Shila

--> @Shila

You are rather quiet on this subject. Are you on the side of the Iranian Morality police?

- Are you a robot? Blink if you're not. 

I don’t think I disagree with anything you say there and I am familiar with the possible mistranslation regarding the word “virgin.”

 

I think the argument as to whether Jesus existed or not will continue but will not be resolved. You say what matters, is the truth but for a believer truth is revealed through faith.

--> @Shila

So why does BrotherD.Thomas attack Reverend Tradesecret so viciously.

viciously.!?

The Brother is a pussycat. He never uses bad language or denigrates anyone, unless you consider that calling someone bible ignorant or a bible fool as being "attacked viciously". 😂 FFS!

--> @Shila

I cannot comment on Reverend Tradesecret.

Why ever not? You seem to speak for everyone else even going as far as to put words in the mouths of others, my own included.

But I am confident he will redeem himself and restore faith in the historical and Biblical Jesus.

 I think it speaks for itself that the Reverend Tradesecret will agree that there was an historical and biblical Jesus. Of that there can be no doubt. S/he was, after all, "chosen by god " himself so he must have already received redemption.... in gods eyes only.  This is aside the fact that s/he is a Pastor with " a congregation of over 300" and "a Chaplain to his/her countries defence forces".  Surley he wouldn't hold these positions if he didn't believe in a historical and biblical Jesus?

--> @Shila

Note: The case for Historical Jesus is moving  from historical facts to biblical facts.

Just as well. It would have died a death had it not moved on as I suggested way back on page one

I believe that Jesus was a man that believed himself to be or was led to be believe that he was the rightful heir to the throne of David and king of the Jews and Jerusalem minus the miracles. While I also believe he was a man wrapped in a myth by the early church.

--> @BrotherD.Thomas

Jesus H. Christ, and I thought Tradesecret was bible stupid, whereas you take the cake hands down!

 I have to disagree with you on that one point, BrotherD.

Shila has some way to go before he gets to that Calibur and withing a mile of the bible ignorance and stupidity of the Reverend "tradey" tradesecret.

--> @Elliott

Well I am going to take it that you have actually read Isiah in its entirety? But you have failed to realise that this so-called prophecy was intended to be fulfilled in king Ahaz's lifetime and has nothing at all to do with a child to be born 700 years into the future.

After all, what good would a child to be born 700 years into the future be to king Ahaz in his hour of need?

I have said it before that this is the author of Matthew's gospel once again reaching for his trusty OT in a desperate attempt to link Jesus to the OT prophesies as being the one to come and prophesised about, and it is something he does often in the New Testament.

The founders of Christianity appear to have accepted it as a prophecy that related to the coming of the messiah and it is that which matters.

Because it suited them to do so.   And what matters, is the truth.

This prophesy is also perceived to relate to Jesus supposed virgin birth, which is also fundamental to a belief in the messianic claim.

Your quote above^^ is what many traditional bibles claim. But is it accurate?

This is what Good News Translation states.

"Well then, the Lord himself will give you a sign: a young woman who is pregnant will have a son and will name him 'Immanuel.'  "Isaiah 7:14

New Revised Standard Version

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel. Isaiah 7:14

So here above we have a present tense. The young woman is already with child. So unless this young woman undergoes a 700 year pregnancy then this child is not the child that the author of Mathew can possibly be talking about.

It appears then that someone, intentional or not, made a mistranslation (no surprises there then).

 And wouldn't have Isaiah use the Hebrew word for Virgin-  bethulah? 

bethulah: a virgin

Original Word: בְּתוּלָה

Part of Speech: Noun Feminine

Transliteration: bethulah

Phonetic Spelling: (beth-oo-law')

Definition: a virgin

Strong's Hebrew: 1330. בְּתוּלָה (bethulah) -- a virgin (biblehub.com)

the messianic claim

Jesus only once agree that he was the Messiah. Although he didn't say so outright. But did he fulfil that role that was expected of a Messiaha? .  For instance;

Did he rebuild the Temple?

Did he unite all the Jewish tribes?

Did he free the Jews from the Roman yoke? 

And

Did he bring peace to the world?

