Total posts: 8,861
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
My position changes when it needs to.
Yes it has been have noticed. Especially when on the backfoot.
I am not God so I do change.
You were created in your gods image and god does change his mind, depending on which unreliable biblical source you choose to accept as true.
Are you suggesting that you never have a need to adapt and learn
Not when It comes to these scriptures I don't. After all my initial beliefs about them, I still stand by my over all opinion that - in the New Testament in particular- these scriptures are telling another story of a violent struggle for power among the many religious sects and factions.. I believe the story is there to be wheedled out from the many clues that betray the accepted story of man born of a virgin among straw and cows in a shed to became the messiah of the Jews / saviour of Christendom .
or do you already know everything?
If you are talking about the scriptures, I believe I know more about them than you ever will, because you are blinded by your faith which renders you incapable of learning anything about these scriptures that are contrary to your indoctrination.
Other than that, No, I don't know everything, have never claimed to know everything and am glad that I do not know everything.
What I believe know about the scriptures is frightening enough.
You won't forget this will you? >.#10
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Brother. I am blocked by the author FAUXLAW.
fauxlaw, who has me on Block, wrote::#4
Yes, it contains numerous contradictions. But that only means that:1. The Bible was not written by one person, and none of them were God, or even Jesus Christ.
I know a couple of good theological authors that will argue different. Here's just one for starters.
The Book That Jesus Wrote: John's Gospel by Barbara Thiering (June 15,1998). Prophessor Dr Barbara Elizabeth Thiering was an Australian historian, theologian, and Biblical exegete specialising in the origins of the early Christian Church. Also known for her extensive studies of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
And didn't the "finger of god" write something once?
#4 Therefore, as works of men, some contradictions are bound to, and do exist.
Indeed and the church has had over 2,000 years to admit this and correct these obvious errors.
#4 2. The Bible exists today as a transliterated, and translated volume by not-all-scholarly-individuals-as-scholarly-as-they-needed-to-be. Transliteration is only as accurate as the scribe is detail-oriented enough to be as accurate as needed to be. Translation is virtually impossible to make accurate because translation is typically a dictionary-to-dictionary comparison, And dictionaries do a notoriously poor job of teaching culture; the driver of language. Result: errors.
(a) And many of them. Rendering the whole of the scriptures unreliable as original source material. And not to be relied upon to be the "gospel truth".
#4 3. Some transcribers and translators had alternative agendas than maintaining "the Word of God" by substitution and outright deletion of text from originating texts.
(b) Indeed and these "out right deletions" simply result in half told stories littered with ambiguous statements leading to contradictions. In short it is a classical mess. On the surface at least
#4 4. Not one single book of the Old and New Testaments we have today are derived from original texts because we don't have original texts. Back to #2.
See (a) & (b) above
#4 leading to the contradictory errors5. We have to study, which is more than mere reading.
Marvellous how you admit to the bible being interpretation on top of interpretation and to being full of errors then tell us we have to study this unreliable source that is full of errors.
Do you mean that we have to study it to discover for ourselves the many hundreds of contradictory ambiguous half stories, and ambiguous statements that are withing its pages?
Having some understanding of the ancient languages helps, but, in a pinch, ask God.
Ask god and you will hear only moths farting.
Stop being so ridiculous! If we could ask god, these problematic scriptures would have been solved and ironed out millennia ago and there may not even be a need for them at all especially in the state they have come down to us it. Yet here we are, thousands of years later, arguing over which is the correct interpretation? Who has the correct interpretation out of all the splinter sects of just one religion ; Christianity.
That's why He's there after all.
Ok. Simply ask him on my behalf why he even bothered to create anything at all in the first place? That would solve a lot for me.
Then ask him what all the lucky people do for the rest of eternity once they reach the "heavenly paradise" promised by Jesus ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
If you hadn't noticed, the other self identifying Christians on this website are nowhere to be seen. What can I do but hope that they one day be united to The Church?
Yes that is puzzling I have to admit. Where are they to defend themselves and the beliefs of their respective churches?
As a rule you cannot get them to shut up. With their rewriting of the scripture and putting words into the mouths of the gospel authors characters.
Make no mistake, we Orthodox do not share faith with protestants or Roman Catholics. The type of unity that they desire with us will never happen, because they desire unity at the expense of Truth.
Can you expand on that in Bold? Are you saying they lie about the scriptures and produce false/lying interpretations for their own reasons?
Their type of ecumenism is misguided.
In what way?
And all the rest of the multitudes of ever splintering sects eat the crumbs off the table of the true church.
I will take that to mean that all "the rest of the multitudes of sects" only have snippets of the "true church"? Correct me if I am wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
“… I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.” — Genesis 32:30
“No man hath seen God at any time…”– John 1:18
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
“… with God all things are possible.” — Matthew 19:26
“…The LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.” — Judges 1:19
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
“The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father…” — Ezekiel 18:20
“I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation…” — Exodus 20:5
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Seriously, why do you remain on this forum, is it because you have a sexual fetish of being made the Bible fool?
Certainly smacks of masochism, Brother. I must say. And s/he being a Reverend too?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
Does the Bible Conntradict Itself?
Take your pick.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
last paragraph #40 the Reverend Tradesecret wrote: This is why David could not be the messiah and why the son of David, Solomon could not either.rosends replied: #42 Except that both David and Solomon WERE messiahs! The term "messiah" is just the anglicized "mashiach" -- one who was anointed. Both the high priest and the king were anointed (with one exception, unimportant right now) so there have been many "messiahs" in that there have been many anointed people. The future messiah, in Jewish thought, will be a king of the Davidic line and he will be anointed as such. He will not be a priest.
Over to you Reverend>
I am sure you can wriggle out of this little dilemma with all of your qualifications as a Criminal lawyer not to mention in your religious capacities as both a qualified Pastor & Chaplin.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Stop it! You in your own admission simply point blank refuse to answer simple yes or no questions. They may appear to be "tongue in cheek" to you, but I ask questions about these unreliable ambiguous scriptures because I want them answering by the likes of YOU, YOU that claims to be qualified to answer them in the capacity as both Chaplin and Pastor! Reverend!!!!!
I don't ask questions for the fun of asking them; I have perfectly good reasons for asking the questions that I do ask. Such as here where you didn't take too long to put on your uncalled for sarcasm after I politely asked you not to turn a new thread into an argument but to leave if you didn't have an answer #1 <<<<<<<<<<<<< I asked this question because I have reason to believe John did perform other functions, I simply cannot prove it. That is another thing I always do, I admit I cannot prove or have no evidence for a claims I may make. Unlike you on this thread here>>>https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4736-then-why-baptize-him where I am still waiting for your " very clear biblical evidence" that Jesus was a king and anointed as such.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I only ask you do me the same curtesy. Not the respect - but the good faith that I am not avoiding or running away from questions.
