PGA2.0

Well, the Old Covenant people had a bad record of understanding their God. Your God called them stiff-necked people and the Hebrew testimony is one of them always going astray. The track record is not good.

 

So, two points: the [a] first is that, again, you keep going back to “people to whom the text was given and about whom it was written and who know the language in which it was written don’t understand it as well as outsiders”. You know who is an expert on medical textbooks? Kindergarten teachers.
The [b] second is that you are relying on many of the words of prophets which just proves the point I made about understanding what prophecy is. Thanks for the confirmation.

The shoe fits the other way too, as evidenced by your very Hebrew Scriptures. So, it is not a question of me telling you but your very Scriptures telling you.

 

The texts confirm that the Jews don’t understand the texts? And please try not to mix metaphors.

Again, you assert it but supply no evidence. 

Well, one part of the answer is found in Hoshea. Have at it! (but no, not 6:6)

The whole point of the Messiah was that Israel could never live up to the "rules" laid down in the Law.

Yes, that is your Christian idea of a messiah. That isn’t at all the biblical and Jewish notion of the messiah.

If you sinned unintentionally, you needed a sacrifice to atone for that sin.

A small group of sins was, indeed, covered by sacrifice, but that sacrifice could be of flour. So was that replaced by the sacrifice of the Pillsbury Dough Boy?

 

Nevertheless, it is required.

At a certain time, at a certain place, in a certain state. And if those criteria aren’t met, then there is another approach. That’s Jewish law.

 

Again, you make these broad statements without a shred of evidence so that nothing can be discussed further. 

 

Ok. Tosefta of Yoma, 4:7

 

עבר על מצות לא תעשה ועשה תשוב' תשובה תולה ויום הכפורים מכפר שנ' כי ביום הזה יכפר עליכם וגו

 

Start discussing

 

Thus, they are not meeting the requirements of God, nor can they. That is the reason a better sacrifice was always planned by God.

Then you don’t understand all the requirements.

 

Are you referring to such verses as Hosea 6:6

Nope. Swing and a miss.

 

Yes, God does, but how do you think you meet that requirement? Hence, the need for the Saviour, the Messiah! Please pay very close attention to the underlined below:

 

Isaiah 53? Oh boy…you need some really basic help. I can send you to websites that explain Isaiah 53, verse by verse and idea by idea to help you understand why your theologically driven view of it is completely wrong. Just let me know. I mean, this is really simple and basic stuff. I thought you were a bit more aware than that.

Not as mandated by God.

 Show me where.

 

In most any neighborhood where there are Jews. The Levitical priesthood (the “kohanic” system) still exists and there are a variety of laws mandated by God that we follow because of it, especially related to life cycle events (birth, marriage, death). You didn’t know this? You thought that the Levitical system was defined by and limited to sacrifices?

 

Jesus accepted the Septuagint as Scripture. Every translation from Hebrew finds word equivalents. Even your own Hebrew language (the one you probably speak) was reconstructed from ancient texts. What are the dated earliest known Scriptures you have in written form (plus you have no autographs from the original writers)?  

 

So your argument about my understanding the text is that I don’t because all I have is the written Torah scrolls that are the same in most every Jewish community, and the oral law which has been transmitted faithfully for thousands of years. If the extent of your argument is “you don’t even have the original, so nothing you say is authoritative” then have fun. You have even less than I have (and if you think that Jesus relied on a Greek translation and not the Hebrew, then you think very little of him).

Again, nice assertion back up without one scintilla of evidence.

Evidence that laws are not fulfilled? That’s a matter of English. Laws are obeyed.
Evidence that there are laws for righteousness in Jewish law? I can cite codes of Jewish law to show that Jesus’ behavior wouldn’t qualify as righteous. Would you like that? It is pretty straightforward.
Evidence that the gospels hold no authority for me (or for Jews)? What kind of evidence would you like? A signed declaration from a rabbi stating this? Because I’ll write one up and sign it. And, yes, I’m a rabbi.

