The Nonsense That is The Sermon On The Mount

Author: Stephen ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 30
  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,303
    2
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    The sermon On The Mount is by all accounts about rewards in heaven and seeing god .



    So lets look at a random few of these beatitudes said to have been spoken by The Christ himself.


    Matthew 5:3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.". 

    I have been accused of being extremely poor in spirit by a few people here where they have politely added that I would "burn in hell". But those same people never have they been able to (1) tell me where heaven is, (2)what it is (3) and what happens when I get there. And you can imagine the giant swerves, stumbles and stuttering for words when I point out what Jesus says about the likes of me and my lack of spirit? 

    Matthew 5:5
    Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.

    I believe we can all be meek at times depending on the situation. It doesn't take a belief in god.  Besides, why will the meek only inherit the earth and not share in the kingdom of heaven with the much less poor inspirit? It makes no sense.

    Matthew 5:7
    Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.

    Is this a threat? What about those who have shown no mercy?  And If mercy is such a great virtue then why wouldn't god show mercy to the merciless?
      
    Matthew 5:8
    Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

    What does it even mean to be pure in heart? And aren't we all born sinners anyway? and what about the peacemakers and the merciful and meek? will they not see god?

    Matthew 5:9
    Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

    Why? Why are not the "pure in heart" called the children of god? Or "the merciful"? Or "the meek"?








  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 40
    Forum posts: 949
    3
    5
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @Stephen
    Why do I feel like this forum is directed against me? 
    Even if not, some understanding of terms is important here. "Poor in spirit" is not a reference to someone who lacks spirituality. Though some accuse you of that, I've noticed, I'm not one of them. Only those who can see into your heart can make that call, and I'd wager 100% of those who accuse have no vision of your heart. You know what I mean. But, "poor in spirit" refers to those who desire more spirituality and at present lack it. It's not an accusation; it's an admission of insufficiency, just as one who is poor in monetary value would admit the same, bt desired to improve the situation.

    Meek is not the equivalent of weak. In fact, it's just the opposite. Meekness is an attitude of strength, but restraint of it. Something like, "I could beat up your dad, but I'm not inclined to prove it."

    Mercy. An interesting take on the idea that if God were truly omnipotent, He would end all suffering. Now you've brought God into a discussion in which you claim it takes a belief in God to have merit. In fact, it does not, ands I'll demonstrate that in a minute. On this point, God is allowing suffering because He allows our free agency, even if it is used to deny Him, let alone cause others great suffering. Just because God is omnipotent, I claim, this does not necessarily mean He is obliged to use it. See the meaning of meek, above. Restraint. Restraint to allow our free agency, even to use against one another if that is our schtick. Suffering, even unto death, is just a brief moment compared to eternity. Death is just a door we pass through, and the rest of eternity is before us. So we die. No one here gets out alive. - Jim Morrison.

    Pure in heart: purity of intent. Purity of purpose. Purity of results. Purity in treatment of others. No, we are not all born sinners. That would deny the Christ his atonement for us. Why should we be blamed for Adam's transgression? That was his, not ours. Are you at fault for errors your father made? No, he is. Christ paid for Adam's transgression, contingent upon his repentance, not ours. We becme sinful, we were not born with it. Children are innocent, else why would Christ tell us to become like them? We are thew sinners, not children. And we are sinful by our own thoughts and actions, not Adam's.

    Peacemakers. Note that the beatitudes are listed in a progression of simple to more difficult attitudes to attain, embrace, and practice. It is more difficult to be a peacemaker than it is to be poor in spirit. The ultimate attitude is to love our enemies. It is last because it is the most difficult. Do not parse the rewards, because they all are urs if we achieve all attitudes suggested. So if ours is all the rewards, from being counted in the kingdom of heave to being children of God, who cares how they are given out. All are given. That's the point.

    Now, as for application, even if one took God out of teh picture, aren;t these attitudes to acvquire that would make a terrific political platform? What if someone came along, espousing these attitudes as possible social ideals, and that by acquring them, ever social ill we suffer today would be resolved and forgotten. Isn't that a society worth promotng?




  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,303
    2
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @fauxlaw
    Why do I feel like this forum is directed against me? 
    I don't know.  Such is the nature of internet forums. People will think themselves to be the victim or play the victim simply because someone apposes their views, opinions or beliefs. Heat & kitchen springs to mind.



