Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, March 20, 2017

..."[a]ll the Biblical authors are clear that "the antichrists, the beast, the son of perdition" are most clearly known by their rejection of Christ. Is there a more fundamental rejection of Christ than to say that you alone are not in need of God's forgiveness? Cursing Christ at least acknowledges his significance -- but denying the need for grace and forgiveness dismisses the necessity and efficacy of Christ's sacrifice and the foundation of all we believe."

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

It is surely not a coincidence that in Trump's school picture, he is wearing a shirt with an emblem on it of a fox riding a donkey.

If you take that and add it to everything else, trump is surely the Anti-Christ.

#1 | Posted by kudzu at 2017-03-20 06:43 AM | Reply

The Da Vinci Code sure has messed a lot of people up badly.

#2 | Posted by SLBronkowitz at 2017-03-20 07:36 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Please don't tell Donald he's the Anti Christ. It'll go to his head.

#3 | Posted by Zed at 2017-03-20 08:34 AM | Reply | Funny: 5

Lol, this is a Cruz supporter trying to act morally superior to Trump.

That's kinda like supporting the House of Saud but rejecting the Kims in North Korea.

Silly article.

#4 | Posted by bocaink at 2017-03-20 09:59 AM | Reply

He can no more be the anti-Christ than he could be Doctor Doom or Medusa. Fictional characters.

Even if an anti-Christ were possible, he's not popular enough to fit the profile.

#5 | Posted by Sully at 2017-03-20 10:13 AM | Reply

Fictional characters Sully? Like your invented overflow of racist white liberals?

#6 | Posted by bocaink at 2017-03-20 10:16 AM | Reply

Silly article.

#4 | POSTED BY BOCAINK

well, of course it is. the idea of a Christ or an Antichrist is silly too.

but, you miss the point.

Antichrist is THEIR concept, not mine.

According to the specifications of their concept, Trump could be the Antichrist, he fits the criteria.

#7 | Posted by kudzu at 2017-03-20 10:22 AM | Reply

Oh, don't get me wrong, I know Trump is an Antichrist because he goes against everything Christ teaches.

But all this Ted Cruz crap and Revelations and other hearsay doesn't mean a thing. If Jesus didn't say it, it's not something Jesus said or did.

This is important because Liberal Christians believe in the model Jesus spoke of in the Gospel. Conservative Christians need the other 2000 pages to justify how F-d up the are.

That's why the rest was written.

Just like this article. It could have been one sentence long.

#8 | Posted by bocaink at 2017-03-20 10:37 AM | Reply

Fictional characters Sully? Like your invented overflow of racist white liberals?

#6 | Posted by bocaink at 2017-03-20 10:16 AM | Reply

I've never said anything about "racist white liberals". I've referred to the left's love of race baiting, which is very real and evident from coutless examples. I have never claimed that leftist race baiting is exclusive to any particular demographic.

You're very clearly lying here. And for what? To get a little nip at my ankle? Even if you weren't lying about what I've said in the past, your attempt to relate it to my post in this thread would still be sad and desperate.

This is all around pathetic behavior on your part.

#9 | Posted by sully at 2017-03-20 10:38 AM | Reply

????? How is what you said not a rearrangement of word salad from what I said?

But I digress:

Ooops, I meant your other fictional character, "Inherently Evil Hillary"

You are a real Lewis Carroll.

Sorry Sully, I agree on you about some things but I just can't get with some of your fictional characters. Especially when you call my faith fictional. There is a substantial amount of proof that Jesus existed. If you want to get into what actually happened there, I understand that debate. But calling Jesus fictional considering your history of imaginary people is rich.

#10 | Posted by bocaink at 2017-03-20 10:50 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Advertisement

Advertisement

????? How is what you said not a rearrangement of word salad from what I said?

#10 | Posted by bocaink at 2017-03-20 10:50 AM | Reply | Flag:

Your lack of reading comprehension is not evidence that I'm wrong.

And you can't accurately name one "fictional character" I've ever referrred to as existing. So far we have one lie from you and that's it.

Give it up, this is a desperate attempt to smear me with something that never happened for reasons that have more to do with you than me.

