- 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 10/10/25 at 1:57 pm to somethingdifferent
Posted on 10/10/25 at 1:57 pm to somethingdifferent
Are you still saying that Catholic stuff is not in the Word of God or the Bible?
Because that's inaccurate to say that - and to KEEP saying it is deceitful.
Here's why at Catholic Answers
LINK
Because that's inaccurate to say that - and to KEEP saying it is deceitful.
Here's why at Catholic Answers
LINK
3
Posted on 10/10/25 at 2:04 pm to Champagne
Somethingdifferent lying? You don’t say.
Posted on 10/10/25 at 2:06 pm to LockDown
quote:He did in that he quoted scripture as authoritative and not anything else. Moreover, no one can provide direct quotes from him advocating for things that look Catholic. Not even from the Apostles. And worse, he fiercely criticized the Catholics of his day - the Pharisees. Now THEY look Catholic
He never said there was not
quote:ABOUT HIMSELF. Not a bunch of rituals or dogma that have nothing to do with anything gospel related. One of the most important roles of the HS is to make the believer more like Christ. In this regard he is the helper, the advocate who guides believers into Christ like knowledge and behavior. He teaches believers the truth of the gospel and God's precepts in general by bringing remembrance of the words of Jesus. He testifies to Christ and points people to Christlike behavior. There is nothing in scripture that suggests the HS is teaching things outside of scripture such as mariolatry or sacramentalism. That is made up nonsense.
He actually did, however, state there was teaching from the Holy Spirit outside of Scripture
quote:What you are saying is not in God's word. You are taking 1 phrase and stretching it way way beyond any credulity. It is straight up eisegesis. In Catholic vernacular, the word tradition ends up meaning just about everything under the sun, especially with the advent of ludicrous doctrinal development.
it's in the Holy Bible
quote:I'm reading the word of scripture and not adding absurd things like purgatory or papal infallibility or the treasury of merit. Those things are not spoken by the word of God, by Jesus, by the Apostles.
Who are you to say that is nonsense and elevate your opinion above Scripture?
quote:What the Catholic Church claims can't be found in scripture. That is a fact. Aside from "tradition" being bastardized, scripture tells us precisely what the job of the HS is and it completely refers back to scripture, not to 1 million ecclesiastical things outside of it
provide the exact Scriptural text to support this
Posted on 10/10/25 at 3:15 pm to Champagne
quote:
Are you still saying that Catholic stuff is not in the Word of God or the Bible? Because that's inaccurate to say that - and to KEEP saying it is deceitful.
quote:
Somethingdifferent
Technically he’s lying but it might not be him trying to be deceitful. I’m leaning towards his unconscious incompetence.
Posted on 10/10/25 at 4:08 pm to Mo Jeaux
quote:Prove that the Jews came from Canaanites and not the other way around. Use your big words
Mo Jeaux
Posted on 10/10/25 at 5:23 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:You mean almost every scholar from the West since forever. It wasn't until the late 1800s that ideas like these started to show up. They're recycled and have been refuted numerous times. The inscriptions don't change anything. The artifacts don't change anything. The alleged DNA evidence doesn't change anything. The biblical narrative is not impaired by any of that. Nothing changes. There are a few people in secular universities who, for emotional reasons, try to twist discoveries like these but, have you seen the state of universities these days? The professors are just as mentally ill as the students. Not a ringing endorsement. And you STILL haven't named names.
you don’t actually have any idea of the veracity of your allegations
quote:This is why no one should take you seriously. It's Murdoch level hysteria. Question: why do you operate from the presumption of the Bible being inaccurate when it's been proven accurate many many many times? You may not realize this but your anti Bible bias is blatantly, obviously emotional. Not objective.
in reality Abraham never existed
quote:We don't know the exact time period this happened. This is yet another Finkelstein argument from silence.
the archaeological and genetic record should show a sudden influx of Mesopotamian (east Semitic) DNA
quote:Why do you say displacing? Completely unnecessary. The Bible doesn't say that Abraham wiped everyone and everything out.
displacing Canaanite people and culture
quote:Does not exist
there is positive evidence that it absolutely did not happen
quote:From when to when?