     "Poor in spirit" is not a reference to someone who lacks spirituality. 
    I see and how do you know what it means. Did you learn the meaning of "poor in spirit" from scripture?


    It's not an accusation; it's an admission of insufficiency,

    Then that would mean to be lacking in something then. But above you have clearly stated to be  "poor in spirit is not a reference to someone who lacks spirituality". 


    Meek is not the equivalent of weak.
    I know what meek means. You didn't answer the question concerning the "meek".


    Mercy. An interesting take on the idea that if God were truly omnipotent, He would end all suffering. Now you've brought God into a discussion in which you claim it takes a belief in God to have merit.

    Have I?  Where have I spoke of ending suffering?  I have said it doesn't take a belief in god to be "meek". And I didn't mention gods omnipotence either. This is what I actually wrote >>>" And If mercy is such a great virtue then why wouldn't god show mercy to the merciless"? 

    Am I going to have to continually repeat what i wrote and hope you read what I actually wrote and not what you want me to have written? This is how straw man arguments are created.  You interpret what I say wrong and then carry on the argument from your own interpretation and not my own. This is a " so what you mean is" or a "so what your saying is" situation. It is a devious practice that comes about when some feels they have to respond with something anything to a awkward and sometimes embarrassing question. 


    It is more difficult to be a peacemaker than it is to be poor in spirit.

    Your evidence for that is what exactly?


    I did read all of your post and frankly speaking for the best part had nothing to with my questions and was just your  own opinions than they where answers to what I had actually asked..


    who cares how they are given out. All are given. 

    I do. So let us try this simply question again:

    Matthew 5:9
    Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

    Why? Why are not the "pure in heart" called the children of god? Or "the merciful"? Or "the meek"?










  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 40
    Forum posts: 949
    3
    5
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @Stephen
    Poor in spirit. You misread me. I said poor is spirit is not a complete lack of spirituality, but lacking more than one wants to have.

    I know the meaning by understanding the syntax of ancient Greek.

    In defining peacemaking, not just mercy, I told you to not parse the rewards, because acquiring all the attitudes discussed will reap all the rewards, so why parse them according to which attitude earns what reward? Isn't that like desiring a well-rounded education, but selectively limiting your potential electives? I did not stop learning when I had already acquired two PhDs. Such as learning ancient Greek. I also am fluent in ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs, though that was part of formal education.

    Reading a passage and really studying it for what it says is two different activities altogether. I have studied the SoM, in three languages, as it happens, and have realized that the attitudes described are listed in order of increasing difficulty to fulfill; they are not a random list.  I've written a book on the subject, but this forum is not an appropriate venue for selling product. 

    Yet you ask why, again, the rewards are specific to each attitude. Why parse? Savor the gusto of the whole recipe. If your wanting to make spaghetti, and you have meat and tomato soup, will that be a satisfactory recipe? If you spend a casual read, nope. Not enough. No, not to me. As it happens, I am making spaghetti tonight. Toss the tomato soup, it's useless. It's your insistence on parsing "meek." Stew fresh tomatoes [they're stewing as we speak]. Add meat. Tonight, I'm using a beef/pork sausage blend. Then, put the pasta on a boil. Then I add chopped onion and Chianti to the sauce, along with parsley, sage, rosemary & thyme. Oregano, four large cloves of garlic, minced, plus 2 more sliced. Worcestershire sauce, and a little sugar. Olive oil. S & P, and a dash of chipotle pepper. Sliced mushrooms. Sometimes meatballs, but not tonight. Simmer to reduce. Serve. That's the complexity of following the recipe of the SoM. Do not skimp. Do not parse. Just do it.



  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 12
    Forum posts: 2,353
    3
    2
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @fauxlaw @Stephen
    Interesting how you both interpret mythology to suit.

    Which in terms of god hypotheses, is what people have been doing for the last few thousand years.....Both, pre and post Christianity.


    Maybe there was a sermon on a mount....Sounds quite plausible.....End of story really.

    How can either of you actually know who said what and with what intention they said it.

    Nonetheless, as good a reason as any to while away an hour or two I suppose.







  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,303
    2
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @fauxlaw
    Poor in spirit. You misread me. I said poor is spirit is not a complete lack of spirituality, but lacking more than one wants to have.

