Total posts: 3,179
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Also, consider those sins of Hitler. Do you think he paid for his wrongful actions, or is there no justice there for his wrongdoing? If there is no justice there then your system of justice sucks.I'm surprised you even bother to ask. But its not atheist justice that sucks. What sucks is the universe doesn't put things right. If we want a just and fair world - and we do - then we have to make it fair and just ourselves. its not fair that Africans starve while Amercans are too fat... but it won't change unless we do something about it - and i don't mean praying.
I asked but you did not answer. Did he pay equally for what he inflicted? If not, then he did not get justice, which was my point.
You are a product of your worldview. There is no ultimate meaning from a meaningless universe. You make up something which in the big picture is meaningless.
Some people want a just and fair world. Others like exploiting others because of what they get from it.
Fair and just in whose mind? What is your objective, universal, objective reference point since you speak of fairness and justice?
No, it is not fair. The world has many evils in it, but how do you account for justice and fairness for people like Hitler or Stalin, or Mao, or Pol Pot, or a thousand others who do not view the world in the way you do?
Sometimes prayer is the only thing we can do and sometimes it is the best thing we can do because God is the sovereign Lord. There will always be more starving people than those who feel as you do and are willing to reach out to them and feed them. Yes, inaction is not a solution. Sometimes there is only so much you can do without putting yourself in the same position. Are you willing to sell everything to feed the poor? What happens to your family if you sell all and give your money to the poor?
And what are you doing? (You don't have to answer)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
According to your system of "justice", if hitler is saved, he also gets off scott free.
That is something between each one of us and God.
Do you think you've lived a good enough life? The Bible teaches none of us has because God is holy and pure - morally perfect - and will not accept sinfulness in His presence but will judge it. Would you call a judge who overlooked what is wrong a good judge?
Sin separates us from God. What was the first commandment?
Exodus 20:3
3 “You shall have no other gods before Me.
What are gods? They are idols that humanity place before God, whether wooden of mental. We use them in place of God. We form our own gods that do not have the power, nor grace, nor majesty of God. So, on the first commandment alone we have fallen short of His glory and majesty. We have rebelled against Him.
4 “You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth.
5 You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, 6 but showing loving kindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
Since our sin separates us from God we need an offering that satiates God's wrath and judgment for our sin. It needs to be perfectly righteous. A righteous life meets His standard of righteousness. Thus, your does not. Neither does Hitler's. Jesus kept every righteous commandment of God.
For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.
In other words, you do not meet the standard.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
According to your system of "justice", if hitler is saved, he also gets off scott free.
God's justice is met in His Son. The Son paid the penalty and suffered the wrath for those who believe.
The price for Hitler's acquittal requires acceptance of the gift. There is no sign he did that, especially if he committed suicide, but that is between him and God.
God's justice is satisfied in His Son's sacrifice for those who will believe. He paid the price for the sinner. Sin was punished through His vicarious obedience and offering, His life for ours. We need to do two things, repent and believe. We can't earn our salvation by our own merit or good deeds, because they are flawed with many works of unrighteousness too. Living up to God's righteousness is not something an accountable human being can do by their own merit for He is completely pure, righteous and holy. God's gift of salvation is not something we deserve. It is through His mercy and by His grace.
The difference between religion and relationship is that religion requires works or good deeds to earn a relationship with their gods. Christianity requires we believe in the merit and good deeds of another to put us right with God. Jesus lived the life before God we are incapable of and He mercifully offers Himself in our place out of love.
Take that for what it is worth to you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Of course I would.👏👏👏
You liked that one! (^8
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
My sinful and wrongful actions have been paid for by the life of another.This is the problem with your religion.Would you rather pay for them by your life and actions?Of course I would.
Then consider doing so. Good luck with that!
Also, consider those sins of Hitler. Do you think he paid for his wrongful actions, or is there no justice there for his wrongdoing? If there is no justice there then your system of justice sucks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
“ I can read the OT just like you can.See, here’s your problem. First, that you think I read the “OT”which I don’t. Next, that you think that that “OT” text somehow encompasses what Judaism is and your literal reading in English gives you insights that people within Judaism don’t get.
You think that your versions of Scripture predate the earlier dated versions and that your versions are properly translated whereas ours are not. You trace your earliest complete copy of the Hebrew Bible to the 900-1050 CE, whereas we trace our earliest copies to the 3rd and 4th centuries. We have lots of earlier copies in comparison. The Mishna did not like the Christological references in the Septuagint so it would give them a reason to ignore or change them. Some Dead Sea Scrolls contain Septuagint reading. So, I have reasons to question your interpretations.
"Rabbinic Judaism, also called Rabbinism, has been the mainstream form of Judaism since the 6th century CE, after the codification of the Babylonian Talmud. Growing out of Pharisaic Judaism, [AD70] Rabbinic Judaism is based on the belief that at Mount Sinai, Moses received from God the Written Torah (Pentateuch) in addition to an oral explanation, known as the "Oral Torah," that Moses transmitted to the people."
So, from the 4th-6th centuries your system of belief has been identified in writing, tracing back to AD70 and the Pharisees, then to Moses through not only the written Torah but also oral tradition. BUT you have as your earliest extant copy of your traditions and Scriptures one that dates to the 900's and another that dates to around 1008CE. So what evidence do you have that your Hebrew Scriptures are more reliable than the Christian OT?
If you can't produce any then I contend that the codification of the Scriptures as contained in the Christian Bible is more reliable than yours and that it was not us but your Rabbinical scholars who altered the wording.
“I also understand the spiritual significance of that pattern which the Jews have missed. In every OT writing, there is a picture, a shadow, a type of the Moshiach!That is certainly your (arrogant) opinion. We do just fine reading it and understanding it without inserting your wishful thinking into it.
The question is whose is the wishful thinking and who inserted what?
“What are the earliest historical records you have of these Jewish writings? How accurately do you believe they have been kept? What is your proof?We have the Mishna which dates to well before the common era. The discussions explicating it developed before the common era and continued until the text of the Talmud was fixed a couple of hundred years later. You must be familiar with the Oral law – it was the teachings of the Pharisees which Jesus said the people should follow, and it was the Talmud which he referenced (at least 6 different tractates are referenced in Matthew 5 and 6).
Show anciently written proof of the Mishna as being before the 2nd century. Who references it? What exactly are you referring to as Pharisitical in Matthew 5 & 6? Jesus was citing the Law of Moses.
“1,000 years? That does not date back to the 1st-century when God judged the nation of Israel with the destruction of its temple and city with the Roman armies.I never said it did. I’m just referencing a written commentary which answered your question 1000 years ago.
What extant written commentary do you have before AD 900-1000?
"The oldest copy of the Mishna, the Codex Kaufmann is dated between 950-1050 CE."
"The oldest full manuscript of the Talmud, known as the Munich Talmud (Cod.hebr. 95), dates from 1342"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
And that you think of a sacrifice as substitutionary simply meansthat you are reading your belief into the text.
The OT or Hebrew Bible contains various references to the sacrifice as representing them by their laying of hands on the animal. The animal was used to atone for their sins, thus it was a substitution. It was not their blood that was shed yet it provided the atonement for THEIR sins.
sub·sti·tu·tion
noun
- the action of replacing someone or something with another person or thing.
He shall lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, that it may be accepted for him to make atonement on his behalf.
Leviticus 4:14-15
14 when the sin which they have committed becomes known, then the assembly shall offer a bull of the herd for a sin offering and bring it before the tent of meeting. 15 Then the elders of the congregation shall lay their hands on the head of the bull before the Lord, and the bull shall be slain before the Lord.
He shall also do with the bull just as he did with the bull of the sin offering; thus he shall do with it. So the priest shall make atonement for them, and they will be forgiven.
So the offering and the shed blood was a substitute. It was not their blood.
4And he shall lean his hand [forcefully] upon the head of the burnt offering, and it will be accepted for him to atone for him.
14When the sin which they had committed becomes known, the congregation shall bring a young bull as a sin offering. They shall bring it before the Tent of Meeting.
15The elders of the community shall lean their hands [forcefully] upon the bull's head, before the Lord, and one shall slaughter the bull before the Lord.
20And he shall lean his hand [forcefully] upon the head of the burnt offering, and it will be accepted for him to atone for him.
I think your charge is misrepresentative of the plain language presented.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
I can read the OT. I understand the substitutionary nature of the atonement. I understand the five Levitical offerings and how they apply - the burnt offering, the meal offering, the peace offering, the sin offering, and the trespass offering. I understand the seven feast day offerings as they relate to the NT. Everything that Moses told the Israelites to construct was a pattern of a greater truth, a spiritual truth.No, everything Moses instructed was a set of laws to live by, and we do. And that you think of a sacrifice as substitutionary simply means that you are reading your belief into the text.
Your oldest complete text of the Hebrew Bible is The Leningrad Codex, dated to 1008 CE, translated by the Masoretes. The Aleppo Codex is considered older but sections such as the Torah are missing since 1947. "[N]o more than 294 of the original (estimated) 487 pages survived...only the last few pages of the Torah are extant."
Maimonides endorsed it as the most trusted text.
The Masoretic text "is not the original text (Urtext) of the Hebrew Bible. It was primarily copied, edited and distributed by a group of Jews known as the Masoretes between the 7th and 10th centuries CE. The oldest extant manuscripts date from around the 9th century."
The oldest copy of the Mishna, the Codex Kaufmann is dated between 950-1050 CE.
The earliest Christian writings of the OT are traced from around the mid-3rd to 2nd centuries BC, the Septuagint (seventy-two interpreters, six from each of the twelve tribes), a Koine Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures.
"Pre-Christian Jews Philo and Josephus considered the Septuagint on equal standing with the Hebrew text.[14][52] Manuscripts of the Septuagint have been found among the Qumran Scrolls in the Dead Sea, and were thought to have been in use among Jews at the time.
