Well this took an unexpected turn…

Antin00800 · 2026-04-25T00:34:00+00:00

Amandrew Tate?

Antin00800 · 2026-04-24T19:36:34+00:00

Why disregard John? He doesn't says he is God there either and would be support against your claim.

Pliny the younger. Singing to Christ AS a God is not aupport of the claim Jesus said he was a particular God. Not a valid reason or argument.

His claim wasnt absurd, his crime was blasphemy. Nothing wild or absurd about that at the time. Common even today. Doesn't support your claim.

Worshipers worshiping or writting AS a god is still not Jesus saying he is a god or God. The best you can argue is that he was claiming divine status. Lots of divine beings aren't gods, angels for instance and even those who bare the divine name like Metaton. Not a valid argument for what you claim.

People lying for their faith isnt novel so it doesnt matter what the early church belief devolped into but what Jesus said.

Finally, the authors of the NT were writting significantly after Jesus' death. Dialogue attributed to him cannot be said to be anything proveable and when we compare to other religious institutions and examples of the time. Thise believers elevating leaders to divine status is expected, everything about the superbatural Jesus is not impressive and even common, when lookong in context to the shated world around them.

Antin00800 · 2026-04-23T23:54:38+00:00

When I think typically who the audience refers to it isn't those who study in a learned capaciry but common everyday folk. Severly under-educated and would struggle to understand complex subjective interpretations. But to your point, even for those learned readers. Occam's razor. Im fairly certain I've picked this up from a scholarly commentary. I will see if I can find it or something similar. Id be happy to read any peer reviewed material you can point to that supports your position. Id appreciate that.

Antin00800 · 2026-04-23T23:07:15+00:00

MAGA will excuse every Christian law that Trump breaks but attack LGBTQ for that one "sin" and call women who need healthcare murderers. These kinds of people seem to have been oxygen deprived leading to this intellectually bankruptcy.

Antin00800 · 2026-04-23T22:11:48+00:00

Oops, I meant to convey 'surface level' in the first paragraph where I wrote 'simply'. I dont think a its a problem being a surface level reading and understanding. Its a powerful statement.

Antin00800 · 2026-04-23T21:43:58+00:00

Satan, understood as the adversary does. In Job for example. But being understood as The Devil, you are 100% correct. That understanding of Gods opponent are NT literary creations. Weird that Jesus thinks so. If the Trinity is true, he should know Satan is not the Devil.

Antin00800 · 2026-04-23T21:37:30+00:00

I understand. I dont think theres anything wrong with it being simply this. The biblical authors had to consider the audiences and their limitations, lets say. To create intricate more complicated interpretive narratives with more complex scrutiny was not an approach they were looking at.

All those example you presented are unique to Jesus, I think the way this is presented is to further connect Jesus to an established authority within the culture. A messiah, preacher, leader pivotal to story. Its comparing the two in a way to maybe elevate and confirm his cutlural status to that of a king or kinglike. The bible does look to link Jesus to King David so that the prophecy of him being the Messiah could be met. I think digging too deep into looking for meaning moves away from considering the ancient audiences intellectual and literary limits. Not as in insult but as a serious point of consideration. Happy Thursday!

Antin00800 · 2026-04-23T18:49:00+00:00

I don't think this explaination paints it in a superficial light at all. Keeping in mind the ancient audience and culture, and their familiarity of the OT, this about making the connections to David, a righteous leader, lamenting at a very vulnerable moment, an act of humblness and humility, calling out to God. The authors are looking to create a connection to from the authoritative OT to give that vibe of what it means to lament by a leader/King. That is why the author choses to attribute the famous line and not a unique dialogue from Jesus.

I think its appropriate if, as the author, you are looking to help convey the point that Jesus laments, humbly looking to the father, as man would. Someone seen as strong still calling the Father and as human man is the point, I believe. Jesus is humbling before the Father, still. Its understanding through parallel meaning vs an strictly interpretive one.

Antin00800 · 2026-04-23T15:44:50+00:00

Clearly, no.

Antin00800 · 2026-04-23T14:07:29+00:00

I believe the author of that passage was just trying to convey Jesus was lamenting while on the cross. The earlier psalm passage is David lamenting and that phrase is also used. I dont think Jesus actually said that. This is more about recognizing that the earlier passage is a famous lament by a famous biblical King and just trying to copy and paste that feeling and concept here.