    No, what you said was "  "poor in spirit >>>>is not<<<<<a reference to someone who lacks spirituality".  Then you said " it's an admission of insufficiency",

    Insufficient where I come from means to be lacking in something. i.e. not enough; inadequate.



    so why parse them according to which attitude earns what reward?

    That would be Jesus who has done that. You seem to be ignorant of that fact. Why would the Christ even divide and categorize individuals with certain qualities and appear to judge one quality over another?     


    Reading a passage and really studying it for what it says is two different activities altogether.
    How patronising. 



    I have studied the SoM, in three languages, as it happens,
    So? Heaven still means heaven in any language does it not?  And god also means god in any language does it not?



    and have realized that the attitudes described are listed in order of increasing difficulty to fulfill;

    I think that is your opinion. And even  your education of languages doesn't qualify you to say what is hard or easy for the individual. This is not to mention that the Sermon on the Mount is simply a collection of sayings from many philosophies from around the world and from before and after Jesus is said to have existed. In other words, they are not exclusive to Jesus  as the New Testament author will have us believe.


    are not a random list.

    They are and this is why they make no sense at all . Like I have said, why  are not the "pure in heart"  or "the merciful" or  "the meek" called the children of god? 


    Yet you ask why, again,

    I do. Because you are not supporting what you say. You are simply presenting your opinions as fact. Stop taking me for a dummy.



    the rewards are specific to each attitude.

    Why? and you haven't explained what it actually means to be "pure in heart" either

    And It also may have escaped your attention that in  the NT beatitudes  there is absolutely no value given to our current lives, the only lives we can sure of. 

    This is not to mention how flawed the whole sermon is.  It all seems very well to say "pure in heart"   "the merciful"  "the meek" and "the peacemakers" will see god, be called children of god and inherit the heavens.  But to be  offering compensation for these things, rather than telling that true morality only takes place when you want to do what you are doing, is educationally and developmentally debilitating.  It teaches followers to do good things to get into Heaven and see god , not to do good things simply because it is the right thing to do.


     I also am fluent in ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs,
    Good for you. The so called Lords Prayer is an Egyptian prayer.  Parallels in the Lord's Prayer  and The Coming Into Day can be found in  the Egyptian Book of the Dead.

    As are Moses' Ten Commandments. These too are Egyptian adapted from the Papyrus to Ani also from the Book Of The Dead. Moses simply turned pleas of innocence - I have not -  into dictates of - thou shalt not .   But we can leave that for another thread.


    Have you read anything By E.A. Wallace Budge. I read all of his work over 30 years ago.














  • RoderickSpode
    RoderickSpode avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 816
    2
    1
    2
    RoderickSpode avatar
    RoderickSpode
    --> @Stephen
    Good for you. The so called Lords Prayer is an Egyptian prayer.  Parallels in the Lord's Prayer  and The Coming Into Day can be found in  the Egyptian Book of the Dead.

    Interesting. I actually read the Egyptian Book Of The Dead. I don't recall that.

    Can you provide a link please? Not a link to someone making the claim. But quotations from the book itself.
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 40
    Forum posts: 949
    3
    5
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @Stephen
    Poor in spirit. Imagine a glass partially filled with water. How much? More than empty; less than full. The desire is that it be full, and, if wishes were fishes, and all that, it would be. But it takes more than wishes to fill this glass, and, until it is full, one is lacking the fullness of water. It’s a story of degrees of fullness. Something like not yet achieving the Ru Pert em Heru; not yet known of one’s self; not yet One with God. Lacking does not mean the glass is only empty.
     
    You’ve missed the point. The SoM is not a cafeteria. We don’t pick and choose according to what reward we want, and ignore the rest. It is meant to be fully consumed, like acquiring a full glass of water. Not just spirituality, but the whole bloody thing: being poor in spirit, but hungry for righteousness, meek, pure in heart, a peacemaker, etc. Then, does it matter who is a child of God [we all are anyway, but the context is not that simple in this case], and who is a pure in heart? Nope. The full glass is all these gifts.
     
    Heaven means heaven? No, my friend. We cannot approach language as if each one has the same set of words in its lexicon. That is the classic mistake of attempting to translate accurately one language to another. It is translation by attempt to link dictionaries, which totally ignores culture. Dictionaries do not instruct in culture; just its words. Without understanding a language’s culture, which is the root of all languages, one will never fully understand that language. So, no, heaven is not a direct link of meaning to aaru,or valhalla, shamayim, or ouranos. In Hindi, there are all of 14 separate translations of “heaven.” In Greek, six words that all translate to English’s “love.” In French, there is no word for “transom.” 
     
