- 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
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Squirrelmeister
| Favorite team: | LSU  |
| Location: | |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | |
| Occupation: | |
| Number of Posts: | 3636 |
| Registered on: | 11/7/2021 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
re: Evangelicals turning on Catholics all of a sudden.
Posted by Squirrelmeister on 4/17/26 at 10:15 pm to METAL
quote:
What you’re describing with Homer… (“imitation + contrast”) still needs a literary dependence. Where’s the evidence Mark is consciously reworking Homer, rather than recording an event in a culture where seas, storms, and boats are common realities? Similar scene does not mean shared source. And again, the key difference matters… Odysseus survives with help; Jesus commands nature. That’s not just “better storytelling,” that’s a fundamentally different claim about identity.
Odysseus’ own men get turned into pigs. Later, all of Odysseus’ men drown in the sea. Jesus, on the other hand, turns his adversaries into pigs and drowns them in sea. It’s all about parallel stories to Homeric epics but making Jesus reverse the roles or do something way better than the Greek heroes.
quote:
As far as “Jewish borrowing,” Second Temple Judaism wasn’t passively absorbing paganism. The Pharisees didn’t get resurrection from Zoroastrianism out of nowhere
I don’t think it was your intention here but your statement I quoted is absolutely correct. They didn’t get it out of nowhere. Cyrus - the Persian emperor and king of Babylon - called Yahweh’s messiah in Isaiah 45, funded the returning exiles and funded the building of a new temple in Jerusalem. And only the priestly class from Babylon who had lived there multiple generations were allowed to make the rules in their new religious practices and beliefs but were subordinate to Persian agents such as Zerubabbel and Ezra. The funding of the temple came with strings attached - no longer could they have a Jewish messiah. The messiah was now the Persian emperor.
quote:
you already have it developing within the Hebrew Scriptures (Daniel 12
The book of Daniel dates to around 160BC. Persian religious ideas were already slipping into Judaism in the late 6th century BC.
quote:
Jews in exile encountered other ideas, sure, but they filtered them through a strongly monotheistic framework that rejected pagan metaphysics.
We are absolutely certain that even in the 5th century BC, Deuteronomic law didn’t exist, and they worshipped the Canaanite pantheon in the temple in Jerusalem. There wasn’t even a prohibition against other temples and sacrificial sites at the time. The Elephantine papyri preserve this history. The temple authorities in Jerusalem were fine with funding a Jewish temple in Egypt who was openly worshipping Yahweh and Anat (his consort). It wasn’t until the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC that some Jewish sects began to worship Yahweh exclusively. But some didn’t follow suit. Some sects continued to worship the Father, the Spirit (mother), and their favorite son Yahweh (aka the great archangel, the Logos, the firstborn son of the Father). The Christians today preserve the ideas of older Jewish sects than what became the Pharisees and Sadducees. That’s why “Jesus” rebuked them so hard in the mythical gospel stories and why he told them “you do not know the scriptures”. Certainly the temple authorities knew their own scriptures, but they didn’t know or understand or believe the scriptures that the followers of the Jesus cult held to be divinely inspired (like 1 Enoch, jubilees, etc)
quote:
On historicity, you’re predicting a future consensus because the present one doesn’t support your position. That’s not an argument, it’s speculation.
Ok, but it’s based on history. All those characters are fictive. There is established prior probability that the consensus has shifted on Adam and Eve and all the patriarchs as being fictional. If the trend continues, they’ll get to Jesus soon enough.
quote:
Right now, the overwhelming majority of historians, religious and secular, affirm Jesus existed.
Have you seen or heard Bart D Ehrman on the subject? His argument is that the gospels are unreliable and not historical reality, and none of the gospel authors claimed to be eyewitnesses, and we don’t even know who wrote them, and no other early Christian sources (Paul, Clement, authors of Hebrews and James and Jude and 1 Peter and the Didache) even mention one iota of anything about a possible historical Jesus, but come on, man, Jesus must’ve existed!