What was found was a continuous genetic and cultural path from the Canaanites
quote:lol
was the earthly incarnation of their deity
quote:Still false
The archaeological evidence points to there never being anything close to monotheism until the Persian period
quote:Misleading
We can go back from 6th century BCE to thousands of years before that and the record is that all cultures were purely polytheistic
quote:If you change the inaccurate word polytheist to the accurate word idolators, then the Bible wholeheartedly agrees. Plus you are blatantly omitting times of revival which are completely inconvenient to your fiction
basically 98% of Israelite and Judahite kings - kings who are in charge of the state religion and temples and religious practices - were polytheists according to the books of Kings. And that matches up with the archaeological record
quote:Prove it
the book of kings is fictive history
quote:I am absolutely positive you are not a mind reader. That's a fact. And when you say things like this it becomes extremely obvious you are making ludicrously emotional statements because you have no proof whatsoever. It's complete and utter fiction
Justify the priestly class as being superior to the old god-kings
quote:You keep repeating this without explaining how anyone was able to wipe out corporate memory and replace it with a fictional one and everyone go along with it. In ancient Jewish culture, when the storyteller got the story wrong, they weren't allowed to tell the story again. But you knew that didn't you?
Provide a basis for the new monotheism
Also, when the Jews came back from exile, they ALREADY hated the Samaritans because they intermingled with pagans. There's no getting around that.
Why would the Jews be so preoccupied with "genetic purity" if they were just another tribe of Canaanites? That whole idea wouldn't even make any sense to them. They would have never had a reason to frame such an idea
And this underscores a major problem with the whole theory. It wants the Jews to be distinct but also indistinguishable and moves between the two in an ad hoc fashion whenever it hits a roadblock. It's totally transparent and completely amateurish.
Have you ever bothered to ask yourself why the Babylonians seemingly only exiled Judeans? If the Judeans really were an essentially indistinguishable, tiny Canaanite tribe, why were the Babylonians fixated on only the Jews? And if the Jews were just a tribe of Canaanites, why were they so immediately upset about the intermarriages with people who were essentially the same? None of it makes any sense at all
quote:Squirrel, I wish you could hear what your ramblings sound like. It's freaking crazy town. These theories are seriously building castles in the air
you haven’t a clue what you are talking about
quote:You think that proves something? It's yet another argument from silence. Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence. And why would you think "Israel" would specifically be mentioned before that?
We have written records going back to around 3500BCE and the first time the word “Israel” is ever mentioned is on the Pharaoh Merneptah stele from about 1208BCE
quote:Ok Finkelstein
during that time they were simply a band of nomadic Canaanites who worshipped the Canaanite gods and were named after the Canaanite high god “El”, who they often called “El Elyon” meaning the highest god - the chief deity of the pantheon.
quote:So somehow, in between the Babylonian exile and the time of Jesus, the priestly class was able to completely mind wipe all memory and destroy any potential polythesitic references, despite the fact that they didn't because that's how we know they changed. Squirrel, you're saying they did it but didn't do it. If we know about it today, how did they not know it then when they were in the middle of it? Patently absurd. Lunatic ramblings.
some of those polytheistic sects became the first Christians
quote:Lots. Did you not hear the recent news about the Tel Dan Stele or ?Tel 'Eton which completely pokes a whole in Finkelstein's bubble? That's just one of many, many vindications.
Who are you listening to? What books are you reading?
quote:You haven't made 1 point that I haven't responded to.
If you only listen to Christian apologists
quote:Or, they make an objectively true case, or raise valid objections to nonsense like Smith's rehashed tripe.
you will only feel validated when they pour on you a fictive history
quote:I could make the same, blithe, stupid accusation about people like Smith and Finkelstein who try to rewrite history with a house of cards
It’s what apologists do - it’s their jobs - not to determine what is real and factual
quote:Have you ever thought that maybe, just maybe, people like Ehrman and Smith know there are gullible people like you who will eat up anything critical of the Bible? So they write a book with half baked theories knowing rubes will just lap it up like dogs. Marketing to people they know operate from the emotional presumption that the Bible is automatically false. It's so transparent and people like you fall right into it.
feed you a line of hot garbage to make you feel validated in what you believe because you really really really want to believe it anyway
quote:BWAHAHA. This is awesome. I know some people who know some people. Trust me, bro. Alright, when you have your crew lined up, let me know
But it’s been proven
quote:And who would that be? Bart Ehrman? BWAHAHA.