"The relationship between the apostolic use of the Old Testament, for example, the Septuagint and the now lost Hebrew texts (though to some degree and in some form carried on in Masoretic tradition) is complicated. The Septuagint seems to have been a major source for the Apostles, but it is not the only one. St. Jerome offered, for example, Matt 2:15 and 2:23, John 19:37, John 7:38, 1 Cor. 2:9.[55] as examples not found in the Septuagint, but in Hebrew texts. (Matt 2:23 is not present in current Masoretic tradition either, though according to St. Jerome it was in Hosea 11:1.) The New Testament writers, when citing the Jewish scriptures, or when quoting Jesus doing so, freely used the Greek translation, implying that Jesus, his Apostles and their followers considered it reliable.[5][27][56]"
"In the Early Christian Church, the presumption that the Septuagint was translated by Jews before the era of Christ, and that the Septuagint at certain places gives itself more to a christological interpretation than 2nd-century Hebrew texts was taken as evidence that "Jews" had changed the Hebrew text in a way that made them less christological. For example, Irenaeus concerning Isaiah 7:14: The Septuagint clearly writes of a virgin (Greek παρθένος, bethulah in Hebrew) that shall conceive.,[57] while the word almah in the Hebrew text was, according to Irenaeus, at that time interpreted by Theodotion and Aquila (both proselytes of the Jewish faith) as a young woman that shall conceive. According to Irenaeus, the Ebionites used this to claim that Joseph was the (biological) father of Jesus. From Irenaeus' point of view that was pure heresy, facilitated by (late) anti-Christian alterations of the scripture in Hebrew, as evident by the older, pre-Christian, Septuagint.[58]"
"The oldest manuscripts of the Septuagint include 2nd century BCE fragments of Leviticus and Deuteronomy (Rahlfs nos. 801, 819, and 957), and 1st century BCE fragments of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and the Minor Prophets (Alfred Rahlfs nos. 802, 803, 805, 848, 942, and 943). Relatively complete manuscripts of the Septuagint postdate the Hexaplar recension and include the Codex Vaticanus from the 4th century CE and the Codex Alexandrinus of the 5th century. These are indeed the oldest surviving nearly complete manuscripts of the Old Testament in any language; the oldest extant complete Hebrew texts date some 600 years later, from the first half of the 10th century."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
Have you considered maybe it is your evidence that you think of as reasonable that is self-serving?Sure, and I can understand why anyone outside my system mightthink that. This makes it as persuasive to you as your “evidence” does to me.
And that is just it. You are a smart guy, but you are in a religious box, IMO.
“How many passages of the OT can you identify as a reference to the Messiah?“The following passages in the Jewishscriptures are the ones that Jews consider to be messianic in nature or relating to the end of days. These are the ones that we rely upon in developing our messianic concept:Oh boy. You really need to read a bit more carefully. The jewfaqlist specifically says that it is of verses that Jews “consider to be messianic in nature” or which relate to the end of days. You asked about verses that are “a reference to the Messiah.” Those verses do relate to a messianic concept, as do many, many others, but that doesn’t clarify anything because you still don’tunderstand the terms and how the Jewish vision of a messiah works.
This again is your assumption, yet you do nothing but assert what is and is not without a shred of reasonable evidence in most of your responses.
“While this is partly true, in that He would instill the law directly into the hearts of His people, He also promised a new covenant.Yes, but in what sense was it “new”? Only in the way it is formed with the people, not in its content. So the Torah and all of its lawsand expectations stay the same. So we expect in the future a “new” covenant asone that makes the Torah and all of Judaism inscribed on our hearts. You seemto advocate a totally new-content covenant which the text doesn’t point to.
In the sense that it was a covenant of grace, not works. Do you know what separates Christianity from every other religion? It is a covenant of grace in which God accomplishes what we could not do. The Jews demonstrate repeatedly through the OT that they cannot live by the covenant they agreed to with God. The Mosaic Covenant is just such a covenant of works. It is what the human does that puts them right with God. The NT of grace is what God did in Jesus Christ that the Jew nor Gentile could ever do - that is live a perfectly righteous life before God.
“How do you know the priestly line is unbroken from Aaron?We don’t. We have a chezkas kahuna. The claim was that we don’thave priests. We do.
Again, you are speaking Hebrew to me; in other words, you are speaking above my head with language that is technical to a gentile.
Deuteronomy 18:5 For the Lord, your God, has chosen him out of all your tribes, to stand and serve in the name of the Lord, he and his sons, all the days.
So you have no way of knowing if the priest traces his lineage back to Aaron. Therefore, the priesthood today may not be sanctioned by God. You don't know.
“So are you still sacrifices animals on an altar? For instance,do you still follow Leviticus 5:6 (ESV)“Do you still sacrifice animals on the Day of Atonement?Of course not. The fact that you ask means that you don’t understand Jewish law and are imposing what you think it should be onto it. You just happen to be wrong.
The fact that I asked was to hear it from you, not because I don't understand this but to prove the point from you that your people are not following the law as they agreed to follow it. Thus, they are not living by the covenant. They continually broke it. Thus God brought the curses/judgments of the Law upon them.
“Are you still following the Covenant in all the Lord God has spoken?I’m trying, every day. I’m following the laws that I am bound by via the Torah (which is the content of the covenant).
So, again it is a covenant of works. You do what you can, somewhat unsuccessfully by the sounds of it, because you are bound by the works of the Law, living according to the letter of the Law, yet you can't follow the sacrificial system as prescribed in the OT.
***
What do you know of the divorce of Judah and the remarriage of Israel?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Would you rather pay for them by your life and actions?Isn't that what being responsible is all about? Why should someone else pay for your actions? That's absurd. All it manages to accomplish is to teach its followers to be irresponsible.
Then feel free to do so.
Someone had mercy on me and helped me. They paid for something that I could not pay for. I did not have the means. Is mercy good?
God's grace does not teach His followers to be irresponsible. It teaches them of God's love for them and what He was willing to do for them. It teaches them to be merciful and kind to others because they have received kindness themselves. It teaches them that the cost for sin is great. Sin destroys lives. Sin is something we witness every day throughout the world by people who ignore God's righteous decrees of doing unto others as you would have them do to you. It calls us to repentance and to change from doing evil. It gives us the means to do so to a degree since we are still fallible human beings on this earth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Supposing for Stephen's sake (since I have no doubt) that God exists and He is the biblical God, why would Stephen's "good deeds" outweigh his bad deeds or why would he not be guilty of punishment for his wrongs? Why would he get away without being judged for all the wrongful actions he has done in his life?God judges the motive of the heart - why it is doneThe problem is not with Stephen, it's with you, printed there in bold above.The answer to your question is the latter bold.
It is not my problem but yours, who object. You are creating a problem, not me. I am presenting a scenario, a poser.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
My sinful and wrongful actions have been paid for by the life of another.This is the problem with your religion.
Would you rather pay for them by your life and actions?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
I must agree, it's a lovely description of love (that I certainly sometimes fail to live up to). I also like Mark 8:36 and 1 John 4:8.So -- and sorry to keep questioning you in further detail, it's a subject I find interesting -- let's say you had lived as a contemporary of Joan of Arc, a devout Christian who claimed that God spoke to her, telling her it was his will that she help lead France to victory against England. Judging her claim against the "blueprint" of the Bible, would you have believed her?
I welcome your questions, not that I have answers to all or even most. I see the charity and kindness of expression in your thoughts, which is refreshing. I do not see an agenda at all costs but an honest inquiry in testing my worldview claims.
I believe some wars are just. War was necessary to stop Hitler. I do not know enough of her story to make a decision at present. I have not done much reading on her or the culture of the time. There are too many people who have visions that go counter to His word. Thus, I am a skeptic, not so much of her faith in believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, but in believing something such as a vision by the archangel Michael. Such visions I see as ceasing in AD 70. With God such things are possible, but they are not the norm like they were during the 1st-century and the spread of Christianity. God's word and grace are sufficient for the believer to do all that He has purposed, the saving of our souls.
I'm shy and weary of a lot of things claimed in the name of God and can only recount my own experience on the subject.
I used to have a friend who claimed to be a "Word of Faith" or what some call a "name it and claim it" believer. I struggled with his teachings for years, questioning them and praying about them and their truth content. Finally, after much prayer and answers, the Bible became clearer to me on such teachings and I rejected these claims. I did not see any witness of what he claimed believers should be able to do, yet he had claimed to have done some of these acts he spoke of. He believed that one day he would be able to go into a hospital and do what the first-century disciples did in healing the sick, and yes, even raising the dead. He also believed that believers should be the richest people on earth, yet he lived a pretty meager existence.
His one teaching was that we could lose our salvation. This, more than any other of his teachings, was the most bothersome to me. I asked, "if God saves you then how can you be lost?" His response was that we can take ourselves out of God's hands by our will and turn from our faith. He provided many scriptural texts that seem to support his view of salvation, although I kept bringing up verses that contradicted it. He seemed to have an answer. This was kept in prayer, along with his other teachings for around two years, but there was always doubt of whether what he was saying rang true (I was testing the spirit and teaching). Then, one day, as I think I expressed to you before, I read the NT through from Matthew to Revelation and what I continued to notice on most pages was who was doing the action (God) and who was receiving it (the believer). So if God saves, how can I be lost? If I have truly trusted in Him then He is able to save me and change me. I certainly can't save myself. I recognize my wrongs. I am at His mercy and grace. I can't boast before Him. He is perfect. I am flawed. But I can boast on what His Son has done for me!
She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.”
Notice who is saving. It is not the believer who saves himself but Jesus. We receive the gift of salvation from Him.
7 so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Passage after passage sprang out to me about who was doing the saving and it was not I; it was not my good works. Therefore salvation did not depend on what I did. It depended on faith in another. All the action was done by Him through His grace and mercy. Through grace, we have been saved, and this is not of ourselves but it is God's gift to us in His Son who lived that righteous life we could not so as to reconcile us to Him.