I will go over all my threads and remind you of questions that have gone unanswered by you, when I have the time. Here is the most recent #1 Added10.28.20 10:56AM Three days ago. And is all you manged here was a snotty reply without addressing the question. NINE post later#9 Tradesecret
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
My opening post was this. God is not supernatural. God can do whatever is in accord with his own natural order and that would be natural. Jesus, however when he was on the this planet, appeared as man, as indeed I have said on numerous occasions. He did not come to prove he was God or divine.
I love it how you can make Jesus not be god when it suites you to do so. But even this doesn't fit the narrative does it. Because if, as only you claim, he was man, then he was a "man" that certainly did some "supernatural things, wasn't he?
Jesus did nothing of his own accord, all he said and all he did was empowered by both the Father and the Holy Spirit.
These would be "supernatural things performed by a "man"., and also the "father and the spirit", when it seem to suite you.
[A] The miracles that occurred - healing the sick, raising the dead, miracles, were all works of the Holy Spirit.
And you can prove that can you?
As humans we look at Jesus and think supernatural.
That's correct. We do. For a "man" to walk on water would be /is ,supernatural. Please do not repeat `possessed by Father and the Holy Spirit until you have proven this to be the case'.
The rest of you speculations and assumptions can only be addressed once you have proven [A] above.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
You seem to have the answers - tell us - don't leave us in suspense.
No. I have questions and you keep avoiding them or you simply do not know of any other function John may served , which is it?
Did John for instance cure any lepers? Did he walk on water? Did he feed a multitude with just a fish/s and a few loaves of bread?
Or should we just assume that he did all the things that Jesus went on to do?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Now is all you have to do is show me where before10.20.20 10:52PM you asked me for evidence that all kings of Israel were called Sons of God.Here is one. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3557/post-links/193292. Please notice the time stamp. 08.16.20 12:42AM
Then I stand corrected and apologise. You had indeed asked my to prove my claim.
But somehow - you just conveniently say you did not eve recall it. LOL!
Which is true. And when I was reminded , I dedicated a whole new thread to the subject. Any news on the thread showing us your god in a good light?
I will continue to look for the others.
Please do. And I will do like- wise. Should I make a list of questions that have gone unanswered by you and post them on the open forum? Or is that against the rules?
Again. I apologise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Stephen,But WAIT! Tradesecret, aka, He/She, stipulated the term of "cursing" in the passage in question, as just that, cursing in its true meaning and NOT as He/She has now changed the term to murdering the parents in the link below 12 paragraphs down:Seriously, can you believe the people that can actually follow He/She's sermons, where their lack of Bible intellect has to be equal to He/She's lack of intellect regarding the scriptures to be able to "think" they are actually getting the TRUE word of the serial killer Jesus the Christ from He/She, Tradesecret!He/She, aka, Tradesecret, certainly takes the position to Satanically REWRITING the Bible ad infinitum, but at He/She's expense upon Judgement Day, praise Jesus' revenge!
What can one say Brother? As shown in the case of the vile verse spoken by your Jesus /god (that loves us and forgives us our sins) in Leviticus 20:9 the Reverend Tradesecrete attempts to turn the "crime" of simply cursing ones parents into a crime that deserved of a capitol sentence by telling us that "curse" in this sense means to "to threaten to kill ones parents" #26 . This is most certainly a classical rewrite of the scriptures by one attempting to justify the violence and intolerance of your god. It is a classic case of forcing the "crime" to fit such an unjust punishment. I do feel for her/his theological "students".
I am still eagerly awaiting a reply to my question here . #4
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Stephen,With you bringing up the biblical axiom that children that curse their parents should be murdered, and their blood shall be upon them, making this a physical action and not some pseudo-christian metaphorical reference, we can remember when Tradesecret agreed with this godly passage!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
at this point tradesecret is just playing word games.
That will be Reverend Tradesecrete, n8nrgmi.
And although s/he is absolutely clueless when it comes to the actual words in the actual scriptures themselves and what they actually state, s/he has a penchant for reinterpreting and redefining biblical words and everyday words in general to suit her/his narrative.
A most recent example would be on another of your own threads I believe where the Reverend Tradesecrete tells us that to "Curse ones parents"Leviticus 20:9"
actually means "to threaten to kill ones parents" #26
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
does the bible require corporal punishment of children?
Although not "corporal" I don't think it can get more major than this for committing something so minor.
"'Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. Because they have cursed their father or mother, their blood will be on their own head".Leviticus 20:9
Stand by to be told that in this instance ,"curse" actually means to kill ones parents. here; paragraph starting with the word , "Secondly", #26 This will be the Christian trying to make the "crime" fit the unbalanced punishment and god being "justified in killing infants" last paragraph here>>#14
Created:
-->
@Juice
Scientists are not on your side, you've placed them on your side.Except for Richard Dawkins. Except for Charles Darwins. Except for Christopher Hitchens. Except for Sam Harris. Except for Stephen Hawking. Except for Michel Houellebecq. Except for Peter Singer.
I think the late and great American astronomer, planetary scientist, cosmologist, astrophysicist, astrobiologist, author, poet and science communicator, Carl Sagan more than deserves a place in your hall of fame, to be honest, Juice.
You [Christians] believe in a man who was born of a virgin mother, stabbed to death, buried and then bought back to life by his father who is also himself. Sounds like a joke.
Or a trick?
"This myth of Christ has served us well" were the words said to have been uttered by Pope Leo X. But no matter who said them they were on the money as far as the New Testaments version of the life of Christ was concerned.
you're not the superior thinker here, you've assumed yourself to be.I am. I am the superior thinker. That is exactly what I am. You know why? Because I don't ignore millions of years worth of evolutionary science. Because I am not blind to facts. Because I believe scientific papers which have been examined endlessly. Because I believe astronomers with their billion dollar telescopes. Because I believe things which can and have been testified. While you believe in a musty old book written by peasants. Here are some versus for you to mutter in your morning pray.Judges 19:23-2423 The owner of the house went outside and said to them, “No, my friends, don’t be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don’t do this outrageous thing.24 Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But as for this man, don’t do such an outrageous thing.”25 But the men would not listen to him. So the man took his concubine (wife, women who lives with a male) and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go.26 At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight.27 When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold.28 He said to her, “Get up; let’s go.” But there was no answer (dead). Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home.I particularly likes this one as God comes in and saves the poor girl from what would be an unimaginably horrific experience. I love how God loves this girl. I love how God taught these men a lesson. I love how God protected this girl at a time of darkness.Please, just please. Stop. Stop this. Put the bible down.
Now here I would suggest completely the opposite. People that are interested in Christian "religion" should pick up these scriptures and discover themselves the -
"little slave encouraging, jealous and proud of it; petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak who is a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully". That you have discovered.
Judges 19:23-2424 Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish.
And what a bloody nice god fearing loyal family man, the father was , eh? I have to wonder what the likes of EtrnlVw would have to say to defend the actions of this fkn vile bstrd of a father? I am sure it will start with something to do with your not understanding the "context". Lets see.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
last paragraph #40 the Reverend Tradesecret wrote: This is why David could not be the messiah and why the son of David, Solomon could not either.rosends replied: #42 Except that both David and Solomon WERE messiahs! The term "messiah" is just the anglicized "mashiach" -- one who was anointed. Both the high priest and the king were anointed (with one exception, unimportant right now) so there have been many "messiahs" in that there have been many anointed people. The future messiah, in Jewish thought, will be a king of the Davidic line and he will be anointed as such. He will not be a priest.