    This is why mere reading cannot replace studying. Sorry to patronize, but some slur the distinction. And this is why some make no sense of the SoM. Again, sorry to patronize.
     
    You’ve “read” all of E.A. Wallis Budge, and you claim to not understand what “pure in heart” means? “I know myself, I know myself, I am One with God.” “May thou be at peace with me, may I see thy beauties, may I advance upon the earth, may I smite the ass, may I crush the evil one…” 
     
    Budge wrote some 52 books, and you’ve “read” them all? 30 years ago? And you don’t know the meaning of “pure in heart?” I still read him. I have about half of his works in my library, including, The Ru Pert em Heru,The Book of Coming Forth by Day, The Book of the Dead. I’ve studied them. And you read them? Sure, like reading the Sunday comics. And you don’t know the meaning of “pure in heart.” Sorry to patronize.
  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,303
    2
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @RoderickSpode
     I actually read the Egyptian Book Of The Dead. I don't recall that.


    I don't believe you. Tell me,  what is the first line on page 115 of the Papyrus of Ani. I have a 1st edition of Budges Transliteration and Translation. So I suggest you read it again if you have read it at all. Or a little simple research should suffice these days. You do have a search engine don't you?



  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,303
    2
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @fauxlaw
    You’ve “read” all of E.A. Wallis Budge,

    Yes. The thread is not about Budge. I reference Budge only in response to your claim of being able to read Egyptian Hieroglyphs.

    and you claim to not understand what “pure in heart” means? “I know myself, I know myself, I am One with God.” “May thou be at peace with me, may I see thy beauties, may I advance upon the earth, may I smite the ass, may I crush the evil one…” 


    The above does not explain what  it means to be pure in heart" and why the pure in heart will see god yet not "the meek" or the peacekeepers" or "the merciful"?  

    Why would the Christ even divide and categorize individuals with certain qualities and appear to judge one quality over another?   


    Not to mention that the Sermon on the Mount is simply a collection of sayings from many philosophies from around the world and from before and after Jesus is said to have existed. In other words, they are not exclusive to Jesus  as the New Testament author will have us believe.



    Also not to mention how flawed the whole sermon is.  It all seems very well to say "pure in heart"   "the merciful"  "the meek" and "the peacemakers" will see god, be called children of god and inherit the heavens.  But to be  offering compensation for these things, rather than telling that true morality only takes place when you want to do what you are doing, is educationally and developmentally debilitating.  It teaches followers to do good things to get into Heaven and see god , not to do good things simply because it is the right thing to do.

    Your word salad isn't working. You have absolutely no answers so simply rearrange words you have already wrote.

    Start by justifying some of the points raised above rather than causing me to repeat my self. 

    I refer you to my prediction at post #3 above;>>>


    "Am I going to have to continually repeat what I wrote and hope you read what I actually wrote and not what you want me to have written? This is how straw man arguments are created". 

    You may enjoy circular arguments , But I have absolutely no time for them.


  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 40
    Forum posts: 949
    3
    5
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @Stephen
    God in heaven, are you this dense????????????

    I've defined pure in heart for you three times. I'm done. Look it up. Study. You think reading is enough, I pity your education. I pity your teachers. I provide words in an intelligible string; you toss them however you want your salad to be. 

    You have no time for circular argument. I don't either, yet you seem to run them with abandon.

    Papyrus of Ani, pg 115, first line of Budge's volume, Dover, 1967: "t'et an Ausar, a qa tuau - f - tu ur." You are the one who strayed into Budge; don't blame me for your diversion.
  • RoderickSpode
    RoderickSpode avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 816
    2
    1
    2
    RoderickSpode avatar
    RoderickSpode
    --> @Stephen
    don't believe you. Tell me,  what is the first line on page 115 of the Papyrus of Ani. I have a 1st edition of Budges Transliteration and Translation. So I suggest you read it again if you have read it at all. Or a little simple research should suffice these days. You do have a search engine don't you?
    I don't care if you believe me or not. But for the record, I read it on-line a couple of years ago.

    But the problem is that it's a bogus claim. If you could prove otherwise, it would have been the first thing you would have done this morning. Rather than boasting about a book you own, and instead of the usual diversionary tactics, provide a link proving your claim.

