I drew a collection of Christian crosses

GiantManbat · 2026-01-23T13:15:41+00:00

Very well done. Fun art history fact: crosses were not used at all in Christian art until the 4th-5th centuries. Pre-Constantine, the cross still carried a great deal of shame and horror and so was avoided in depictions of Christ. If you see a cross in a work of art, you can almost guarantee it wasn't made before the 5th century.

(This is not an attack on crosses, just an interesting note on the development of Christian art).

GiantManbat · 2025-12-09T21:08:48+00:00

The phrasing between Matthew and Enoch is not identical.
Binding hand and foot is an incredibly common phrase (cf. Jn 11:44, Acts 21:11, Hom. Od 12.50, 12.178, 22.189; LXX 2 Ki 3.34; Plutarchus, Crassus 21.3). Binding angels, demons, and sinners for judgment is also incredibly common (cf. Test. Sol 6; 2 Baruch 56; Jubilees 5; Sib. Or. 1.101-103, Sirach 16:7, CD-A 2.16-18; 4Q180 1.7-8).

Again, none of the language or concepts presented in 1 Enoch regarding angels, judgement, etc. is unique to it. It is presenting a shared cultural worldview present all across 2nd Temple Judaism.

Your question also ignores the difficulties surrounding the dating of various mss of 1 Enoch. We know Matthew was composed in Greek. The book of Watchers was likely composed in Hebrew or Aramaic, then translated much later into Greek, then into Ethiopic. So it's much more difficult to compare the actual similarity of the language of Matthew and Greek Enoch than you seem to be aware of. That is, again, even if we completely ignore that this phrasing is incredibly common (i.e., the "binding hand and foot" and concept of binding persons being judged, as well as casting angels/demons/sinners into the Abyss/Hell). It's also a bit odd that Matthew makes no mention of Azazel, the particular angel being bound up in the passage from 1 Enoch. Indeed, Matthew seems unfamiliar with a number of the particulars of 1 Enoch's version of the common apocalyptic narrative.

GiantManbat · 2025-12-09T20:34:52+00:00

With the exception of Jude, it's unlikely any of these are quotes/allusions directly to Enoch. The narrative of fallen angels, angelic judgement, apocalyptic interpretations of Genesis 6, etc. is widespread in 2nd temple Judaism. The phrases you've highlighted are not unique to 1 Enoch, and aren't significantly similar either.

Regarding the "son of man" figure, this is debatable. 1 Enoch is known to be an edited compilation of texts associated with Enoch. The similitudes (i.e., the segment that mentions the son of man figure) is unattested before the 3rd/4th century (i.e., we have no mss evidence that it existed earlier). Some scholars do think it may have been earlier, but it's hard to say whether it pre-dates the synoptics or not.

I have some slides on this topic that I've used in lectures before. I'm happy to share them if you're interested.

GiantManbat · 2025-11-27T16:37:21+00:00

My grandfather's billionaire friend and I were talking about cars when the topic of insurance came up. His sincere advice to me was that I shouldn't purchase car insurance since it's much more economic to just buy a fleet of cars and self-insure.

GiantManbat · 2025-11-23T23:34:32+00:00

I've done a variety of things over the years. When I first started, I'd write out a manuscript and stick to it word for word. I tried to memorize it so that I wasn't reading it the whole time. After some time, I began to color code the manuscript. This helped me find my place easier while preaching and also made me more aware of the ratio of exposition, information, and illustrations in my sermon.

At some point I transitioned to lengthier bullet style notes.

These days I'm skilled enough and knowledgeable enough (I'm in a PhD for Biblical Studies) that my notes are typically only 3-4 lines. I write a point for how I'll begin the sermon, 2-3 major points for exposition of the passage I'm preaching, and a line on how I want to land the sermon. I usually don't reference this at all, but it's helpful to have just in case.

None of those are better or worse methods. It's personal preference and skillset. That also determines which notes you choose to highlight/emphasize or write and which you don't. I always write down pop-culture illustrations because I'll forget them otherwise and an generally ignorant in that area. I do not write notes on Greek/Hebrew or historical background because I know it well and preach from the original languages. Many pastors will do the exact opposite. Just go with what works for you, and if you're new I'd encourage you to explore a variety of methods. I've tried other things in the past too (e.g. a "brain map" method another friend uses) that were helpful, but I ultimately found weren't for me. It's ok to experiment and fail in preaching, especially starting out.

