Delvianna said:

Since you like AI, I asked Gemini to Analyze your AI post by what you stated.

1. Analysis of Framework 1: Conventional Historical Method​

The first section (Steps 1-6, Checklists) presents a standard, widely accepted methodology used in critical historical and biblical scholarship. The premise of this section is strong and internally consistent.

Strengths and No Major Historical Problems:​

• Step 1 (Genre): Crucial for proper interpretation (e.g., apocalyptic texts vs. history).
• Step 2 (Dating): Acknowledging ranges (terminus a quo, terminus ad quem) and lack of precision is standard historical practice.
• Step 4 (Parallel Sources): Comparing texts (Josephus, DSS, archaeology) is the core of historical corroboration.
• Step 5 (Claims vs. Interpretation): Separating observation from speculation is essential to avoiding circular reasoning.
• Step 6 (Probability): Stressing confidence levels (High, Moderate, Low) over certainty is key to responsible historical judgment.
• Checklists (Bias, Complexity, Expert, Evidence): These are excellent critical thinking tools, promoting self-correction, acknowledging multi-causality, and valuing expert consensus.
• Rule 3 (No Autographs): Recognizing the textual transmission chain ("copy of a copy") and the resulting potential for errors/interpolations is fundamental to textual criticism.

The only minor issue is the presentation: The text claims "Historians and scholars do exactly this," which is mostly true, but the tone is overly prescriptive. Nonetheless, the method itself is sound.

---

2. Analysis of the Transition and Primary Flaw​

The text takes a hard pivot with the phrase:


This single transition sentence contains the central flaw and bias of the entire document. It sets up an argumentative structure where the conventional, evidence-based method (Framework 1) is immediately presented as the opposite of a "full, rigorous" method simply because Framework 1 allows for the category of pseudepigrapha (or fictional attribution) based on evidence.

The problem with the overall premise is that it presents an unresolvable conflict between two methods, one of which is axiomatically (based on a non-negotiable premise) designed to reject the findings of the other.

---

3. Analysis of Framework 2: The Axiomatic Method​

As detailed in the initial response, this framework is based on theological axioms (non-historical assumptions) that dictate the conclusion:

• Core Presupposition: Authorship claims are true, and prophecy is real.
• Flaw: This inverts the historical process. Instead of following the evidence (e.g., late language, historical anachronisms, dependence on later texts) to a conclusion (e.g., the text is later or pseudepigraphic), this method starts with the conclusion (the author is genuine) and forces the evidence to fit (e.g., by claiming late language is merely "scribal updating").
• Example (Isaiah): Assuming "Prophecy of Cyrus is allowed" means the text rejects the evidence-based analysis for multiple authors (Deutero- and Trito-Isaiah) which is supported by linguistic shift, theological focus, and historical context. This is the purpose of the framework: to eliminate historical-critical conclusions that conflict with traditional views.

The Problem with the "Final Reassurance"​

The final reassurance attempts to legitimize the second, axiomatic framework by referencing the humility of the first:


This is a rhetorical maneuver. It takes the humility and caution preached in Framework 1 ("We don't know everything," "Expect your views to evolve") and selectively applies it to justify Framework 2's dogmatism ("Avoid all 'forgery' or 'fictional attribution' explanations").

---

4. Analysis of the Mindset and Coexistence​

The final section on a responsible mindset contains several excellent points but ends with a problematic assertion:

The Core Contradiction: Mixing Tools​

The text immediately contradicts this sound principle by presenting Framework 2.

• Framework 1 (History): Uses historical tools (linguistics, comparative sources) to analyze the evidence.
• Framework 2 (Theology/Faith): Uses faith axioms ("Prophecy is real," "Authorship claims are honest") but labels itself as a "full, rigorous analytical method" for history.

The very act of presenting Framework 2 as a valid historical alternative is the act of mixing the tools. It introduces a theological tool (the belief in literal, genuine attribution) into a supposed historical process, thereby invalidating its claim to be a purely historical analysis.