Yeshua or Y'shua (ישוע‎ with vowel pointing יֵשׁוּעַ‎ – Yēšūaʿ in Hebrew)

 

That’s hilarious. If you read Hebrew, you would know that the English pronunciation doesn’t even match up to the Hebrew that is listed there. The nickname you listed is pronounced “yay-shu-a” with the stress on the first syllable. If you are going to use a nickname, at least pronounce it correctly.

My contention is they applied it to the rightful Person and you cannot dispute it with anything other than assertion to my knowledge.

 

Because your assertion that it was applied to the rightful person is based on your theological belief and nothing more. The Torah says X about God and a gospel writer applies X to Jesus. Since you believe in Jesus you say “hey, great job.” Anyone who doesn’t believe in Jesus says “um…no.” And when someone comes along and applies X to anyone else, believers say “hey, great job” and you say “um…no.”

I contend there is quite the difference between Jewish traditions and Scripture.

Yes, that is your assertion

 Jesus was very fast to critique those who held to tradition above God's word.

But who cares? These quotes are from books that have no authority. If the Quran has quotes that show that Christians are wrong, does that mean anything to you?

Ok clown. 

(1) Tell me how those biblical verses below do not contradict PGS excuse for Paul's lies.

(2)  Put these biblical verses below into context to show PGA  post is not contradicted by the bible.

This is the account of Noah and his family. Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked faithfully with God.Genesis 6:9

[Zechariah and Elizabeth] And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.Luke 1:6

And if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless. 2 Peter 2:7

By faith Abel brought God a better offering than Cain did. By faith he was commended as righteous, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith Abel still speaks, even though he is dead. Hebrews 11:4

Off you go stupid. 

Your claim of cherry picking on my part is BS. It is you who do the cherry picking, time and time again. 

CHERRY PICKING . CONTEXT TIME AND TIME AGAIN!!>>>>>>

John - 

John 20 records the resurrected Jesus appearing to the disciples and later to Thomas.

19 Now when it was evening on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were [b]shut where the disciples were together due to fear of the [c]Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst, and *said to them, “Peace be to you.” 20 And when He had said this, He showed them both His hands and His side. The disciples then rejoiced when they saw the Lord...26 [f]Eight days later His disciples were again inside, and Thomas was with them. Jesus *came, the doors having been [g]shut, and stood in their midst and said, “Peace be to you.” 27 Then He *said to Thomas, “Place your finger here, and see My hands; and take your hand and put it into My side; and do not continue in disbelief, but be a believer.” 28 Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” 29 Jesus *said to him, “Because you have seen Me, have you now believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.”

Acts - 

Acts 1:2 until the day when He was taken up to heaven, after He had given orders [b]by the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom He had chosen. 3 To [c]these He also presented Himself alive after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days and speaking of things regarding the kingdom of God. 4 [d]Gathering them together, He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for [e]what the Father had promised, “Which,” He said, “you heard of from Me; 5 for John baptized [f]with water, but you will be baptized [g]with the Holy Spirit [h]not many days from now.”...

Peter - 

2 Peter 1:16

Eyewitnesses

For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty.

Then you have Paul's Damascus experience and I could probably cite many more recorded Scriptural instances, so you point does not meet the evidence of Scripture presented by many authors. 

Matthew - 

Matthew 27:53

and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection, they entered the holy city and appeared to many.

Mark -

Mark 16 records Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of [a]James, and Salome witnessing the empty tomb and are told,

"7 But go, tell His disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you.’” 

Luke - 

Luke 1:2

just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word,

You are of the  stupid belief that taking a mishmash of verses from the New & Old Testaments in the hope that they appear to dove-tail nicely for the reader and that they will take this as one complete and coherent story is nothing less than slight of hand, by YOU!   

We are not all as stupid as you believe we are. 