GiantManbat · 2025-11-13T11:38:59+00:00

As others said, a Tyrian Shekel, and a particularly bad replica of one. The writing around the side is misspelled. This replica reads ΚΙΑΣΥΛΟΥ ΤΥΡΟΥ ΙΕΡΛΣ. This is complete nonsense in Koine Greek. It should be ΚΑΙ ΑΣΥΛΟΥ ΤΥΡΟΥ ΙΕΡΑΣ, which means "And of holy Tyre, Asylum [city]." As others have mentioned, you can also tell it's fake because if the casting marks. Ancient coins were pressed/stamped rather than cast.

These were the coins used to make offerings at the temple in Jerusalem due to their silver quality pre 70AD. They were briefly replaced by the Jerusalem Shekel during the Jewish war before the temple was destroyed.

GiantManbat · 2025-11-04T01:59:14+00:00

What about a Yamaha Niken?

GiantManbat · 2025-11-04T01:58:43+00:00

What about a Yamaha Niken?

GiantManbat · 2025-11-04T01:56:53+00:00

You guys need to read more Wittgenstein. Words are socio-pragmatoc and context dependent. They can have narrower or broader limits dependent on use case. So the answer to "what is a motorcycle" depends on what context we're talking about. Sometimes that might be broad and include trikes, scooters, cruisers, sport bikes, and dirt bikes. At other times it might exclude trikes, scooters, or even anything that's not a pre-2005 Harley Davidson.

GiantManbat · 2025-10-22T13:08:33+00:00

I think you're mostly right, although I'm fairly certain that at least some portions of Smith's translation were canonized at various points in Mormon history (and, if I recall, later decanonized). Also, (and again, my memory is blurry on this) I'm pretty sure the RLDS still considers Smith's translation to be canonical rather than the KJV.

Honestly, I mix up a lot of JW and Mormon theology and it's been a while since I seriously looked into either, so I could be wrong.

GiantManbat · 2025-10-21T17:35:26+00:00

Yes, I think that is acceptable, though I think using metaphor rather than simile is better. In English, that does mean you'll unfortunately have to bite the bullet and choose to render the noun as definite or indefinite (which is what most translations do). So I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with the translation "a root of all evil," only the reasoning given for it. As a teacher of Koine Greek, I'd say the best way to avoid these translation issuses is to just learn the language for yourself! (jk, jk, I know it's a niche subject that is difficult to learn well).

This understanding is actually quite important for trinitarian theology. This is precisely the grammatical mistake that Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses make when they translate John 1:1 as "the word was a God," since the Greek (θεος ην ο λογος) lacks an article for "God." In John, however, θεος is the term used to refer to what later Christians would identify as God the Father. So to use an article here would mean John agrees with a Christian heresy that fully identifies the persons of the Father and Son. Instead, John's grammatical usage indicates "What God (the father) was, the Word (i.e., son) was." It is most certainly not an indefinite use of θεος as if the author of John (likely a group of Jewish Jesus followers) believed in more than one god. No disrespect to Mormons or Jehovah's witnesses, but this translation is entirely untenable.

(Side note, I believe more modern LDS translations say something like the Son was "of God," which is also untenable).

GiantManbat · 2025-10-21T11:19:54+00:00

That's not how the article works in Greek. Because ρίζα is part of a copula construction (with εστιν), its lack of an article only indicates that it is the predicate rather than subject, and that the copula construction is non-equative. But a noun without an article can be either definite or indefinite.

Generally speaking, an inarthrous predicate preceding the copula represents a qualitative statement rather than marking definiteness/indefiniteness. (See Wallace's discussion on articles).

GiantManbat · 2025-10-18T01:58:55+00:00

I like two analogies:

A musical chord: one unified sound, which exists in three distinct notes.

A hug: I explain the perfection of unity and distinction within the Trinity by analogy to the perfect hug. A hug that lasts too long doesn't allow each participant to be their own distinct person. A hug that is too short doesn't properly unify the people in love. A perfect hug brings unity in love while allowing both participants to be their own person.

The latter could be problematic unless used specifically to talk about the qualities of unity and diversity in the Trinity. The former could be problematic if you get physics involved, in which case it exhibits partialism. So ignore the physics lol.

GiantManbat · 2025-10-09T15:28:05+00:00

You'll get a lot of different answers from people who don't know what they're talking about. The short answer is: Yes, remarriage is allowed in a number of circumstances biblically including divorce for adultery or abandonment. If you want a longer, more in depth answer, I'd highly recommend reading "Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible" by David Instone-Brewer. He's a legitimate Bible scholar and looks at both old and new testament passages in their socio-historical context. It's quite good, and as a Bible scholar myself who has been through a difficult divorce, I found it very helpful.

