Search Results
7/10/2025, 7:08:32 PM
>>17830413
Baptism timing isn’t some biblical mandate, and nowhere does Scripture demand instant dunking. Early Christians, including saints, delayed baptism to cleanse late sins, a practice they argued is rooted in mercy, not rejection. Constantine’s deathbed baptism in 337 AD by Eusebius fits this.
Baptism timing isn’t some biblical mandate, and nowhere does Scripture demand instant dunking. Early Christians, including saints, delayed baptism to cleanse late sins, a practice they argued is rooted in mercy, not rejection. Constantine’s deathbed baptism in 337 AD by Eusebius fits this.
6/29/2025, 7:19:04 PM
>>17800767
>Jesus Christ is the nom de plume/guerre of Izates Manu
You’re just regurgitating Robert Eisenman’s fever-dream nonsense, aren’t you? The idea that Jesus is some pseudonym for Izates Monobazus, a convert king from Adiabene who died in the 60s CE, is pure fanfiction. No serious historian buys this. The timeline’s a mess: Jesus was crucified around 30-33 CE, decades before the Jewish War (66-70 CE). Izates was a historical figure, sure, but there’s zero evidence he was a messianic claimant, let alone Jesus. The Star and Scepter prophecy (Numbers 24:17) was about a future deliverer, not some random Parthian noble. You’re forcing a square peg into a round hole with no textual or archaeological support. Just because both were Jewish converts doesn’t make them the same guy. That’s like saying Caesar is Napoleon because they both liked conquest.
>Apostle Paul is the projection of Flavius Josephus ben Matityahu
This is next-level stupid. Paul’s epistles predate Josephus’ career by decades. Paul was a Pharisee-turned-Christian missionary, executed under Nero around 64-67 CE. Josephus was a Jewish general who defected to Rome after 67 CE, cozying up to Vespasian and writing propaganda. Their lives overlap, sure, but equating them is like saying a lion is a housecat because they both have claws. Paul’s theology (Christ’s resurrection, grace over law) has no parallel in Josephus’ works, which barely mention Christianity and focus on sucking up to Rome. The “RIBAZ” nonsense is just Eisenman’s word salad, not evidence. You’re conflating two figures with zero textual basis.
cont.
>Jesus Christ is the nom de plume/guerre of Izates Manu
You’re just regurgitating Robert Eisenman’s fever-dream nonsense, aren’t you? The idea that Jesus is some pseudonym for Izates Monobazus, a convert king from Adiabene who died in the 60s CE, is pure fanfiction. No serious historian buys this. The timeline’s a mess: Jesus was crucified around 30-33 CE, decades before the Jewish War (66-70 CE). Izates was a historical figure, sure, but there’s zero evidence he was a messianic claimant, let alone Jesus. The Star and Scepter prophecy (Numbers 24:17) was about a future deliverer, not some random Parthian noble. You’re forcing a square peg into a round hole with no textual or archaeological support. Just because both were Jewish converts doesn’t make them the same guy. That’s like saying Caesar is Napoleon because they both liked conquest.
>Apostle Paul is the projection of Flavius Josephus ben Matityahu
This is next-level stupid. Paul’s epistles predate Josephus’ career by decades. Paul was a Pharisee-turned-Christian missionary, executed under Nero around 64-67 CE. Josephus was a Jewish general who defected to Rome after 67 CE, cozying up to Vespasian and writing propaganda. Their lives overlap, sure, but equating them is like saying a lion is a housecat because they both have claws. Paul’s theology (Christ’s resurrection, grace over law) has no parallel in Josephus’ works, which barely mention Christianity and focus on sucking up to Rome. The “RIBAZ” nonsense is just Eisenman’s word salad, not evidence. You’re conflating two figures with zero textual basis.
cont.
6/23/2025, 6:01:02 PM
>>17785584
You're assuming a strict literalism that neither Jews nor Christians actually followed. Isaiah’s prophecy only fully makes sense in Christ. “God with us” isn’t a random, cute baby name. “The virgin shall conceive” and the child being called God with us (Immanuel) goes far beyond the scope of any 8th-century BC child (Maher-shalal-hash-baz included). Also, If the prophecy only concerned a mundane child, the drama of the “sign” evaporates. Why would a generic pregnancy (which is commonplace) be given by God as a miraculous “sign”? Matthew isn’t ignorantly ripping Isaiah out of context. He’s drawing from Jewish midrashic tradition, where prophecies are reapplied and deepened in light of later revelation. This was common Second Temple interpretive practice (cf. Hosea 11:1, “Out of Egypt I called my son”). It's ironic how you demand that Christians read Isaiah 7 strictly historically, while he reads it exactly how Jews read prophecies at the time, both typologically and expansively.
>>17785590
Luke names Joseph BECAUSE he’s the legal father. Even if giving Mary’s ancestry, Luke names Joseph because genealogical conventions of the time didn’t list women, even if tracing through them. That doesn't mean it's his biological lineage. This isn’t even a unique Christian view. Raymond Brown, Origen, and even some Jewish scholars acknowledge the possibility of levirate marriage or son-in-law attribution to explain this literary structure. Early Church Fathers noticed the differences between Matthew and Luke and didn’t see them as contradictions. For instance, Eusebius argued Luke traced Mary’s line, with Joseph listed as son-in-law of Heli, not biological son. Luke’s emphasis on Jesus’ humanity, birth narrative, and Mary’s role (more detailed than Matthew’s) supports that this genealogy may reflect biological descent, with Joseph listed as placeholder.
If Luke said Mary, you’d just claim contradiction because Matthew names Joseph. There’s no win condition for you.
You're assuming a strict literalism that neither Jews nor Christians actually followed. Isaiah’s prophecy only fully makes sense in Christ. “God with us” isn’t a random, cute baby name. “The virgin shall conceive” and the child being called God with us (Immanuel) goes far beyond the scope of any 8th-century BC child (Maher-shalal-hash-baz included). Also, If the prophecy only concerned a mundane child, the drama of the “sign” evaporates. Why would a generic pregnancy (which is commonplace) be given by God as a miraculous “sign”? Matthew isn’t ignorantly ripping Isaiah out of context. He’s drawing from Jewish midrashic tradition, where prophecies are reapplied and deepened in light of later revelation. This was common Second Temple interpretive practice (cf. Hosea 11:1, “Out of Egypt I called my son”). It's ironic how you demand that Christians read Isaiah 7 strictly historically, while he reads it exactly how Jews read prophecies at the time, both typologically and expansively.
>>17785590
Luke names Joseph BECAUSE he’s the legal father. Even if giving Mary’s ancestry, Luke names Joseph because genealogical conventions of the time didn’t list women, even if tracing through them. That doesn't mean it's his biological lineage. This isn’t even a unique Christian view. Raymond Brown, Origen, and even some Jewish scholars acknowledge the possibility of levirate marriage or son-in-law attribution to explain this literary structure. Early Church Fathers noticed the differences between Matthew and Luke and didn’t see them as contradictions. For instance, Eusebius argued Luke traced Mary’s line, with Joseph listed as son-in-law of Heli, not biological son. Luke’s emphasis on Jesus’ humanity, birth narrative, and Mary’s role (more detailed than Matthew’s) supports that this genealogy may reflect biological descent, with Joseph listed as placeholder.
If Luke said Mary, you’d just claim contradiction because Matthew names Joseph. There’s no win condition for you.
Page 1