And remember this, when Mary is said to conceive this child, did he inherit the throne of Jerusalem/David as was promised by God to his mother? No.

did he rule over the house of Jacob forever, and did his kingdom will never end? No.

What he inherited was three nails and two bits of wood with a view overlooking the Kidron valley.

You may want to peruse your line of questioning by looking up the word- Alma - and what it means.

-> @Shila

.

Shila, the most dumbfounded Bible fool that this forum has ever seen,

In prayer with Jesus again, He has told me to show the membership in how many times you have sinned against Him by being a woman and trying to preach to the superior men within your ungodly thread, where you have biblically and absolutely no business in doing so as the passage below so states!  

"Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor." (1 Timothy 2:11-14)

PAGE 1 THRU 3 OF YOUR UNGODLY THREAD:  The following links thus far in your ungodly thread is where you have slapped Jesus in the face and have sinned against Him because as an inferior woman you are not following the Jesus inspired passage of 1 Timothy 2:11-14 !  

--> @Shila

.

Shila, the most dumbfounded Bible fool that this forum has ever seen,

YOUR MOST BIBLE IGNORANT QUOTE EVER: “So to say Jesus inspired the writings of the JUDEO-Christian Bible is not accurate.”

WHAT DID YOU JUST SAY YOU STUPID BIBLE FOOL?  HELLO, ANYBODY HOME TODAY?! OBVIOUSLY NOT!

I am truly sorry that your alleged Bachelor's Degree has not taught you to understand simple Biblical deductions relative to Jesus being God, and therefore Jesus as god inspired all of the writings of the JUDEO-Christian Bible as I have shown you at your dumbfounded expense!  But, what did we expect from an inferior woman like you that is totally Bible illiterate to say that Jesus did not inspire the Bible's writings?

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God…." (2 Timothy 3:16)

With the passage above that proves my point AGAIN, including 1 Thessalonians 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:20-21, over your Bible stupidity in saying that Jesus did not inspire the Bible writings, are you now calling Timothy a LIAR???!!!

Jesus H. Christ, this esteemed Religion Forum has NEVER, and I repeat, NEVER have seen such a Bible ignorant fool woman like you before, bar none!  Then you have the audacity to continue to make yourself the continued Bible fool, why? 

It truly must of been really easy to ummmm, play tricks on people back in the days. 

Like , Seeing a magic trick 2000 years ago must of blew peoples minds. 

Imagine the ( rope tied to door and sneakily moved trick two or three thousand years ago )  

With a slightest lack of morals  you could go along way hey?. 

Think of allllllll the tricks you can do to get what you wanted back in the days.  

You just have to Pretend it is god. 

Like. Make the door move with rope.

 You fist say something like. ' God.'   'if you want me to do such and such. Give me a sign. ' 

You then pull the string attached to the door and it is as good as finalized. 

If you  Pull a coin out from behind your wife's ear she is definitely a witch. 

HAS TO BE.  

What i am trying to say is. 

Magic tricks " worked " WAY WAY better a couple of thousand years ago.

--> @Shila

How does common sense become objective opinions?

They don’t.

he correct question is this: what are the civilians doing to get shot?

RM: No, that doesn't explore why they're doing it. Simple minds rarely get to root causes though, they tend to just lash out and blame (on both sides of politics). Greater minds seek to empathise and find long-term rehabilitations and solutions to big issues and only one side of politics does that, whether the right wing admits it or not.

--> @Stephen

Well I am going to take it that you have actually read Isiah in its entirety? But you have failed to realise that this so-called prophecy was intended to be fulfilled in king Ahaz's lifetime and has nothing at all to do with a child to be born 700 years into the future.

After all, what good would a child to be born 700 years into the future be to king Ahaz in his hour of need?

I have said it before that this is the author of Matthew's gospel once again reaching for his trusty OT in a desperate attempt to link Jesus to the OT prophesies as being the one to come and prophesised about, and it is something he does often in the New Testament.

The founders of Christianity appear to have accepted it as a prophecy that related to the coming of the messiah and it is that which matters. This prophesy is also perceived to relate to Jesus supposed virgin birth, which is also fundamental to a belief in the messianic claim.

--> @Shila

.