quote:
I’m surprised you think that about Ezekiel 20. You’re reading that like it’s a straightforward command, when the whole chapter is a judgment oracle. God is recounting Israel’s rebellion and essentially saying, “You wanted to follow pagan practices? I gave you over to them.” That’s consistent with how Scripture speaks elsewhere (Romans 1 uses the same concept… God “gave them up”). It’s not God instituting child sacrifice, it’s God handing them over to the consequences of idolatry they were already choosing. That interpretation is also forced by the rest of the Bible: -God explicitly forbids child sacrifice (Deut 12:31, 18:10) - He calls it something that “never entered His mind” (Jer 7:31)
It never entered his mind, but he bragged about doing it. Come on man! Seriously, do you understand that he says he did it, then denied he ever thought about it. You don’t think that’s a contradiction?
quote:
Right now, you’ve got interesting connections, not a compelling case.
It’s only compelling for those interested in learning. I have a great case. It’s much better than my opposition on the subject, who’s case is “I believe all the stuff in this ancient book is true because I already believe it is true”.
0
re: Evangelicals turning on Catholics all of a sudden.
Posted by Squirrelmeister on 4/16/26 at 10:36 pm to METAL
quote:
With the Homer example, the parallel you gave actually hurts your case. In the Odyssey, Odysseus needs help from a goddess. In the Gospels, Jesus commands the sea by His own authority. That’s not imitation, that’s a deliberate contrast.
Why are you repeating what I already told you as if you are telling me something new? But it is imitation but also contrast. It’s retelling the story with Jesus as Odysseus but Jesus is a better version. He could calm the storm. He didn’t need divine help. I thought I explained it like that anyway. Maybe I wasn’t clear.
quote:
And more importantly, the Gospels are rooted in a Jewish worldview that explicitly rejects pagan myth, not borrows from it.
What is “Jewish”? The Sadducees rejected a lot of Zoroastrian influence - the devil, eternal punishment in fire, the resurrection of the dead and coming judgement. The Pharisees and Essenes embraced that Zoroastrian paganism. The concept of the soul (as separate from the body), going to heaven after death, resurrection of the dead, end of the world and final judgement, Christmas trees and Jesus’ birthday and giving presents, Easter bunnies and eggs, praying to Mary and the Saints - all pagan.
quote:
For historicity, that’s just not where serious scholarship is. You can argue about who Jesus was, but the claim that He didn’t exist at all is a fringe position. Even skeptical historians don’t take that route.
More and more serious scholars are serious Jesus-mythicists. I predict in 20 years, the dominant position of scholars will be that Jesus was a complete myth. Just a couple hundred years ago the consensus was Adam and Eve were the first humans. Now, scholars have the courage to admit and acknowledge Adam and Eve are not possible, and that Abraham and Moses are fictive characters.
quote:
The “firstborn” language is about dedication and redemption, not literal killing.
So just as with the sheep and the goats and cattle firstborn, after 8 days with the mother, they are to give the firstborn of animals and humans to the Lord. Implicit is that after 8 days the animal or baby will no longer be with its mother.
Have you seen this verse of Ezekiel 20?
quote:
25Moreover, I gave them statutes that were not good and rules by which they could not have life, 26and I defiled them through their very gifts in their offering up all their firstborn, that I might devastate them. I did it that they might know that I am the LORD.
Yahweh admits to commanding child sacrifice. How then can you argue that he didn’t command child sacrifice? Don’t stoop to the level of Foo.
quote:
None of this is meant to be a shot at you personally by the way. Just strongly disagree with your beliefs and arguments.
Same :cheers:
re: Evangelicals turning on Catholics all of a sudden.
Posted by Squirrelmeister on 4/16/26 at 10:12 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Jesus is clearly not speaking about His literal flesh and blood, but He is speaking of belief in Him (faith).
You allege he is speaking of belief in him, but it doesn’t say that. “Jesus” says truly on those who eat his flesh have everlasting life, and his flesh is true food. He could have said his body is allegorical food. He didn’t. You say he is “clearly” not speaking of his literal flesh, but to the majority of Christians on this planet it’s clear to them the wafer is Jesus’ literal body. I find it funny you can point out the allegory and parables sometimes but you believe in a literal 6 day creation and talking snakes and talking donkeys.
quote:
Is Jesus a literal door (John 10:7,9)? Is He a literal shepherd in terms of occupation (John 10:11, 14)? Is He providing literal light to the world right now (John 8:12; 9:5)? Is He a literal vine and a plant rather than the God-man (John 15:1, 5)? Is He a literal rock or cornerstone (Matthew 21:42)? Is He the literal temple where Jews worship (John 2:19-21)?