Stephen wrote: Paul was a self confessed liar that admitted to lying to further his cause , his own belief and his own agenda.

PGA2.0 wrote: "Romans 3:10

as it is written: “There is no righteous person, not even one;..."

CONTEXT!!!

This is the account of Noah and his family. Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked faithfully with God.Genesis 6:9

[Zechariah and Elizabeth] And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.Luke 1:6

And if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless. 2 Peter 2:7

By faith Abel brought God a better offering than Cain did. By faith he was commended as righteous, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith Abel still speaks, even though he is dead. Hebrews 11:4

Let me know if you need any more lessons.

CONTEXT!!!!

There is no historical account of it being disputed, and it was not just one man that witnessed His resurrection. Peter, John, James, and other NT writers speak of witnessing the resurrected Christ.

Actually, (not that it is needed) there is historical dispute of the resurrection of Jesus - Plutarch.

Besides the legendary accretion, which seems to be present in the Gospels (which challenges the accuracy), there is also the fact that these anecdotal accounts were written by anonymous persons removed by decades from the purported events.

On top of that, you can use the Bible for claim or evidence, but not both. Pick one or the other. I'm not impressed by Biblical 'clevidence'...and I don't know why you are.

During the 1st-century over 500 eyewitnesses attested to the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Actually, one man *claimed* there was 500 witnesses.

 I understand that from the beginning of Genesis there was a principle of sacrifice, and Abel's sacrifice was considered more noble than Cain's.

There was no “principle”. There was an idea of ceding to God something of value.

 An animal sacrifice was always only a temporary sacrifice for sin until God could give the sacrifice which would atone for sin forever.

then you only understand Christianity and not Judaism because that idea has nothing to do with Judaism or the Jewish bible.

 Hebrews 9 explains this in great detail for anyone who wants to understand the OT system of sacrifice better.

See how to prove your point you have to quote form a non-Jewish text? QED.

They act as a substitute until God would make a sufficient sacrifice, a sinless human to restore righteousness.

Yeah, um…yuck. Humans aren’t fit for sacrifice under biblical law. In fact, human sacrifice is frowned upon. Also, humans are not sinless with rare exceptions and Jesus wasn’t one of those exceptions. And sins don’t “restore righteousness.”

After that time, Jews were no longer obedient to the covenant they made with God, nor could they be because God was displeased with that covenant yet used it for a purpose to demonstrate.

That is your assertion. It is meaningless, but there you go.

Where is that practiced in our day by the Jewish people? That was required by God until He established the New Covenant in His Son.

A wrong assertion, full of problems. It reflects a lack of understanding of the bible, of Jewish law and of logic.

The idea that you have the ability to live without sin before a holy God on your own merit is not what your OT Scriptures teach by its examples.

nor is it what anyone claims. That makes this a strawman.

yet the day he ate of the tree of knowledge he was barred from the intimate presence of God, and that very day he died spiritually to God.

if you knew Hebrew you would see why this is a mistake. But you don’t. So you don’t.

Well, that also.

And that is what the text of the NT teaches, a text that I would hazard you know very little of and yet speak from a point of authority on.

Oh, I don’t speak with any authority on the gospels, even though I have read a bunch of it. I certainly don’t quote it here to make any points. In fact, I have stated that it is useless because it has no authority. If I wanted to, I could certainly post verses that I have studied that would raise serious theological questions for you, but that’s not the goal.

 

I understand that an animal sacrifice was needed for sin, per the Law of Moses,

No, not really, but keep going. This is fun.

 the idea of a substitutionary payment for sin. The animal was acting in place of the sinner and it was a costly sacrifice, even so, yet it preserved the life of the sinner.