You just have to pick up a real book written by someone who is actually knowledgeable on the subject matter and not crackpot
quote:? Ever read Genesis?
Not according to the Bible, genius
Posted on 10/10/25 at 5:49 pm to Prodigal Son
quote:
But I’m belaboring my point. I’ll stop.
Not at all. Belabor away. These discussions between believers are important in healing the divisions in Christ’s body, his Church. I can only pray and hope our conversations can contribute in a small measure to this. “They’ll know you’re my disciples because of your love for one another.”
In my exuberance I was unclear and imprecise.
Without question I am the Vine and A stem from the root of Jesse are metaphorical. But they are qualitatively different from, say Shakespeare’s The whole world is a stage and we are all actors on it. There, the world is not actually a stage and (most of us) aren’t actually actors performing on it. The poet’s clever metaphor uses the comparison of two different things to his share his creative vision and entertain, provoke, and enlighten.
Jesus’s “metaphor” and Isaiah’s “metaphor” are not using two different or unlike things to make a comparison. Rather Jesus makes another of his “I am” statements claiming he’s the God who spoke to Moses from the burning bush and “metaphorically” linked it to, I believe, Isaiah’s vine from Jesse’s root metaphor claiming in one simple “metaphor” to be the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob AND Isaiah’s Messiah from Isaiah chapter 11 in the flesh standing there before his disciples.
Not two different things. One thing. I AM The VINE = I am God Almighty. I am Messiah.
My original response was to counter the statement that the RCC had no scriptural authority for their beliefs. In fact, they have John’s chapter 6, the gospel accounts of the Last Supper, and St. Paul’s instructions vis a vis Holy Communion. Christians of good will may disagree about interpretation but it’s disingenuous to say Rome has no scriptural support.
The more I study the more I believe that “The Real Presence” is what scripture teaches and what most of the undivided Church taught and believed. Because of the profound mystery proposed, I can’t dogmatically assent to Transubstantiation as THE theological explanation. My personal belief is-Jesus said it, I believe it.
quote:
And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
Is means is.
As you said, if perfect theological understanding is necessary for our salvation, we are soldiers out of luck.
quote:
Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong.
Let all your things be done with charity.
Peace and God’s blessings on you and your loved ones.
This post was edited on 10/10/25 at 6:40 pm
Posted on 10/10/25 at 6:09 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:I would say this describes you very, very well.
they are unaware of their own incompetence but act as if they are very confident and sure of themselves. And many of those are fine with it because what they believe gives them comfort and belonging to their social group. They don’t want to learn and don’t want to know the truth. They’d rather believe in a false reality
Posted on 10/10/25 at 6:13 pm to Squirrelmeister
I would like to point out that this thread is now at 30 pages and neither Squirrel nor anyone else has produced any list of scholars and their academic work that would substantiate a "consensus" despite being asked numerous times for it. They've just stated it as if it were fact. Trust me, bro.
Our top men
Our top men
Posted on 10/10/25 at 6:24 pm to somethingdifferent
quote:
You mean almost every scholar from the West since forever. It wasn't until the late 1800s that ideas like these started to show up. They're recycled and have been refuted numerous times. The inscriptions don't change anything. The artifacts don't change anything. The alleged DNA evidence doesn't change anything. The biblical narrative is not impaired by any of that. Nothing changes. There are a few people in secular universities who, for emotional reasons, try to twist discoveries like these but, have you seen the state of universities these days? The professors are just as mentally ill as the students.
You’re retarded. Tell us more about Muhammad’s divine revelations. 
Posted on 10/10/25 at 6:24 pm to somethingdifferent
quote:
Prove that the Jews came from Canaanites and not the other way around. Use your big words
quote:
quote: They came from the same people, genius. PLOT TWIST
Posted on 10/10/25 at 6:27 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:This is a dynamic that you are clearly not trained to understand.
