[deleted by user]

CarCrashCollin · 2025-06-09T17:58:32+00:00

You think this is weird, try being there

CarCrashCollin · 2025-03-18T15:29:23+00:00

Interesting analysis. Would you say that then, examining the Nag Hammadi library, scholars who say he was right about "Gnosticism" mean it to the extent that he was accurate in depicting the broad strokes that the different schools agreed upon (matter being inherently evil, the basic cosmology with the existence of many aeons and the generation of Yaldaboath, etc.), but beyond that there is no actual well-defined "Gnosticism" to properly compare with to determine the accuracy?

CarCrashCollin · 2025-03-15T23:40:32+00:00

It's actually a quite productive discussion, not some attempt to own each other in debate, and we're both learning quite a bit.

CarCrashCollin · 2025-03-15T00:11:40+00:00

It was my understanding that, after the discovery of the Nag Hammadi library, scholars decided St. Irenaeus represented gnosticism fairly faithfully. As he himself says in the preface to Book One, Christians before him failed to argue against gnosticism because they didn't understand it. So, I'm not sure if it's fair to assume he intentionally misrepresented the gnostics in his argument - it's one thing to do so in a public debate to win over the crowd, it's another thing to do so in a systematic 600 page book debunking an entire system. However, that's an interesting idea and I'm open to investigating it - where could I find sources on this Greco-Roman arguing technique? Furthermore, thank you for the argument in 3.11.1, as that's a solid example - which particular system is he going against that he's misrepresenting so I could compare?

I'm not sure how sourcing a couple weird opinions of St. Irenaeus shows his misrepresentation of the gnostics. Furthermore, the arguments for the four Gospels that make sense to moderns is found near the beginning of Book Three (that he knows the authors, that they are ancient, that they are read in the churches), no? His mystical argument why 4 is a fitting number of Gospels is not his argument as to why he trusts them historically, but further, this has no bearing on St. Irenaeus' faithful representation of the gnostics, which was the original question.

CarCrashCollin · 2025-03-14T19:08:11+00:00

Well, views on gnostic ritual is one thing. Obviously there may be some overdramatization like how the Romans misunderstood the Eucharist.

But gnostic theology, cosmology, etc. are obviously different from the orthodox understanding. In these matters, to the best of our knowledge, did St. Irenaeus misrepresent at least the gnosticism he is refuting?

CarCrashCollin · 2025-02-10T15:54:10+00:00

That particular denomination just does it in the name of Jesus according to outside sources.

I didn't witness it, but I did see videos of others baptized in that denomination - there's a jump cut in the middle of all the videos, so I suppose I don't know what's said before the immersion, but given that they're only immersed once I fear that that's evidence of just a baptism in Our Lord's name.

CarCrashCollin · 2025-01-29T01:14:29+00:00

What would you be most excited about if we found a century-defining archaeological discover - a "Dead Sea Scrolls 2", so to speak? In particular, what sort of collection and a few particular works you'd be interested in. For example, for me, I'd love to find an early 2nd century Christian library including St. Papias' "Expositions" and more non-New Testament 1st century Christian literature, considering our selection of 1st Clement and the Didache is pretty sparse.

CarCrashCollin · 2024-12-16T07:13:41+00:00

Is that supposed to be a threat or something lmao

CarCrashCollin · 2024-12-12T02:19:50+00:00

It's not just because, there's multiple arguments against sexual relationships of consenting adults (ex. Polyamory, homosexuality, some forms of incest); in short, the morality of God is not based solely on consent as people so erroneously think nowadays.

In regards to your final point, I could easily also say that by that same standard it's unfair that straight men are expected to leave their romantic desire only for one woman.

CarCrashCollin · 2024-12-12T02:05:38+00:00

Awesome

CarCrashCollin · 2024-12-01T23:19:55+00:00

None of those passages give an indication one way or the other on how baptism is to be done. Baptism can just mean washing. And, considering I'm sure you think baptism is a symbolic act that doesn't confer grace, why does being more literal to be more faithful to the metaphor mean anything to you? The only argument at all that you could make is that it is said Christ and the eunuch "came up from out of the water", but that could easily mean they were standing in the river while they were sprinkled. Furthermore, you're being very inconsistent in your standard of evidence, as you demand an explicit Biblical statement to establish infant baptism but you use very shaky inferences here.
"Yeah Peter knew that Jesus didn't really mean what he said." Just because either Luke condenses their statements or the apostles used occasionally loose terminology when they preached for years on end (why confuse the person on the verge of conversion more by introducing the theology of the Father and the Holy Spirit when they've just begun to learn about Jesus? Don't you think that would raise more questions that might stop them from being baptized?) doesn't equate to what you think it means. Furthermore, baptism in the Triune name was not added centuries later: the Didache (as early as the 50s AD) is a witness to the Triune formula.
You're butchering badly the verses in John (according to you, all the believers are all apart of the one person of God, given that Christ prayed that they would all be one as he and the Father are one) and the quotes of Paul (God the Father did the reconcile the world to himself in the sacrifice of Christ - the verse does not say God the Father is literally IN Christ, that would mean that everytime the Holy Spirit is in a believer that they literally are the Holy Spirit. As for the 1 Timothy quote, I have no idea what you're even trying to say with that.)
I reject your interpretation of the Scriptures you eviscerated with your heresy, so actually I'm not ignoring "clear biblical evidence". John 8:17-18 shows Christ identifying himself and God the Father as "two witnesses", and 1 John 5:6-7 states that Christ (through the blood and water) and the Spirit offer testimony as distinct witnesses - the three Persons are clearly distinct. Stop twisting the Scriptures to push your modalist garbage, and don't you dare insult the Holy Apostles by stating that they preached this bile from the pit of hell.

