- 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: Jesus Was a Refugee Commercial
Posted on 12/23/24 at 10:02 am to Squirrelmeister
Posted on 12/23/24 at 10:02 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:So you no longer want to talk history?
It’s sad how stupid some people are to say atheists really believe in (their) god.
You'd prefer talking about your belief-faith set instead?
That's fine.
We've dissembled your former assertions.
Might as well do the latter too.
This post was edited on 12/23/24 at 10:13 am
0
Posted on 12/23/24 at 10:05 am to JakeFromStateFarm
It wasn’t just Jews that had him crucified. The crowd yelled to Pilate, crucify him, let his blood be on our hands and the hands of our children. Matthew 27
Posted on 12/23/24 at 10:15 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:
And we know that the apostles only claimed to see Jesus AFTER his Heath and resurrection..
You say no where does it say they saw Jesus after until after his resurrection. Explain this statement in relation to 2 Peter 1:16-18 which you quoted yourselves later in that same post.
This post was edited on 12/23/24 at 10:19 am
Posted on 12/23/24 at 10:15 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
After fleeing to Egypt to avoid Herod.
He did, but that didn’t make him an illegals immigrant like the commercial implies
Posted on 12/23/24 at 10:19 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:That's of course false. E.g., the denial of Peter is well established in scripture. But more than that Peter had an experience, first hand, which he passed on personally, and is documented as having done so
Peter, like Paul, at least the real Peter, only saw Jesus (allegedly) after his death and resurrection, according to Paul. 1 Corinthians 15:3-8
Posted on 12/23/24 at 10:29 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:
quote:
Peter is one of a litany of personal contacts of Jesus with whom Roman records intertwine. Let's walk those back, shall we.
Peter, like Paul, at least the real Peter, only saw Jesus (allegedly) after his death and resurrection, according to Paul. 1 Corinthians 15:3-8
And in1 Corinthians 9:1 Paul says
quote:
Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not you my workmanship in the Lord?
Paul is often responding to his critics that he is not a real apostle. Paul responds with “Have I not seen the LORD?” (Just like Peter, after Jesus’ death and resurrection)
If Peter and James would have walked with a real flesh and blood Jesus on earth, and Paul only claimed to have visions of Jesus after his resurrection, Paul’s message wouldn’t carry any weight. Paul is instead equating his visions of Jesus with Peter’s visions of Jesus, saying he is just as much an apostle as Peter is because like Peter, he also had visions of Jesus.
My understanding of the passages you quote is that Paul is equating, seeing Jesus on the road to Damascus to Peter seeing Jesus after the resurrection.
Are you saying that the quoted passages indicate Peter did not see Jesus before his crucifixion?
Posted on 12/23/24 at 10:35 am to Breesus
quote:
You say no where does it say they saw Jesus after until after his resurrection
No, Paul writes in 1 Cor 15 that all the apostles saw Jesus after his death and resurrection, and Paul makes no mention of an earthly Jesus walking around Galilee.
quote:
Explain this statement in relation to 2 Peter 1:16-18 which you quoted yourselves later in that same post.
Good catch. That verse does claim to be an eyewitness of really seeing the Lord Jesus in the flesh. Except we know that this was not Peter writing it because he would have been already dead. Scholars know that 2 Peter was not written by Peter, and it wasn’t even written by the same guy who wrote 1 Peter, as confirmed by different theologies and differences in writing style and grammar and word choices.
Make no mistake though, in that verse 2 Peter 1:16-18 the writer is responding to Christians who claim the gospel stories of Jesus walking on earth are cleverly devised myth.
Posted on 12/23/24 at 10:37 am to Squirrelmeister
Arguing over scripture that was written by man hundreds of years after the fact is the exact reason we are where we are in today's society
Posted on 12/23/24 at 10:43 am to teamjackson
quote:
Arguing over scripture that was written by man hundreds of years after the fact is the exact reason we are where we are in today's society
This thread went off the rails shortly after it was posted.....it's now officially ridiculous.
You either believe in a Creator or you don't. Take solace in the fact you will learn the Truth after your last dying breath.
Merry Christmas.
Posted on 12/23/24 at 10:44 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:
Good catch. That verse does claim to be an eyewitness of really seeing the Lord Jesus in the flesh
That was proof positive of what I said: you selectively choose your “citations” and you purposely twist them without context to fit your narrative.
Posted on 12/23/24 at 10:47 am to geoag58
quote:
My understanding of the passages you quote is that Paul is equating, seeing Jesus on the road to Damascus to Peter seeing Jesus after the resurrection. Are you saying that the quoted passages indicate Peter did not see Jesus before his crucifixion?
Paul writes that he only saw Jesus after his death and resurrection. Most Christians accept this. Paul writes:
quote:
3For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.
I think anyone can grasp that Paul wrote Jesus died, then was resurrected, then appeared to a bunch of people, in that order.