You just have to pick up a real book written by someone who is actually knowledgeable on the subject matter
That Smith, Ehrman, Finkelstein are among the world's foremost authorities in their field is unquestioned. But the data is not what's in question, for the most part. Their CONCLUSIONS are very much in question because those are just as subjective, biased and emotional as any kid who is mad at God. Their connecting of the dots is where their personal opinion is interjected.
That sort of thing is on display when these scholars leave their academic bubble and have to defend their positions against other scholars who are their equal. I have personally seen Ehrman get bloodied by Wallace, Witherington, Quarles, etc. Those people are just as knowledgeable as he is and their conclusions are superior. The crazy thing is, in academic settings, he doesn't even disagree with them on the reliability of scripture but most people don't know that because of his popular level books that take advantage of gullible people such as Squirrel.
Finkelstein's book caused waves but over time, faded. People who were knowledgeable about Levantine excavations were never really swayed by him. Smith is no different. It will pass just like all the others going all the way back to "higher criticism." None of it has ever yielded novel insight that stood the test of time (structuralism, deconstruction, documentary hypothesis, archaeology, form criticism, first and second quest for the historical Jesus, Jesus Seminar, etc).
People like Squirrel are captured by the tyranny of the moment and seem unaware of the last 150+ years of scholarship on these matters.
Posted on 10/10/25 at 6:37 pm to somethingdifferent
quote:
He did in that he quoted scripture as authoritative and not anything else.
That is not the same thing as stating that authority is only found in Scripture. You are reading your bias into Scripture to reach the conclusion you want.
quote:
ABOUT HIMSELF.
Provide the quote stating the proposition. Not your interpretation that you believe is the Gospel.
quote:
What you are saying is not in God's word.
A direct quote from Scripture was provided. Provide the quote you are relying on in making your proposition. Do not read your bias into it.
quote:
What the Catholic Church claims can't be found in scripture. That is a fact. Aside from "tradition" being bastardized, scripture tells us precisely what the job of the HS is and it completely refers back to scripture, not to 1 million ecclesiastical things outside of it
Again, a direct quote was provided. Provide the quote you are relying on in making your proposition that authority is found only in Scripture.
Just provide the textual support for your claims. This is all that you have you to do.
quote:
eisegesis
I am very glad to see you use this word. The next step is asking how it might apply on a personal level.
Posted on 10/10/25 at 10:35 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:You are mistaken yet again. Archer in the Encyclopedia of Biblical Difficulties on p.430 disagrees.
Every modern scholar acknowledges that Jude was quoting 1 Enoch
Guthrie in New Testament Introduction on p. 915 disagrees
Schreiner in 1, 2 Peter, Jude on p. 469 says that even though Jude may have quoted 1 Enoch itself, he believed it was a quotation that was scriptural but not necessarily that the entire work was scriptural, which is a completely reasonable position
Lange, et al in A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Jude p. 24 says that there is still room to doubt whether Jude knew that book
The Apologetics Study Bible on p. 1883 says "Jude’s wording does not demand that he thought we have an authentic oracle from the historical Enoch.
Greenlee in An Exegetical Summary of Jude on p. 57 says "It means that Jude quoted the biblical Enoch [Law, Lg, Lns], not the apocryphal book of Enoch [Law]; this is supported by the addition of the phrase ?ßd?µ?? ?p? ?d?µ ‘seventh from Adam’ [Law].
quote:Bro, you just got owned. You are patently wrong on this issue.
Frankly you’re being obtuse
It really doesn't even matter. That's 1 citation that doesn't prove anything. That book has always been considered deuterocanonical by just about every relevant person ever. The relevance to this discussion is that the Catholic church doesn't have a leg to stand on
Posted on 10/10/25 at 10:38 pm to LockDown
quote:
What the Catholic Church claims can't be found in scripture. That is a fact.
Tell something different - Of course it can. We can't help it if he refuses to acknowledge the Truth.
This post was edited on 10/10/25 at 10:39 pm
Posted on 10/10/25 at 10:41 pm to somethingdifferent
quote:
The relevance to this discussion is that the Catholic church doesn't have a leg to stand on
I'm sure that you are just burdened by a misunderstanding or mistake.
Check the Catholic Answers website. You'll find the answers to your questions right there.
What is your particular religious denomination?