Is James the literal brother of Jesus? Are the 500 witnesses Jesus appeared to all his literal biological brothers? Be consistent.
:lol:
quote:
I could go on, but the point is that Jesus frequently used metaphorical language to describe His mission and what benefits His people receive through Him.
Yet “Jesus” in Mark 4 tells you that the whole work is a parable.
quote:
I could exegete the passage, including how Jesus spoke of eating His flesh in contrast to the miracle of the multiplying bread that the people wanted more of from earlier in the chapter
You simply don’t know the history. The story of Jesus, in this particular concept eating of Jesus’ flesh, is an allegorical recreation of the Yom Kippur festival, where two identical goats (Iesous Barabbas and Iesous Kristos) are chosen on a gamble, and one is set free while the other is eaten by the priests as a sacrifice of their Lord. The priests would eat the heart of the sacrificed goat raw with wine and vinegar. The body of the Lord - later called Kyriou - the same name used of Jesus - was true food. It was the flesh of a literal animal that was a stand in for their patron deity.
Do y’all talk about it at your Calvinist heretical church that Barabbas’ name was Jesus? Do y’all realize the criminal released by Pontius Pilate was named “Jesus, son of the Father”?
Read the first gospel - Mark 5:10-12. The author is talking about you. You are the outsider. For you, you will eat up these parables and allegories and believe those stories are historical. The insiders - not you - knew that all that shite was made up and that only they knew the inner secret meanings (of the celestial Jesus who was not a historical person on earth).
re: Evangelicals turning on Catholics all of a sudden.
Posted by Squirrelmeister on 4/16/26 at 8:47 pm to METAL
quote:
So… during my 15 year hiatus from the Catholic Church there was a solid few years where I subscribed to the same logic you do today. I’m not pretending to be anywhere near as well-versed on other agent cultures as you are, but I do have a working knowledge. A lot of the same things you are covering right now among many other things, let me to an agnostic lifestyle.
I think I have a lot of knowledge personally, and don’t consider myself agnostic. If you didn’t get as far as being positive the myth - the man - the legend Jesus Christ did not exist as a historical person, then you didn’t get as far as me.
quote:
I think you’re connecting dots that look interesting on the surface, but most of those parallels don’t hold up under actual linguistic or historical scrutiny. Similar consonants across unrelated languages isn’t evidence of shared origin, it’s coincidence unless you can show a real transmission path. Hebrew, Egyptian, and Sanskrit develop in different language families with their own internal rules. A-T-N, Amun/Amen, or B-R-H-M parallels sound compelling until you actually study how those languages work.
Sure you can find scholarly works defending your position but so can I. Aten/Adon is the best and easiest to think about. They are equivalent consonants - literally the same exact word in Egyptian (and Akkadian) and Israelite/Canaanite. In both languages in cities 200 miles apart (cultic center of Aten worship in Amarna and cultic center of Yahweh/Adon worship in Jerusalem) they both referred to “the one true God” who created the universe. The Egyptians symbolized Aten as the sun. In Psalm 27, Isaiah 60, and 1 John 1, Adonai is called “my light”, “everlasting light”, and “the light”. In Ezekiel 43, the “glory of God” enters the temple from the east. The temple faced east, so that the sunrise would shine light into the temple. In Egyptian texts, Aten is described as the source of all light and life. In Israelite texts, Adonai is described as the source of all light and life. Everything I said is true. You don’t have to believe they are related in any way but one must acknowledge the striking similarities within two neighboring religious cults, and acknowledge that for many centuries before the Bronze Age collapse, Egypt ruled the land that was to become Israel and Judah.
quote:
Scholars have looked hard at those Homeric parallel claims and they’re widely considered weak.
Homeric works was the dominant way Greek speaking people learned to read and write. Every single educated Greek speaking literate person would have known Homeric myths like the back of their hand. Some scholars (I would call them hacks) might consider the links weak, but the scholarly works I read have convinced me.