No, not at all. By that logic, [a] there should be no capital punishment, [b] just animal sacrifice replacing the human life. Or the sacrifice should be for sins that would otherwise require human death. But that’s not the case. Keep going…

Prophecy is a big topic.

yes, and very different from what you understand. The biblical notion of prophecy and prophet is not centered around “predictions”

Maybe it is you who does not recognize some Messianic prophecy?

ah, more of the “Jews don’t understand texts aimed at and given to Jews”. Thanks. Do the Russians often tell the Americans “you don’t understand the American constitution”? And quoting from “Corinthians”? Do you think that means anything to me?

Other elements, but what about the atonement for sin?

yes, that is covered as well.

Do you offer burnt offerings in the prescribed manner?

How about meal offerings, sin offerings, trespass offerings, or peace offerings?

according to the text, I am not supposed to, so I follow the rules that the law lays down. You seem to be familiar with only a small set of rules. You quote all sorts of verses about the sacrificial system, but ignore some others (like rules indicating where and in what condition one is allowed to do those things, and what to do if the criteria cannot be met). You should learn more before you start asking these questions because they are already answered.

Here are some random facts:
According to Jewish law, atonement through sacrifice only covers a small section of sin

According to Jewish law, atonement on the day of atonement happens without sacrifice at all

According to Jewish law, sacrifices had to be given in the temple by people ritually pure.

The temple was destroyed and all people are in a state of impurity.

According to Jewish law, there is a verse which says what we can do instead of sacrifices in this situation.

Do you know that verse?

As a Christian I believe Jesus has met every righteous aspect of the Law, thus fulfilling it. The NT goes into depth regard this point.

As a Jew, I know the rules for “righteous” under Jewish law, and he ain’t it. Also, laws are not fulfilled, they are obeyed. And, of course, if your measuring rod is texts that hold not value or authority for me, then quoting them is worthless.

No name Yeshua?

Nope none. There was a nickname of yay-shu-a with the stress on the first syllable. Is that how you pronounce the nickname of your God? This is really basic Hebrew. There is also a Hebrew word which can be transliterated as “y’shu-a” with the stress on the second syllable, but that isn’t a name. Which one did you mean?

Take one example of what is applied to God in the OT as being applied to Jesus in the NT:

exactly – your “proof” is that the writers of later books took passages from the earlier books and applied them to someone else. By that logic, if I took passages and applied them to Harry Potter, you would say that there is “proof” that Harry Potter is identical with God. Silly, empty, illogical assertions on your part.

Yes, a replacement that I believe you failed to identify. The NT concerns the replacement and goes into great detail over it.

No, a replacement that was textually identified many years before Jesus was around, and was understood already.

I think the punishment was fulfilled in AD 70.

That’s nice. You can think all sorts of things if you try hard enough.

How are you following the laws as prescribed in the Torah? I do not see animal sacrifices as prescribed for atonement.

So, first, you seem not to understand what the laws in the Torah includes if you ask the first part of your question. And you don’t understand the Mosaic laws of atonement if you ask the second part.

Paul was a self confessed liar. He spoke of him lying to further the cause of his beliefs. 

“If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?”Romans 3:7

So there it is.  Paul claiming to do what ever it takes including telling bare faced lies.

What you do is take selected Scripture out of its context or collapse it to make it a pretext.

Watch this 5 minute clip that sums up the ignorant buffoons that make this  uneducated ridiculous claim perfectly. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK7P7uZFf5o

Yes, I am trying to explain from a Christian perspective and opening up to you the consideration that you do not recognize your Messiah, just like 1st century Israel did not (for the most part).

And I am trying to explain from a Jewish perspective and opening up to you the consideration that you are completely wrong and should reject Christianity as Jews did (for the most part).

There are way too many prophecies that you cannot explain away for them to be fantasies, rather fulfillment.

There are way too many things that you think of as messianic prophecies that are not and too many prophecies that you think of as having been “fulfilled” that are not what you understand.

Can you, today, apply the sacrificial system as mandated by the Law of Moses as prescribed in the Torah? If not I have made my point.

 actually, yes. Since there is a lot more to the Law of Moses than you have read, I can apply other elements of it that you are not familiar with.