Shila, the most dumbfounded Bible fool that this forum has ever seen,

YOUR CONTINUED BIBLE IGNORANCE IN YOUR WEAK POST #78: "You are quoting verses that came from Paul. Paul was not a disciple of Jesus nor did he meet or follow Jesus like the other disciples did."

Your alleged Bachelor's Degree  that your parent's hard earned money paid for, is a waste of money and time since you cannot understand simple biblical logic 101, whereas it is NOT Paul's writings, BUT SIMPLY PUT FOR YOU ONCE AGAIN, it was Jesus' inspired words as shown below in these two passages!

“And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God.” (1 Thessalonians 2:13)

"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation, for the prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." (2 Peter 1:20-21)

Therefore, Jesus, as our serial killer Yahweh God incarnate, inspired the writings of the JUDEO-Christian Bible, period!!!!   2+2=4, oil and water don't mix, and your biblical knowledge is embarrassingly that of a 2 year old child, enough!

SHILA, ENOUGH OF YOUR BIBLE IGNORANCE, CAN YOU GIVE US A BREAK AND TAKE SOME TIME OFF?

sidewalker: Jesus was a revolutionary change agent; and in fact he was a radical in every sense of the word.

And what is it that you believe Jesus changed during the short time of his ministry?

-> @Elliott

A lot of work in the creation of the New Testament involved the fulfilling of Old Testament messianic prophecies. This is one of them and I would think an important one.

 

Isaiah 7:14 “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.”

 

This to me this suggests Jesus existed as a real person and was reasonably well known by the name Jesus, so they were not able to change it to Immanuel.

Well I am going to take it that you have actually read Isiah in its entirety? But you have failed to realise that this so-called prophecy was intended to be fulfilled in king Ahaz's lifetime and has nothing at all to do with a child to be born 700 years into the future.

After all, what good would a child to be born 700 years into the future be to king Ahaz in his hour of need?

I have said it before that this is the author of Matthew's gospel once again reaching for his trusty OT in a desperate attempt to link Jesus to the OT prophesies as being the one to come and prophesised about, and it is something he does often in the New Testament.

-->

@Sidewalker

Someone as disturbingly radical as Christ

Will you define for us -radical - in this context.

--> @BrotherD.Thomas

@ Public-Choice Great!  Now, for you to save face within this forum, you will now provide the said Greek and Hebrew words TO EACH OF MY 12 GIVEN PASSAGES AS SHOWN IN JESUS' WORDS IN DEFAMING WOMEN IN MY POST #33 TO PROVE THEM WRONG!  You may begin, we're waiting in a timely manner whereas the clock is ticking in your behalf! #60

The 12 given passages that you refer to at #33 Brother D.  go as follows.

Brother D. Thomas wrote: #33 

1.  "Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor." (1 Timothy 2:11-14)

2.  “ But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ and the head of the woman in man. For the man is not of the women; but the woman of the man.” (1Corinthians 11: 3,8 ) 

3.  “I find more bitter than death the woman who is a snare, whose heart is a trap and whose hands are chains. The man who pleases God will escape her, but the sinner she will ensnare.” (Ecclesiastes 7:26)

4.  "The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church." (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)

5.  "Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered." (1 Peter 3:7)

6.  "It is better to live in a corner of the housetop than in a house shared with a quarrelsome wife." (Proverbs 21:9)

7.  "It is better to live in a desert land than with a quarrelsome and fretful woman." (Proverbs 21:19)

8.  “ It is better to dwell in a corner of the housetop, than with a brawling woman in a wide house.” (Proverbs 21:9)

9.  "A quarrelsome wife is as annoying as constant dripping on a rainy day. Stopping her complaints is like trying to stop the wind or trying to hold something with greased hands." (Proverbs 27:15-16) 

10.  " Likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire." (1 Timothy 2:9)

11.  "For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior." (Ephesians 5:23)

12.  "For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man." (1 Corinthians 11:8-9).

-->

@Sidewalker

More so, those that stand to gain advantage from perpetuating the myth.

Yep, as I stated Jesus/Joshua/Yeshua is/was a character recorded in historical narratives and we know roughly where he was said to have lived, there's no denying that.

And that's about all one can say for certain.

And yep 1632, that's the point I try to get across. All is made up after the event.