Summary of Problems with the Premise​

The problem is not with the individual steps of Framework 1 (which are sound) but with the overall premise of the entire document, which is a polemic disguised as a balanced analysis:

1. False Equivalence: It asserts that two methods—one based on evidence and one based on faith axioms—are equally "valid approaches historically."
2. Unfalsifiability: It shields the axiomatic method (Framework 2) from refutation by labeling all contradictory evidence (linguistic drift, anachronisms) as "scribal updating."
3. Contradiction: The text correctly advises separating faith and history but then presents a "historical" framework (Framework 2) that is fundamentally driven by a faith commitment (a refusal to accept the possibility of pseudepigrapha).

In conclusion, the document's premise is flawed because it attempts to validate a theologically driven method as an equally rigorous and historically sound alternative to the conventional, evidence-driven critical method.

Click to expand...

I don't believe biblical pseudepigrapha exists- i believe all the internal dates are real. Pseudepigrapha does not exist is an assumption I asked it to start with. For me to know something is pseudepigrapha I would of had to of seen the autographs of whatever the text is which I never have. Apparently you have seen the autographs of every single biblical text so you know which ones were written by the person they said they were at the time they said they were, and you know that some were not. Or you have a time machine where you went back, and saw the autographs being written, and saw one of the two things mentioned above. Also you know every single redaction, editing, interpolation after the autograph was written. To know means to detect with one of the 5 senses mainly seeing. I have never seen the autographs, and don't have a time machine therefore all I have is a text that claims to be written thousands of year ago in front of me, and the only evidence for me is the internal context of the text- not the opinion of a Christian at a university that thinks themselves to be wise in their own eyes but to God their belief is foolish eg when they reject internal dates based on no evidence at all, and make up stories based on no evidence at all. So you start with the assumption that certain texts are pseudepigrapha, and I don't.

SabbathBlessings said:

How does one profess to believe Jesus but not His sayings (Teachings) enough to do them. Jesus asked this same question....

Luke 6:46 “But why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do the things which I say? 47 Whoever comes to Me, and hears My sayings and does them, I will show you whom he is like: 48 He is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid the foundation on the rock. And when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently against that house, and could not shake it, for it was [j]founded on the rock. 49 But he who heard and did nothing is like a man who built a house on the earth without a foundation, against which the stream beat vehemently; and immediately it [k]fell. And the ruin of that house was great.”

Guess it will get sorted out soon enough.

Click to expand...

The foundation is Jesus. Paul explains how our works are judged and the outcome. The foundation is the key.

“According to the grace of God which was given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building on it. But each person must be careful how he builds on it. For no one can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw, each one’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each one’s work. If anyone’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet only so as through fire.”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭3‬:‭10‬-‭15‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Oompa Loompa said:

I assume it goes toward insurance premiums. Which, in a sense, is practically what is happening now. The only difference, as far as I can tell, is that people are no longer limited to selecting only what is available on the Obamacare marketplace. However, I can see a floodgate of fraud with pop-up fake insurance companies begging for your voucher money. I am afraid that the only solution is stop all subsidizing, and premiums will drop like a rock. When insurance companies realize that Uncle Sam is no longer giving everyone $2,000 per month to cover premiums, premiums will almost instantly drop by $2,000 within weeks, and their profits will crumble.

Click to expand...

Oompa Loompa said:

Swe o

See post 258.

Click to expand...

GoldenBoy89 said:

His hatred for immigrants is pretty believable.

Click to expand...

I have asked that people not demonize their political opponents, and I am asking again. Name-calling is typically because of a lack of substance to an argument. Although a bit further back than President Trump's, Stephen Miller's (a family man with three children) ancestry is one of immigration. Miller, like Trump, is concerned about the children lost under the Biden administration, concerned about the victims of horrible crimes perpetrated by unvetted and illegal immigrants allowed into our country by the Biden administration, and concerned about the damage that has been done by letting in large populations that do not care for America and wish to keep allegiance to their countries of origin. Conservatives want LEGAL IMMIGRANTS who respect our laws, love America and our way of life, and have a desire to assimilate into our culture.

essentialsaltes said:

The only thing Tina Peters caught was nine years and a stiff fine.