2 Corinthians 5:17-1917 Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. 18 Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, 19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.
Passage after passage confirms the same message. Notice who is doing the action. and who receives it whenever you read the Bible.
God speaks through the pages of the Bible. His thoughts interact with our thoughts through His word.
I don't know how I would have responded in the France of her times. Sometimes Christians get wrapped up in the culture of the times. I have been guilty of this many times.
Having said that, I can test what someone says to God's word. Jesus instructed His followers to be the light and salt of the earth, to shine a light in the darkness. Sometimes that requires going against the values of the culture at large, even though the instruction is to obey rulers and authorities unless they go against God's word, then we are to shine a light on the injustice, show why it is wrong. (Romans 13)
Created:
Posted in:
Since I have been censored and blocked from responding to Stephen's threads by Stephen I will establish my own thread in response to his allegations since he responds to my posts on these threads, then does not give me the courtesy to respond to his.
He mocks Christianity with thread after thread through a variety of methods such as collapsing passages of Scripture to one or two verses, taking out of context, not understanding the root Greek words, not relating to passages that share the same teaching and through a number of other exegetical fallacies of reading into Scripture what it does not teach. In other words, he does not seek the author's meaning but supplies his own.
He mocks Christianity with thread after thread through a variety of methods such as collapsing passages of Scripture to one or two verses, taking out of context, not understanding the root Greek words, not relating to passages that share the same teaching and through a number of other exegetical fallacies of reading into Scripture what it does not teach. In other words, he does not seek the author's meaning but supplies his own.
Having said all that, I do not doubt that God still performs miracles. His providence allows things to happen both good and bad to believers in this world.You say this as if only those who believe in god and Jesus and miracles can do benevolent acts.
Not at all. I believe Stephen as well as I am created in the image and likeness of God. Thus, he retains a marred picture at times of right and wrong because of the Fall. What is more, his system of morality becomes suspect and relative if he cannot establish an absolute, objective, universal, unchanging source for benevolence/morality. So why should I believe his actions are beneficial unless they can be established as such? And he borrows from a worldview that can make sense of morality because it contains such a source when he refers to the Christian Scriptures.
Although Stephen understands the biblical requirements he fails to live up to them at all times as does every other human being of accountable/reasoning age.
This is what I just cannot stand about you lot. You believe that you have the monopoly on morals and ethics, believing only the " devout religious" can perform good deeds. I am not religious in the slightest. But I do and my family does perform "good deeds" on a daily basis, without having to be prompted to do so by Jesus or a god or a hypocrite preacher.
I do not believe what Stephen claims and credits to me at all. He misrepresents my position once again. I see my faults. I realize that I cannot stand before God on my own merit or good works. My good deeds are just as flawed as every other person who tries to do this. I recognize this. I see that some see their own flaws in their good deeds too. I will also give credit where credit is due. It is good to do what is good! But, God judges the motive of the heart - why it is done. Some want to boast of what they have done. It seems to me to be human nature to prop oneself up by righteous actions. I also acknowledge and understand that there is One who has done what I could not do and He has done it on my behalf if I believe. My sinful and wrongful actions have been paid for by the life of another.
Romans 3:9-11 (NASB)
9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; 10 as it is written,
9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; 10 as it is written,
“There is none righteous, not even one;
11 There is none who understands,
There is none who seeks for God;
11 There is none who understands,
There is none who seeks for God;
Supposing for Stephen's sake (since I have no doubt) that God exists and He is the biblical God, why would Stephen's "good deeds" outweigh his bad deeds or why would he not be guilty of punishment for his wrongs? Why would he get away without being judged for all the wrongful actions he has done in his life?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
Does it follow the Torah? If so, please document how.First, you need to take a course on biblical atonement and exactly which sins any sacrifice could expiate. Then you'd need to learn about what was acceptable as even that limited sacrifice. You can also study the other methods, judicial and interpersonal, the text details as methods of atonement. And finally, you should study up on what the corpus of Jewish law is composed of.
I can read the OT. I understand the substitutionary nature of the atonement. I understand the five Levitical offerings and how they apply - the burnt offering, the meal offering, the peace offering, the sin offering, and the trespass offering. I understand the seven feast day offerings as they relate to the NT. Everything that Moses told the Israelites to construct was a pattern of a greater truth, a spiritual truth.
Exodus 25:8-9
8And they shall make Me a sanctuary and I will dwell in their midst
9according to all that I show you, the pattern of the Mishkan and the pattern of all its vessels; and so shall you do.
I can read the OT just like you can. I also understand the spiritual significance of that pattern which the Jews have missed. In every OT writing, there is a picture, a shadow, a type of the Mashiach!
I go, in large, on the knowledge of those who were 1st-century Jews that are recorded in the NT. I go on the evidence of the revelation of Jesus Christ, Yeshua the Messiah. I go on the fact that the OT prophecies cannot be fulfilled after AD 70. They address an OT people who are in covenant relationship with God. The means they are charged with atoning for sin are no longer available after AD 70.Oh. That's cute. I go by the knowledge of those who were Jews from 500 years before to 400 years after. I ignore the fallacious texts which present stories which people confuse with "evidence."
What are the earliest historical records you have of these Jewish writings? How accurately do you believe they have been kept? What is your proof?
What are the earliest copies of the Jewish Torah and Tanakh that you have available today? What century do they date back to?
How do you figure that? It is not the same kingdom or empire. The four kingdoms would affect the Jewish people and they did.I don't figure that -- that has been the standard Jewish understanding for over 1000 years
1,000 years? That does not date back to the 1st-century when God judged the nation of Israel with the destruction of its temple and city with the Roman armies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
It is verified in many ways with reasonable evidence.Well, evidence that you, self-servingly, think of as reasonable. Not exactly a paradigm of intellectual integrity but whatever.
Have you considered maybe it is your evidence that you think of as reasonable that is self-serving?
How many passages of the OT can you identify as a reference to the Messiah?You really don't understand Judaism, right? Some day, after you have had a very basic course in Judaism and Jewish texts, we can continue this. You have yet to define terms you throw around.
Here is a list from Judaism 101:
The following passages in the Jewish scriptures are the ones that Jews consider to be messianic in nature or relating to the end of days. These are the ones that we rely upon in developing our messianic concept:
- Isaiah 2, 11, 42; 59:20
- Jeremiah 23, 30, 33; 48:47; 49:39
- Ezekiel 38:16
- Hosea 3:4-3:5
- Micah 4
- Zephaniah 3:9
- Zechariah 14:9
- Daniel 10:14
They are recognized by Jews. Do you adhere to this list?
Did God promise a new covenant in Jeremiah?Well, no, not exactly. God promised that the same old content would be instilled directly into the hearts of the Jews in a mode which made traditional "teaching" unnecessary. This renewed covenant is the topic.
While this is partly true, in that He would instill the law directly into the hearts of His people, He also promised a new covenant.
30 Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, and I will form a covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, a new covenant.
31Not like the covenant that I formed with their forefathers on the day I took them by the hand to take them out of the land of Egypt, that they broke My covenant, although I was a lord over them, says the Lord.
God compares His relationship with Israel in that covenant to a husband in other Scripture.
Where are the animal sacrifices? Where are the Levitical priests? The NT explains the transition and what happened confirms its writings. This can be logically and reasonably confirmed.The priests are all around. Go to any Jewish community and ask. The sacrifices? they are in the early parts of each day's prayers. Just check a prayer book and you will see. Judaism already knows what happened. Your texts are unnecessary but thanks.
How do you know the priestly line is unbroken from Aaron?
So are you still sacrifices animals on an altar? For instance, do you still follow Leviticus 5:6 (ESV)
6 he shall bring to the Lord as his compensation for the sin that he has committed, a female from the flock, a lamb or a goat, for a sin offering. And the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin.Do you still sacrifice animals on the Day of Atonement?
Here are the 613 Mosaic Commands:
Exodus 24:3, 7
3 So Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord and all the ordinances, and all the people answered in unison and said, "All the words that the Lord has spoken we will do."
7 And he took the Book of the Covenant and read it within the hearing of the people, and they said, "All that the Lord spoke we will do and we will hear."
Are you still following the Covenant in all the Lord God has spoken?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
The teachings of the NT are based on those of the OT (or your holy writings). Your holy writings are also our holy writings. What was promised in your holy writings Christians claim met their fulfillment in the NT times.Yes, that is the claim.
It is verified in many ways with reasonable evidence.
The OT is a constant revelation of a disobedient people, a people who failed to live according to the teachings of the book or covenant (Exodus 24:3,7). God continually sent prophets and teachers to your people who continually rejected them and pursued foreign gods and things that by nature are not God. God continually warned them that if they continued this way they would receive judgment. Your ancestors did not listen. Thus, in AD 70 God brought the curses of the covenant (Deuteronomy 28:15 onwards) against His chosen people. He brought divorce to Judah as He had previously brought divorce on Israel.And this is also the claim. There have certainly been judgments over time, but not one which invalidates the relationship between God and the Jewish people.
It is not a claim. It is in your own writings. The OT people agreed to follow God's laws in all their ways. They kept seeking foreign gods. That is evidenced in the OT. You and I interpret Daniel 9:24-27 in different ways.
How many passages of the OT can you identify as a reference to the Messiah?
How many can you identify that speak of another judgment on Jerusalem after the Babylonian conquest? How many of these have been fulfilled?
In AD 70 God selected a new bride with a new covenant, the people Jesus was betrothed to.Again, that is what you claim, and that's very nice. It is just irrelevant to Jewish people.
Did God divorce the Northern Kingdom - Israel? Was the Southern Kingdom left standing? Did God bring a judgment to the Southern Kingdom in AD 70? Did God promise a new covenant in Jeremiah?
“Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,
After AD 70 there is no more Levitical priesthood (that God had sanctioned as the mediator between Israel and Himself).So you believe.
Where are the animal sacrifices? Where are the Levitical priests? The NT explains the transition and what happened confirms its writings. This can be logically and reasonably confirmed.