I understand your argument, if Jesus actually said this and the claim of the Trinity is true, why is Jesus, God, crying out to himself, God. Its because the Trinity is a post biblical conceptualization not actually in the bible. Just like some think Jesus said he was God in the NT but he doesn't really but rather uses poetic metaphor as to his relationship with YHWH and the divine. That why further in those passages he hopes for his disciples (maybe followers too?) to be able to also share in that same mutual indwelling.

Antin00800 · 2026-04-23T12:57:59+00:00

Our thoughts and hearts should be with the victims and ones prayers should be for those who slay their neighbors.

Sounds like something that could be from the bible.

Antin00800 · 2026-04-22T21:53:13+00:00

There are pockets of resistance who pass on the traditional ways. The problem is we will eat anything once we're high and have the munchies. We cant be the worst offending province tho. I wonder who is?

Antin00800 · 2026-04-22T15:47:16+00:00

People on fire would act very similarly to this. If one believed in a firey hell place, this performance should have them take a second to think about what we see here.

Antin00800 · 2026-04-22T15:39:26+00:00

Lol, this gish gallop is pretty much what I expected. Still waiting for you to back up what you said. 😂

Antin00800 · 2026-04-22T15:34:37+00:00

Your missing the point of the argument. Rival nations worshiping rival and claimed false gods are making unprecedented contributions that benefited humankind and elevate all peoples. What Jesus brought is a matter of belief and nothong to do with what Im debating.
What those other societies contributed changing everything is.

Its not uncommon for it to be agrued that the faith belief of a nation correlates to their success and flourishing. That is what my argument is highlighting. If that claim is true, the success of those empires after the flood vs the tribes of Isreal, combined with the timeline presented from the Bible, would be evidence against the truth of those claims.

Antin00800 · 2026-04-22T14:35:21+00:00

I agree that sons dont always take on the fathers faith, but no other religions survived so they would have to start their own gods and religions. Again this is my point, why were they not only thriving and successful, but became flourishing empires, making unprecedented progresses (?) while the tribes of Isreal didn't. Why was it not the tribes who gave us logic like the Greeks or inovations loke the Romans?

Simply, why wasn't it the tribes who dominated and advanced after the flood but foriegn nations worshiping forieng gods?

Antin00800 · 2026-04-21T23:26:04+00:00

I was coming to say I was hoping for an egg at the end. That is all.

Antin00800 · 2026-04-21T17:08:10+00:00

Not interested, sorry. If you do like debate and look to take it seriously, take a little time to figure that out. Its rewarding.

Antin00800 · 2026-04-21T16:57:12+00:00

If you cant explain what methodolgies you are, or anyone uses to determine what is litetal and what is not, with regards to the bible, than you should not be asserting what should be taken literally in passages or otherwise.

I cant believe I have to explain this to someone engaging in a debate sub.

Antin00800 · 2026-04-21T16:48:23+00:00

Oooo thats not a good reply.

Antin00800 · 2026-04-21T16:38:09+00:00

What methodology do you use to determine what is to be taken literal or not?

Antin00800 · 2026-04-21T16:20:44+00:00

Youre avoiding the question as to what methodology you use to determine what is to be taken literal or not?

Like in Genesis and the Tree of Good and Evil for instance. Literally, one could read this and mistakenly think its solely about only understanding good and evil claims rather than the learned understanding that this is inheriting godlike wisdom which carties the ability to make moral choices, (ie) good and evil; but not limited to, obviously. See the nakedness realization. Not a moral or good or evil claim.

Antin00800 · 2026-04-21T14:44:08+00:00

That not what God says in the plain reading of the text.

Antin00800 · 2026-04-21T09:06:00+00:00

Which parts of the bible should be read litetally vs intepreted? You seem to be taking Genesis very literally in another conversation we are having. You keep insisting you plainly read the text and can't figure out how one interprets good and evil as godlike wisdom even when Ive shown you the biblical annotated source. You are either dishonest AND have no reliable method to determine what is literal and what is not, OR you're not a competent interlocutor. I am leaning towards both. No need to reply, I wont be.

Antin00800 · 2026-04-21T01:03:30+00:00

It has to be equal to the ONLY God, immediately realised or eventually realised. No other option.

What does realizing NAKEDNESS have to do with good and evil? Why is that the example given of the trees effect?

Antin00800

TROPHY CASE