Click to expand...

It'll look nice framed on the wall of her Colorado prison cell.

Say it aint so said:

What does one expect to happen when cocktail of antivaxxers and conspiracy theorists are in control?

Click to expand...

Anti-vaxxers existed before the current administration.






It's not as if Philly, California, New York, and the Pacific Northwest were "conservative strongholds"


Hopefully people remember that prior to the whole Covid situation, a lot of the Anti-MMR sentiments were a "hippy"/"everything has to be natural from mother earth man!" sort of thing right?


If there's ever another pandemic, hopefully people will be wise enough not to "oversell" and "overpush" a brand new vaccine and make it a wedge issue and become so insufferable that they create new "spite anti-vaxxers" (people who were okay with the flu shot and MMR vaccine prior, but became anti-vaxx in a broader sense simply to oppose the people who were becoming rather annoying)

I don't attend church much anymore. Partly it is because I have to work on Sundays. But I also have lost patience for it. It's difficult for it to hold my attention.

I think part of it is because the sermons, while good, tend to stay at a very basic level. There is nothing new or deeper. I've also become annoyed and bored with the performative nature of the services.

As far as going for what you can give or serving, I've done that, too. It got me used up without getting refilled. It was also frustrating because there was no overall growth for the congregation. It was all just a regurgitation of the same sermons and formulaic worship service making a few look good and making the rest feel good.

I LOVE indepth Bible studies and prayer meetings. Sunday "services"? No thanks.

rockytopva said:

What about Democratic run cities? What about the killing of Killing of Iryna Zarutska? The Democrats just let her bleed to death! None of those Democrats on the train offered to help the poor lady! Just sat there on their cell phones and let her bleed to death! The Democratic judges had released the killer countless times on cashless bail, the Democratic mayor said his mental state needed to be taken in consideration. What about the mental condition of the Democrats who just sat there and watched the lady bleed to death? No offers of help! No Democrat came to her protection! On the video you can see the killer with blood dripping down his hands saying, "I got that white woman! I got that white woman!" And nobody rebuked him for it!

To all non-Americans... Stay away from Democratically run cities! They are all savages like the world has never seen! The latest tourist figures in regards to travel to America already hit rockbottom last summer. Who can blame them? Who would want to invite anyone here?

Click to expand...

The fact that you have everyone's voter registration is all the proof I need.

d taylor said:

-

​

You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.

Click to expand...

And you BETTER be right as we ONLY go around once and hav e been one any forums and I see that you did not leave a verse for your BORN AGAIN nor have you ever EXPLAINed with a verse how you are BORN OF WATER. and of the SPIRIT

NOR. if you are BORN. OF GOD YOUN CAN NOT SIN in 1 John 5:18. !!

And explain how you NEVER EVER SIN AGAIN ??

dan p

You are correct.
Jesus is the only way to the Father. All other "ways" lead somewhere else.

In the Bible words alone is much better, then anything I could explain.

• Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 2:11
• Hebrews 5:9
• Mark 13:13
• John 3:5
• John 3:16
• Matthew 28:20 and 1 John 2:3-6
• 2 Thessalonians 1:8

narnia59 said:

Or did their decision impact the nature of their progeny

Click to expand...

No, their hybrid human nature did. It was only a matter of time before they would put their will ahead of the will of the Father, and so it goes with all. Human instinct is hereditary, come factory installed.

1Tonne said:

You’re correct that the contexts differ, but the point is linguistic and theological, not narrative. Scripture repeatedly uses “death” metaphorically to describe spiritual ruin or separation from God, not mere non-existence:

Click to expand...

Then the point only serves man's religion and not God. People often confuse the two forms of Christianity.

Years ago they used to recommend using a torniquet, but that restricted blood flow to the limb below the binding.

This sometimes led to other medical problems, so they devised the pressure bandage idea.

On a morbid note, the former OIC of our local ambulance station said the most emotional fatality for him was due to a snake bite when he was stationed in Townsville years ago.