There is no more animal sacrifice to bring the offer of atonement on the Day of Atonement. There are no more feast day sacrifices required under the Law of Moses.Fortunately, Jewish law had already taken this into account.
Does it follow the Torah? If so, please document how.
Thus, you cannot worship God as He required you to under the Mosaic Covenant. It no longer exists. If it did you would still be bringing your sacrifices to God via it and through the Levitical priesthood.And you say this because you don't understand what the full Mosaic Covenant is. That's OK. But because you have limited knowledge and have decided on a required series of events predicated on that limited knowledge, you come to erroneous conclusions.
I go, in large, on the knowledge of those who were 1st-century Jews that are recorded in the NT. I go on the evidence of the revelation of Jesus Christ, Yeshua the Messiah. I go on the fact that the OT prophecies cannot be fulfilled after AD 70. They address an OT people who are in covenant relationship with God. The means they are charged with atoning for sin are no longer available after AD 70.
Daniel 2:44 predicted God setting up His eternal kingdom during the time of the fourth kingdom or empire. Which kingdom do you identify this to be?The remnants of what is called the Roman exile -- what we are still in now.
How do you figure that? It is not the same kingdom or empire. The four kingdoms would affect the Jewish people and they did.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
There is a parallel in Luke 24:46 and he said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Messiah is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and that repentance and forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.
Yes. Do you see what he is doing? Do you see how he keeps collapsing passages, twisting the words to mean what he wants them to mean, ignoring context, ignoring other passages that teach the same thing?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
How do you reconcile Matthew 28?Not for me to "reconcile", is it. But of course, as per usual, nations meant something slightly different AD early AD than it does today. Over half the references to "nations" in the OT are negative, ex, Leviticus 18:28 it meant vomit. A "drop in a bucket" and "dust on the scales"Isaiah 40:15. "Slaves" in Leviticus 25:44.But I think it can be safely said that in this instance it means tribes. It was a uniting mission,exactly as King David had done that Jesus was trying to achieve. He knew he couldn't take on the Romans with the nations/tribes divided. So " Therefore go and make disciples of all nations," could easily be interpreted as - 'go out to all the tribes and bring back the lost sheep into the sheepfold' - as it clearly states "I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Israel."It is for the theist to reconcile this:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
ethnos: a race, a nation, pl. the nations (as distinct from Isr.)
Distinct from Israel. If that does not settle the claim you are making then we can get into it further.
Gentile, heathen
Probably from
etho; a race (as of the same habit), i.e. A tribe;
specially, a foreign (non-Jewish) one (usually, by implication, pagan) -- Gentile, heathen, nation, people.
see GREEK
etho1484 éthnos (from ethō, "forming a custom, culture") – properly, people joined by practicing similar customs or common culture; nation(s), usually referring to unbelieving Gentiles (non-Jews).
with this>>Matthew 10:5-6These Twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, [anyone NOT of Jacob /Israel from whom the 12 tribes came] and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.And we have a clue here when god is said to have told Abram renamed Abraham;>Genesis 12:2 "I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing.Well when we read that, we see the 12 tribes that sprang from him eventually created one great tribe/nation : ISRAEL.
Again, you miss the task that Jesus came to fulfill and after He had completed the task and had risen from the dead He gave the disciples the mandate to go to all nations, NOT JUST ISRAEL. Abraham was to be the father of MANY nations.
Again, in Genesis 12 you only read so far, as you do in all your biblical reading. You are guilty of collapsing the context, over and over again.
"And in
you all the families of the earth will be blessed.”
Genesis 17:4-6 (NASB)4 “As for Me, behold, My covenant is with you,
And you will be the father of a multitude of nations.
5 “No longer shall your name be called Abram,
But your name shall be Abraham;
For I have made you the father of a multitude of nations.
6 I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make nations of you, and kings will come forth from you.And you will be the father of a multitude of nations.
5 “No longer shall your name be called Abram,
But your name shall be Abraham;
For I have made you the father of a multitude of nations.
For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all,
Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham.
The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “All the nations will be blessed in you.”
So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer.
in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the
Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
How do you reconcile Matthew 28?18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Very true!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
While I do not condone the situation and now that I have been made aware of it I pray for her and her family.Nice, that, praying for her: But now that you are “aware of it” don’t you think that the Christian Community should be more vocal and or active? I am not a practicing Christian but I have written to my local MP demanding that this “PERSECUTED CHRISTIAN WOMAN, be given asylum her in the UK.
I am a Canadian. In our news I see this caption:
"Ottawa engaged in 'delicate' talks to protect Pakistani woman released from blasphemy death sentence."
Under this I read:
"Conservatives press government to grant asylum to Asia Bibi, who spent 8 years on death row...Earlier today, the Conservatives held a news conference to call on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to grant asylum to Bibi and her family..."Andrew Scheer's Conservatives are calling on the Trudeau government to use every mechanism at their disposal to offer the Bibi family asylum, and to encourage the Pakistani government to allow Asia Bibi to travel freely in light of recent negotiations with the extremist TLP party which could see authorities bar her from leaving the country," she said. "
The Conservative Party in my country is made up largely of Christians. We, as Christians pray to raise concerns about Christian persecution around the world every day, not just there. Christian communities also take actions like inform their members of parliament of these situations.
We, as Christians also realize that we will be hated because of our beliefs and consider it as something God allows us to go through to strengthen our faith for when there seems no apparent out God provides a way through prayer and actions. Whatever the outcome we, as Christians, believe that everything works out for the good for those who love God and abide in His love. Whether in our sojourn here on earth or after this brief physical existence God will work out our destiny with His good in mind. That so often means our persecution that others will come to faith or see our (hopefully) good example.
You assume the Christian community is not being vocal about it. The purpose of God stands. Sometimes a believer is put through hell to bring attention to an injustice. The whole system in Pakistan stinks of religious intolerance, not the kind of faith that is loving. It makes you think twice about what is being taught and how hateful people can be to what is good.
Jesus said that those who believe in Him would suffer persecution in this lifetime but to take courage for He overcame the world and its system of unrighteousness. We, as Christians, have a common bond that transcends our daily struggles and a hope for tomorrow. What kind of hope do you offer her if she is not released???
Your own country(providing you are American) appears to have lost its sense of justice.I am white English. I Am from a country where children now are being taught it is wrong to be white and that they should be ashamed of themselves for being so. I believe this is happening in the States and Canada also.
Yes, there is a lot of intolerance to particular segments of the population, like conservatives and whites. They are being painted in a negative frame of mind to influence the hearts and minds of the gullible.
What Jesus said still bears truth in our day and age.“Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me.Yes, all very helpful and comforting in Bibi’s hour of need, I am sure.
Some Christian's understand that the world is evil and that God is ultimately in control. What happens does so for a purpose. For one, it exposes the evil and duplicity in organized religion. I include atheism in this category for it is a religion of the self. It looks to the self as its final and ultimate authority, IMO.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Having said all that, I do not doubt that God still performs miracles. His providence allows things to happen both good and bad to believers in this world. Yet, as believers, we have overcome the world. Why I did not die in that car accident I do not know, but I am grateful for God was gracious and merciful to me. These circumstances and others led me to Him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
So does that mean you sometimes doubt even the accounts of God reported by some of your fellow Christians?
Yes, if you want the quick version.
God's word is our blueprint. I test what is said to it. As I read what is said passages of Scripture come to mind that may question what they say. Also, if what I say does not conform to His word it should be rejected. God's grace is sufficient for us as Christians since His word is established and true. We, as Christians, are to study it to rightly discern it. It has accomplished what God sent it out to do. It is a witness from God to humanity. God speaks to humanity through the pages of Scripture. It provides salvation to those who hear the message and believe. It requires humility (for we have sinned against God) and a heart like a little child (to believe), but its message is eternal, it stands forever.
May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, as it is written, “That You may be justified in Your words, And prevail when You are judged.”
16 For men swear by one greater than themselves, and with them an oath given as confirmation is an end of every dispute. 17 In the same way God, desiring even more to show to the heirs of the promise the unchangeableness of His purpose, interposed with an oath, 18 so that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have taken refuge would have strong encouragement to take hold of the hope set before us. 19 This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and steadfast and one which enters within the veil,
1 Corinthians 13 (NASB)
The Excellence of Love
4 Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, 5 does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, 6 does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; 7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
The Excellence of Love
13 If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.
2 If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.
3 And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.
8 Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part; 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away. 11 When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.
12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known.
13 But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love.
So, all these gifts God bestowed on men, including miracles to bring and establish His Gospel message, were destined to disappear. What remains is His word as our witness and the love that comes from it.
That definition of love is the finest I have ever read. The message could be summed up in a couple of passages:
For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul?
The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love.
If you read the whole of 1 John 4 the message is amplified further. Test the spirit to see if the spirit (or what is said) is from God. And for those Christians who have not matured in the faith as much as others teach and rebuke in love if they are ready to hear. Show them where they misinterpret what God has said if they are ready for more than the milk of the word but are ready for the meat or deeper things of His word.
I say like a little child because many recall as a child how they listened and believed and trusted what their mom and dad said to them. So in that aspect, we are to be as little children before God, as innocent as doves in the grace of Jesus Christ, yet as wise as serpents in the world (if you understand the illustration).
But when we grow up we test all things as to their truthfulness. We see the wickedness of this world, as well as some of the good in it.
PS. I like the NASB. It is a good literal translation from the original languages to English and does not speak in an archaic language like the KJV, so it is more readable to today's audience.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Your scripture speaks of a time of fulfillment.And your scripture clearly states that Jesus only came to save Jews ONLY.ONLY/ˈəʊnli/adverb
The purpose of His coming was to judge Israel and bring salvation for those waiting for Him.
Matthew 3:7-13
7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 Therefore bear fruit in keeping with repentance; 9 and do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham for our father’; for I say to you that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham.
7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 Therefore bear fruit in keeping with repentance; 9 and do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham for our father’; for I say to you that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham.