YOUR LYING QUOTE ONCE AGAIN RELATIVE TO ME EASILY BIBLE SLAPPING YOU SILLY: "Yes, you are an authority unto yourself!"

As is shown when I make you the continued Bible fool, the "authority" comes from the word of Jesus Himself. Therefore, when you continue to step out of line relative to His exact words in the name of Satan, I bring forth His words, and at which point, you RUN AWAY just like Tradesecret does!  LOL!

Your embarrassment once again is excused at this time.

NEXT?

It may be a little stretched yet I have not looked into it and the NT reveals that the whole OT speaks (especially the reference in Luke 24:32) of Jesus/Yeshua

it is more than stretched -- it is nonsensical. I'm sure people can say that Jesus is spoken of in the Quran, or the BofM or the Harry Potter series. Is that conclusive and persuasive to you?

John 1:11

He came to His own, and His own people did not accept Him.

 

They, His people, Israel, for the most part, did not recognize Him as their Messiah.

so you are trying to explain something to me by citing a book which I don’t see as authoritative or useful? Got it. 

I would not say "allusions" but the greater reality that many Jews missed. They failed to see the spiritual significance that Yeshua spoke of, the types and shadows pointed to by the lesser Old Covenant (Mosaic covenant) physical reality.

and instead of “allusions” I might say “fantasies” as others invented and innovated things that were no where in the original.

 

All the prophecies that pointed to the Jewish Messiah, how are they fulfilled after AD 70 when the covenant can no longer be met as stipulated by the Law?

Just because you don’t understand the nature of the covenant doesn’t mean that your assessment of its applicability is correct. In fact, it means the exact opposite. 

The Mosaic Law that the covenant was built around, how can it be fulfilled after AD 70?

because built into the system was a replacement for sacrifices. That’s textual. You didn’t know that?

Was not God displeased with His people? Did He not bring judgment (the curses) upon them, per Deuteronomy 28, in the form of the destruction of their city and temple as promised by the prophets and the Law?

yes, we are being punished, but we still follow the laws. We don’t throw them out and claim that they are somehow “fulfilled.” They say they are eternal. 

Did He not say He would create a new covenant with Israel?

in nature, yes. In content and parties, no. 

Did He not promise the Messiah to this old covenant people before the covenant was replaced?

the covenant was not replaced. It was established through a different medium. Same content.

When was eternal righteousness established? It was brought by Yeshua, who fulfilled every jot of the Law of Moses.

wrong on at least 3 levels. Jesus wasn’t righteous. There is no name “Yeshua” and laws aren’t fulfilled. I can find more levels if you really want. 

Now I realize most Jews have a slightly different take on this, for they mistakenly include all the prophets sent, per the commentary:

ah, so Jews don’t understand the text given to Jews which makes reference to the exact prophet that you already quoted from in your original message. Got it. 

On a side-note, what is applied to God in the OT is applied to Jesus in the NT.

That is certainly your fantastical belief

PGA2.0,

Hey, its great you are back once again subsequent to me easily Bible Slapping you Silly!  Jesus and I can see that you are healed enough to reenter this forum, whereas rosends has healed as well after Jesus and I bludgeoned him up as well, where what rosends thought they knew relative to his faith, he didn't after I had to correct him in embarrassment.

So many False Prophets upon this forum like you two represent, and so little time to easily refute them, praise my serial killer Jesus as Yahweh God incarnate!

Paul was a self confessed liar. He spoke of him lying to further the cause of his beliefs. 

“If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?”Romans 3:7

So there it is.  Paul claiming to do what ever it takes including telling bare faced lies.

Jesus rose from the dead!

You are lacking in evidence though, aren't you? An empty rich man's tomb is only evidence of an empty rich man's tomb. No one witnessed the stone being rolled away and no one actually witnessed Jesus rising from being "dead". And many are only alleged to have witnessed a very  much alive and healthy Jesus, wounds and all. 

You came to the conclusion that the statement of evening and morning constituting the day can be understood to say that " it is an inbuilt design by God to the Jewish people that resurrection is his plan for his people."

It is perfectly fine for you to speak of Christianity’s seeing these and other biblical events as symbolic or allusions (“shadows” is often a word I hear used) but that’s not how they work in Judaism.

Stephen Hawking spoke candidly in a 2011 Guardian interview about what he believes happens when people die. He told the Guardian that while he "wasn't afraid of death," he was in no hurry to die. "I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail," he said. "There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark." 

Wow, SkepticalOne sounds like Hawking and PGA2.0 sounds like Jim Bakker.

No. I'm saying claims should not be accepted as true until they can be shown connected to objective reality in some way. 

Can you show Paul is talking about a real thing? If not, you're skipping a step in asking for refutation. 

I'm curious. In regards to what?

Something in the thread, I'm sure. (I don't remember, it was a long time ago!) 

Welcome back, Peter!

I agree that we are the ones who create words and their definitions. However, words in and of themselves do not change the ontological nature of a thing. If I see a horse but I call it a tree, it doesn't change the fact that I am looking at a large four-legged animal. But in this case, my deviation from the accepted definition of tree will probably not cause an ethical dilemma.

On the other hand, if I exclude a fetus from the definition of human because it has not exited the birth canal, all of a sudden we have an ethical issue created by a definition. If human rights only apply to humans, then our definition of "human" will have serious ethical implications. So, if those who are communicating cannot agree on what a human is in the abortion debate, how can we ever know whether a fetus is a human?

-->@SkepticalOne

Well he was nailed to the wall the second Polytheist - Witch posted this:

#3  Polytheist-Witch  "Paul is a liar and corruptor of the messages of Jesus Christ you are either a Christian or Pauline".

He was just far too up himself to see where that was going .

What makes you think your afterlife will be the same as your before life 

Because the 86 billion neurons in your brain will not exist after you die just like they didn't exist before you were born. You can only think in the language you learned while you were alive.

If the Bible is true, then circular reasoning based on the Bible claiming it is true is not fallacious - though it may not be particularly persuasive to someone else.

The argument is fallacious- and it can be demonstrated with every Biblical error, scientific absurdity, ignorance, and inequality attributed to an 'all knowing, all powerful, loving god' ...along with the interpolation, redaction, and general and undeniable human corruption of the so-called "Word of God". 

If that is your standard, you don't know very much about the Bible, my friend. I don't imagine this is something you will be able to accept from me though. We can discuss it only if you prefer. If not, suffice to say there's probably not any way I'm going to be able to accept your standard and we'll leave it at that.

Circular reasoning which adds nothing new to the conversation is fallacious. To your point we all rely on circular reasoning of some sort, thats true, but the fallaciousness comes in the small circles. 'My book is true because it says its true' is a tiny circle compared to 'trial and error has shown us (humanity) these rules of logic are always true (or have never been shown wrong)'.  All rings are not equal. ;-)

I'll just make my point so it doesn't seem tangential. Circular reasoning is not necessarily invalid if the reasoning is based on a valid premise:

If the Bible is true, then circular reasoning based on the Bible claiming it is true is not fallacious - though it may not be particularly persuasive to someone else.

 Which seems to be your justification for the claim that no one knows what happens after death - because no one has convinced you.

I think it is that no one has come back from death and shown us pictures that they had taken on their iphone. Remember that your afterlife will be the same as your beforelife.

Fruit_inspector should be able to lead me through his reasoning (rather than question how justification works) if his position is something he has considered.

-->@PGA2.0

Do you know for sure what happens after you die? Or are you just skeptical of the claim of the Bible without actually knowing yourself?

I don't know what happens after death and neither does anyone else.

Massive assumption and assertion.

Ok, I will amend my statement:

I don't know what happens after death, and no one that I know of can show they know more. ;-)

Better?

Second, in regards to Stephen, I am seldom (if ever) in agreement of his harmful and corrupt views of the Bible.

Yes, he seems like your typical militant atheist who has no interest in an honest conversation. And my guess is that he monitors the religious section so he probably won't be able to help himself from piping in.

So would you consider yourself a full preterist? I am relatively unfamiliar with those particular beliefs, other than viewing the Second Coming as being fulfilled in AD 70.

Do you know for sure what happens after you die? Or are you just skeptical of the claim of the Bible without actually knowing yourself?

I don't know what happens after death and neither does anyone else.

-->@Fruit_Inspector

No. I'm saying claims should not be accepted as true until they can be shown connected to objective reality in some way. 

Can you show Paul is talking about a real thing? If not, you're skipping a step in asking for refutation. 

-->@Stephen

In Acts 17:24-31, I've already said Paul does not use the specific words "physical" or "spiritual" as a modifier for the term "resurrection" in this particular passage. However, Paul is explicitly clear elsewhere in Scripture that the resurrection is a physical bodily resurrection and not just spiritual. Perhaps you will now enlighten us all with the knowledge of such an astute biblical scholar like yourself. I can tell how strongly you desire to share your infinite wisdom with all of us.

No brain no fact.

Definition is also the result of internal process.

So no brain, no definition, and no fact.

Something can only be known to be a fact or defined, if it can be known to be a fact and defined.

Therefore, without the ability to know, something cannot be known to be, or be defined ...So no fact and no definition.

Unless something can be known , then what?

Presumably it still would be....But that wouldn't be a fact unless it could be known.

Facts are internal knowledge, not external events that cannot be known.

4.) Theistic morality is subjective.

Can [a] god command that Murder is moral? It’s a Yes or no question that you evaded with theocrababble.

If he is unable to do so; then Morality is outside of Gods control and cannot - by definition - come from God.

If God is able to do so; would murder be moral. Another yes or no question, which you evaded.

If yes: [a] then morality is inherently subjective and good/bad is arbitrary. If no: morality cannot come from God.

This is the fundamental paradox with your argument; and a primary reason why your argument is completely incoherent. You just evaded the paradox - rather than address it.

What makes it doubly incoherent - is that God commits or commands murder, genocide, slavery, etc,  multiple, multiple times in the Bible. So it’s not even a hypothetical.

Genesis is literally (in approximate order of appearance) genocide of all humanity, destruction of Babel for being too smart, killing lots wife and murdering everyone in sodom, killing everyone in the Egyptian army, telling people not to murder, genocide against the Amelkites, etc. 

Tell me, if this morality is objective; if someone I know is running away from a city I am bombing, it should be morally justified for me to kill them for looking back?

If some kids mock my friend for being bald; is it morally justified for me to release a live bear to maul them? It was moral for God, if morality is objective - the act is moral, right?

If I feel humanity is wicked; is it okay if I destroy the planet but save for a few people I think are good?

The answer is clearly no to all of those for any normal person and that leads to only 2 possibilities

• Those actions are clearly morally wrong by our standards; and thus God is not a valid moral standard.
  
• That “best” in this framework is so arbitrary you can use it to  literally argue genocide is a moral good - making “good” mean whatever you want it to. Thus - Inherently subjective.
  

What is grotesque here; is that you object to morality only existing in our heads, and judged by ourselves; and yet uphold a system where you must tie yourself in knots to justify genocide as a moral good as virtuous.

It insults all of our intelligence. Stop it.

3.) Moralistic fallacy

You follow up with your question begging in multiple places with this gem. Kudos as it’s the First time I’ve seen this fallacy used in these forums

[a] If morality is subjective, we can’t truly deduce an objective right or wrong. [b] Morality is ever changing, conformant to group ideals, mutable.

You may not like that - nor do I; you may be incredulous about it: but if that’s what it is; that’s what it is.

Whether you like the truth, whether the find it sanitary of comfortable is irrelevant to whether it is true or not. 

You are repeatedly implying because that conclusion is undesirable - it is wrong - attempting to appeal to the unpleasant nature of no act being truly or objectively immoral outside the lens of our own subjective moral compass as a reason not to believe it, is incoherent.

2.) You are confused as to what subjective morality is.

Am I morally okay with [bad thing]?

The answer is irrelevant.

[a] The question is not whether we feel that things are good or bad - [b] it’s whether the concept of good and bad are products of our mind, and thus have [c] no true value outside of them; [d] or whether good and bad are objective external things that exist outside of our ability to feel them. 

I have argued, and justified why I think it’s valid to conclude there is no “true” best.

Your response through your entire first play, and the bill of the second can really be summarized as:

“there must be a true best, because otherwise, how can there be a true best”.

This is just incoherent circular reasoning.

[a] This answer is so incomplete it is wrong. Its true some god concepts contradict and cannot be true at the same time. [b] However, not all god concepts are mutually exclusive and [c] they could be true at the same time. [d] Additionally, there could be one god ...or no gods. If your reasoning for the existence of the Christian god is 'no other option is logically possible', you're in for a rude awakening, my friend.

[a] Are you saying that the 'gods' of the New Age Movement are the same God of Scripture?

No to all.

I believe they are contradictory to the Judeo-Christian God

I don't care what you believe - I care what you can demonstrate through argument and evidence. "No other god is logically possible because this one is my favorite" isn't a logical argument or evidence.

Just working within your paradigm, it could be a deistic god and your god are one and the same...bam - nows there's 2 god concepts that are true at the same time.

Two contrary things cannot logically both be true at the same time.  

I agree, but this is not a refutation of my point.

More to the point, which is it? It can only be one or the other. How would you know there is no God?

My position isn't "there is no god". My position is closer to "For what rational reason should I believe that?". Fallacious answers** equate to "none". 

**'How would you know there is no god' is shifting the burden.

I recognize my limitations to an extent. That is why I see the necessity in God setting the record straight.

The question was how do you know your belief in god is not a manufactured meaning, and your answer is literally using your belief to prop up your belief. Pulling yourself up by your bootstraps only works in cartoons. XD

Objective morality only applies if God exists, and morality is something Amoranemix and Ramshutu believe is relativistic because it is continually "evolving," although Ramshutu tries to mask it as an objective "imperative." That to him seems to only apply to "the group" that adopts some standard of right or wrong, when it is obvious other groups disagree and preach the opposite standard. So, the objectivity is up in the air. The identity is lost when neither group is wrong yet both preach the opposite. 

For the record, you're claiming objective morality only applies if God exists while also highlighting evidence against objective morality.

[a]Moral values that are qualitative need a measurement too. [b]There has to be something we compare something else to or against, and in the case of morals, [c] an unchanging standard, something that is real but abstract.[d] If you don't have a real, unchanging "right" or "good" (the standard of comparison), then how can you say this moral value is better than another?

[a] Ok.

[b] Ok.

[c] why must our reference be unchanging? 

[d] We don't need a fixed reference - we need a stable reference. That reference can be arbitrary and mutable yet this in no way prevents comparison. The problem you decry is not a real problem. 

Why is what you believe truer than what I think?

It's not a matter of belief versus belief as you keep suggesting. It is a matter of  belief combined with data demonstrating if that belief is correct. Someone who believes rape, genocide, etc., is a moral good is refuted by evidence to the contrary. So, 'how do we decide who is right' is answered by "facts of reality". 

Maybe we can debate slavery in the bible - just a thought. 

So, my time is not so free at the moment. 

No worries. Family comes first. Let me know when you have more time if you're interested.