A young girl had been playing in the backyard (on a swing maybe) when she jumped off and landed on a Taipan which was hidden in long grass.

It struck her on the chest about five times. She died in minutes.

On a happier note, I heard a Baptist pastor say that when he was a young chap following his father in long grass on their farm he suddenly found he just could not take another step. He said it was like being held in a giant hand - he couldn't move, no matter what he did.

His father came back to see why he was just standing there in mid-stride. As he did so he saw a death adder in the exact spot where his son would have taken his next step.

They're the fastest striking snake in the world.

Obviously God had plans for the son to become a pastor, and protected him. As the pastor said he literally couldn't move.

Why God protected him, and not the young girl was God's choice.

Bro.T said:

So if you say that you know God, but you don’t keep his commandments, lets see what the Lord had specially written for you. It says in (1John 2:3-4) (v.3) And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. (v.4) he that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. Then the book says in Revelation 21: 8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

These are hard words coming from the word of God, I would take heed and start keeping these Commandments. But of course it's your choice.

Click to expand...

Well, I guess that leaves Rahab out.

Indianapolis —
The Indiana Senate on Thursday voted down a plan to redraw the state’s congressional districts to produce two more GOP-friendly seats, rejecting President Donald Trump’s months-long campaign to pressure the Republican supermajority in the deep-red state to bend to his will.

The 31-19 vote saw 21 Republicans join 10 Democrats in voting down the proposed map that would have positioned the GOP, which currently holds seven of Indiana’s nine US House seats, for a sweep of all nine seats in next year’s midterm elections.


I wonder how much of this "Hoosier defiance" from the Indiana state GOP could be a little bit of payback for the way Trump treated (presumably) their former friend, and pretty popular GOP governor, Mike Pence.

Dikaioumenoi said:

You still have yet to address my refutation of this position. Who does the "him" refer to in the clause, "and I will raise him up on the last day"? There's no disputing that it refers to those who actually come to Jesus. But who comes to Jesus? Grammatically, what is John saying here?

οὐδεὶς δύναται ἐλθεῖν πρός με ἐὰν μὴ ὁ πατὴρ ὁ πέμψας με ἑλκύσῃ αὐτόν, κἀγὼ ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ

"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day."

The αὐτόν who is raised on the last day is the same αὐτόν who is drawn. Grammatically, the pronoun in ἀναστήσω αὐτόν must refer back to the nearest suitable antecedent, which is the οὐδεὶς δύναται… ἐὰν μὴ ὁ πατὴρ ἑλκύσῃ αὐτόν clause. In other words, the "him" who is raised is the "him" who is drawn. The text itself makes no grammatical space for subdividing the referent into two groups -- those enabled to come, versus those who actually do.

Your reading requires precisely that distinction -- that some of the "him" drawn are not the "him" raised. But the syntax does not supply a second referent for αὐτόν to latch onto. You must therefore import an unspoken category. In other words, you're making an interpretive move that presupposes the very point you want to prove. Meanwhile, the surrounding context (vv. 37, 39, 65) consistently grounds coming in sovereign initiative, which strongly argues against any basis for that presupposition.

Again, consider the contrapositive.

Let p = "one can come to me"
Let q = "the Father draws him"
Let r = "I will raise him up"

The verse, as stated, reads: "not p if not q, and r," which, stated formally in symbolic logic, is (-q --> -p) ^ r

The contrapositive of this is (p --> q) ^ r, which reads:

"If one can come to me, then the Father has drawn him, and I will raise him up."

Who does Christ promise to raise? The one drawn. Who is the one drawn? The one enabled to come.

"If Sam is able to come to me, then the Father has drawn Sam, and I will raise Sam up."

This is a promise of final salvation based on the Father's sovereign act in drawing/enabling individuals. The natural implication of this is that this act of enablement leads effectually to coming to Christ. It is a transformation of the heart. This comports with John 6:37: "All that the Father gives me will come to me."

Click to expand...