10 The axe is already laid at the root of the trees; therefore every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
11 “As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.
12 His winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clear His threshing floor ; and
He will gather His wheat into the barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”
13 Then Jesus *arrived from Galilee at the Jordan coming to John, to be baptized by him.
John 1:11-13
11 He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
His mission after coming to and for the lost sheep of Israel was to offer an eternal covenant for all who would believe.
[ A New Covenant ] “Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man and with the seed of beast.
“Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,
not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
What I think happened is that the OT was compiled to preserve Hebrew/Jewish culture and identity by fixing it in written form. That project ended around the 5th century BC. In the very different social conditions of the 1st century AD proto-Christianity arose as a heretical sect. The proto-Christians tried to make the new cult acceptable to Jews by emphasising continuity with Hebrew tradition as embodied in the OT.
What evidence do you have for such a bazaar theory?
By a quirk of history, Christianity proved more successful outside Israel then inside Israel resulting in Christianity diverging ever more from Judaism, but the linkage to the OT scriptures was too ingrained to be abandoned. The result is a bizarre yoking of two very different theological outlooks that Christian theologians have struggled to reconcile for 2000 years.my favourite theologian is marcion of sinope who gave up trying to reconcile the OT and NT and wrote that there are or were two gods,(ie not one)and threw out the OT entirely. Perhaps the most surprising thing is that he wasn't burned at the stake for it!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
70,000
illegalsand 1 Christian AbibiJust yesterday a Christian member here was talking about being my “brother through Christ” and“We believers are all brothers in Christ”#14This is absolute garbage.We have had in the headlines for some months now story of the desperate plight of a Christian Pakistani woman who had spent over 8 years on death row for Islamic blasphemy.Not a single western country has offered to give her asylum from persecution. This is not to mention that not a single “brother in Christ” on this forum has even mentioned the plight of their own “Christian sister”. They make me sick!She has had the original verdict overturned but she, and all of her known relatives are in hiding because the baying Muslim mob of thousands who had spent nearly a week protesting still want her and anyone hiding her put to death. Asia Bibi’s story in brief amounts to this>:Her difficulties began as she picked berries with other farmworkers in a Punjab field in June 2009. A quarrel with two Muslim women erupted after she was asked to fetch water and they said they would not drink from a vessel touched by a Christian.The women later alleged to a village mullah that Mrs Bibi had insulted the Prophet. She has always denied blasphemy and said she had been falsely accused to settle a score.“Britain has not offered asylum to a Pakistani Christian woman freed after eight years on death row for blasphemy because of fear it would prompt “unrest” in the UK and attacks on embassies, her supporters claim”.And Canada are said to be “in talks” about whether to grant her asylumthere.I made a passing comment about Asia Bibi on another thread started by the great fence sitter himself Keithprosser who had another Christian story running asking- was a Christian missionary a “Martyr or a Mug” https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/795He was still on the fence himself and had not given his verdict either way until he was recently ( a few minutes ago) prompted to do so, it was his thread after all.And while all of this is going on Britain has accepted 70,000 illegals so far this year, and over £150, 00 has been raised to re-house a 15 year old “bullied refugee” bullied by another 15 year old and something that must happen every day in our schools up and down the country..It only goes to say that the silence of Asia Bibi’s persecution is deafening and not a single Christian here has had the balls to even mention it never mind protest about it here.“We believers are all brothers in Christ”. My arse!
This is an appeal to pity or emotions. On the one hand, it says it is wrong and on the other it pidgeons all Christians together into one camp while vilifying them. It creates a highly charged situation and then it heaps a whole load of condemnation on Christians while ignoring the rest of humanity.
While I do not condone the situation and now that I have been made aware of it I pray for her and her family, but the world is an unjust place for humanity fails to honor and obey God as He is.
Your own country (providing you are American) appears to have lost its sense of justice. The law is not followed equally there. There are different standards depending on whether you are conservative or liberal, a Democrat or Republican, unborn or newborn.
What Jesus said still bears truth in our day and age.
“Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
The Orthodox Church actually sees itself as a continuation of this. The Christian race is now God's chosen people.It is written in Acts...That's nice that you see it that way, but if your support is a text that Jews reject, why should it be at all a valid position to take? If I cite the Koran to prove that Islam sees itself as replacing Christians, would that be useful?
The teachings of the NT are based on those of the OT (or your holy writings). Your holy writings are also our holy writings. What was promised in your holy writings Christians claim met their fulfillment in the NT times.
The OT is a constant revelation of a disobedient people, a people who failed to live according to the teachings of the book or covenant (Exodus 24:3,7). God continually sent prophets and teachers to your people who continually rejected them and pursued foreign gods and things that by nature are not God. God continually warned them that if they continued this way they would receive judgment. Your ancestors did not listen. Thus, in AD 70 God brought the curses of the covenant (Deuteronomy 28:15 onwards) against His chosen people. He brought divorce to Judah as He had previously brought divorce on Israel.
In AD 70 God selected a new bride with a new covenant, the people Jesus was betrothed to.
After AD 70 there is no more Levitical priesthood (that God had sanctioned as the mediator between Israel and Himself). There is no more temple, the place of God presence with His people. There is no more animal sacrifice to bring the offer of atonement on the Day of Atonement. There are no more feast day sacrifices required under the Law of Moses. The genealogical record was destroyed in AD. 70. Thus the priesthood cannot be traced through the written record. It can no longer be established through this record.
Thus, you cannot worship God as He required you to under the Mosaic Covenant. It no longer exists. If it did you would still be bringing your sacrifices to God via it and through the Levitical priesthood.
What is more, your Messiah was prophesied to come to a Mosaic Covenant people. For this to be true He would have to come before the destruction of the temple and city in AD 70. Both the OT writings and the NT writings predict the destruction of Jerusalem again, after the first destruction in Babylonian times. The decree Daniel received from God via the angel gave Daniel's people a specific period of time before Daniel 9:24 met its fulfillment. Daniel 12 pronounced a time of great trouble such as was not from the beginning of the world up to that point when the books would be opened and Daniel's people would be judged. AD 70 is what I claim is that time. Jeremiah told of God establishing a new covenant with the house of Israel and the House of Judah. That is what the Christian Scriptures claim happened, culminating in AD 70.
Daniel 2:44 predicted God setting up His eternal kingdom during the time of the fourth kingdom or empire. Which kingdom do you identify this to be?
The Orthodox Church has priests still, contemporary Judaism does not.Really? Do you mean that Judaism lacks clergy members who perform many of the same functions as those you call priests in Christianity? Those exist. Or do you mean those of a priestly caste, bound by a separate set of rules and performing separate functions as the priestly caste? Judaism has that, also.
I don't know what he means, but I argue that Judaism lacks the prescribed method of worship and sacrifice as STIPULATED in the Mosaic Law.
The temple worship that is practiced by Orthodox today is modeled a great deal after ancient Judaic temple worship. It is different, but similar. It is a continuation.The practices of Judaism are modeled directly on temple service. They are the continuation, following the laws which govern temple practice and its continuation. Jewish law which drove Judaic practice 2000 years ago, and does so today.
Show me where the OT explains your described method/model? Show me how you follow the Torah.
So it isn't that the new covenant now includes Christians. Orthodox Christianity is the fulfillment and continuation of ancient Israel.Only once you invent some notion of "fulfillment".
Your scripture speaks of a time of fulfillment.
The people that call themselves Jews today are descendant of pharisaical Judaism.Yes, the ones whose teaching Jesus said to follow. This is the mode of Judaism that was around then, and is around now. The competing strains of Judaism (be it Essene, Tzeduki, Karaite) really never quite took off.
It is not the same mode.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
So, in Exodus 24:3, 7 God presents to Israel an if/then covenant that they never live up to. Thus, as promised, He brings judgment/curses on them like He said He would.And Jesus came to redeem only them " the chosen". Or have you gone blind too?
No, I have not. Who is blind? The mission of His first advent/coming was to the nation of Israel, first to warn them of coming judgment, then to provide those who heed His warnings a way out, a way to be justified before God, a better covenant. God was going to divorce OT Israel due to marital infidelity and then choose a new bride, the new Israel. Jesus' mission was, besides judgment and redemption, also to set up a new covenant in His blood for the redemption of all who will believe the message. Thus, when Old Covenant Israel rejected their Messiah He opened salvation via a new and better covenant to all.
The reason God set up a covenant with Israel in the first place was 1) to provide a witness of Himself through His dealings with a particular people, 2) to provide the Messianic line that would save His people, 3) show not only Israel but the world that humans on their own merit fail to live up to the perfect and righteous standard that is God.
Jesus only came to save the JewsMatthew 10:5-6These Twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles,[anyone not a Jew] and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
The purpose of His coming was foretold in the OT. He was coming to save His people (those who would believe the message). He was also coming to bring judgment on a people who had broken His covenant. Until that happened, the New Covenant could not be fully realized because the first had to disappear.
Hebrews 8:13 (NASB)
13 When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.
13 When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.
The first had not disappeared yet, because they were still bringing the atonement for sins to the temple. The temple was destroyed in AD 70. Thus, the New Covenant became the only covenant in which the believer could be right with God after AD 70.
Jesus rubber stamps his earlier statement:Matthew 15:2424 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
That was not the primary purpose of His coming. He had to come to His own and His own had to reject Him before God would divorce these people and choose another.
John 1:11-12 (NASB)
11 He came to His [a]own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,
John 1:11-12 (NASB)
11 He came to His [a]own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,
First, He had to witness to and judge His own before He opened up His grace to all people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Who reallyis the fool, Jesus or those who repeat and regurgitate Jesus’ contradictions?Matthew 5:22threatens anyone calling someone a fool is “indanger of hell fire”.So what? Onemay ask. It must be terrible that theists cannot call atheists “fools”. Buthold on just a second:What do wehave here? Luke 24:25
Jesus “sonof god” calling people “fools”!!!!Surely,this is a mistranslation? Surely, it isI who is at fault? Surely, I have misquoted the verses? Surely, I havemistranslated?Surely, I have taken these verses out ofcontext? Surely, I have misunderstood?Surely, itis me who cannot read. Surely, it is I who is the fool?SURLEY, THIS IS A CLEAR CONTRADICTION BYJESUS , THE SON OF GOD HIMSELF!