But you didn’t just say “it is to me” you said “Does that really need explaining?” As if it’s such an objective common sense notion that the question shouldn’t even be asked in the first place meaning you expected that notion from me, but that expectation should be in regards to objective facts not subjective opinions, subjective opinions have nothing to do with common sense.

- On the contrary.

--> @Shila

The concept of M.A.D. does not apply here because Ukraine is not a nuclear equipped country. 

Correct, which makes Zelensky's campaign to invade Russia the most idiotic thing ever since Napoleon.

Qǐ lái! Bú yuàn zuò nú lì de rén men!

Bǎ wǒ men de xuè ròu,

     zhù chéng wǒ men xīn de cháng chéng!

--> @Barney

Thanks Barny I really needed that Monty Python vid. Great !!!

--> @Shila

I don't really see the point of explaining my username to you since you obviously have a good idea of what it means already, and are simply waiting to ridicule me for one thing or another. 

But you seem like the stubborn type so I'll go ahead. 

Username: Bibliobibulimaniac

Bibliobibuli can loosely be translated as 'drunk on books' which allows you to infer that I am a book lover. 

Maniac, well I think you know what that means. If not, well, I'm not surprised. 

I honestly don't see the problem, and have no energy to argue further with you. 

If you continue this you are looking for a fight, which is silly. If you want to be silly, go ahead. Just don't expect the drunk on books maniac to join. 

Your analogy is not syllogistic because the hypothetical officer has not committed a serious crime, whereas the real offender has.

I'd be far more sympathetic if the offender hadn't committed a serious crime and was merely seeking help. 

The difference is the crime, not the mental illness.

--> @Greyparrot

Do Ukrainians feel threaten by Putin talking nuclear strikes? Does NATO or any one else, feel and then  fear Putins rehtoric of nuclear strikes on  Ukraine?

If a police officer ---put in place Ukrainians--  feels threaten of bodily harm, or worse, are they  allowed to use lethal force? ---see not guilty verdict in current events----.

I guess the differrence is that Ukrainians are not police officers, so they have no right to use lethal weapons or nuclear missiles, just because they feel threatened by nuclear attack.

Putin initiated the violent conflict, and initiated nuclear threats.  Why do that? Does he feel back into a corner for his country or just his ego, and is desperate to save face by initiating nuclear option?

Fight fire with fire, fight nuclear threat with nuclear threat? Ukrainians do not have nuclear missiles, so they cant offer any nuclear threat, so there asking some one else to offer the nuclear threat?

--> @Shila

Yep, I know what albinism is. Though I still don't know what you are trying to say, because as I stated previously, albinism affects people of all racial sub-groups.

Whites set the standards for beauty.

We all set our own standards for what we find appealing in others, relative to how we discriminate, relative to conditioning,

Socially contrived standards are generally marketing tools, and how we market health and appearance is ever changing relative to social change.

So lighter skinned people are likely to have once set standards relative to social conditions and social conditioning, just as darker skinned people would have done the same in a separate social environment.

Social interaction between sub-groups defined by skin tone has moved on a tad, though for sure there are still places where this will be significantly less so.

Species evolution is slow and might be getting less slow, relative to concurrent technological advances, and if we are being realistic, we shouldn't really expect any more or any less.

In evolutionary terms, blaming lighter skinned people for everything, has always been a counter-intuitive compliment dressed up as criticism.

And so, in a few thousand years, the generally swarthy hominid occupants of planet Earth might look back and stick two fingers up at their lighter skinned predecessors, but their lighter skinned predecessors will not care because they will all have long since died. 

Nonetheless the generally swarthy will not be able to deny their genetic inheritance. 

And presumably albinism will still occur.

And hopefully we will have evolved to become more tolerant. (Yep, seems like a big ask)

One person who strongly believes in the above principle is Peter Singer, an Australian philosopher who now teaches at Princeton. Singer believes our intuitions are what lead us astray in “The Footbridge Case” not our principles and we should ignore our intuitions or change them. 

Singer believes we should always act so as to bring about the best consequences overall and so we should get over our reluctance to push the fairly large person and do the right thing: save the five workmen further down the tracks by sacrificing the one. 