    But.....you're not going to do it.

    My prediction:

    Your next comment will be another self-promo suggesting how much you know (while providing no evidence for the question at hand).
  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,303
    2
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @RoderickSpode
    Good for you. The so called Lords Prayer is an Egyptian prayer.  Parallels in the Lord's Prayer  and The Coming Into Day can be found in  the Egyptian Book of the Dead.

    Interesting. I actually read the Egyptian Book Of The Dead. I don't recall that.

    This from the man who  tells us the bible doesn't reveal any "info" about if or not John the Baptist was himself baptised , when the Christ himself makes it clear that Is it any wonder he doesn't "recall anything".

    I don't care if you believe me or not. But for the record, I read it on-line a couple of years ago.

    Good, Then you won't have too much trouble finding it and reading it again will you. 


    My prediction:

    Your next comment will be another self-promo suggesting how much you know (while providing no evidence for the question at hand).

    Wrong again. 






  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,303
    2
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @fauxlaw
    are you this dense????????????. [...................]I've defined pure in heart for you three times

    No what you have done is made up three different versions of what you believe "pure in heart " to mean. Go back and read your own crap. I am sick of having to repeatedly show YOU what YOU have actually written  And like I said, You are presenting your opinions as fact.

    So let me give you my version of what " the pure in heart" means. The pure in heart are a reference to the devote members of the monastery at Qumran. These particular members of the Qumran community are devoted to nothing and no one but god.   They were known as The Pure in Heart.

    You really need to take more notice when reading these scriptures . The verse does not say blessed are those that ARE pure in heart for they shall see God,  does it?????????  No, that's because it is a ranking title and who are addressed as THE Pure In Heart.

    And you tell me you study ancient languages. If you actually did study the ancient biblical languages as you claim at post # 4 above, you would know that for the best part of the New Testament Jesus  often speaks in code  for those with ears -  and references to  "the meek", "the poor" and "the peacemakers" and others are all references to the members and ranks of the  Qumran community: example,  "the poor" were the Celibates of the Qumran community who usually handled the funds...................... that Judas was forever robbing.  I could list all of those mentioned in the sermon and there status or ranks as they are all references to members of the Qumran community.


    AND NO< I AM NOT DENSE!
    Ancient languages, my arse!.



  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 40
    Forum posts: 949
    3
    5
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @Stephen
    Pure in heart: purity of intent. Purity of purpose. Purity of results. Purity in treatment of others, which I offered in my post #2. As I noted from the Papyrus of Ani, “I know myself, I know myself, I am One with God.” “May thou be at peace with me, may I see thy beauties, may I advance upon the earth, may I smite the ass, may I crush the evil one…” To know one’s self and to be one with God is being pure in heart. Ani, the Theban scribe for whom the Ru Pert em Heruwas written, and elsewise called “The Book of the Dead,” The Coming Forth by Day,” and “The Papyrus of Ani,” is an adequate reference to this particular beatitude as offered by Christ, but the idea of purity of heart obviously pre-dates Christ, and, so what.
     
    As for the Essenes, your Qumran folk, I’ve never seen a reference that they were called “the pure in heart,” although it is plausible they would accept the description. They left Jerusalem in the early 2ndcentury BCE due to their conflict with the second temple rite of that period, which they considered corrupt and sought to leave to restore the order and piety of the first temple rite. Cite your source of their link to “pure in heart.”
     
    You claim the Christ taught of the Qumran community with his various “code” messages. Cite that, as well. The fact is among the scrolls from the Dead Sea, the essential record of the Qumran community, not once is Jesus Christ mentioned; indicative that, though some claim it, Jesus, himself, was never among them. https://www.baslibrary.org/biblical-archaeology-review/41/2/3
    Sorry, that is a members only site, a suggested membership. See https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-artifacts/dead-sea-scrolls/the-dead-sea-scrolls-and-the-new-testament/
    How about citations of your sources of the claim of the Jesus codes to which you refer in your #14. I see a lot of pontification from you; little sourcing. Research is the name of the game, my friend. By study. Not just reading. Get it?
     
    Yes, I happen to be a linguist of preference to ancient languages, my arse. New word for you? Care to research its etymology before blindly using it?
  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,303
    2
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @fauxlaw
     I see a lot of pontification from you;

    No, that is clearly your forte.  I don't present theory or my opinions as fact.