PS. Your words are running together and there are many spelling mistakes. Just saying, although it has nothing to do with the argument it does make it difficult to read at times.
The Word Fool
First, God calls atheist's fools because a finite creature is making a statement that cannot be verified with certainty from a finite mind. Nevertheless what word is being used in Matthew 5:22 and is it the same word used elsewhere? So, be careful about the semantic use of a word.
Second, God has given adequate evidence not only in the created order - i.e., the universe, life, history - but also via His written revelation.
Third, what applies to God applies also to Jesus, as the God/man.
Fourth, to add to the first premise, the context of "fool" is used in the context of a brother. Again, you did not take the verse in its full context. A brother in Christ is one who shares the same values, the same destiny, and the same Master or teacher - Jesus Christ. Again, as is proving to be the consistent case with all your threads, you collapse the text and make it a pretext, and you ignore the use of a word. You ignore what the text teaches while your confirmational bias steers you in another direction.
Matthew 5:22-24
22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.23 Therefore if you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering.
Jesus likened anger to murder (per verse 21). Anger can lead to murder for it is the kind of resentment that is present when someone murders someone. It can be hateful unless it is justified, such as righteous anger (being angry about an evil). The word 'raca' was a derogatory term in the Ancient Near East (ANE).
"In addition, raca at the time was a term of great reproach. Both the definition and the cultural meaning of the word as a slang was designed for vulgar insult."
The third use also expresses a judgment on a person's character, plus filthy language used with anger. Salvation plus judgment on our destinies is something that is reserved for God to decide. The kind of anger expressed is not righteous. As Christians, we are to forgive as we have been forgiven. We are not to judge a person's final destination either. We are to treat others with respect as we have been treated with respect by God. We are not to use filthy language.
God judges the intent of the heart (our motivation).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
“Israel mypeople”.Jews As God's Own Chosen People.There are over 20 verses in the Old Testament where god speaks of “his chosen” people.Including"For you are a holy people to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth”.Deuteronomy 7:6-8And"For you are a holy people to the LORD your God, and the LORD has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples”.Deuteronomy 14:2So, there is no getting away from the fact that here god has made it quite clear that the people of Israel – Jews: have been especially chosen and singled out to be his favourites out of “ALL THE PEOPLES” of the known world.Christians will no doubt try to argue - ‘but there was a new covenant” when Jesus was born and this now includes Christians: while ignoring the stone cold fact, that (1) Jesus was a Jew. (2) There were no Christians in his lifetime. (3) Jesus the Jew only cared about his own Jew kind. These are facts.Jesus and god were what we call today – racist and christianophobes.
and My people who are called by My name humble themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
Israel never lived up to the covenant they made with God on Mount Sinai, despite repeated warnings to repent. Not only this, but the OT also speaks of another covenant God would make with Israel and all peoples that is not like the first or Mosaic Covenant He established with them.
[ The Broken Covenant ] The word which came to Jeremiah from the Lord, saying,
“Hear the words of this covenant, and speak to the men of Judah and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem;
and say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, “Cursed is the man who does not heed the words of this covenant
Yet they did not obey or incline their ear, but walked, each one, in the stubbornness of his evil heart; therefore I brought on them all the words of this covenant, which I commanded them to do, but they did not.’”
They have turned back to the iniquities of their ancestors who refused to hear My words, and they have gone after other gods to serve them; the house of Israel and the house of Judah have broken My covenant which I made with their fathers.”
[ A New Covenant ] “Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man and with the seed of beast.
“Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,
not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord.
“But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
I will make an everlasting covenant with them that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; and I will put the fear of Me in their hearts so that they will not turn away from Me.
So, the first covenant was inadequate because of the sin and rebellion of Israel.
Jeremiah 22:8-10 (NASB)
8 “Many nations will pass by this city; and they will say to one another, ‘Why has the Lord done thus to this great city?’ 9 Then they will answer, ‘Because they forsook the covenant of the Lord their God and bowed down to other gods and served them.’”
8 “Many nations will pass by this city; and they will say to one another, ‘Why has the Lord done thus to this great city?’ 9 Then they will answer, ‘Because they forsook the covenant of the Lord their God and bowed down to other gods and served them.’”
37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.38 Behold, your house is being left to you desolate!
Viola, AD 70.
So, in Exodus 24:3, 7 God presents to Israel an if/then covenant that they never live up to. Thus, as promised, He brings judgment/curses on them like He said He would.
3 Then Moses came and recounted to the people all the words of the Lord and all the ordinances; and all the people answered with one voice and said, “All the words which the Lord has spoken we will do!”
7 Then he took the book of the covenant and read it in the hearing of the people; and they said, “All that the Lord has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient!” 8 So Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people, and said, “Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Unless one or the other combatants can establish something is a fact, or at least reasonable to believe, their argument is weak, just an opinion. Something that is a fact is objectively so, meaning it is the case.If both sides agree on definitions, they are treated as facts for the sake of that particular argument.
Okay.
It is just common sense. (^8What makes something a fact?If both sides agree on definitions, they are treated as facts for the sake of that particular argument.If I told you, "FreeWill is just plain silly (absolutely insane) and is not rationally/logically justifiable" would you still consider me a reasonable person?Explain free will. What does it mean? Then demonstrate you have it.This is not a discussion about the merits of free will. This is a discussion about the merits of ridicule.How do you measure the "objective truth" value of a particular statement if nobody agrees with your hypothetical?Sometimes it is hard.No kidding.For example, either Vishnu or Nanabozho or Pangu or YHWH is "real" to the exclusion of the other three options. Does that logical conclusion support any one of the presented gods as "more likely" than any of the others? I don't believe it does.And I believe it does - YHWH. But we digress from the topic of the thread.But you don't believe this based solely on the mutual exclusivity of the other options. You don't believe this based solely on logic.
I base it on logic and reason and all religions claim exclusivity, IMO.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
A fact is an objective truth. It can't be anything other than objective. A subjective truth is something that applies to a particular individual, but it is still true to that individual and can be nothing but true or it is not a fact. Facts do not depend on whether you believe them to be so or not. A fact is something that is true - period.The definition of "fact" says nothing about "objective" and therefore "objective" is not an integral property of "fact".And to belabor the point, Whether or not a "fact" is "objectively" "true" or not is irrelevant/immaterial when establishing common ground.
Unless one or the other combatants can establish something is a fact, or at least reasonable to believe, their argument is weak, just an opinion. Something that is a fact is objectively so, meaning it is the case.
The definitions are either factual or they are not. Just because you agree does not make something a fact. It either is or it is not.Your bald assertions do not invalidate the statement, "they will be treated as facts for the sake of that particular argument".
It is just common sense. (^8
What makes something a fact?
It depends what you mean by free will? Do you think your will is really free in the sense that what you believe is built upon by other beliefs? If your thinking about these beliefs is faulty your whole house is constructed on a shaky foundation. Sure, some of it has truth to it and in it, but overall it could lead you to false conclusions. There has to be some truth to it in order to make a smidgeon of sense. It just depends on the degree.Free will and self-will are two different things. We have the ability to choose. We all have a volition, a will to do what we want to do or like to do or deem best to do, but how free is that will from outside influences?Since people are not neutral in their beliefs I question how free their wills are?The details and possible intricacies of FreeWill are beside the point.If I told you, "FreeWill is just plain silly (absolutely insane) and is not rationally/logically justifiable" would you still consider me a reasonable person?
Explain free will. What does it mean? Then demonstrate you have it.
Unless there is an outside personal Being that is objective in that He knows all things and has revealed what is good and true, then we can have an objectively true belief if it conforms to the necessary Beings. So, even is I hold a bias and am not neutral towards one view, that view can be objective if it corresponds to what is true."...if it corresponds to what is true."You still have the insurmountable problem of correspondence.How do you measure the "objective truth" value of a particular statement if nobody agrees with your hypothetical?
Sometimes it is hard.
And beyond that, even if, for the sake of this particular argument, I grant your hypothetical, the insurmountable problem still remains that there is no way to compare the "objective truth" value of a particular statement with the hypothetical perspective of your hypothetical "objective being"?In other words, how can we as humans directly access the perspective of a hypothetical "objective being"?An inaccessible standard is functionally identical to no standard at all.That is what made DDO an irritating debate site, IMO. It was not being well maintained and things were left to atrophy.I agree.True, but when both sides make compelling arguments sometimes it is hard to judge one as better than another.Well, I mean, if you can't tell, that would seem to qualify as a vote for a tie.True. But when you don't know the truth and both arguments are opposite, logically they are not both true.When the facts/hypotheticals are not negotiated and agreed upon or are considered unknown/unknowable, even if the arguments are mutually exclusive, they are still both equally likely to be "true".For example, either Vishnu or Nanabozho or Pangu or YHWH is "real" to the exclusion of the other three options. Does that logical conclusion support any one of the presented gods as "more likely" than any of the others? I don't believe it does.
And I believe it does - YHWH. But we digress from the topic of the thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
It either is a fact or it is not, but sometimes it is hard to determine since our knowledge is basic in some areas of thought.Yeah, it is good to identify your definitions.Whether or not a "fact" is "objectively" "true" or not is irrelevant/immaterial. If a piece of information is contested, it cannot be considered a fact in the context of the debate.
A fact is an objective truth. It can't be anything other than objective. A subjective truth is something that applies to a particular individual, but it is still true to that individual and can be nothing but true or it is not a fact. Facts do not depend on whether you believe them to be so or not. A fact is something that is true - period.