Singer’s explanation why we are misled and hesitate to do the right thing in “The Footbridge Case” is due to fact that we’re asked to put our bare hands on another human being and shove that person to his death. We should always, Singer believes, “save five by sacrificing one” but because we are asked to do something that produces an intense emotional response, that very intense emotional response gets in the way of our capacity to think clearly and rationally about the problem.

Singer acknowledges that there are differences in the two cases. He agrees that our immediate intuitive responses upon hearing each case, the original Trolley case and the Footbridge case, point in different directions. In the first case we’re ready to sacrifice one to save five, in the Footbridge case, we are not. But Singer believes the examples simply reveal that we should revise or bracket our intuitions and act rationally.

-->

@Shila

Yes, I can. It is related to the word bibliophilia which is the love of books or reading. Don't see why this is a problem.

RationalMadman: Joe Biden has a decades-long habit of making overtly racist remarks, taking discriminatory positions and cavorting with known racists—things that would get anyone to his political right tossed out of polite society. But being on the left must make it okay.

Just a few days ago, while lamenting the difficulty in convincing many Latinos and blacks to take the COVID vaccine, he committed a series of racially charged blunders that barely registered in the corporate media’s consciousness.

Biden white-splained that Latinos in America resist vaccinations because “they’re worried that they’ll be vaccinated and deported.”

This statement makes the insane assumption that all Latinos present in this country are illegal aliens subject to expulsion. It never occurred to Biden that more than 60 million Latinos are actually American citizens, according to recent census figures.

While insulting such a sizable segment of our population, Biden actually went further. He referred to this group of people as “Latinx,” which is a term invented by woke academics who objected to gender-specific words in the Spanish language.

Just 3% of Latinos use “Latinx” to describe themselves and less than a quarter have even heard of the term, according to the Pew Research Center. Many find it to be an offensive bastardization of the Spanish language.

Here, Biden is almost certainly unaware of what he’s saying and has simply repeated what a liberal on his staff has instructed him to say. But there are plenty of examples where Biden should not receive the benefit of the doubt.

In the same breath as his “Latinx” comment, Biden lectured about the fears that blacks may have of the vaccine, attempting to point to historically shameful episodes when they were subjected to inhumane medical experiments.

“They are used to being experimented on—the Tuskegee Airmen and others,” Biden said.

In this, he confused legendary World War II fighter pilots with a long, notorious governmental study of syphilis among

black men—the Tuskegee Experiment.

It does not take much effort to imagine the media’s reaction if Donald Trump had mangled so many racial issues in one press conference.

Examples dating back to his campaign for president (and earlier) abound.

On Charlamagne Tha God’s popular morning radio show in May 2020, Biden infamously asserted to the largely black audience that if they were unsure of whether to vote for him or Trump, then “you ain’t black!”

Then in August 2020, Biden told a gathering of black and Hispanic journalists that “unlike the African American community, with notable exceptions, the Latino community is an incredibly diverse community with incredibly different attitudes about different things.”

Taken together, these statements clearly suggest that Biden believes all black people think alike.

In the same interview, responding to a question on whether he had taken a cognitive test, Biden angrily fired back with the suggestion that the black reporter was a drug addict.

“That’s like saying you . . . before you got in this program, you’re take [sic] a test whether you’re taking cocaine or not,” Biden said. “What do you think? Huh? Are you a junkie?”

Put these words into Mitch McConnell’s mouth and try to envision how long he’d be allowed to remain in the Senate, let alone in a leadership position.

But Biden has been getting away with this for years.

In 2010, he warmly eulogized Sen. Robert Byrd, a former Exalted Cyclops in the Ku Klux Klan, saying he was “one of my mentors” and that “the Senate is a lesser place for his going.”

In 2007, he referred to Barack Obama as “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean.”

In 2006, he said, “You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent.”

Way back in 1977, he said that forced busing to desegregate schools would cause his children to “grow up in a racial jungle.”

Of course, he infamously worked with segregationist senators to oppose that mandatory busing, which decades later led to the strongest moment in Kamala Harris’s campaign for president, when she blasted him as having personally impacted her as a young girl.

And over the course of his entire career, he had kind words to say about staunchly segregationist senators.