Jesus was with his companions in the sea. A storm occurs, and the hero masters the sea. I meant Odysseus. But where Odysseus struggles and needs help from a sea goddess to calm the storm, Jesus remains calm and simply calms the storm himself. Every Greek speaking Jew would’ve read “Mark” and thought of Odysseus at sea and how Jesus was a better hero than the great Greek hero.
quote:
On morality, saying there’s no objective morality doesn’t really match how you’re reasoning. You’re still making truth claims about what’s more plausible, what counts as good evidence, and what people ought to believe. That already assumes some kind of standard beyond preference. Otherwise it’s all just opinion, including your own argument.
It’s all opinions, and where there is consensus of opinions, society holds us accountable. And even if “the Bible” was divinely inspired, we can’t consider it an objective standard because there is no objectivity contained within it. Should we offer our firstborn sons on the eighth day as a burnt offering to Yahweh, or does Yahweh want us to ransom our children by offering a goat or sheep in his place? Yahweh says he never commanded child sacrifice, but he also brags that he commanded child sacrifice.
quote:
Once you actually dig into the history, language, and context, most of those parallels start to fall apart.
You couldn’t be more wrong, but we’ll have to agree to disagree.
:cheers:
re: Evangelicals turning on Catholics all of a sudden.
Posted by Squirrelmeister on 4/16/26 at 7:36 am to METAL
quote:
I find it hilarious and refreshing that your interpretation of the Bible is most in line with Catholicism
“The Bible” I believe is best interpreted based on the individual works and by individual authors. Even some of those individual works such as 1 Corinthians and the gospels according to Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John are compilations or revisions/redactions of previous works. 1 Corinthians is a bunch of letters someone compiled and likely redacted. Mark likely started as an stage play or an allegorical tale not meant to be taken literally - a tale of the “real” celestial firstborn son of God who was killed in heaven by the archons of the firmament as part of a secret plan, descended to Hades, and then was resurrected, highly exalted up to the highest heaven, and earned his name above all others - Jesus. (Paul’s gospel)
One cannot interpret “The Bible” based on a presumption of univocality. That would be fallacious.
quote:
Just need to convince you of Gods existence.
You have an uphill battle, buddy. :lol:
quote:
Maybe I should step back and let you defend Catholicism against the poor exegesis you see here.
Don’t mistake me pointing out Foo’s hypocrisy for defending Catholicism.
re: Evangelicals turning on Catholics all of a sudden.
Posted by Squirrelmeister on 4/14/26 at 11:01 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Jesus' flesh is in Heaven right now.
quote:
So no, we do not have to eat Jesus' physical body and drink His physical blood to have eternal life.
Well let’s see what Jesus, the literal son of the Most High God, had to say about that…
quote:
53So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the breadc the fathers ate, and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”
Yet… you read it like this.
quote:
53So Jesus said to them, “falsely, falsely, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever doesn’t literally feed on my flesh and doesn’t literally drink my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55For my flesh is allegorical food, and my blood is allegorical drink. 56Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood (figuratively, but not literally) abides in me, and I in him. 57As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. Just kidding. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate, and died. Whoever doesn’t feed on this bread will live forever so long as they believe I am their Lord and savior.”
:lol:
You prioritize the traditions of John Calvin rather than using the scriptures you claim are divinely inspired. You’re a joke, Foo, and a sad one.
re: Evangelicals turning on Catholics all of a sudden.
Posted by Squirrelmeister on 4/14/26 at 10:18 pm to METAL
quote:
You don’t see evidence of Christ or God in your studies.
Correct but it’s more than that. I see positive evidence Jesus - the man, the firstborn son and archangel and logos of the most high God - is mythology and legend cobbled together from earlier myths and legends.
quote:
Given your interest in the subject I’m sure you’ve thought/read a bit about objective moralism
I don’t believe there is such a thing. There is no objective morality, which is why the field of study - Ethics - exists in the first place and philosophers argue back and forth in circles. It’s fun to argue whether one should switch the trolley car track or not based on different scenarios but philosophy as a topic isn’t something I care to study more than I already have in school.
quote:
metaphysics
Nah, but actual physics yes.
quote:
Have to ask though… why the interest of its all a bunch of bologna?
I simply find it interesting and entertaining. I find much of the mythology and literature of the ancient world fascinating.
Did you know the first recorded monotheistic religion was created by a Pharoah named Amenhotep IV, who renamed himself Ahkenaten after the single deity he worshipped - named Aten. In Egyptian hieroglyphics the letter (consonant) sounds were A-T-N. At that time, Egypt owned Canaan as a possession. So a few decades later, in Canaan, a group of Canaanites identified as “IsraEl” started to call their single deity A-T-N. They often used the possessive form putting what in English is an “i” sound at the end of the word. In English it is written “Adonai”. I don’t think that is coincidental.
You also have the Amun (Egyptian deity) linked with the Israelite Amen (in prayer).
What we call Abraham in English was in Hebrew written in equivalent English consonants B-R-H-M. In English we call the Hindu deity Brahma but in equivalent English consonants, the way to write Brahma in Sanskrit was B-R-H-M. Both mythical characters are considered a father figure of their respective people groups. You might not find that interesting but I do.
Have you read the Odyssey? There are some gospel stories of Jesus and his disciples that are simply re-worked Homeric epic.
It’s fun to make the connections.
re: Evangelicals turning on Catholics all of a sudden.
Posted by Squirrelmeister on 4/14/26 at 9:27 pm to METAL
quote:
Well stated.
Thanks
quote:
Although Jesus was and is very real.
We will have to agree to disagree, but that wasn’t the point of my post.
quote:
Plenty of great literature on it if you care to dive in out of interest.
You must not be aware of me or my history on this site. One of my pastimes is studying early Christian literature.
re: Evangelicals turning on Catholics all of a sudden.
Posted by Squirrelmeister on 4/14/26 at 9:13 pm to CorchJay
quote:
“this rock”… what rock is Jesus referring to? Any person with a brain would understand the “rock” referred to is Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. That’s the rock in this passage.
Some might say anyone with half a brain would understand that Jesus was a complete myth and not a historical man on Earth.
About the rock specifically… you must know that Kepha is Petros/petra is rock. You are Petros, and on this petra I will build my church. But Jesus allegedly spoke Aramaic (he didn’t exist, but let’s assume he did exist for a second). In Aramaic it would have been You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church. The same exact word used twice. The most straightforward reading is that Peter is the rock. His nickname Peter literally means rock. But you think Jesus was not saying Peter was the rock, even though he called him “Rock”.
re: Impressive support for Intelligent Design
Posted by Squirrelmeister 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.
re: Impressive support for Intelligent Design
Posted by Squirrelmeister 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.
:rotflmao:
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.
:loser:
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. :lol:
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.
re: Impressive support for Intelligent Design
Posted by Squirrelmeister 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.
re: Impressive support for Intelligent Design
Posted by Squirrelmeister 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.
re: Impressive support for Intelligent Design
Posted by Squirrelmeister 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
:bwahaha:
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.
:lol:
re: Impressive support for Intelligent Design
Posted by Squirrelmeister on 4/3/26 at 10:06 am to FooManChoo
quote:
The issue isn't actually with the word "made" vs. "begotten", since "made" simply means to come from or to be, and is used a lot. It makes sense that he differentiates the birth of Jesus from the birth of all other humans precisely because Jesus isn't a mere human.
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.
quote:
I want to focus on this laughable theory that you are fixated on, that Paul was thinking of literal sperm when he was talking about the word "seed".
“Seed” in English is the Greek word “sperm” and you know that.
quote:
First of all, Paul didn't just say that Jesus was "made" of a woman from sperm. Paul was referring to natural generation. You can tell this from Romans 9:3, when Paul refers to himself as a Jew "according to the flesh"
Paul simply means he is a Jewish man, not a gentile adopted into Judaism.
quote:
It's clear he's referring to Jesus as a Jew, which indicates earthly lineage.
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.
quote:
In addition, in 2 Corinthians 11:22, he says that he, himself is the "seed of Abraham". Is he referring to himself as sperm here? In Galatians 3:29, he says that if you (Christians) belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed.
Yes this is clearly allegorical. Applying the same to Jesus would mean Jesus is an allegorical adopted son, not a biological offspring.
re: Impressive support for Intelligent Design
Posted by Squirrelmeister on 4/3/26 at 8:23 am to FooManChoo
quote:
This is a poor argument, because Paul wasn't commanding bishops/elders to be married, but to be a husband of one wife. That speaks to monogamy, not a requirement for marriage.
Stupidity and lack of awareness all in one package. It doesn’t surprise me you would write something like that. :lol:
quote:
Well the Greek uses the word for Earth or land, not for Sheol. In fact, in the OT, the Septuagint uses the word hades as the Greek equivilent for the Hebrew Sheol. Paul uses hades in 1 Corinthians 15:55 when quoting from Hosea 13. So Paul could certainly have used Sheol (Hades) if he pleased, but he didn't. Perhaps you should stop calling me a "retard" and a "liar" without checking the facts. Strange, since you keep saying you only care about the facts.
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.
quote:
It's not a struggle with cosmology. You are struggling with the grammar.
No, that’s you as usual alleging other people are guilty of the crime you commit.
re: Impressive support for Intelligent Design
Posted by Squirrelmeister on 4/3/26 at 7:51 am to AlwysATgr
quote:
Sadly, your scholars failed you.
Don’t need a scholar to tell me Mark is entirely an allegorical myth - he states as much. You’re one of the outsiders he mentions - you believe the mythical tale as history rather than understanding the deeper cosmic meaning, so you won’t be saved. I also don’t need a scholar to tell me that some christians were insiders who knew the gospels were cleverly devised myths - because the second century forger of 2 Peter was an outsider who was duped into believing the myths were historical.
re: This is all you need to know about the SCOTUS hearing on birthright citizenship.
Posted by Squirrelmeister on 4/1/26 at 9:57 pm to ChineseBandit58
quote:quote:I've always assumed it meant that the use of 'arms' should follow any laws that regulate time, manner, place, purpose
Why don’t you conveniently tell us what “well regulated” meant in the justification clause in 1789.
“Well regulated”, in modern American English, would translate to “properly equipped/functioning”. It had nothing to do with following any laws restricting arms in any way, in fact this amendment limits the government from making any laws restricting arms (including firearms) in any way. A small infringement is still an infringement. The “well regulated” words in the second amendment are in what’s normally called the “justification clause” - think of it like this: Because the militia must be properly equipped to wage war, the government cannot infringe on the peoples’ right to keep and bear arms. If you’re confused why the justification (Prefactory) clause uses “militia” and the Operative (Right) clause uses “people”, just know that there was no confusion for the founding fathers. They were very specific that the militia was the people (men of fighting age). There is no contradiction.
quote:
our forefathers were very much common sense people There is absolutely no doubt in my mind what they would have thought of today's conundrums of "what is a woman?" or "Should people who should not be here in the first place be able to demand free stuff/services from the tax-paying public, vote in out elections, demonstrate in our streets to the inconvenience of American citizens, and declare that any of their children should be citizens of the country they despise." Not sure there would be much debate on that topic.
They would roll in their grave if they knew what happened to their country not only now, but in the early to mid 1860s as well.
re: This is all you need to know about the SCOTUS hearing on birthright citizenship.
Posted by Squirrelmeister on 4/1/26 at 5:26 pm to Cito2point0
quote:
You conveniently left out “well regulated”
Why don’t you conveniently tell us what “well regulated” meant in the justification clause in 1789.
re: This is all you need to know about the SCOTUS hearing on birthright citizenship.
Posted by Squirrelmeister on 4/1/26 at 11:31 am to MemphisGuy
quote:
Now... that's (D)ifferent
Filth.
re: This is all you need to know about the SCOTUS hearing on birthright citizenship.
Posted by Squirrelmeister on 4/1/26 at 10:08 am to TBoy
quote:
What does the text say? There is no textual foundation for the idea the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution only applies to formerly enslaved people. If that is all that the drafters wanted to do, they could have said that. But that is not what they wrote and certainly not what the states ratified.
“And subject to the jurisdiction thereof”
You like the constitution and the plan words, do ya? “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.
Doesn’t say they can infringe just a little. It doesn’t say anything about mufflers or forward grips or automatic firing or high capacity magazines. I’m sure you support that constitutional amendment based on the plain meaning, right? :lol:
Popular
28