    You claim the Christ taught of the Qumran community with his various “code” messages

    Where do I claim that ? I have said nothing of the sort.  This is you AGAIN!!! inventing a strawman,  AGAIN!!!!!!

    I haven't said anywhere that Jesus taught at Qumran. But now you want to build an argument around something I haven't said. This is sheer deceptive behavior from a clown on the back foot.







  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 40
    Forum posts: 949
    3
    5
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    You, claiming "Christ taught of the Qumran community with his various "code" messages:"

    you would know that for the best part of the New Testament Jesus  often speaks in code  for those with ears -  and references to  "the meek", "the poor" and "the peacemakers" and others are all references to the members and ranks of the  Qumran community: example,  "the poor" were the Celibates of the Qumran community who usually handled the funds
    Those are your words. Bolded italic my emphasis of your words. Do you not know what you, yourself, wrote? Do you deny these words? Apparently, you do. Ergo: dense. I do not claim that Jesus taught at Qumran. That you interpret that I did is on you. You may interpret all you wish, but it does not change the fact that I never said it. Otherwise, show me. 

    The fact is among the scrolls from the Dead Sea, the essential record of the Qumran community, not once is Jesus Christ mentioned; indicative that, though some claim it, Jesus, himself, was never among them. 
    That is what I said in my #15. 

    Not to mention that Christ did not speak "for the best part of the New Testament." I take your meaning of "best part" as "most of." The New Testament is 343 pages of text. of those, the speaking by Christ endures 171 pages, only 49%. Of those 171 pages, Christ is not speaking on every page. One would know that, having read and studied the entire volume. picking out highlight verses out of context is not reading nor studying. Nor does it win any arguments. But it is code for those without ears.
  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,303
    2
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen

    You, claiming "Christ taught of the Qumran community with his various "code" messages:"

    Stephen wrote: you would know that for the best part of the New Testament Jesus  often speaks in code  for those with ears -  and references to  "the meek", "the poor" and "the peacemakers" and others are all references to the members and ranks of the  Qumran community: example,  "the poor" were the Celibates of the Qumran community who usually handled the funds

    For all of your claims of understanding languages, you cannot even grasp basic English.  SIMPLY SHOW ME WHERE IT IS IN THAT QUOTE OF MINE ABOVE that you have re quoted as evidence that I say Jesus taught at Qumran,THAT I STATE JESUS WAS ADDRESSING OR TEACHING OR  EVEN PREACHING  TO THE QUMRAN COMMUNITY AT QUMRAN !!!!!! ????  And hurry up about it!!!!!  

    Jesus was REFERENCING, i.e making reference to;  members of the Qumran community when he was ADDRESSING the multitude at the sermon on the mount. STOP TRYING TO pervert my words and meanings.

    Jesus often spoke in parables when he addressed crowds so much so that this confused even his own followers at times. when he was asked about it he simply said words to the effect " Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has NOT been given . 
    So in clear English, if there were members of the Qumran community among the multitude then they would understand that they were being addressed  BECAUSE THEY HAD " EARS"  but people such as the Romans and ordinary Jewish citizens who did not know about or understand the Qumran community and its ranking system, its customs and its rituals would not.
    Matthew 11:15



     Also, Jesus CLEARLY used code names for certain New Testament characters who were among his followers, and with good reason. He changed the names of some of followers too also with good reason. And you would know why IF you understood the time and place that these characters are said to have existed.  Some of his disciples only met him in secret  under the cover of darkness, again, for obvious reasons. 


  • Deb-8-a-bull
    Deb-8-a-bull avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 980
    2
    2
    3
    Deb-8-a-bull avatar
    Deb-8-a-bull
    This Matthew bloke, Can we trust him?

      


  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,303
    2
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @Deb-8-a-bull
    This Matthew bloke, Can we trust him?
    None of the gosple authors can be "trusted". 