Any one of these statements or episodes would have been enough to sink the political career of any conservative in Washington, D.C., against whom tenuous accusations of racism are commonplace and occur almost daily.

But Joe Biden, who has a lifetime of them, is now president of the United States. On some days and in some ways, it must be good to be on the left.

https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/commentary/bidens-history-getting-away-racist-remarks

Women punching the f**k out of each other and men getting excited by it.

Once again I blame testosterone.

-> @Shila

And what are police officers and society doing to help cops be seen as friendly protectors that have a code in the eyes of the predominantly black communities in US?

That, TWS, is the real root cause and real solution.

What an ass-backwards and wrong way of framing the situation lol.

The correct question is this: what are the civilians doing to get shot? In this case, it appears to be grabbing the gun/taser of an officer. It shouldn't be up to the officers and "society" (whatever that means) to make that situation PR friendly to the black community. It should be up to the people not to commit the serious crime in the first place. 

The crime is the real root cause, and the real solution is prosecuting criminals. 

Which is exactly what the officer did not do when he shot Pamela. She was not a criminal, she had some mental issues.

LOL what, is the officer going to try and arrest her, in order for her to stand before a judge, whilst he's being tased and shot at? xD

Sometimes, prosecution happens in real time, if you're attempting to harm a police officer.

I'm glad they found the cure for this dangerous, wild criminal's mental illness: a 9mm to the dome.

--> @Avery

Men tend to be more attracted to more neonotenous traits in women, such as larger eyes and just in general, youthful features. I can't remember where I read it, and I can't seem to find it now. Although most men do see strong bone structures as masculine. A woman can have high cheekbones and still look feminine. She can even have a jawline and look feminine. It's just harder to pull it off on average, it seems. A weak chin does not necessarily make a girl look more attractive than a well-developed one, but it certainly does not make her look more masculine to have a weak chin. A weak chin on a man makes him look more feminine on average. Which just means a woman can get away with having a weak chin or a negative canthal tilt easier than a man can, as it doesn't change their sexual dimorphism profile.

-->

@Shila

.

Shila, is now taking over in being the #1 Bible fool over Tradesecret's former position,

YOUR CONTINUED BIBLICAL IGNORANT QUOTE IN YOUR POST #69: "You are quoting verses that came from Paul. Paul was not a disciple of Jesus nor did he meet or follow Jesus like the other disciples did."

What part of this very simple biblical syllogism don't you understand, you inept Bible fool?

THE BIBLE STATES THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD IN JESUS:  “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” (1 Timothy 2:5)

JESUS IS THE SERIAL KILLER YAHWEH GOD INCARNATE, THE ONE GOD: “Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours."

THEREFORE, JESUS AS THE ONE GOD WITHIN THE SCRIPTURES, INSPIRED EVERY WORD WRITTEN PERTAINING TO THE 2ND CLASS WOMAN:  “And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God.” (1 Thessalonians 2:13)

Paul spoke in the inspired words of Jesus as being God in 1 Thessalonians 2:13, understood?  Are you calling the above biblical syllogism a LIE?!  If so, where do you get the authority to usurp Jesus' true words He gave to Paul?!  Tell us, is  your blatant Bible stupidity natural, or do you have to practice it daily? LOL!

Jesus H. Christ, and I thought Tradesecret was bible stupid, whereas you take the cake hasds down!

--> @Yassine

-->

@Shila

The one you are responded to titled: The beauties of Islam.

- The subject thus being...?

According to Best.Korea the author of this thread:

So yeah, that is the beauty of islam.

The worlds fastest growing cult islam has many other beauties too:

1) praying every day for Allah not to punish you

2) getting circumcised

3) living in fear

4) living life thinking you are an insignificant dust

5) being told to sacrifice animals to Allah

6) being told that all non muslims are evil

So basically, if you like this kind of stuff, join islam. I am not gonna stop you because my belief in self-determination doesnt allow me to decide about your life for you.

--> @Shila

But Jesus clarifies the relationship between the Father and him.

John 10:30 I and the Father are one.

John 14:7 If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”

How does that “clarify” it, what is the relationship, on face value the statements are conflicting.

-> @Shila

No i’m saying the elderly sometimes go into a child like mental state.