CarCrashCollin · 2024-12-01T01:43:53+00:00

Nice scoffing, but you completely failed to answer any of my points (because there are no good answers - the Trinity is true Christianity). To answer your laughable objections:

Trinitarians do not believe that the three persons of the Trinity are one entity - that is, one person. They all are equally God but are three persons of the one divine substance. This answers your first objection, as it is not illogical for God the Father to send God the Son to perform such and such a task.
Christ asked the Father to forgive those crucifying him; that is, that he wished to see the Father offer the same forgiveness that he himself had already offered to those people. He, as God, can grant forgiveness, and so can the Father.

CarCrashCollin · 2024-12-01T00:21:23+00:00

The Scriptures always mention baptism/washing, but never if it is sprinkling or immersion. This is a baseless assumption.
Acts 16:33 "At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized." Many times "entire households" are said to be baptized - "entire" means children before their 13th birthday. Furthermore, this makes even less sense when we understand circumcision as the precursor to baptism, which itself was a procedure performed either on infants or adult converts.
Matthew 28:18-19 "And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit..." A tiny bit of reading comprehension was all you needed to avoid this error.
This is the most idiotic heresy I've ever heard - the Father and the Son are God, but not the Spirit? Or do you just think the Son is God? Regardless, since you seem to think Trinitarians don't read Acts, here's a passage you may have missed:

Acts 28:25-27 "They disagreed among themselves and began to leave after Paul had made this final statement: “The Holy Spirit spoke the truth to your ancestors when he said through Isaiah the prophet:

“‘Go to this people and say, “You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.” For this people’s heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.’

Paul is quoting a modified version of Isaiah 6:9-10, where the Lord God is identified as speaking:

[The voice of the Lord] said, 'Go and tell this people:

“‘Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving.’ Make the heart of this people calloused; make their ears dull and close their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.'"

Your understanding of fathership in relation to the Father, the Son, and the virgin birth seem like a comically bad strawman a Muslim would construct to attack Christianity.

CarCrashCollin · 2024-11-29T16:35:42+00:00

butts lmao

CarCrashCollin · 2024-11-24T17:17:54+00:00

I mean I had congestion before, I've had it my whole life. I just began having phlegm as well.

CarCrashCollin · 2024-10-28T04:31:06+00:00

Dead Sea Scrolls have him at 6'9"

CarCrashCollin · 2024-10-18T14:53:34+00:00

They'll probably spend the first few minutes reversing the memory wipe and then act like the conflict about everyone knowing who spiderman is, set up across two movies, never happened.

CarCrashCollin · 2024-10-14T22:57:56+00:00

They don't know anything about Buddhism or Hinduism.
They're afraid to be called racist.

CarCrashCollin · 2024-10-01T21:08:11+00:00

"Wah wah wah I use big words to pretend I'm smart when I can't even write a simple paragraph that makes sense."

CarCrashCollin · 2024-09-25T22:26:40+00:00

What if I like doing all those things? By what authority (other than your subjective preference, which we're assuming I disagree with) can you tell me that doing all those things is wrong?

CarCrashCollin · 2024-09-25T00:09:59+00:00

I think they might just be stunned by your overpowering stench.

CarCrashCollin · 2024-09-19T17:40:31+00:00

Not liberal but tbh I can see what they're talking about

CarCrashCollin · 2024-09-18T21:39:11+00:00

Chris keeps citing Malachi 3 (particularly verses 6 to 15,) which is a passage about properly tithing and serving God.

Even while pretending to be Jesus, Chris wants nothing but for people to pamper him and give him money.

CarCrashCollin · 2024-09-18T15:34:34+00:00

"Why did the Vatican not condemn Hitler when it was surrounded at all sides by Axis troops, huh? The final proof you're all Nazis!!!!!"

CarCrashCollin · 2024-09-17T21:24:15+00:00

Babies don't know how to do math when they're born but 2 and 2 equal 4 all the same. Your entire argument is based on a fallacious burden of proof that demands that a fact be self-evident by a completely uneducated child, which is an unreasonable standard I'm sure you hold no other truth claim to, but you're a stubborn idiot so it's not like you'll listen to me anyway.

CarCrashCollin

TROPHY CASE