#11 | Posted by Sully at 2017-03-20 11:33 AM | Reply

But calling Jesus fictional

#10 | Posted by bocaink at 2017-03-20 10:50 AM | Reply

I called the anti-Christ fictional. You're not even competent enough to correctly portray my post in this thread despite it being right in front of you. And yet you have the nerve to claim to know better than me what I've said in the past.

Go pull this crap on someone else, you're obviously not going to get away with it on me.

#12 | Posted by Sully at 2017-03-20 12:28 PM | Reply

Maybe Trump is actually the Cat in the Hat.

"But just like that, came a Cat in a Hat, who started playing games, this way and that. The fish did shout, to the Cat running about, "he should not be here, when your mother is out!"

With a "Thing" or two up his sleeve, The Cat in the Hat transforms America into a wonderfully mischievous show.

#13 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-03-20 12:33 PM | Reply

Article is a mishmash of theology.... but the fact that it is in Red State is hilarious.

#14 | Posted by Corky at 2017-03-20 12:37 PM | Reply

The Antichrist will be loved, well received, and respected.

So it can't be Trump.

#15 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-03-20 01:12 PM | Reply

#13 Yeah, but then he cleans up the mess

#16 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-03-20 01:13 PM | Reply

OK, the other titles of the biblical anti-Christ. The man of sin, the Assyrian, the Pharaoh of Egypt, the Prince of Tyre and a few others. Seems that everyone that is disliked or hated by someone with some very basic knowledge of the Bible has that tag put on them. Sometimes it makes them money via book sales. According to the narrative, the actual Anti-Christ will be a great deal more charismatic and persuasive than Trump. He is supposed to unify the whole world. Hell, Trump can't unify his own party.

#17 | Posted by docnjo at 2017-03-20 04:54 PM | Reply

#13 Yeah, but then he cleans up the mess

#16 | POSTED BY MUSTANG

Yeah. Magically sets it all right again. And that is not happening. Seems it is just getting worse and worse.

#18 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-03-20 05:12 PM | Reply

#10 | POSTED BY BOCAINK
"There is a substantial amount of proof that Jesus existed."

There is a substantial amount of evidence that Jesus existed. There is currently no proof.

But then, faith isn't about evidence.

#19 | Posted by TheTom at 2017-03-20 05:47 PM | Reply

19.

Good point, I should have said evidence, but you get what I mean.

Although I don't know how much evidence is required for proof that some kind of historical figure named Jesus existed. We don't deny Julius Caesar really lived, do we?

#20 | Posted by bocaink at 2017-03-20 06:14 PM | Reply

#20 | POSTED BY BOCAINK
"We don't deny Julius Caesar really lived, do we?"

Of course not, but then there is far more evidence for Julius Caesar's existence, so that's not a good comparison.
To doubt Caesar's existence, you'd have to come up with some very compelling evidence of his being invented, and explain all the writings by and about him. Caesar was a giant of Rome, whereas Jesus was a guy from a backwater town in a backwater province of the Roman Empire. In other words, there's not going to be the same kind (or amount) of evidence for Jesus as there is for Caesar.

As far as "how much evidence is required", it's more a matter of "what kind of evidence".
There's obviously overwhelming evidence for early Christianity, but as far as its beginnings, I don't imagine we'd ever have the kind of evidence we'd need to nail it down. (Sorry, poor word choice.)

But again, Christians and Muslims don't believe in Jesus because there's evidence or proof of his existence.

#21 | Posted by TheTom at 2017-03-20 11:54 PM | Reply

#21 | Posted by TheTom Many people spoke and wrote about an historical Jesus early in the 2nd century, especially those who dis not approve of him or his message. See the Babylonian Talmud. Many Church fathers were quoting the gospels early within a life span of a human being. Josephus referenced him about AD75. The Essences may have referenced him. The narrative in the gospel matches history. If he was a invention or a myth, it was the most elaborate fraud ever attempted.

#22 | Posted by docnjo at 2017-03-21 02:01 AM | Reply

Paul came about 4 years after Jesus in his time their where all ready large groups of Christians.

we know their was 12 apostles which none of them even after being tortured denied Christ, we have some of the writings of polycarp who was a student of the apostle John.

as for Trump he is just another mini anti-christ and their is a lot of those, though I would guess trump would be very happy if he thought he was the real Anti-Christ

#23 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2017-03-21 03:46 AM | Reply

#22 | POSTED BY DOCNJO
"Many people spoke and wrote about an historical Jesus early in the 2nd century"

The key being "2nd century".

"especially those who dis not approve of him or his message."

Especially?? There are writings about Christians, but the historical Jesus? I wouldn't use the Babylonian Talmud as a reference, either, as it's much too late.

"Many Church fathers were quoting the gospels early within a life span of a human being."

They were quoting the gospel, yes, but that's not evidence. What's the earliest, though?

"Josephus referenced him about AD75."

Josephus wrote The Jewish War in 75, which has no reference to Jesus. Antiquities of the Jews, written in the mid 90s, includes two references, one almost certainly NOT authentic, the other a passing mention.

"The narrative in the gospel matches history."

Which gospel? And how does it "match history"?
Luke has an invented census story. Matthew has an invented slaughter of the innocents, and a host of other elements that are not historical, just to give a couple examples.
If we start with the premise that Jesus existed, then yes, we can find evidence.
See, I don't believe the gospels were written as history to begin with. They may reference historical things, but that was never the purpose.

#24 | Posted by TheTom at 2017-03-21 03:10 PM | Reply

An overwhelming majority of New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is more probable than not,[4][5][6][7][nb 1][nb 2][nb 3][nb 4] although they differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the gospels.[nb 5][13][nb 6][15]:168–173 While scholars have criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness,[nb 7] with very few exceptions such critics generally do support the historicity of Jesus and reject the Christ myth theory that Jesus never existed.[17][nb 8][19][20][21]

en.wikipedia.org

www.patheos.com

coldcasechristianity.com

#25 | Posted by Corky at 2017-03-21 03:16 PM | Reply

Even bible critic Bart Ehrman is pro the historicity of Jesus.

en.wikipedia.org(Ehrman)

#26 | Posted by Corky at 2017-03-21 03:23 PM | Reply

#25 | POSTED BY CORKY
"An overwhelming majority of New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is more probable than not"

"More probable than not" is the key phrase. And, of course, how probable depends not only on evidence, but on methodology. We cannot "know", so it's a matter of determining probability.

I'm not aware of how many different recent studies there have been specifically regarding historicity, although your mention of "religious bias and lack of methodological soundness" is important, especially since historicity has been accepted and assumed for centuries. Point being, of the "overwhelming majority", how many have dedicated the time and effort this deserves? I don't imagine there's a lot of funding for this subject, as I think it's still viewed as firmly in the "fringe/niche" category.

I'm very familiar with Ehrman, although the fact that he's a Bible critic is really neither here nor there when it comes to his stance on historicity. Plus, it certainly shows that different scholars can come to differing positions when it comes to this subject.

#27 | Posted by TheTom at 2017-03-21 03:53 PM | Reply

- Point being, of the "overwhelming majority", how many have dedicated the time and effort this deserves?

"New Testament scholars and Near East historians" so quite a bit of time and effort, considering their level of accomplished scholarship, and their professional reputations, per the References at the link.

- the fact that he's a Bible critic is really neither here nor there

That's like saying that the fact that Trump is a dedicated liar is really neither here nor there when it comes to his stance on.... anything.

- it certainly shows that different scholars can come to differing positions when it comes to this subject.

No one says otherwise, but the vast majority, even major critics of the texts, have the same position.

#28 | Posted by Corky at 2017-03-21 04:01 PM | Reply

Article is a mishmash of theology.... but the fact that it is in Red State is hilarious.

#14 | POSTED BY CORKY

I was thinking that same thing.

I know you are a believer and you are someone who can think.

It's time for people like you to show the dumb dorks that the two things (faith and reason) can exist in the same head.

I'm not a believer, so I can't do it.

#29 | Posted by kudzu at 2017-03-22 06:27 AM | Reply

(faith and reason)

www.iep.utm.edu

#30 | Posted by Corky at 2017-03-22 11:57 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

-->
Drudge Retort