American children are used to seeing people in masks. In fact they were raised to accept people wearing masks as entertainment. It started with the cowboy bandits, then bank robbers and KKK.

That’s what this reminded me of. 

It does in their mind, but reality says otherwise, at least according to my mind and I'm willing to bet yours.

The fact that a statement is objectively true does not mean every person will believe it.

-->

@Shila

The one you are responded to titled: The beauties of Islam.

- The subject thus being...?

-> @Shila

Shila or Harikrish,

If you had taken the time to read my posts - which your comment seems to refute. 

I have never changed genders.   My gender remains the same as it was the day I was born.https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/2106/post-links/351132

I did indicate however that my profile page has changed a lot. And the reason I changed that was due in part to external pressures inter alia. 

My depravity -which incidentally is COMMON to all people is total depravity.  It is what flows from the original sin, the fall of man. 

In that sense, you and I and Stephen are all born depraved. 

--> @BrotherD.Thomas

need a decoder ring, or addendums to be able to read them in their alleged true form?

What languages are the Bible written in? It wasn't English. That's why there hundreds of TRANSLATIONS! They all differ based on INTERPRETATIONS of the Greek.

Honestly I would laugh at this troll account but some people actually believe the tripe you're joking about.

--> @zedvictor4

Jesus, fictional, mythical or otherwise is undeniably a historically recorded character.

Whether the accounts of his life and activities are vaguely true or not, is impossible to know.

Though I would suggest that most interpretations are embellished and exaggerated, such that we can only regard the biblical tales as myth or fantasy. 

Someone as disturbingly radical as Christ, as powerful in actions, presence, and legacy as he was, could only be expected to incite widely varying interpretations of his life.

He is the most written about person in history, the only written evidence comes from Christian sources, but they wrote about Him and there is no reason to think there was some kind of conspiracy to lie about His existence.   You could likewise argue that Thales, Pythagoras and Socrates never existed because the only evidence we have was what other’s wrote about them, and since all the sources were Greek, maybe they made it up, but why would you?  Just because written sources from antiquity necessarily come down to us from the culture that they existed in, is no reason to doubt them. 

 

To claim that the most influential person in history never existed would be an extraordinary claim which would require extraordinary evidence, and there is none. 

The same historical evidence that He existed, also states that he explicitly denied being God.

Matthew 7:21

"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the  kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.”

 

Matthew 24:36

"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only.”

 

Mark 10:18

And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.”

 

Mark 13:32

"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”

 

Luke 22:42

saying, "Father, if it is Your will, take this cup away from Me; nevertheless not My will, but Yours, be done."

 

John 4:34

Jesus said to them, "My food is to do the will of him who sent me, and to accomplish his work.”

 

John 5:30

"I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me.”

 

John 6:38

"For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.”

 

John 7:16

Jesus answered them and said, "My doctrine is not Mine, but His who sent Me.”

 

John 8:42

Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.”

 

John 8:50

“And I do not seek My own glory; there is One who seeks and judges.”

 

John 12:49

"For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak.”

 

John 14:24

"He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me.”

-> @Shila

Yes, I certainly accept the case for the historical Jesus character, first mentioned as such, sometime around the 12th century.

One couldn't really avoid it, as one was force fed Jesus' tales throughout one's early school years.

Fortunately, my father was a devout atheist and kept me on the straight and narrow.

-> @zedvictor4

Jesus, fictional, mythical or otherwise is undeniably a historically recorded character.

Whether the accounts of his life and activities are vaguely true or not, is impossible to know.

Though I would suggest that most interpretations are embellished and exaggerated, such that we can only regard the biblical tales as myth or fantasy. 

Someone as disturbingly radical as Christ, as powerful in actions, presence, and legacy as he was, could only be expected to incite widely varying interpretations of his life.

--> @Shila

.

Shila, is now taking over in being the #1 Bible fool over Tradesecret's former position,

Dear, I am truly sorry, but as I stated before, Jesus wanted me to make you an example of being one of the most Bible stupid pseudo-christians that has ever frequented  this DEBATEART Religion Forum, bar none!

