merely to the gospel, which would make complete sense because Paul would be referring back to Jesus' ministry, not a whole gaggle of new practices that are not only novel but look more like Pharisaism than anything Jesus taught
this statement is a false representation of Scripture
quote:No, the Catholic Church is making a claim that a million practices are authoritative but can't provide ANY scriptural support.
if you choose to attack the beliefs of another as being false, you have to provide clear evidence as to why
Posted on 10/9/25 at 10:31 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:Squirrel, there is no such consensus. I have asked you and Dan to prove it. Name names. Show me the list of scholars with their academic publications that support your point. OTOH, the Jews being originally monotheistic has been the default position of academia since before academia simply because the primary source, the best witness of that has been proven to be historically reliable about a million times over. You are trying to replace history with a fiction that mistakes occasional idol worship with full blown polytheism.
the consensus of unbiased biblical scholars and ancient near east archaeologists
quote:Do you know why that mattered? Because they were pagan and thus unclean. They were idolators. They weren't YHWH only. You just refuted your own story.
They were bastard half breeds of Israelite origin mixed with Assyrian ancestry. They weren’t “pure” ethnically
quote:Precisely. As in not monotheistic.
They rejected the authority of the priestly class in Jersusalem and rejected that temple
quote:You're whistling past the graveyard.
They rejected many of the “historical” books
quote:Still waiting on proof. You need an "unaltered" text but you don't have it
The Samaritan Torah or Pentateuch was “altered”
quote:Yeah, that's what it was. A few crops. Not monotheism. This is beyond pathetic
there was some jealousy on the part of the Judahites
quote:But they weren't. The spiritual dimension was the most important reason why. You're again contradicting yourself saying they were the same but not the same
despite being basically the same as the Jews
quote:Precisely. Pagan idolatry vs monotheism
they hated the Samaritans because they felt like they had bastardized their religion
Page 25 of 33
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News