  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,303
    2
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @fauxlaw

    I had to re-post this as I didn't address the original above # 18 fauxlaw, in response to you personally. 


    fauxlaw, wrote: You, claiming "Christ taught of the Qumran community with his various "code" messages:"

    Stephen wrote: you would know that for the best part of the New Testament Jesus  often speaks in code  for those with ears -  and references to  "the meek", "the poor" and "the peacemakers" and others are all references to the members and ranks of the  Qumran community: example,  "the poor" were the Celibates of the Qumran community who usually handled the funds

    For all of your claims of understanding languages, you cannot even grasp basic English.  SIMPLY SHOW ME WHERE IT IS IN THAT QUOTE OF MINE ABOVE that you have re quoted as evidence that I say Jesus taught at Qumran,THAT I STATE JESUS WAS ADDRESSING OR TEACHING OR  EVEN PREACHING  TO THE QUMRAN COMMUNITY AT QUMRAN !!!!!! ????  And hurry up about it!!!!!  

    Jesus was REFERENCING, i.e making reference to;  members of the Qumran community when he was ADDRESSING the multitude at the sermon on the mount. STOP TRYING TO pervert my words and meanings.

    Jesus often spoke in parables when he addressed crowds so much so that this confused even his own followers at times. when he was asked about it he simply said words to the effect " Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has NOT been given . 
    So in clear English, if there were members of the Qumran community among the multitude then they would understand that they were being addressed  BECAUSE THEY HAD " EARS"  but people such as the Romans and ordinary Jewish citizens who did not know about or understand the Qumran community and its ranking system, its customs and its rituals would not.
    Matthew 11:15



     Also, Jesus CLEARLY used code names for certain New Testament characters who were among his followers, and with good reason. He changed the names of some of followers too also with good reason. And you would know why IF you understood the time and place that these characters are said to have existed.  Some of his disciples only met him in secret  under the cover of darkness, again, for obvious reasons. 



  • BrotherDThomas
    BrotherDThomas avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,129
    2
    3
    7
    BrotherDThomas avatar
    BrotherDThomas
    --> @fauxlaw

    .
    Fauxlaw, 


    YOUR HONEST AND TRULY REVEALING QUOTE IN POST #2: “Why do I feel like this forum is directed against me?” 

    The simple answer to your revealing question, is the fact of your Satanic Devil Speak in trying to rewrite the Bible to the way you want it to be is getting old, get it?

    I am sure the pseudo-christian crowd is tired of this continued ruse of yours, where in only one of many of your embarrassing comedy acts, is when in another thread you state that the days in the Contradicting Creation narratives were “great time periods of thousands upon thousands, upon thousands of years.”  Preposterous! Your lack of intellect does not allow you to realize the ramifications of your child like rhetoric upon this topic when promoting such nonsense.

    Christians within this forum want logical and godly conclusions supported by the true words of Jesus within the scriptures, as Yahweh God incarnate, NOT some psycho musings from yet another minion of Satan like you spewing forth your biblically unsupported rhetoric, understood Bible ignorant fool? Huh?

    The only thing that you bring to this prestigious forum is your ungodly precepts and your  "comedy of errors" which are only entertaining to the equally bible ignorant fools like you!


    Fauxlaw, you are blatantly guilty of the following Jesus inspired word:  “For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.” (2 Timothy 4:3)


    In the true words of Jesus in Matthew 4:10 that relates to you, BE GONE SATAN!


    .










  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 40
    Forum posts: 949
    3
    5
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @BrotherDThomas
    ma gavte la nata
  • BrotherDThomas
    BrotherDThomas avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,129
    2
    3
    7
    BrotherDThomas avatar
    BrotherDThomas
    --> @fauxlaw


    .
    Fauxlaw,

    YOUR QUOTE POST #23 TO MY POST #22:  "ma gavte la nata"

    Which is defined as: "I can't argue Brother D's statements in his post #22 and remain intelligent looking in the aftermath, therefore I will quote Latin to make me look smarter than I actually am within this forum so as to RUNAWAY from yet another one of Brother D's biblically vouchsafed posts."

    Run along kid.

    .
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 40
    Forum posts: 949
    3
    5
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @BrotherDThomas
    Very wrong, as usual. The meaning, my friend, is not from Latin, as you suppose [easy enough to determine at your end, but you engage supposition without appropriate research]. Typical. It is from an old northern Italian dialect, meaning "please be so kind as to remove the cork." The cork being your inflated self-important holier-than-thou attitude, but shallow about everyone but your superiorness. Your avatar is revealing enough, Bible in hand, wide open, other hand in accusatory pointing, mouth open, arguing. That's supposed to be respect for our Lord and Savior, beating everybody up by your scriptural impotence? It ani't what He did my friend. He knew it backwards and forwards. Until you learn to teach, not accuse, you will never measure up, little boy.