Shila dear, do you want to call Jesus' inspired words above towards demeaning women as LIES?  Then you dig yourself deeper into the hole you have provided for yourself because of the following JESUS INSPIRED passages: 

YOUR BIBLE IGNORANT QUOTE TO MY QUOTE ABOVE IN YOUR POST #39: "I checked my red letter Bible. None of the quotes above came from Jesus. Jesus was never an authority on women. Even at 30 he remained single. But hung around with 12 men. One lied to him the other betrayed him."

Simply put with your quote above in saying that Jesus did not say the passages relative to the 2nd class inferior woman, your biblical ignorance has no bounds because of the following biblical axioms:

THE BIBLE STATES THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD IN JESUS:  “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” (1 Timothy 2:5)

JESUS IS THE SERIAL KILLER YAHWEH GOD INCARNATE, THE ONE GOD: “Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours."

THEREFORE, JESUS AS THE ONE GOD WITHIN THE SCRIPTURES, INSPIRED EVERY WORD WRITTEN PERTAINING TO THE 2ND CLASS WOMAN:  “And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God.” (1 Thessalonians 2:13)

Shila, if I can be frank, and you can remain Shila, we don't know in how much biblical embarrassment you can take within your own thread, therefore, Jesus and I will still have to continue to show your outright Bible stupidity ad infinitum at your continued embarrassing expense, sorry dear.  :(

IS THERE ANOTHER PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN WOMAN THAT IS AS DUMBFOUNDED OF THE BIBLE AS "SHILA" IS SHOWN TO BE...?

--> @Shila

.

Shila, is now taking over in being the #1 Bible fool over Tradesecret's former position,

In addressing your double-speak and complete Bible runaway responses in your ever so embarrassing post #39, you do not have the wherewithal to understand in just how Bible stupid you truly are!  Look at your pathetic responses to actual Biblical axioms in said post, where you continue to repeat yourself over and over with your child-like assumed logical responses, how embarrassing can you get?!  

You're an embarrassment to Christianity and this prestigious Religion Forum, and don't think that Jesus is not watching you perform your Satanic acts that you will pay for upon Judgment Day for sure!  (Hebrews 4:13) 

NEXT BIBLICALLY INFERIOR WOMAN LIKE "SHILA" THAT GOES DIRECTLY AGAINST JESUS' TRUELY INSPIRED WORDS REGARDING THE SECOND-CLASS WOMAN WILL BE ...?

--> @Shila

Why are you talking about yourself in third person? 

Is this a Seinfeld episode?

--> @Shila @Tradesecret

.

SHILA, the Bible fool that is vying to take over Tradesecret’s position as being the #1 Bible fool at DEBATEART Religion Forum,

In addressing your ever so weak post #39:

JESUS' INSPIRED WORDS STATED:  “Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor." (1 Timothy 2:11-14)

Your Bible inept response to the passage above in your weak post #39 was: “It is logical God would not want Adam’s rib (Eve) to be smarter than Adam.

But remember Eve ate the fruit of knowledge first and then offered it to Adam so he would not be dumber than her.”

WRONG! What has your child-like response relative to 1 Timothy 2:11-14 have to do with the biblical axiom that you are an inferior woman that is NOT to teach or exercise the authority over man as you are embarrassingly doing in your pathetic thread, but where you are only to remain QUIET as Jesus proposes in said passage?!  Huh?

Relative to your continued Bible stupidity, yes, it was Eve that ate from the Tree of Knowledge FIRST, where Jesus, as Yahweh God incarnate, had forbidden Adam and Eve to eat from this tree, remember Bible inept fool?

“And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.” (1 Timothy 2:14)

Therefore, Eve started Original Sin, thankyouverymuch, and man has been paying for Eve going against Jesus’ command ever since, understood Bible stupid fool?  Therefore, since Eve was the transgressor, Jesus punished her with the following: To the woman he said, "I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." (Genesis 3:16) 

In the Creation narrative, this is where it started that the woman is looked down upon in the Bible, and became a second class citizen to this day,  period!

As I have told you before many times, take your insidious “dog and pony show” to a Children’s Christian Forum where you belong because of your complete Bible ignorance!  In doing so, this will save  you from further embarrassment within this esteemed Religion Forum, understood you complete Bible stupid fool?!

NEXT?