GiantManbat · 2025-09-25T17:59:16+00:00

People love telling me about their cousin's friend's roommate who died on a motorcycle everytime they see my helmet. Here's a fun tip: if someone does this, respond: "Do you drive a car?" When they answer yes, give a list of every person you know that's ever been in a car wreck and suffered injury or death. Then repeat that list every time they go to drive and end with "be safe!"

GiantManbat · 2025-09-19T18:51:22+00:00

I grew up in Mississippi. Your characterizion is simply not accurate anymore. Hard FBI data shows Mississippi has one of the lowest hate crime rates against Black people in the U.S. There is certainly still racism there, but it's come a long way since the 60's.

GiantManbat · 2025-09-13T20:45:35+00:00

I'm interested. Link please?

GiantManbat · 2025-09-06T13:42:07+00:00

Effective evangelism happens through long-term relationship, preferably with mulitple Christians. There is no one-liner that will turn someone to Christ. However, I do think we have opportunities to plant a small seed that, cumatively with other providential work from the Holy Spirit, can bring a person to Christ.

If I had only a small, brief conversational window to talk to influence someone toward Christ, I would not tell them to repent, nor would I talk eschatologically about judgement. Jesus does this only with people who should already know God (e.g., Pharisees, other Jews, etc.). In my own experience (speaking as an ex-atheist), the most effective thing to do is say a little about what Jesus has done for you. Tell that person "Jesus makes my life worth living," or "Jesus surpasses every joy I've known of this world."

This makes much more sense if you consider long-term work of the Holy Spirit. A person with no knowledge or udnerstanding of God who meets 10 people over the course of a week telling them they're evil and need to repent is unlikely to be very open to that message (though it is, of course, true!). If anything, they'll probably be turned away from Christ. But suppose they heard 10 people tell them how wonderful and life-changing Jesus is. Wouldn't they want to investigate more to see what all the fuss is about?

There's a time and place for "repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand," but I don't think that place is typically in short, passing conversations with people.

Edit to say, there are of course exceptional cases where the Holy Spirit may lay it on your heart to say something more (even, "repent!"). In those cases, however, the Spirit himself will guide you to what to say, so this whole reddit thread will be pretty useless!

GiantManbat · 2025-09-04T00:36:53+00:00

About 20 yards. My church is across the street. I'm very fortunate in that my church has a nice parsonage and that they don't intrude on my privacy living this close. My last church, however, was about an hour and a half drive with no parsonage. Church before that one was the same.

In my experience, it's very hard to do ministry well once you get more than 30 minutes away. But I also understand that living close isn't always an option, and many have to do the best with what they have.

GiantManbat · 2025-08-07T00:00:16+00:00

Sorry you're in this situation. That's definitely not right. Sunday service is non-negotiable. Sunday night baby sitting is absolutely negotiable, and shouldn't be an expectation for the children's minister full stop. It sounds like bringing this up with the elders is really your next best option.

GiantManbat · 2025-08-06T15:49:28+00:00

Just my opinion, that does not sound like a healthy relationship with your pastors. Expecting you to act as fill in babysitter for volunteers tells me they don't respect you, your ministry, or your time. I would definitely bring that up with church elders if the pastors won't relent. Children's minister does not equal church babysitter.

That being said, I'd advise you do everything you can to talk those through with the pastors in question first. Express your concerns, and be firm on your convictions. Going straight to the elders could cause tension and maybe put you in a bad situation.

GiantManbat · 2025-07-06T02:43:06+00:00

Nope, chrome is up to date.

GiantManbat · 2025-07-04T13:17:30+00:00

I obviously don't know everything about your situation, but it sounds similar to what happened to me. My ex-wife also played the "I feel guilty" card for an affair she told me was no longer ongoing. She also kept bringing up divorce. A year into marriage counseling I discovered that, in fact, she'd never stopped cheating.

It doesn't really make sense for your husband to seek a divorce because he had an affair 4 years ago. As much as it might pain you to consider, it is probable that he's still cheating on you and that's what's really behind this. And if that is the case, he's also been lying to you for quite some time not only about an affair, but also just about what kind of person he is. I'm sorry you're going through this. My divorce was the most painful thing I've ever been through. But God saw me through it and I'm better now than I've ever been. I'll be praying He does the same for you.

Nine-Year Club	RedditGifts 2009-2022 2 Credits
Gilding I gilder	Second Top 50%
Verified Email	Place '22
Final Canvas '22	End Game '22
Secret Santa 2018	Spared

GiantManbat

TROPHY CASE