What Paul never ever mentions is anyone seeing Jesus before his death. If you can find that, you’d be on to something. I’m talking about legitimate Pauline epistles, not the fake ones like Titus and Timothy.
Paul is responding to criticism in his epistles that he is a charlatan. That he isn’t a real apostle. He responds with his credentials, that (just like all the other apostles) he too has seen Jesus in visions.
Look at verse 3 and 4 above. How do they even know Jesus dies and was resurrected? In the scriptures, of course. Not from people.
Galatians 1:11
quote:
For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel.
They took the Old Testament and reinterpreted “hidden meanings”. That’s how they know of Jesus. That and then the visions of Jesus to the apostles after Jesus’ resurrection. Paul outright says his gospel message is not one he learned from any man. Paul wrote that he began preaching his gospel for several years before even meeting any other apostles.
There are over 50 gospels of Jesus, most of which Christians today reject as forgeries and myths. Nevertheless, that was the normal thing in Christian circles to make up stories. After all these stories began to circulate, then you have even more stories (Acts) and more letters 1/2 Peter etc. that are just more fan fiction.
Posted on 12/23/24 at 10:50 am to Breesus
quote:
That was proof positive of what I said: you selectively choose your “citations” and you purposely twist them without context to fit your narrative.
Whatever dude. 2 Peter was written in the second century. The real Peter died in Rome at least 50 years before 2 Peter was written. You want to be gullible and believe nonsense go ahead.
Posted on 12/23/24 at 10:52 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:
2 Peter was written in the second century
quote:
No, according to most biblical scholars, 2 Peter was not written in the second century; it is generally believed to have been written towards the end of the first century, likely between AD 64 and 68, during the time of the Apostle Peter's life, as he mentions his impending death in the text.
This post was edited on 12/23/24 at 11:19 am
Posted on 12/23/24 at 10:54 am to MemphisGuy
Oops, double post for some reason
This post was edited on 12/23/24 at 11:19 am
Posted on 12/23/24 at 10:57 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:
Whatever dude. 2 Peter was written in the second century. The real Peter died in Rome at least 50 years before 2 Peter was written. You want to be gullible and believe nonsense go ahead.
You were having the greatest moment of your life and then spewed out this BS. Now go back out there and grab life by the horns in this thread!!
Posted on 12/23/24 at 11:03 am to MemphisGuy
quote:
it is generally believed to have been written towards the end of the first century, likely between AD 64 and 68, during the time of the Apostle Peter's life,
Sure, by Christian apologists, but not by legitimate scholarship. Some scholars date it to 150CE.
Think about it. It’s a letter responding to Christians who do not believe in the gospel account of the historical Jesus. These were Christians who worshipped the resurrected Jesus who claimed the gospel accounts were cleverly devised myths. The gospels were written at least later than 70CE and up to around 120-150CE when “John” was written.
The point is that 2 Peter had to have been written after at least one gospel story of an earthly Jesus was published to argue against the people that rejected that story. And that first story “Mark” was written after the temple was destroyed in 70CE. And if Peter supposedly died in the 60s in Rome, he couldn’t be the author of 2 Peter.
Posted on 12/23/24 at 11:03 am to Breesus
quote:Exactly.
That was proof positive of what I said: you selectively choose your “citations” and you purposely twist them without context to fit your narrative.
Posted on 12/23/24 at 11:11 am to teamjackson
quote:
Arguing over scripture that was written by man hundreds of years after the fact is the exact reason we are where we are in today's society
Well we know that Paul's letter to the Galatians as well as his first letter to the Corinthians was written 20 years after the events of Good Friday and Easter Sunday. What's more, he wrote those letters 2-3 years after founding those churches and writes in a way to suggest that his audience is very familiar with the gospel stories he references.
So to say that these stories in the New Testament were written "hundreds of years after the fact" would be nothing short of historically inaccurate. The last book of the New Testament (Revalation) is liberally estimated to have been written around the year 100 - which would put it just 70 years after Easter Sunday. In other words, that's within living memory.
This post was edited on 12/23/24 at 11:12 am
Posted on 12/23/24 at 11:11 am to Squirrelmeister
A slight lie as they are actually mice.
Who lies about being a physiologist?
The truth is that you psychologically and emotionally need it to be a lie.
Who lies about being a physiologist?
The truth is that you psychologically and emotionally need it to be a lie.
Posted on 12/23/24 at 11:16 am to Wildcat1996
quote:
Who lies about being a physiologist?
Maybe you are just incompetent. I’ve come across a lot of incompetent professionals.
quote:
The truth is that you psychologically and emotionally need it to be a lie.
Nah, I don’t need anything. I just call them as I see them. Whatever is, is, despite what we may want. Facts don’t care about our feelings.
Page 8 of 18
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News