You're trying to get way to much distance out of a single verse which was only meant to serve as a concise summary of the Way, of how one is saved. Salvation is directly related to one's nearness to God-coming to and being united with Him-that's why Jesus came, to reconcile and restore broken relationship between man and God.

Sam was enabled to come. Sam came. God will raise him up.

Nothing conflicts there with the fact that Sam could also fail to come even tho enabled, or, after drawing near, that Sam must remain in Him, Sam must persevere, Sam must overcome sin, Sam must make effort to be holy-or else Sam won't be one of those who are raised simply because he once responded and came. And that's all consistent with Scripture, early church teachings, and the ECFs.

Bro.T said:

It’s starts off with repentance, that’s one of the first thing Jesus says when he got started in his ministry, Jesus says in Luke 5:32 I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. Stop sinning is the first forms of repentance, that's a lot work on it's on. Learning how to get self out the way. Now, Grace is nothing more than a free gift. And that free gift is our access back to the tree of life (Jesus) which Adam caused us to lose by disobeying God. Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (Romans 5: 12) But to maintain your grace you must keep the law. (1John 3:4) Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. Now we have just read the biblical definition of sin, the transgression (breaking) of the law (commandments.) It doesn’t matter what you or I think sin is, it’s what God says sin is that counts.

Click to expand...

And per your belief and admission those that don’t keep the sabbath are sinners and if they don’t repent will go to hell. So much for salvation by the free grace of God through faith in the Son. You are a legalist and promote a works salvation.

durangodawood said:

I think you mean incompetence drives the bus. (Because, generally, competence has a lot to lose signing on to this corrupt clown show.)

Click to expand...

This was all strategic by the Trump DOJ, in order to beat the statute of limitations deadline on charging Comey. Kalligan beat it by 36 hours I heard.
Now that Kalligan is disqualified, the Court gives them several weeks to replace her and reinstate the charges.

It was very clever, by Bondi.

Larry Bird

Dale said:

Where did Jesus ever say that Genesis is a literal historical accvount? I don't see where He ever said this.

Click to expand...

We often refer to fictional characters as if they were literal historical. Someone out if context could think we mean them that way.

The Church isn’t (to be)


[Matthew 21:12-13; John 2:13-17; Acts 5:27-32; 1 Corinthians 1:10-13; 1 Corinthians 3:1-9; 2 Corinthians 6:14-18; Philippians 3:18-19; Revelation 2:1-29; Revelation 3:1-22; Revelation 13:5-8; Revelation 18:1-5]

The Church is (to be)


[Acts 2:14-18,42-47; Romans 12:1-8; 1 Corinthians 12:1-31; 1 Corinthians 14:1-5; Galatians 6:1; Ephesians 2:8-10; Ephesians 4:1-16; Ephesians 5:15-21; Ephesians 6:10-20; Philippians 2:1-8; Colossians 3:12-16; Titus 2:11-14; Hebrews 3:13; Hebrews 10:23-25; James 5:19-20]

Therefore, when we gather together as the church, the body of believers in Jesus Christ, by God-gifted and God-persuaded faith in our Lord, it is for the purpose of our mutual encouragement and edification where each part is able to do its work, as we have been gifted by the Holy Spirit in spiritual gifts, and as we have been given our assignments by God as to our specific body parts (roles, ministries) within the body of believers in Jesus Christ.

So, this is not a “one man show,” where one man does all the preaching, and leads every gathering, and whose sermons are never tested to see if they are of God or not… And where the “pastor” is treated more like a CEO of a corporation, or more like a cult leader who is surrounded by a faithful few who are protecting him and his position, regardless of whether he is right or wrong, or if he is living the Christian life, or not, which is all about running a business. And it is not about a show, period, where a few gifted and talented people (in speaking and in music) put on a stage production intended to draw in large crowds of people from the world into their gatherings.

Yes, the early church had overseers, but they were overseers of the entire church (the body of believers in Christ) within a particular city, so they were not the singular pastors of all these gatherings, which usually met in people’s homes, which is where the people were able to share their gifts and mutual encouragements. And since the body of Christ was to meet daily, and to encourage one another daily, and they met in people’s homes, it may be that there wasn’t always an overseer at every one of their gatherings.

Now, the body of Christ cannot function as the biblical body of Christ in large gatherings where a few people put on the show while the rest of the people largely sit in pews or chairs as spectators, and then they go home and live their normal lives until the next week. The Bible, in fact, teaches that we are to be speaking the truth of God’s word to one another in love, and we are to be speaking to one another in spiritual songs, and we are to be admonishing and teaching one another, and exhorting one another EVERY DAY.

Do we need overseers? Yes! But the shepherds of the people are not to be the only ones doing the talking and the preaching and sharing of gifts. But they are to be those who are leading the sheep in how they are to live and operate together as the body of Christ, who are training and equipping the saints of God in the work of the ministry. For all of us are to be ministers, not just one person. And those who are overseers need to meet the spiritual qualifications of an overseer, and they need to be accountable to the church.


No Less

An Original Work / March 19, 2012
Christ’s Free Servant, Sue J Love

I can do no less than praise You,
Lord, for all You’ve done for me.
You died for my sins to save me,
So I would be set free.
I adore You! Lord, I praise You!
Jesus, Savior, King of kings!
You provided my redemption.
Your grace has pardoned me.

I can do no less than serve You.
Lord, Your witness I would be,
Telling others of Your love,
And why You died on that tree.
Tell of how You gave of Your life,
So from sin we’d be set free,
So we could worship You forever,
And live eternally.

I can do no less than love You,
Lord, for You have first loved me.
You gave of Your life so willing,
Because You cared for me.
Turn from my sin! Obey freely!
Live for You each passing day.
Read Your word, and follow Your lead,
Lord, as I humbly pray.

Login to view embedded media
Church is, Church isn’t
An Original Work / December 11, 2025
Christ’s Free Servant, Sue J Love

BasedLutheran said:

Oops. The only ones politicizing it were the leftists.

Yes, Some Children May Have Died From COVID Shots

Denial only serves the aims of anti-vaxxers.

www.theatlantic.com

Click to expand...

I saw this story yesterday at The Atlantic. The headline is clearly meant to be attention-grabbing. But WOW, what an admission! If you had suggested that a child could have died from the COVID vaccine just a few years ago, you would have been accused of spreading misinformation and censored. That the mainstream media now readily admits that children died from the COVID vaccine is honesty quite astounding. If COVID taught us anything, it's that the only thing that separates conspiracy and "misinformation" from truth is often just time.

But the blasé way that the article approaches this very serious issue is kind of like (my paraphrase)...


Absent from that article is any mea culpa or retrospection that, hmm, maybe mandating vaccines for children to attend school was ill-advised, given that children were at an infinitesimal risk from COVID. It's almost like we just have to accept that mandating interventions absent evidence means that, yeah, sure, we're going to lose a child here and there. But SCIENCE!

It would be laughable if it weren't so sad. But the thing that concerns me the most is the lack of concern and the blind trust that so many people still have in the industry and those funded by them. They still truly believe that this is about public health. They can easily spot when Joe Schmo is grifting and making a buck or two on false claims from vaccines, but they are completely, utterly, and I believe in many cases willfully blind to the IMMENSE financial incentives driving our public health "recommendations".

DaisyDay said:

ICE agents tackle, arrest American citizen in Minneapolis

Federal immigration agents tackled and arrested a Somali American man in Minneapolis on Tuesday and detained him for about two hours for no apparent reason other than his ethnicity.

www.mprnews.org

​

Federal immigration agents tackled and arrested a Somali American man in Minneapolis on Tuesday and detained him for about two hours for no apparent reason other than his ethnicity. The man who was arrested said that the agents had trouble finding the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building at Ft. Snelling while driving him there.​

​

The 20-year-old was not suspected of any crime, and described his ordeal during a Wednesday news conference alongside Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey and Police Chief Brian O’Hara, who each denounced the agents’ actions.​

​

Login to view embedded media ​

​

This is state sponsored terrorism.

Click to expand...

I’ve heard this referred to as a “Kavanaugh Stop”. CF