True, if the facts are known.When debating something that both sides agree is unknown/unknowable (noumenon), definitions and hypothetical frameworks must be negotiated and agreed upon as if they were facts and then treated as facts for the sake of that particular argument.
The definitions are either factual or they are not. Just because you agree does not make something a fact. It either is or it is not.
Some ideas are plain silly, for they are not rationally justifiable. When your opponent doesn't grasp this then showing the implications of their belief system in this area by a ridiculous example of what the opponent believes drives home the point, if not to them then at least to others.If I told you, "FreeWill is just plain silly (absolutely insane) and is not rationally/logically justifiable" would you still consider me a reasonable person?
It depends what you mean by free will? Do you think your will is really free in the sense that what you believe is built upon by other beliefs? If your thinking about these beliefs is faulty your whole house is constructed on a shaky foundation. Sure, some of it has truth to it and in it, but overall it could lead you to false conclusions. There has to be some truth to it in order to make a smidgeon of sense. It just depends on the degree.
Free will and self-will are two different things. We have the ability to choose. We all have a volition, a will to do what we want to do or like to do or deem best to do, but how free is that will from outside influences?
Since people are not neutral in their beliefs I question how free their wills are?
Sure. Respect is always nice, but that does not mean to say all ideas are equally nice. I have found that sometimes there is no consensus available when dealing with what is true because of confirmational bias. No one is neutral. We all have a bias. It is whether the bias conforms to the truth that counts.I agree that no human being can seriously even pretend to be "objective". Yes, we are all 100% biased, and often for very good reasons. However, if communication is your goal, then some level of respect is mandatory.
Unless there is an outside personal Being that is objective in that He knows all things and has revealed what is good and true, then we can have an objectively true belief if it conforms to the necessary Beings. So, even is I hold a bias and am not neutral towards one view, that view can be objective if it corresponds to what is true.
In DDO there were many debates that were not voted on. Thus, a tie was declared.I double checked this and as it turns out, I have two pending debates (in limbo) on DDO where a round was forfeit and a tie was never declared.
That is what made DDO an irritating debate site, IMO. It was not being well maintained and things were left to atrophy.
If you say it is different here then that is a good thing. Unless both sides have equally valid arguments a tie should not happen.I believe it is unlikely/extremely rare that both sides are "perfectly equal" and that only under those circumstances deserve a tie.
True, but when both sides make compelling arguments sometimes it is hard to judge one as better than another.
If there are no votes, a tie is preferable to some other limbo status. My mission at one point was to try and track down all the debates with zero votes and give them a fair vote, but since my votes kept getting struck down, it appeared to be a complete waste of time.
(^8
That would take a lot of time.
When you are debating opposites it is hard to conceive of both being true to what is. It goes against logic to believe they are.When both debaters go off-topic, their respective arguments are not necessarily mutually exclusive relative to one another.
True. But when you don't know the truth and both arguments are opposite, logically they are not both true.
Usually, there are some valid points and some invalid points in both arguments. It is hard to distinguish which is which in some debates because both debaters make a compelling argument, at least it is for me. That is why a checklist comes in handy. It identifies what the voter should be looking for.I agree with you that a checklist/ballot is a great idea for "open voting".
I think so too!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Who you agreed with before and after appears to be incidental.
Incidental to what? I find unless an argument against their worldview is irresistible powerful, the voter will usually side with the one that most closely fits their worldview.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
...neither side seems capable of identifying the truth in some debates.What I'm trying to point out with Rule One, is that the two sides must agree on basic definitions from the outset and that neither side can claim some piece of information is a "fact" without getting agreement from the other. In other words, if I say something is a FACT and you disagree, then we must halt all other points of discussion until you and I can find what we both agree are FACTS (common ground).
It either is a fact or it is not, but sometimes it is hard to determine since our knowledge is basic in some areas of thought.
Yeah, it is good to identify your definitions.
Yeah, it is good to identify your definitions.
We necessarily disagree on our conclusions, but we cannot disagree on FACTS.
True, if the facts are known.
sometimes the best avenue is to show how absurd an idea actually is by ridiculing it.I'm not sure ridicule is generally very good at convincing your debate partner, it plays great with crowds and even with judges, but in one-on-one conversations with your friends and or family members it generally either shuts the other person up or makes them lash out in anger - both of these stifle the free exchange of ideas and as such, I would say that ridicule is a tactic to derail the debate.
Some ideas are plain silly, for they are not rationally justifiable. When your opponent doesn't grasp this then showing the implications of their belief system in this area by a ridiculous example of what the opponent believes drives home the point, if not to them then at least to others.
I believe the Civil Debate framework is superior (to traditional forms) because it promotes mutual understanding, consensus building and respect.
Sure. Respect is always nice, but that does not mean to say all ideas are equally nice. I have found that sometimes there is no consensus available when dealing with what is true because of confirmational bias. No one is neutral. We all have a bias. It is whether the bias conforms to the truth that counts.
I also believe it is superior when considering administration. There is no reason to review votes (saves mods time and user backlash). There are fewer (probably zero) debates that go unvoted on (which is incredibly frustrating when both parties have dedicated a lot of time and energy to produce a quality debate).
In DDO there were many debates that were not voted on. Thus, a tie was declared. If you say it is different here then that is a good thing. Unless both sides have equally valid arguments a tie should not happen. When you are debating opposites it is hard to conceive of both being true to what is. It goes against logic to believe they are. Usually, there are some valid points and some invalid points in both arguments. It is hard to distinguish which is which in some debates because both debaters make a compelling argument, at least it is for me. That is why a checklist comes in handy. It identifies what the voter should be looking for.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I think the form is useful or an aid in developing more consistency in voting.I agree.Thinking about this more, are you familiar with Intelligence Squared?They have some debates posted on youtube and I've heard them broadcast on the radio.
I was not familiar. I listened to one, The God of the Gaps. It presents different perspectives on the subject.
What they do is have the audience vote, Before the debate on whether or not they agree with the Resolution, and then the same audience members vote again After the debate and measure how many were swayed either way.
I like that idea. I'm not sure, but I thought DDO gave this option.
This would seem to be an interesting option - get at least 5 to 10 people to vote a simple one check box "PRO" or "CON" Before and then After the debate.My preferred alternative would be to actually convince your opponent rather than playing to an audience or specific judges (rhetorical games).Here's my suggestion for 3 Rules of Civil Debate - https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/376 (which was my first post on this site).
Although I agree with your concepts, such as you can't redefine truth, what is presented as facts are not always so, and neither side seems capable of identifying the truth in some debates. For instance, what is presented as science is not always science, but scientism. When we speak of origins no one was there. So worldviews presuppose some things are true and science builds models as to reasonable scenarios based on the information available and what is considered reasonable. Then science sets out to prove or disprove the theory. The point is that we are all presented with the same data but some come to different conclusions on that data (i.e., a different interpretation of the "facts"). The problem with data is that it does need interpreting. Science also makes the assumption that the present (where we live) is the key to the past. All we have is the here and now or the present in determining such origins. We cannot go back to the point of origins. We cannot recreate the origin to test our hypothesis.
With your second premise, "Civil Debate - Rule Two: Do not disqualify your opponent" sometimes the best avenue is to show how absurd an idea actually is by ridiculing it. But I agree that ad homs are not culture but a flaw in reasoning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
It does seem useful. If there was a comment box beside to cite examples it would do the trick. I think the argument itself deserves more points than the other categories.Yeah, a ballot.What an absolutely novel concept.
A ballot suggests a secret vote.
I think the form is useful or an aid in developing more consistency in voting. The comments box for each section would give specific reasons for why you checked off a particular box in each category. It tells the reasons why a voter voted as he did. When you read through the debate you can decide whether the vote was justified.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
This is an excellent suggestion.I especially liked this - https://www.scribd.com/document/90791190/Debate-Scoring-Sheet
It does seem useful. If there was a comment box beside to cite examples it would do the trick. I think the argument itself deserves more points than the other categories.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
The reason I object to the 7-point system is that the non-argument categories are not particularly relevant to the activity of debate, and that these other concerns can be dispensed with internally within the arguments themselves. Moreover, any attempt to assign these categories discrete proportions is absurd. Just because someone has better sources and better spelling does not mean they should tie a debate with someone who had exceedingly better arguments.
That is why the case for more points to the argument is valid. Having said that, these other criteria are good because it forces each debater to present a formal and neat presentation and the sources back up their lines of evidence (not just assertions). Too many spelling or grammar mistakes subtract from the overall presentation. They are a negative.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
MEEPs (Moderation Engagement and Enactment Processes) will be periodically instigated by moderation in order to gain community feedback on various policy options and to obtain the community's approval or disapproval of those policy options. This will ensure that the site usership will have the opportunity to democratically weigh in on moderation policies. In order to ensure that the result of any MEEP process reflects the will of a substantial number of community members, for a specific MEEP result to be binding, at least 10 users must have expressed a preference on the policy in question, and more than a majority of participants must be in agreement. That means, in a MEEP with 10 voters, the minimum threshold for a binding result is 7-3; similarly, a in MEEP with 19 voters, the minimum threshold for a binding result is 11-8. Again, this ensures that the outcome of the process reflects the consensus of a significant number of site users. If a MEEP result is not binding/valid, moderation will maintain the pre-MEEP status quo, whatever that happens to be. MEEP commentary periods will be open for feedback for at least two days, and may be switched a read-only mode shortly after that period in order to signal a clear end to the MEEP process. MEEPs will be broadcast using the site's announcement feature to ensure maximum awareness.2. Should an opt-in voting standard which is less stringent than the default be implemented for debaters? A potential such opt-in standard is described below.
2. I think the more criterion the better, so the point scoring system offered is adequate. It judges the debate in a number of ways. It has to be presented in a particular manner, which gives the debate the appearance of formality and scholarship rather than profanity and random thought. Perhaps it is debatable on whether the better argument deserves more points than currently given??? The heart of the debate is the quality of the argument. Spelling, grammar, language, and conduct are also important.