Over to you Reverend>
I am sure you can wriggle out of this little dilemma with all of your qualifications as a Criminal lawyer not to mention in your religious capacities as both a qualified Pastor & Chaplin.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
God is God. He is not supernatural and does nothing that is supernatural.
supernatural
/ˌsuːpəˈnatʃ(ə)r(ə)l/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
- (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."a supernatural being"
Are you suggesting then that the so called "miracles" performed by Jesus were not supernatural? Well good for you if you are Reverend Tradesecrete, because I believe exactly the same.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Do you need anything else?
Maybe I should have asked `besides the fkn obvious of being , born, sleeping, eating shiting' : what other function did John - as "the greatest prophet that ever lived" have besides "preparing the way" and cleans people of their sins? OH! and having his head removed?
I am going to assume that - like the very much qualified Reverend Tradesecrete - you don't know of any other function that John may served , Intelligence_06. But please correct me if I am wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
My church wrote the scriptures and compiled them.
That is interesting to me , Mopac. It really is. So correct me If I am wrong, but you are saying that you / your church have the only true interpretation of the New Testament?
As the creed states, "One holy catholic and apostolic church". There is no such thing as a Christian outside the church. Rather, these are simply the congregations of heretics.
Well I am sure some "other type" calling themselves Christian will be long shortly to contradict and challenge and correct you on that bold statement. I shall keep a close eye on this thread from now on.
It is our book to interpret.
So you keep insisting on repeating, but I see very little evidence of this. I only hear your arrogant lips flapping claiming a monopoly on all tings Christian.
It is certainly not the property of the heretics.
From the day your church started ramming their interpretation of the scriptures down the throats of infant school children they became the property of any one that cared enough to claim them as their own.
It is also certainly not yours to interpret.
If I own a copy of these scriptures the YOU have accepted to be the true account of the Birth, Life and Death of the Christ then the words there in are mine to interpret as I please and you have the same right to correct my interpretation as much as I have yours.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Which goes to show, that no one actually takes it that seriously.
Give over , Vic. It is almost an impossibility to take it serious in the way it has come down to us. I mean, we are told to give our worldly goods to the "poor" yet are continuously reminded by Christians and the scriptures that "The end of all things is near" 1 Peter 4:7 . So I ask myself, what is the point of giving anything at all to the poor or any one if they may not live to reap the benefits of what I give them.
The Brother once again has pointed clearly to BIBLICAL axioms that should be addressed , but don't expect any Christian to take this on. Not unless you want to hear the usual mantras playing down these vile verses such "misunderstanding, out of context, misinterpretation, or simply lying about its meaning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
The primary purpose of prophecy is to cause people to an ethical response to what they are hearing. John's preaching was to announce not just that the messiah was coming - but that he was imminent.Not just at some unknown time in the future - but that his coming was going to be the very next event on God's calendar. And his job therefore was to prepare people for the messiah's coming.
Like I have said. All the expected Messiahs "were imminent" especially when Israel was under occupation with a puppet king and priesthood installed.. This is a fact that is confirmed by many scholars many times including by your own country woman Professor Dr Barbara Thiering. And I will skip the fact that Jesus mission actually failed as the expected messiah.
So John's so called "prophesy", wasn't that unique at all.
Keeping in mind that even John - "the greatest prophet that ever lived" - himself had serious doubt Jesus after his arrest.
Jesus Did Not Fulfill the Messianic Prophecies
One of the central themes of biblical prophecy is the promise of a future age of perfection characterized by universal peace and recognition of God. (Isaiah 2:1-4, 32:15-18, 60:15-18; Zephaniah 3:9; Hosea 2:20-22; Amos 9:13-15; Micah 4:1-4; Zechariah 8:23, 14:9; Jeremiah 31:33-34)
And to this day, Israel is still expecting a messiah that will reunite all the lost tribes.
But does any of this have anything to do with the reason and theme for this thread? NO.
Hence he preached repentance.
Again this is not unique to John.
John' job or purpose was unlike any of the other prophets - his was to usher in the king of kings - the messiah.
See above and we are drifting from the point of the thread.
John's very presence indicated the Messiah was imminent. I can think of no other greater role for a prophet - can you?
Again , see above. Even John - the greatest prophet that ever lived - doubted Jesus after his arrest and Jesus failed at his mission if ever he was indeed the Messiah that John wailed about .
I can think of no other greater role for a prophet - can you? [......................]Sorry that was a question - and I know how you love to dodge them.
Didn't take you long to start an uncalled for argument, did it. If that's the way you want to go, its fine by me.
So I'll remind you first: what John did wasn't unique in any way at all. Even John doubted Jesus . Jesus failed miserably at his mission of Messiah as any good Jew will attest.
Second: As to your question " I can think of no other greater role for a prophet - can you?" John denied he was a prophet not to mention doubted Jesus himself , was confused as to who should be baptising whom and Jesus' mission as an expected Jewish Messiah failed as many expected Messiahs before him had failed with Judas Maccabeus being just one of many. You really don't know anything do you?
THIRD: And this thread is not about Jesus , it is about whether there was more to John's function than preparing the way, crying for people to repent and baptising ?
You don't know do you. Why the fk am I not surprised.
And I notice you have avoided the questions above completely and turned MY thread into a speech no one asked for.
Here it is again:
Was John's sole message and function simply to "prepare the way" and cleans people of their sins? Or did he have other meaningful functions? Did he perform any of the "miraculous " deeds that Jesus went on to perform?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Stephen, you are so delightfully clever. May we all worship the very ground you walk on.
I am cleverer that you will ever live to be, Reverend. And If I were ever to be worshipped or revered , I would hope it would be on my own merit and honest a god, hard researched for years of dedication to debunking these unreliable and ambiguous scriptures as they presented to us in the NT. And not the fake merit and false that you have awarded yourself.
In the original post about Jesus' baptism, I addressed the question of why Jesus was baptized despite the fact that he did not sin.
You did , with assumptions and speculation and stuff made up on the hoof. You even related it to circumspection.. But I asked you where was this "very clear BIBLICAL evidence" that you say is in the bible? You disappeared and well before the Brother came back from his break. So why don't you go back to the relevant thread and pick it up from there.>>>> #42 Stephen
You took a very long time to get this topic despite me asking you - you just said "I don't recall it" suggesting by implication, had not.
The first time you challenged me for evidence for my Sons of God claim was when you referred it to me here ON SOMEONE ELSES THREAD AND NEVER BEFORE!! HERE>>>>>#21
I then created a thread especially for you.
And the term I used were exactly these words " I don't ever remember being asked to "prove" this claim/ my claim before , but still here we are." #1
And wrote this because you used the words " "You have still to produce ...... #21 Tradesecret So simply look at the time stamps.
AND I clued you in on that very thread that the whole of Israel were called the sons of god BY GOD and with BIBLICAL evidence. When I wrote this>>
"Oh and just to leave you with something to ponder, the whole nation of IS-RA-EL was gods "son". And oddly he also called them His "first born". I told you, you simply do not understand your own fkn scriptures. "Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my firstborn" Why do I feel a biblical re-write coming on".#22 Stephen Added10.21.20 08:06AM
Now is all you have to do is show me where before10.20.20 10:52PM you asked me for evidence that all kings of Israel were called Sons of God.
why have you side-stepped Rosends question to you?
I didn't notice any questions from Rosends. maybe he can repeat them for me.
Mock me all you like - as you will no doubt do - that is your area of expertise - ad hominen attacks.
I don't believe I have "mocked you" ( as much as you deserve to be) .. I have though, shown you for the biblical ignorant fake you are, Reverend. And is all your response is , is to play victim.
You won't for get now will you >>> go back to the relevant thread and pick it up from there.>>>> #42 Stephen
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
A lawyer., a Pastor - a Chaplain - a Teacher - a Lecturer - and a Chimera. Qualified in the art of the use of double standards, bible ignorance and out right lying and the 100 meter sprint..
The Lord must be pleased.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
Look at the double standard here.
The thing here is that on this thread https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4736-then-why-baptize-him the Reverend Tradesecrete claims that the evidence for Jesus being anointed a king (among other things) is in the bible.
Yet, I disagree with you in respect of Jesus' ordination because I take the view that the evidence is there [ in the bible] and it is clear. #18 Tradesecret
By " is there" he meant in the bible.
But I am sure that you can no doubt guess what happened when asked repeatedly to point out this "clear" biblical evidence, can't you? That's right; the thread went on until I asked her again at post here #42 Stephen
then this happened : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUG9VzHoEoc
That's right. She disappeared. And the very Reverend Tradesecrete still hasn't shown us her very "clear evidence" biblical or otherwise that Jesus was anointed a king or anything else has it happens. Not on single pinch. And the reason for this is simple , its because she herself used reasonable assumption; just as I have in stating all kings of Israel were called sons of god. I offered evidence where-as the Reverend Tradesecerte offers NONE for her assumptions!
Like I have said above., just look at the double standard going on here. She a fraud and should be ashamed of herself not knowing these scripture before she haughtily prances off to "pass on things" she doesn't even understand to her imaginary students.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Stephen. You have not proved your case.
That's your opinion.
Get over yourself reverend. You are a proven fake that doesn't know that which you are supposed to know.
I say Jesus' baptism was an ordination of him as Priest, Prophet and King. #2
Tell me how do you know Jesus was a King? Where is you biblical evidence for such a claim? When was he anointed King and who was he anointed King by?
Let me see your biblical evidence that confirms Jesus was a King.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
It is written, "A prudent man concealeth knowledge" and again, "He that hath knowledge spareth his words."
But it hasn't stopped the church "sparing their words" over the millennia, has it? What you mean is I should shut my mouth while the church opens its gaping moutt and should sit and listen and not ask questions.
It is also written, "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him"
I bet it does. What if the one asking the questions is not a fool? Does it say anything about that?
you adopting a stance of "I don't want to know".
On the contrary, I am here to ask questions because I want to know. You just don't like what it is I ask.
Surely, engaging you is a defiling thing.
Then don't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You are an admitted anti-Christ, a mouthpiece for demons.
Have I? And where have I admitted this .
No, this topic isn't for you.
I think you mean it has turned out to be far too challenging for you, is my guess.
After all, the difference between heterodoxy and orthodoxy is an arbitrary one to you.
You have said yourself that you believe that the New Testament scripture is a reliable account of the birth, life and death of the Christ. Well, so do others that call themselves Christians.
Christian belief in the scriptures is all the same to me. It is you and YOUR church that are doing the arbitration and separating yourself above other Christians. You are all the same to me. . you all believe the scriptures to be reliable. That's all I need to know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Why?
Well for a start and as already mentioned, he was the greatest prophet ever born according to Jesus himself. What had he done besides tell us a messiah was coming. They were always saying a messiah was coming . Indeed a Messiah was expected by most of the people if not the whole nation of Israel. So this wasn't that "prophetic" in any sense of the word. He baptised and washed away peoples sins . But this alone raises many questions on its own.
But lets stick to the thread.
Did John for instance cure any lepers? The bible doesn't say. Did he walk on water? The bible doesn't say. Did he feed a multitude with just a fish/s and a few loaves of bread?
Or should we just assume that he did all the things that Jesus went on to do?
Again there is no indication that John did anything but claim what most people in Israel at the time were expecting, i.e it wasn't news. And John actaully denied being a prophet never mind "the greatest prophet".
Do not turn this thread into a stupid and pointless argument. If you don't know, just say so and leave.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Stephen wanted to make a point. I have only asked him to prove it from the bible. He has been unable to do so.
Stop it! ffs. You are just so desperate aren't you. You simply said I was a liar..
"You have still to produce the evidence for your lies that all kings of Israel were called Sons of God". #21 Tradesecret
So, stop your deceitful back peddling attempts to move the goalposts and attempts to play down your false accusation. . It is a reasonable assumption that all kings Of Israel were called sons of god. Why would god show favoritism for one his kings over another? All kingship comes from and was handed down from god . Even today it is called " a god given right to rule".
The other kings, may or may not have been known as sons of God. I really don't know.
Listen you snide little backslider, You assume Jesus was a king don't you? So then where is your BIBLICAL evidence for Jesus being a king at all. ? Indeed Jesus himself makes it clear that he is not king even of this world and and forces that point by making it perfectly clear that his kingdom is not of this world.
So do you see your little dilemma there Reverend!??? I should rip up those alleged qualifications Reverend Tradesecret. They are only good for impressing visitors and mean absolutely nothing. They are worthless.
And I did show you verses from the scriptures and extra biblical supporting evidence that support the verses from the scriptures BEFORE ANYONE else on this thread, MY thread. the verse are in the supporting evidence , but you ignored it or simply didn't understand what it was you were reading (which is more likely the case).
You are the bible ignorant Chaplin Pastor, reverend. You have shown that your alleged "qualifications" are not worth the paper they are written on. Your a liar who has been caught cold by your own fkn arrogance.
The fact is that you didn't even know that there were other kings of Israel beside Jesus that were called the sons of god. If you did, then you would have made the case that you knew there were other sons of god. YOU DIDN'T DO SO. , You would also have known that the whole fkn state of Israel were the "sons of god" but you didn't know that either.
Like I have said, you are a fake and a coward Reverend. You didn't even know that YOU, that calls yourself "Pastor" didn't even know how YOU are to be addressed!!!!
No. YOU didn't even know how a Pastor should be addressed yet claims to be one !!!!!
I am a lawyer. [......................] But in my role as a pastor - which I also do, I counsel in pastoral care. And yes, I am qualified by certified colleges with proper accreditation. I am also a chaplain to our Countries Defence forces, a position I could not have without proper qualifications. #20
Last quote bottom of page. " And I am not a reverend" . full quote:
LOL! - I certainly don't understand the bible in the way you distort them. This is true. You don't have a proper methodology. You just choose passages out of context and run with it. But hey - don't let the facts stand in the way of playing your game. And I am not a reverend. #29
how fkn embarrassing that ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ must be for you..
You don't know your arse from your elbow.
You often assume or speculate on the scriptures. As do I . And I am reasonably assuming that the GOD and father of ISRAEL whose son ISRAEL and father of the Nation of Israel would not favour one king over another. and there is nothing in the scriptures that shows he did.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
However, I do understand that you have a particular bias and crusade against Christianity,
More the scriptures than Christianity per se. Although, Christianity and not necessarily the New Testament has been the cause of many millions innocent deaths. Matthew Hopkins leaps to mind as do the Salem witch trials , and the burning alive of the Templars, to mention a few. Then there is the massacre of the Cathars and on and on you maniacs go and all in the name of Christianity, where as Jesus preached exactly the opposite and to love thy neighbour, give to the poor .
judging from you perhaps fifty threads, many of which work on isolating biblical context,
Only fifty???? I better get my finger out. There is much work to do.
It is lacking in any proof, just hearsay
You have never read the bible then I take it particularly the Old Testament. . Why doesn't that surprise me. Most of you bible thumpers rarely do read it for yourselves..
Created:
Posted in:
How can Tradesecret honor Jesus with his body by changing sexual genders? Jesus obviously wanted Tradesecret to be a MAN at birth (Proverbs 16:33), and then Tradesecret obviously said to Jesus “F*#K OFF because I am changing my sexual gender from a man to a Bible 2nd class woman. BLASPHEME!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
It seems to me that the argument would be1. All members of the nation of the children of Israel are called sons of God2. Kings of Israel were members of the nation of the children of Israel3. therefore, all kings are called sons of God, even if the text does not identify each one explicitly as such
Of course that would be/is correct . And the scriptures make it perfectly clear that Israelite kings were specifically singled out to be Sons of God and God their father.
But our resident biblical and allegedly "qualified" Pastor , Chaplin and criminal Lawyer, the Reverend Tradesecrete, simply refuses to accept what the scriptures themselves have to say on the matter.#20
She didn't even know how a Pastor should be addressed and she claims to be one !!!!! " And I am not a reverend" . #29 She doesn't know her arse from her elbow.
Just look at all of her fake laughs above. This is how those caught cold attempt to wave away their embarrassment. It is as if they believe that simply writing "LOL " lots of times will somehow relive them of their torturous repeated failings and their embarrassment will some how dissipate into the ether.
They do this all of the time. They hate being caught cold and shown to be the fake bible ignorant fools that they are . She didn't even know that this was even mentioned in the bible. She simply wanted me to lead her to the verses because she didn't even know they was there, in her own scriptures that she claims to have "qualification " in reading , "scrutinizing" and preaching about to her "students".
The Brother will be pleased on his return to find out his Nemesis and sparing partner has all those "qualifications" in all matters religious and biblical not to mention legal.
Created:
Posted in:
Surely John had more to do given his high status as "the greatest prophet that ever lived"? according to Jesus?
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Jesus was not a human sacrifice in the sense of human sacrifices as we understand them.
That's exactly what he was . A very human sacrifice in a plot that went too far and almost horribly wrong. You should learn to read the bible for yourself. Jesus tried to back out of this extremely dangerous plot but his "father" ignored him. But I don't have all the evidence to prove it.
But I know of a brilliant author of the University of Sydney's School of Divinity in Australia who had worked intensively on the Dead Sea Scrolls and that I once met here in England. Now hurry , and research who it that I am talking about.
I can recommend the biblical lexicon they (the singular they)spent years researching and writing too.
Created:
Posted in:
Stevie, you have not proved the point.
The evidence is all clear above and repeated below. You cannot handle the stone cold fact that once again you have been show to be as bible ignorant as the Brother so rightly and often accuses you to be.
And it is Stephen, you childish little prig.
God said of Jesus: This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." Matthew 3:17
God said of Solomon : King Solomon: He shall be a son to Me, and I will be a Father to him. I Chronicles 22:9-10
God said of David: You are My son; today I have begotten you."Psalms 2:7
And you have the brass balls to call me biblically ignorant!!!!!! Stop trying to wriggle from the biblical FACTS!!!!!! you coward!!!!!!
The truth is that YOU didn't know and this is the true fact that you are trying to escape from. How embarrassing for you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
And you madam are a total fraud, that has been led by the invisible ring through your nose for most of you life and still are being so led.
I have show how seriously bible ignorant you are and to be a false accuser. You should be damn well ashamed of yourself. You have put your religion, your beliefs your faith and dare I sat it - your calling - all to shame. You madam, are a sham. I have known Boring Prophets that make more sense than yourself.: here>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqaQ_Bhgmrc
But in my role as a pastor - which I also do, I counsel in pastoral care. And yes, I am qualified by certified colleges with proper accreditation. I am also a chaplain to our Countries Defence forces, a position I could not have without proper qualifications.Defence forces? Would that be the Salvation Army or the Armed forces. Let me guess..... The Red Cross?????I am not going to reply to your patronizing nonsense.
Its the Red Cross isn't it???
Created:
Posted in:
This question has been on my mind for years. And as usual, it is a question that the scriptures themselves have raised.
Nowhere do we read of John doing anything but preach about "the one to come that is greater than he" Mark 1:7. Baptising down in the Jordan river Mark 1:4-5. Arguing with King Herod Luke 3:19 , and that is about it? There is absolutely nothing else at all that explains to the readers of the gospels what John, "the greatest prophet" actaully did , nothing.
Was John's sole message and function simply to "prepare the way" and cleans people of their sins? Or did have have other meaningful functions?
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
The God Delusion is preaching to the converted.
And who are Vicars or Chaplains or Pastors and the Priests "preaching" to, when the hold their church services?
Who are they presenting their sermons and homilies to?
Do they read from the book of bible when they present or conduct a reading about the Christ and his "wonders"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I have never denied that David was called God's son.
I and others here have shown that GOD called Kings his son besides Jesus.
But what you asserted was that when the Gospels call Jesus the Son of God they were simply referring to him being the Son of David because all kingly sons of David were called the Son of God.
Exactly/ so what the FK are you arguing about? I have shown you the evidence you asked for. Others have shown you evidence that supports what I claimed.
And now YOU have done exactly the same. WTF's the matter with you!? God called others his sons, especially KINGS. That is all I have claimed. And you called me a liar and asked for evidence :
"You have still to produce the evidence for your lies that all kings of Israel were called Sons of God". #21 Tradesecret
God said of Jesus: This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." Matthew 3:17
God said of Solomon : King Solomon: He shall be a son to Me, and I will be a Father to him. I Chronicles 22:9-10
God said of David: You are My son; today I have begotten you."Psalms 2:7
And you have the brass balls to call me biblically ignorant!!!!!! Stop trying to wriggle from the biblical FACTS!!!!!! you coward!!!!!!
The truth is that YOU didn't know and this is the true fact that you are trying to escape from. How embarrassing for you.
Now you can go back to your flock and tell them about all the other very much human kings that god also called his son besides Jesus. I should mention it to your elders too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Firstly, you are so patronizing, it makes most people sick.
No dear. Those that have been doing all the patronising over the millennia are people calling themselves Chaplin, Vicars , Pastors and Priests. It is to people such as these that the grieving turn to in their desperate hours and are in need of comfort at a time of grief or disappointment only to be patronised with utter unadulterated lies about the resurrection and an afterlife.
If i take a different position to you on the scriptures -
I don't particularly care what position you take. I am just reading and scrutinizing and questioning the scriptures. You just don't like my questions .
it does not mean I do not scrutinize the Scriptures.
Well, you have proven then that you are absolutely hopeless at scrutinizing these ancient documents haven't you? I mean, how ever could you forget a fact that all kings of Israel where called sons of god? How? Which then brings into question your abilities in your other alleged field of "qualifications" at law and that of a defence lawyer .
It just means I see things differently to you.
You do. But your "different" is exactly how you have been trained << emphasis on trained, to see ' things' . Which also happen to be exactly as your church and your faith causes you "to see things".
As for the Jewish Kings being called sons of God, what you have presented has not proved anything.
This is simple denial. Again this is you proving that you have not read these scriptures for yourself and certainly have not scrutinized them as you insist on claiming to have done. But I, and no doubt the two posters that agree with me on the Sons of God thread, cannot wait to read your rebuttal.. of the scriptures themselves. I won't let you forget the SONS OF GOD>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4969-the-sons-of-god
Yet I will attend to that when I have more time.
Yes. I think you have to consult you "elders " again don't you? when you shouldn't even have to . It is there in the scriptures that you claim to be "qualified " in to preach, teach and "pass on " to the very young and the old and frail .
Presently, I am in disagreement with you.
YOU CALLED ME A LIAR!!!!!you didn't just say you disagreed with me ?
You should produce evidence for what you assert not for my benefit.
I will produce it when I am asked to and need to as I have done. I know you are struggling with this but it is all your own doing. Like I have already said, you should have known what I said to be true after all of your forensic scrutinizing of the scriptures. But the fact is though is that you are just a fake and a liar.
You have asked me to prove things you knew.
Not I haven't. Give me one example, just one?
And in any event, I have never pretended to know anything.
You have!!!!! You have told us of your "qualifications" and in which fields you gained them. You insist that you have "scrutinized the scriptures" you tell us that you " scrutinize EVERYTHING". And with those alleged qualifications means that you know a little bit of something.
And if you present an idea which I have not heard, it does not mean I have not studied, not read widely,
I didn't present an IDEA though did I? I simply presented (as have others on that thread) biblical and other evidence for my claim that all kings of Israel were called Son of God. The "IDEA" as you put it was gleaned from the scriptures THEMSELVES and is there for anyone to read for themselves. You just haven't and didn't even bother to before calling me a liar, besides which YOU SHOULD ALREADY KNOW!!!!!!
here is just one example: King Solomon:
I Chronicles 22:9-10
Behold, a son shall be born to you [David],...his name shall be Solomon....He shall build a house for My Name; he shall be a son to Me, and I will be a Father to him, and I will establish his royal throne in Israel forever.
it just means that you have provided information that I have not attended to as yet.
It's written in the fkn scriptures FFS! You are the one that claims to be "qualified" in this very field to pass this information onto others. Or are you just like the others , those that want to keep this critical information away from your flock because of the problems it raises?
And this by the way is how it is with EVERY ACADEMIC in the world. The next academic who says they know everything about their subject is a liar.
I agree. But of all the things that are required in religious "academia" is that the "academic" should have at least read and studied every page of the bible. You haven't. How ever you gained your alleged "qualifications" in the field of religious studies surly must be brought into question.
I do pass on most things I learn if I can.
What do you mean "if I can"? It is your duty as a Christian and it a command from your lord and god. Or didn't you know that either? Mark 16:15
I have no pretensions in doing otherwise.
I see. And will you be informing your flock about these other very human Sons of god?
I am not so up myself that I think my own creative idea and interpretation about the bible ought to be spread about.
Yes, you are tied confined now aren't you? You cannot go against what you have had rammed down your throat over the years that which you are now ramming down others throats. You would look silly wouldn't you, Reverend? With you being a "qualified" Chaplin and Pastor and Preacher. They do say that the abused go on to be abusers themselves.
In fact I take warm comfort in knowing that the same conclusions I draw from the bible are the same that millions over the years have come too.
It means that the interpretation methodology I utilise is consistent and scientific.
That is simply opinion. You use a "method" of starting by being told , then believing what you have been told, and then claiming to other that what you have been told is the gospel truth, or "passing on". it is not a method, it is a mantra.
Your on the other hand is non-scientific because no one else comes to the conclusions you draw.
Oh? Try here #2 FLRW or #3 rosends.. There is nothing scientific about the New Testament. Unless you can explain "scientifically" how Jesus "walked on water", how he raised days old dead corpses back you the land of the living and how he cured a blind man by spiting at him? off you go I am sure the whole fkn forum is waiting for your scientific explanations for the phenomena.
Then do so on the correct thread.
You rarely produce anyone who agrees with you.
See above. But that is the whole point of debate and discussion, an argument of different opinions that disagree.
I can think of just two occasions - despite the fact that I have asked you to produce your sources (Or have you conveniently not seen that request either)
GREAT! Lets see them . I have invited you to do so on may occasions. And I also have admitted that I cannot always support MY OWN beliefs. but again, you keep forgetting that I have nothing to defend where these scriptures are concerned . How many times do i have to explain this to you Reverend? I read, I scrutinise, I study and then I ask questions. They just happen to be questions you don't like and cannot respond to or simply answer.
Not answering is not the same as having no answer. Jesus talks about not throwing pearls before the swine.
Yes he does. what is he talking about when he say that. do you even know?
As for accusing you of lying. You did. I provided the evidence.
Where. you haven't proven a damn thing and this just just piling on another lie. Show me where I have lied and where you have proved me to be lying. And hurry up you coward!!!!!
When do you even produce an awkward question?
If the are not awkward, then why simply not answer my questions.
Most of your questions arise from other people's thinking.
No. Only some, maybe. But 99% of my inquiries are raised by the contradictory, ambiguous and unreliable half stories in the scriptures themselves. But how would you know this/ You haven't even read the scriptures for yourself have you.
Not from your own studies.
Wrong again. And studies do cause people to raise questions. But again, you wouldn't know this either would you?
You appear on the back foot with these last few ad hominem comments my dear. I think you are running out of provable accusations .
It worries me not a moment that you judge me a false or fake prophet or teacher.
Well it wouldn't would it. That is arrogance for you.
And why would it?
I don't know, tell me why would it?
In relation to the Son of God, no - not yet you have not. And I will attend to that shortly.
like I have said. keep it to the correct thread , eh. here it is. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4969-the-sons-of-god
what qualifications do you possess
It is your own alleged "qualifications" that you have brought into question ,princess. not mine. I have never claimed to posses any, never, at all. Besides , it would make absolutely no difference. Or are you claiming that one has to believe in god to have studied these unreliable scriptures for themselves.
You really do get things backward don't you? Even with all of your lawyer training. Here I'll explain.
->@zedvictor4 There are no real qualifications though.Tradesecret, replied : Are you assuming that my qualifications obtained from a world class reputable university are not real? Wow! that certainly is a huge assertion. Would you care to prove that a post graduate degree from Melbourne University is not a real qualification? #31
No, you just don't see it do you? Arrogance you see, always get in the way and blinds the arrogant. You first made the claim and bragged about your "quantification" as being Chaplin and also a Pastor and also a Lawyer. So first YOU have to prove that you have those qualifications in the first place otherwise what is the point?
But in my role as a pastor - which I also do, I counsel in pastoral care. And yes, I am qualified by certified colleges with proper accreditation. I am also a chaplain to our Countries Defence forces, a position I could not have without proper qualifications.
Defence forces? Would that be the Salvation Army or the Armed forces. Let me guess..... The Red Cross?????
Created:
-->
@Juice
Perhaps this is because atheists are more practical and are not blinded by the false hope of a next life in eternal bliss.
And are content with the fact that to be dead actually does mean dead and have resigned themselves to the fact that they will never be coming back. And they accept it because they -as you say- have not been blinded OR duped by people that believe in such nonsense as coming alive again after being physically dead for three days or more .
I have found that the more these religious types of people can convince others that the dead do rise from their graves, the stronger their own belief becomes.
I think it is cruel, not to mention sadistic to tell an orphaned child for example that they will one day see their parents again if only they believed in the murderous psychopathic god that took them away in the first place and the same god that can walk on water but only cure one or two lepers and cured a blind man when he could have simply eradicated ALL leprosy and eradicated ALL blindness from the world for ever?
I suppose the realisation of the falsity of it all and waking up to the fact that one has been duped could cause anyone to feel suicidal. but you will get no pangs of conscience or empathy from the theist. No. instead he or she that does commit suicide will be condemned to the everlasting flames by the very people that caused their misery in the first place. .
I have never research it but I would wager that there was a correlation with suicide and religion.
Created:
Posted in:
Even Islam recognises that the kings of Israel were called Sons of God.
Answering Islam. A Christian / Muslim Dialogue
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I scrutinize everything.
Except the scriptures; that make it very clear that kings of Israel were called "sons of God". How ever did you think you were going to get away with calling me a liar and asking me for evidence to support my alleged "lies " to prove something that YOU- with all of your alleged "qualifications" should have known to be factual?
Or have you forgotten this false accusation ? >>>"You have still to produce the evidence for your lies that all kings of Israel were called Sons of God". #21 Tradesecret
For all of your alleged "qualifications" and claims that you "scrutinize EVEYTHING" and teaching your flock the "truth" you simply didn't know the Kings of Israel where sons of god.
Tell me why should I have to produce evidence for something you should automatically know? You asked for this evidence because (1) you didn't know where to find it for yourself, did you? (2) You didn't believe it. You simply wanted me to lead you by your snooty snout to the evidence that you have never ever seen not to mention even read before that are in your own scriptures.
This is why you despise me so much.
I don't despise you, silly. stop being so dramatic. . I have told you before, I like you. But I also feel sorry for you, because you are beginning to realise that you don't actually know anything about these ancient scriptures. You admit to being told and then "passing on " what you have been told. I noticed that you don't even mention that you "scrutinize" what it is you have been told for yourself before "merely passing it on". have you forgotten this also? >> "#20 Tradesecret. >>>>
"I in most parts are are merely passing on the teaching of what i have received.
I constantly reveal that you have no clue what you are talking about.
No, what you do is - tell me that I " don't know I am on about". There is a difference my lawyer friend as you should well know.
I could care less about being your lawyer. You seem like most of my clients - you think you know better than the lawyer.
Here you go again, interchanging criminal lawyer & religious preacher. Stop being silly. I actually wouldn't want you to be neither my lawyer or my religious instructor/teacher, because you are terribly lacking in both fields.
no comment is the right thing to do. …..It is always the best thing to do - especially when you have the right answers.
Or simply no answer at all.
It is the role of the prosecutor to prove their case.I agree. This will be the dictate concerning The Burden of Proof, wouldn't it? The obligation to provide sufficient supporting evidence for any arguments that YOU make. Along with - It is to he that makes the claims to provide the proof? Something you fail to do often. It's a shame that YOU do not use the same yardstick when it comes to claims YOU have made about the bible.Yes, I fail sometimes.
You do when it comes to scripture. You know why that is too don't you? Its because for all of your claims that you scrutinise these scriptures and for all of your alleged "qualifications", you have never read these scriptures for your self without interference . You have been told to turn to a page, had read out, and then explained for you and then, you have "merely passed it on"#20 WITHOUT QUESTION.
So what I am human. I am not pretending to know everything or to have all the answers.
That is correct, you don't. But it hasn't stopped you "qualifying" in the religious fields as both Pastor and Chaplain, has it? Do you think you deserve those qualifications and the revered titles that come with them?, when for instance, you didn't even know that the kings of Israel were all called sons of god? This is what I meant when I told you that you had been led to the fluffy explainable scriptural verses and steered well away from the problematic biblical verses. In other words, you are simply a dupe.
There are plenty of times I say I don't know.
I have only seen you admit that once and you was praised and thanked for you candor. But it is a shame that you don't admit to "not knowing" something BEFORE you accuse others of lying and and being liars. Remember this>>>
"You have still to produce the evidence for your lies that all kings of Israel were called Sons of God". #21 Tradesecret
Or I say I am speculating.
You do. as do I. I will always state that I have no evidence when I don't have any evidence for what I actually believe. But YOU KEEP FOGETTING, I have absolutely no reason to lie about these scriptures. I have nothing to defend about them. They are either correct or they are not. it is your job to defend them because you/ Christians claim it is the truth.
I use the appropriate yardstick when coming to bible. I don't use beyond reasonable doubt I use on the balance of probabilities - and this is the standard that people who study history and documents use.
No you don't. You have shown us that you don't. You believe these "miracles" but cannot prove how they were miracles or how they were done. you rely TOTALLY on faith alone. You don't reason and you certainly do not use "balance of probabilities"
The fact that you don't even realise this only demonstrates your ignorance.
I knew that the Kings of Israel where called sons of god, princess, and YOU DIDN'T!!!!!!
So, yes, my client's pay me for the work I do for them. Do you have a problem with people being paid?Not at all, but it was you that brought "YOUR CLIENTS" into a thread concerning questions about the bible, that you cannot yourself answer. It wasn't me.Again I respond to the waffle you ask.
You mean my awkward questions that you actually avoid. Or sometimes even simple questions .
The fact you think you can JUDGE me - is sad and pathetic.
I haven't judged you at all as of yet. But I will now that you have raised the point.
I judge you as a fake preacher, that doesn't understand himself the scriptures that he has been "taught to pass on".
How old are your BIBLICAL students?They range from 16 - 90. They include undergrads through to PH.D.s and from a range of different religious and non-religious backgrounds.
Then I pity most of them, especially the younger ones. Having a fake preacher like you with qualifications that mean absolutely nothing that you have somehow earned without even knowing these scriptures for yourself and are only passing on what you have been told.
I suspect that every time I pose you an awkward question that you go running to the same cretinous teachers for an answer or dullard response such as "I don't answer yes or no questions". Yes, you really show you biblical qualifications with responses like that don't you.
Pastor and Chaplain. That doesn't understand the scriptures him/her self. You Christians just love your titles don't you.... Reverend? I bet you just love being 'revered ' too.LOL! - I certainly don't understand the bible in the way you distort them.
How have I distort them? I should think it is impossible to distort what the bible says. The writing is there clear and unable to be distorted. DISPIUTED, INTERPRETED AND DENIED, yes, but never distorted. And you call yourself a lawyer that has scrutinised the scriptures?
just choose passages out of context and run with it.
Yes this is the typical - clutching at straws - response the atheist are used to when the theist runs out of logical, common sense replies or answers. You are even too afraid now to even confirm if I am right or wrong on my own understanding of certain verses. here is a good example>> https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4911-of-pigs-and-men?page=1&post_number=15
But hey - don't let the facts stand in the way of playing your game. And I am not a reverend.
I never let the facts get in the way, that will be the clergy that does that (and YOU PASTOR, are about to do exactly that, any time now) . . And I think that you have just outed yourself a natural born liar with that statement in bold above.
Why? You may well ask? Because Pastors are addressed as Reverend. WHAAAAAAAAAAAT!!!! you din't know that either!!!!????? I just knew that I would catch you out on that one.
Deleted your false accusations.
And I will repeat them, those BIBLICAL accusations, especially in the light of what you have UNITENTIONALLY revealed about yourself above :
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.
23 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4 They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
5 “Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6 they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7 they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others.
INDEED!
I replied to yet another of your unfounded accusations about me here. I see you have avoided it like one of the Egyptian plagues.Son of God.Yes, I saw that - and thank you. I am glad you took the time to FINALLY answer my question.
You mean replied . Yes , I replied to something you should have known all along in your capacity as both " Pastor AND Chaplain", shouldn't you Reverend?
I am not expecting an apology .. ReverendGood, because I don't apologise unless I have done something wrong.
It was a FALSE accusation though wasn't it? AND I did say I didn't expect one. Although, as CLEALY shown above you called me a liar and now I proven my innocence of the / YOUR, false accusation;
"You have still to produce the evidence for your lies that all kings of Israel were called Sons of God". #21 Tradesecret
But I have, haven't I?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You do not even identify as a Christian.
Irrelevant. Just because I read the scriptures for myself without kneeling and repeating chants of hommmmmm, over and over doesn't mean I cannot read or understand the bible.
That being the case, what can you be but the mouth piece of demons?
Demons? John the Baptist had a demon didn't he? And he was said to be the greatest prophet of all according to Jesus. Well now I don't know if I should take that as compliment or an insult or with a pinch of salt.
This topic isn't for you.
You mean it is turning out to be awkward for you, don't you?
After all, the difference between heterodoxy and orthodoxy is an arbitrary one to you.
You have said yourself that you believe that the New Testament scripture is a reliable account of the birth, life and death of the Christ. Well, so do others that call themselves Christians.
Christian belief in the scriptures is all the same to me. It is you and YOUR church that are doing the arbitration and separating yourself above other Christians. You are all the same to me. . you all believe the scriptures to be reliable. That's all I need to know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Repost. I didn't address it to the intended addressee. i.e. the intended recipient
I am a lawyer. There you go. Now you know.
I see . So you were just being smart when I asked you a BIBLICAL - yes or no - question by responding with "I counsel all of my clients never to answer yes or no.".
It is a shame that in the capacity as a lawyer that you do not question and scrutinise the scriptures. I would hate you as my barrister.
I always counsel my clients that "no comment" is the only wise thing to do when being questioned by the police.
Or by someone who may be holding more facts than the defence think they have ?
no comment is the right thing to do.
It sure is, when you have no answer to give anyway.
It is the role of the prosecutor to prove their case.
I agree. This will be the dictate concerning The Burden of Proof, wouldn't it? The obligation to provide sufficient supporting evidence for any arguments that YOU make. Along with - It is to he that makes the claims to provide the proof? Something you fail to do often. It's a shame that YOU do not use the same yardstick when it comes to claims YOU have made about the bible.
So, yes, my client's pay me for the work I do for them. Do you have a problem with people being paid?
Not at all, but it was you that brought "YOUR CLIENTS" into a thread concerning questions about the bible, that you cannot yourself answer. It wasn't me.
Do I charge people to listen to my version of the gospels? No, I don't charge students,
I should think not! . That would be robbing them wouldn't it? Or would the legal term in the biblical sense be "fleecing your sheep"?
Do I allow students to question me? Absolutely.
How old are your BIBLICAL students?
Do I allow clients to question me? Not in a court setting, no.
Then STOP! conflating the two completely different subjects. You wouldn't get away with such shenanigans in any court of law in the west. I am only questioning you on matters biblical as you know full well . You are trying to bring simple questions and queries about the bible in a Court Of Law setting. Do you not realise how desperate this is, not to mention how stupid you are coming across as?
But in my role as a pastor - which I also do, I counsel in pastoral care. And yes, I am qualified by certified colleges with proper accreditation. I am also a chaplain to our Countries Defence forces, a position I could not have without proper qualifications.
And there it is. And doesn't surprise me one single bit.
Both Pastor and Chaplain. That doesn't understand the scriptures him/her self. You Christians just love your titles don't you.... Reverend? I bet you just love being 'revered ' too.
You do remember the 7 Woes's , don't you?
23 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4 They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
5 “Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6 they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7 they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others.
INDEED!
I replied to yet another of your unfounded accusations about me here. I see you have avoided it like one of the Egyptian plagues.
Son of God.
I am not expecting an apology .. Reverend
Created:
Posted in:
This is not to mention the devastating earthquake that you say,
"would tear apart nearly every house and leave an ocean of bricks and buried residents. The numbers of people buried and trapped would be astonishing. People who could not find their home or families might be separated for weeks. After a big earthquake, there would be large numbers of people who were assumed dead who returned days, weeks, even years later. So earthquakes become associated with resurrections. #2 oromagi"
No. Not a single historian in the whole world reported this phenomenon of dead people rising or the earthquake
Created: