essentialsaltes said:

How is that possible? A handful of self-important pecksniffs complained. Just because those squeaky wheels got some grease doesn't mean they represent "the community as a whole".

Click to expand...

You m ean like the handful of pecksniffs who complained about the book being banned? Are you just upset because the "wrong" squeaky wheels got greased?

Its my understanding that the library board is voted on.

AFrazier said:

Also, this: "and assume the Diascalia is historical, and not pseudepigrapha" This is why it gave you the answers you wanted.

From ChatGPT:

1. “ChatGPT Supported My View” Usually Means Leading the Question

I don’t have beliefs to defend or theological instincts to privilege. What I do is respond to the shape of the question.

If someone asks:

• “How can the Didascalia be understood as preserving an authentic apostolic tradition?”

Then yes—I will:

• Lay out possible arguments
• Describe minority positions
• Explore harmonizations
• Use charitable language

That is not endorsement. It’s exposition.

But if someone asks:

• “Is the Didascalia Apostolorum written by the apostles?”

The answer—based on evidence—is no, and consistently so.

What often happens in debates like this is that one party conflates:


Those are not the same thing.

Click to expand...

You are really not wise are you.

• “Is the Didascalia Apostolorum written by the apostles?”

The correct answer based on exegesis is yes the text claims to be written by the apostles. You personally do not believe it is vs we scholars do( see what I did there).
You do not do exegesis you do eisegesis - you start with the assumption the internal claims to authorship are a lie for all these texts, then reject the internal claim of authorship of them. You believe the torah is pseudepigrapha but you are so dishonest you will not say it publicly. Chat GPT will assume the text is pseudepigrapha because websites written by people like you, and it was trained on that data which is why I have to tell it to do exegesis - that is assume the text is historical, and not pseudepigrapha.

Acts of Pilate is just one section of Gosp of Nic. There is another section not written by Pilate.

Also I forgot to ask- are you Christian? I will not waste my time any more if you are not.

Valletta said:

President Trump Touts Massive First Year Wins in Primetime Address

Trump highlights energy, trade, and manufacturing successes in national address.

townhall.com

I believe the Democrats will try and damage the economy by shutting down the government again.

Click to expand...

Of course you’d believe that.

ThatRobGuy said:

FYI - this site has been barely usable for the last week and a half lol.

CF staff, do you need my assistance? My consulting rate for side gigs is $90/hour.

Click to expand...

Whatever someone did…it’s a bit betterer.

Always in His Presence said:

Um.. because that is what they believe -

Click to expand...

If the White House believes that, why doesn't the president pardon the crime, rather than let the stain of this Biden lawfare stand?

Always in His Presence said:

Also it is shown they have NO connection to each other.

Click to expand...

That did not happen.

fhansen said:

Buit why compare- rather than applaud it wherever it's happening? And my denomination happens to have such a system anyway. It's called Catholic Relief and it's one of the hugest and most efficient relief agencies out there.

Click to expand...

As I said before: The Body of Christ does not have the spiritual or material power or authority to make a social justice plan applicable to the world.
Catholic Relief does what it can, but it does not have the spiritual or material power or authority to make a social justice plan applicable to the world.

The whole world is not clothed, housed, and fed.

That is not our mission. It wasn't even Jesus' mission.

samaus123456789 said:

Yes it can be reconciled. I believe the internal date of Didascalia, and that it is inspired.
It is so funny you are blinded to your own biases.

Romans 1:22-32​

​

King James Version​

​

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Also what books of the protestant canon do you believe are pseudepigrapha? I believe the internal date of all. This is just to let readers know you likely do not even believe internal dates in the protestant canon. Lets see if you are honest enough to answer. More specifically do you believe the torah is pseudepigrapha? Therefore when Jesus quotes it, and says Moses says, you think Jesus is wrong correct? Also I notice you dodged the question about gospel of Nic.​

​

It won't let me copy paste from chatGPT for some reason. Just tell it to reconcile the internal timeline of Diascalia with the NT, and assume the Diascalia is historical, and not pseudepigrapha, and it will. Tell it to reconcile the Peter rooster event too.

​

Click to expand...

Also, this: "and assume the Diascalia is historical, and not pseudepigrapha" This is why it gave you the answers you wanted.

From ChatGPT:

1. “ChatGPT Supported My View” Usually Means Leading the Question

I don’t have beliefs to defend or theological instincts to privilege. What I do is respond to the shape of the question.

If someone asks:

• “How can the Didascalia be understood as preserving an authentic apostolic tradition?”

Then yes—I will:

• Lay out possible arguments
• Describe minority positions
• Explore harmonizations
• Use charitable language

That is not endorsement. It’s exposition.

But if someone asks:

• “Is the Didascalia Apostolorum written by the apostles?”

The answer—based on evidence—is no, and consistently so.

What often happens in debates like this is that one party conflates:

“ChatGPT can articulate a defense”
with
“ChatGPT agrees this defense is correct.”

Click to expand...

Those are not the same thing.

samaus123456789 said:

Yes it can be reconciled. I believe the internal date of Didascalia, and that it is inspired.
It is so funny you are blinded to your own biases.

Romans 1:22-32​

​

King James Version​

​

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Also what books of the protestant canon do you believe are pseudepigrapha? I believe the internal date of all. This is just to let readers know you likely do not even believe internal dates in the protestant canon. Lets see if you are honest enough to answer. More specifically do you believe the torah is pseudepigrapha? Therefore when Jesus quotes it, and says Moses says, you think Jesus is wrong correct? Also I notice you dodged the question about gospel of Nic.​

​

It won't let me copy paste from chatGPT for some reason. Just tell it to reconcile the internal timeline of Diascalia with the NT, and assume the Diascalia is historical, and not pseudepigrapha, and it will. Tell it to reconcile the Peter rooster event too.

​

Click to expand...

I didn't dodge anything. I was doing as requested. You told me to ask ChatGPT. And Chat GPT, as well as two other AIs, all agreed that you're mistaken, and that my argument is solid, academic, and scholarly, not merely from a scholarly consensus point of view, but from an evidentiary one.

And I did address the Gospel of Nicodemus. I discussed the Acts of Pilate. The two works are one and the same. People just tend to segregate it into two parts relative to content.

Where I believe those 15 time periods fit into the final 7 years of this Christian era;

Revelation 11:2 & 13:5 - The 42 months from when the AC sits in the Temple, to the Return of Jesus.
Rev 12:14, the same period, the time the faithful peoples will be kept safe far away.
Daniel 7:25 & 12:7; again - the same period, the world under Satanic control for three and a half years.

Daniel 8:14, the 2300 evenings and mornings; actually 1150 days; is past history. It refers to when King Antiochus 4 conquered Judah and placed a pig on the altar, until it was cleansed in 164BC.

Daniel 9:27, After the supernatural destruction of a huge army attacking the people in the Holy Land, led by Gog from Magog, the leader of the rest of the world will make a 7 year peace treaty with the leaders in Jerusalem. He will break it at the halfway and conquer the Holy peoples.

Ezekiel 39:9 & 12, There is no way we can pinpoint this time of the cleansing of the Holy Land. It must start before that 7 year treaty. Probably overlap some.

Revelation 11:3 & 12:6, the final period of 1260 days before Jesus Returns, Same time as the 42 months and the three and a half years.

Revelation 11:11, refers to actual days, Those 2 Witnesses will be raised by Jesus when He Returns, along with all the martyrs killed during the 3 1/2 year time of world Satanic control.

Daniel 12:11 The extra 30 days after Jesus Returns, is for the Atonement of the people and the removal of the abomination.

Revelation 9:10, fits somewhere in the final 3 1/2 years. 5 months of torment by stinging critters, part of the Great Tribulation.

Your question fields at least this theological concern. If a human lived on another planet would Satan have any influence there?
Revelation 12:9 (ESV)
9 And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.

Deceiver of the whole earth, or world? If world does not include other planets, a man not born again would still have a sin nature, but if living in another planet, perhaps there is no demonic involvement at all? It would be an interesting experiment to see if even the space station has demonic involvement.

It seems like man will press the boundaries of earth plus cultivate potential resources from other planets so I think when the tech is there will be visits and maybe occupation of other planets. Of course God could thwart any successful attempts in all kinds of ways.

peter2 said:

Hello concretecamper.
Forgive me please : i'm not familiar enough with the english speaking to wholly feel the difference between the 2 adjectives.

Click to expand...

That's ok. Neither adjective counters whether someone possessed preternatural gifts

Stopped_lurking said:

One more post exchange.

This is not from Protzens own writing. From the source I believe you are using:

"Even though their experiments have been able to shed some light on the techniques that, even with very rudimentary tools, could have been used to craft perfectly planar surfaces, accurate right angles and millimeter wide joints, many aspects of ancient Andean stone cutting and architecture remain unexplained."

They are clearly not talking about any shining surfaces here.

If this is the text you meant to quote, stop being deceptive. You failed to quote a pertinent part.

If you meant some other text please link it.

Click to expand...

You are missing the point. I don't care about what is said and by whom. My point was that you suddenly found credibility in my own links by referencing Protzen. Yet when I reference anyone peer review is demanded. Its a double standard.

If you want to use someone within my references to defeat my point just by referring to them and not going through all the hoops of peer review or whatever it is demanded.

Then by the same logic when I cite others you should accept them without all the hoop jumping. But thats not what is happening. See how the rules are bent for one and not the others. Otherwise it does not matter what Protzen said or what it was about. If we apply the same hoop jumping then any point you are trying to make about Protzen perhaps saying the works may have been poliched is discredited under the same logic.

Stopped_lurking said:

Because you referred to him. I asked questions about his view and implicitly why you referenced him.

Click to expand...

It does not matter. You are referring to him. If he did say the works were polished. Then you would use that as evidence that perhaps it was not vitrified. Is that correct.

Then you are using my reference and using evidence in the exact same way as I have been doing. So its double standards to then demand peer review as you never applied that to yourself. You were quite happy to use the possibility of Protzens contradiction to refute that the stones were vitrified.

concretecamper said:

Surprised, now amazed

Click to expand...

Hello concretecamper.
Forgive me please : i'm not familiar enough with the english speaking to wholly feel the difference between the 2 adjectives.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

You need to stop claiming commentary that you don't like as logical fallacies or strawmen. It doesn't make your look smarter than you think you are.

Click to expand...

But you have not given reasoning why the logical fallacies I pointed out did not stand. Your making the assumption yourself that you believe I am wrong in the first place. As far as I remember we have not had any debate over anything lol. You just make claims and then say nothing.

In fact the tactic of just laughing at everything I say is a prime example of how your not engaging and just making fallcies with absolutely no enegagement let along debating. Your actuially proving my point in the way you revert to symbols let alone words.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

And we don't need to invent anything when your own words are all the evidence we need to support our words about you. In fact, your own words of "I have merely argue that it should be accepted full stop regardless of whether its correct or not." is exactly what I'm talking about.

Click to expand...

Then show me where I said that. I bet you can't because your making stuff up now. Go on show me I dare you lol. Thats how confident I am that you cannot show me this as I never advocate for such an epistemic dogma.

Whereas thats exactly what your doing now. Your creating a false narrative to beat me over the head with lol.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

We can easily say something is BS when we look at it because it IS BS. Which exactly what we see from our contributions to your own thread.

Click to expand...

Then show me its BS. You never have. Not once and thats the reality.

peter2 said:

i don't really know, Lk 2, 48 doesn't precise how she and Joseph were amazed

Click to expand...

Surprised, now amazed

Duely noted.

Factotum said:

For example, Trump is a criminal OOONLY in the minds of folks who enjoyed lawfare used on Trump

Click to expand...

He's was convicted on over a dozen felonies. A court found that he had sexually assaulted a woman. No point in denial.

Factotum said:

As we have seen, there's multitudes of evidence that Reiner told many lies about Trump.

Click to expand...

But you can't find any? We all know why.

BCP1928 said:

Neither do you.

Click to expand...

I am not sure what you mean "neither do you". Neither do I show how the ancients gained their knowledge. My point was not how exactly the ancients gained their knowledge.

But that because we don't know and because it may have been gained in a different and alternative way to the way in which material science demands it (is the very dogmatic epistemics being pushed over ancients and alternative knowledge) that material sciences demand. Which dismisses the possibility of advanced and alternative knowledge before its investigated.

This is a metaphysical belief and not science. If it was the truth that we do not know how the ancients gained their knowledge. Then people should be saying "we don't know", "it could be there is advanced alternative knowledge because we don't know"

Therefore material scientists would have to admit that the possibility of alternative advanced knowledge is real. They may have gained their knowledge by means of some other paradigm worldview that material sciences cannot know themselves.

So its more about the epistemic and metaphysical neutrality and non bias towards any specific way of knowing that is the point and issue. If as material and atheistic naturalists using material processes of sciences to dismiss all other ways of knowling as unreal. Then thats dogma and imposing an epistemic rule of how we should know reality over all others.

So really as I am open to all ways of knowing this is really the only reasonable position to take. You can demand all the peer review science you want but this is never going to verify that there is not alternative and advanced knowledge and that throughout our history this knowledge was present.

linux.poet said:

I agree with the thrust of your wisdom, but our friend is from the United Kingdom.

Click to expand...

Thanks for pointing that out. I edited to the message to reflect that. God bless!

I really didn't know if David would be just alright, decent, good, etc. I ended up loving it. It's the best theatrical release this year. Best Christian animated movie since Prince of Egypt. One of the best Christian movies ever made. Stunning animation, great music, sincere, and heartfelt. David is handled so well and I liked how it did more with his family.

It’s going to take a lot more than one divisive speech to convince a majority of Americans the country is on the right path.

Servus said:

The autopen joke did it just fine.

Click to expand...

Did what just fine?

comana said:

Only liberals believe the truth then.

Click to expand...

Nope