Posted on 10/10/25 at 10:42 pm to Champagne
quote:
What is your particular religious denomination?
I failed in my promise to stay out of this thread but I will respond to you. Im pretty sure he mentioned he attended a Baptist church somewhere in this thread if im not mistaken.
Which explains alot
Posted on 10/10/25 at 11:00 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:Probably a good idea. You're all over the place and you're clearly out of bullets. I've asked numerous questions that to this point, you haven't answered.
I’m not responding to the rest of your crap
People show up and they act like they're big and bad until they get punched in the nose. Then, like always, they run away. So go back to your Smith book like the wimp you are and cry into it. It will always accept you for who you are and won't judge you. You can commiserate with the other freaks who buy into that detritus
quote:Says the lunatic with half baked theories that make no sense at all. They were distinct but not. They were polytheist but not. They changed their history except they didn't because we know about it.
You have your head squarely up your arse
quote:Wrong
That Marcion made the first canon and the first bible is not even debated based on the available evidence
quote:He's taken down basically everyone in the business, people who are way way wayyyyy smarter than you. Ask top dawg atheist Dawkins why he's been ducking WLC since, oh, forever
Even jackasses like FooLaneCraig
fraud. He's knows he will get flattened like every other person who tried. quote:
The orthodox/catholic church responded to Marcion, who they viewed as a heretic, by crafting their own canon and bible but used Marcion’s as a starting point
Again, with the rewritten history. Marcion showed up with a bastardized version of WHAT PEOPLE ALREADY KNEW was the canon. Essentially the entire church knew that the NT canon was composed of the logia of the Apostles. Anything that was not that was never considered canonical, not even Shepherd of Hermas, even though it was widely read and beloved. You are ignoring that the basis for what Marcion complied was already in circulation and there had never been any doubt as to what the defining characteristics of canon were. The church excommunicated him because he defied those criteria. IOW, they had a platform to judge him from that had already been established. After that incident, they formally codified what everyone already knew so that there was no room for error going forward. But I get that your fragile ego can't handle that. You emotionally need for the Bible to be all made up and for Christians to be revealed as backstabbing con artists
Posted on 10/10/25 at 11:05 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:Can you not read? "in the order of Melchizedek."
Check Hebrews chapters 5 through 7
Is there ANYTHING about the Bible you can not misunderstand? Anything at all?
Posted on 10/10/25 at 11:40 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:So you don't know. Because if you did, you wouldn't say that. Merely saying his name or acknowledging his existence is not faith
False
quote:He doesn't say "dot or iota" regarding the keeping of the law. As for the comment about the Pharisees specifically, yes. But he was clear on multiple occasions that their righteousness was a pretty low bar because their self righteousness was based on legalism.
Sermon on the Mount, Matthew chapter 5
quote:
You’re not understanding anything
That's rich. quote:Is "these commands" referring to the law or to his commands that he outlined in the preceding and following verses?
him telling his followers for anyone relaxing any regulation of the Law - the Torah
It's amazing that you can read matt 5 and not get sola fide out of that. It's blatantly obvious. He makes it undeniable in v20
quote:Jesus sums up the law and fulfills it. We are expected to make him lord of our lives which means we don't just merely follow the law. We are to give our entire lives to him, to be wholly converted, born again. sola fide
Catholics eat pork and shrimp and don’t keep the sabbath and so on. Catholics aren’t following the Law as Jesus says to do in Matthew
quote:Laughable just isn't strong enough of a word. The ancient witness for Jesus is basically greater than any other person from antiquity, from the basis of textual attestation. It's not even close. Orders of magnitude greater.
The evidence is stronger Jesus didn’t exist
quote:I never said I believe that, nerd
I forgot you believe all claims of eyewitness accounts, which is why you believe Muhammad had visions of God or Gabriel and that Joseph Smith had visions of Moroni. You are gullible
quote:I already corrected you on this. The doctrine of sola fide is present in the NT. But I get that you emotionally need for it not to be.
He did
quote:
actually look some of this stuff because you look worse than a fool
This coming from a person who buys every half baked anti Bible theory that's been refuted already quote:The doctrine is. Just like trinity
the word is not written in Paul
quote:List them
You are alleging things false
Page 30 of 33
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News