Wikihow has some suggestions as do other sites:
"Typical categories for assessment ask you consider if the competitor:
- Directly addressed the topic.
- Understood the basic issue.
- Clearly explained their position.
- Made a convincing case, complete with specific evidence.
- Explained the other side’s weaknesses.
- Responded directly to the other side’s critique.
- Was courteous to the other side."
- To award argument points, the voter must (1) analyze the argument they found most important, (2) explain who is winning that argument and why.
- To award sources points, the voter must (1) offer a comparative statement about the quality of each side's sources, or note that one side did not use sources while the other did, and (2) point to a specific good or bad source.
- To award spelling and grammar points, the voter must (1) offer a comparative statement about the quality of each side's spelling and grammar and (2) point to a specific instance of poor spelling and grammar.
- To award conduct points, the voter must (1) offer a comparative statement about the conduct of each side, and (2) point to a specific act of misconduct by a particular side
3. Should moderation moderate select-winner votes using the argument standard currently applied to the 7-point system?
3. What does 'moderation moderate' mean? Seven or nine points (3 or 5 for the central feature - the argument) is fine.
4. Should moderation be able to suspend problematic votes prior to deleting the voting in order to give the voter to fix the vote before the vote is taken down?
4. Yes. I also think the voter should be able to amend his reasoning if his reasoning for awarding a vote is unclear. There should be good reasons for awarding one combattant the better argument. If there is a clear bias that is unwarranted that is also a problem. It just becomes a popularity contest then.
5. Should their be an opt-in for stricter moderation standards? If yes, what should those standards look like?
5. In the case of extreme bias when the outcome is obvious or where the voter does not give adequate reasons for their choice.
"Leave your opinions at the door. Even experienced judges benefit from reminding themselves that they are there to assess the delivery, structure
and argumentation presented by different competitors, regardless of whether or not they agree with the content. Keep in mind that competitors may be asked to articulate and defend positions they may not personally agree with, either.
- Remind yourself to focus on the ballot and use it, not personal beliefs, as a guide to assess the debate." https://www.wikihow.com/Judge-a-Debate
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
1. Is the current MEEP process an acceptable framework for hosting these policy discussions? Generally, the reviews of MEEP seemed positive, but confirmation of that impression is important. The MEEP process is described below.
1. I like it, but there are other possibilities.
You have a modified scoring system but it does not instruct the voter so much in what to look for.
I would like to see a voter score sheet checklist added so that the voter has access to go down a list in accessing the debate, something that is standard in judging a debate that is also fair. It would make the process of judging more consistent and level. Each section would have a comment section to justify the awarding of points.
The decision on voter score sheet would need to be voted on before it became a standard for judging. I supply an example below:
A few favorites of the ones looked at:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Too true!Competition should be judged as fairly as possible or else the victory is meaningless.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
I'm grateful you all willingly take on the responsibility. It must take a lot of time and effort. It makes for a better site that rules are established and enforced.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
Do you approve of Mike?
Yes: 1
No: 0
Do you approve of Bsh1?
Yes: 1
No: 0
Do you approve of Virtuoso?
I have no contact with my knowledge of Virtuoso so I cannot offer a judgment of his moderating skills.
Do you approve of Castin?
Yes: 1
No: 0
IMO, for what it is worth. I would hate to have someone evaluate me on my moderating skills as I judged conduct as per the rules. This site is a service for debates and it has its own rules and regulations that the debater is asked to follow. That is a reasonable standard that those who sign up on this site should respect or ask for changes to the rules. What exactly are some of the objections to the moderators? I have found no fault to date, just one misunderstanding in a debate vote on my behalf.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
I guess I am in favor of Mike also since we have communicated and he is very helpful. I don't know nor have I had correspondence with the fourth so I will not make a judgment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
I am only aware of two and I have only had correspondence with two to my knowledge and I approve of both of them. They are Bsh1 and Castin. If the https://www.debateart.com/participants/DebateArt.com is one of these other two then I support them too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I think it is quite likely that the Christian attitude to wealth softened as a result of the promised new order not being quite as imminent as supposed!
What do you mean? The kingdom came in AD 70. It was imminent and near, as Jesus said it was.
In Luke 6 verses 20-23 praise poverty and 24-26 condemns riches.20 Looking at his disciples, he said:“Blessed are you who are poor,for yours is the kingdom of God.21 Blessed are you who hunger now,for you will be satisfied.Blessed are you who weep now,for you will laugh.22 Blessed are you when people hate you,when they exclude you and insult youand reject your name as evil,because of the Son of Man.23 “Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their ancestors treated the prophets.24 “But woe to you who are rich,for you have already received your comfort.25 Woe to you who are well fed now,for you will go hungry.Woe to you who laugh now,for you will mourn and weep.26 Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you,for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets.I think Christianity may have started out very ascetic and un-materialist but softened somewhat fairly quickly.
Matthew 16:27-28 (NASB)
27 For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds.
28 “Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”
27 For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds.
28 “Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”
How was the Son of Man - Jesus - going to come (The Second Coming)? It was in the same manner the Father came to a nation in the OT. "In the glory of God." God's presence was recognized by the armies that God sent to judge a nation according to their deeds. Now, during the 1st-century, Jesus is telling His disciples that some standing in His midst will not die before He comes again (The Second Coming).
Daniel, in Daniel 2:44-45 said,
Daniel 2:44-45 (NASB)
The Divine Kingdom
44 In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and that kingdom will not be left for another people; it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever. 45 Inasmuch as you saw that a stone was cut out of the mountain without hands and that it crushed the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold, the great God has made known to the king what will take place in the future; so the dream is true and its interpretation is trustworthy.”
The Divine Kingdom
44 In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and that kingdom will not be left for another people; it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever. 45 Inasmuch as you saw that a stone was cut out of the mountain without hands and that it crushed the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold, the great God has made known to the king what will take place in the future; so the dream is true and its interpretation is trustworthy.”
So, during the time of those kings/Caesars God would set up the eternal kingdom. The fourth kingdom in the king's dream was the Roman Empire. So the kingdom was set up at that time. It happened in AD 70.
Jesus and the disciples repeatedly said that His kingdom and His time of coming was near, at hand.
so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door.
Even so, you too, when you see these things happening, recognize that He is near, right at the door.
and heal those in it who are sick, and say to them, ‘The kingdom of God has come near to you.’
So you also, when you see these things happening, recognize that the kingdom of God is near.
“Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
From that time Jesus began to preach and say, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
And as you go, preach, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’
What is more, Jesus taught the kingdom of God is a spiritual kingdom, even in their midst since where the King is the kingdom is also there.
Luke 17:20-22 (NASB)
20 Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He answered them and said, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; 21 nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or, ‘There it is!’ For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst.”
20 Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He answered them and said, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; 21 nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or, ‘There it is!’ For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst.”
So, the kingdom came in AD 70.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I think it is quite likely that the Christian attitude to wealth softened as a result of the promised new order not being quite as imminent as supposed!
In Luke 6 verses 20-23 praise poverty and 24-26 condemns riches.
20 Looking at his disciples, he said:
“Blessed are you who are poor,
for yours is the kingdom of God.
21 Blessed are you who hunger now,
for you will be satisfied.
Blessed are you who weep now,
for you will laugh.
22 Blessed are you when people hate you,
when they exclude you and insult you
and reject your name as evil,
because of the Son of Man.
23 “Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their ancestors treated the prophets.
24 “But woe to you who are rich,
for you have already received your comfort.
25 Woe to you who are well fed now,
for you will go hungry.
Woe to you who laugh now,
for you will mourn and weep.
26 Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you,
for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets.
I think Christianity may have started out very ascetic and un-materialist but softened somewhat fairly quickly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Lamba vs Beta ContinuedLet's do the naming thing first.Beta males on DarC (this term is severely negatively portrayed by the media and by people like Outplayz, it's not negative it's one of many variants, to be honest it is kind of negative like the Gamma male is but this is my honest observation)...PGA2.0, secularmerlin and SamStevens.Beta females on the site include WarriorQueenForever but no other prominent female member that I know of on this site is one.The idea behind the Beta's ethos is possibly the single most misportrayed and misunderstood concept in the history of humankind. Betas are natural audience members. They are not natural servants. This is extremely important to understand because until you realise that none of these types other than the Lambda, willingly serve and giggle while doing it, you won't understand why Betas feel continually humiliated and jeered for what they are. Betas are first Deltas. No one is born Beta. My theory on this is that the Delta that realises there's many dominant, interesting humans out there to watch, listen to and go along with ends up becoming Beta. On the other hand, if the being simply goes 'meh, others aren't every that great but I do like going with the flow' they end up being Deltas. Betas do not 'go with the flow' they do not 'serve alphas' they actively seek out alphas to entertain them. Beta humans are not weak for being what they are, in fact none of these types are weak for being what they are. Betas are built to thoroughly yearn for a 'show', for a 'battle' but not ever one involving them. Shit-stirrers can be Sigmas, Gammas or Betas but the Beta does it out of compulsion... They just love it. They don't mean to hurt people, they mean to enjoy a show is all. The Beta tends to be consistently inconsistent. Unlike any other type, the Betas actually have the most variance, not least variance, among them. A beta's upbringing, information they came across as children... Education... All of that, is almost entirely what shapes their worldview and opinions. They actively enjoy taking in things and not questioning them, "why fight what is likely from something wiser and more entertaining than I am?" asks the Beta on a daily basis. They don't submit out of fear, they submit out of truly enjoying the path of least resistance. Cowards? That's suggesting we are supposed to be brave. Sigmas are (it rhymes) enigmas in that they are able to be both confrontational and yet cunning deep down. Sigmas, Gammas and Betas all are coward-variants whereas alphas, omegas and zetas are brave-variants with alphas and omegas being brash-flavoured-brave and zetas being passive-aggressive-brave.
I don't follow. Are you making an analogy of different worldviews, Beta being Christian?
Created: