Total posts: 8,861
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Matthew is reporting the presence of many newly resurrected, newly saved but not yet ascended souls wandering through Jerusalem
Yes odd that he alone reports this. And further, it is odd that he reports this - miracle of miracles - happened not only at time of his death but the time of the resurrection too, and in the same sentence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
I'm thinking it's one of many parts in the block of scriptures that have people making pilgrimages to a certain place.
What a sight this would have been Deb, don't you think? Imagine it. All those "saints" being reunited with loved ones and relatives they had never met or seen? I am sure every person, indeed every family involved in the witnessing of this phenomena would have passed this miracle of miracles down orally if not in writing? But we have only one single written account of it ever happening! What ever would we have done without Matthew?
52 the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.
Matthew 27:52-53
No other gospel writer mentions it and not a single historian mentions it either.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Think about it logically.
One would believe this to be easy for one that claims to be a lawyer. #20
But do not old your breath, Vic.
Created:
Posted in:
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:
-->
@Mopac
My phone will be cut off on November 16th, so if you have any questions, at thst time I will no longer be available to answer questions.
But I have asked you many questions over your last two threads and you haven't really answered anything. Is all you have done is evade and talk about everything but what I have asked.
Your just another Christian fraud and no different from the few other christian frauds here that believes they are privy to some ancient arcane knowledge. You are not.
Let me give you a better answer for what we learn. We learn the science of sciences.
With the aid of the telescope and a microscope even our children today can, and do, and have, learned about the planets and microbes . We are more advanced now since the church stopped torturing and burning and drowning our free thinkers and philosophers.
And what they learned they freely pass on and teach our children what it is they have discovered and learned through years of dogged research without church persecution and torture and interference in the hope that our children will be able to build on what they have passed down.
The church on the other hand has impeded and stalled and set back mans capabilities by hundreds if not thousands of years for one reason only, the control of knowledge.
Would you like to know where I got that belief from? Your own fkn scriptures you arrogant prig!
"BUT FROM THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE YOU WILL NOT EAT!!!!!" Genesis 2:17
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Besides - I counsel all of my clients never to answer yes or no. Why would I not take my own advice? Life is more complex than black and white - yes and no answers.
"Clients"? So you charge people (your clients) to listen to your version of the gospels then?
Do you allow your "clients" to question you on your own in-depth biblical knowledge?
And what do you call these "counseling" sessions ?
Created:
Posted in:
The absence of Tradesecret on this thread is very noticeable, isn't it?
After all, it was s/he that requested the content of this thread. S/he must be busy with her "clients".
Is this what I think it is?
is this too
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
How old are you?Old enough to know better
Stop being childish
Do you have children?I do not have any children.
So Genesis 9:7 means just about nothing to you then.
What is it that you are actually taught?We are taught hesychasm.
But doesn't the lord teach you that? Do you have to join a monastery to comprehend Matthew 6:5-8
What is it that you actually learn ?We learn to unlearn.
Ah yes, you not only leave your shoes at the door, you leave your own mind as well.
To strive for purity of heart.
Yes well. According to the scriptures, that can never happen can it. We all have bad hearts full of inherited sin, don't we? Or has the slate been wiped clean by Jesus' rather cannibalistic, "blood sacrifice"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Why are you elevating yourself above these Christians?I am not elevating myself above other Christians. Rather I am elevating the church over those who are not truly Christian as they are not with the church.
Same thing. Maybe I should have said YOU AND your church? But at least you have admitted to "elevating yourselves "and your church above other Christians.
The ones who are arrogant are the self guided.
Guided? By whom or what?
They make themselves out to be their own bishops.
Example please.
I submit to the church. This is not something that can be used to accuse me of arrogance.
That is your opinion. You have admitted above that "the church" - YOUR church - elevates itself and its position above all those that call themselves Christians.
During our liturgy before partaking of eucharist, we sing - "I will not speak of thy mysteries to thine enemies,
Enemies? Those that disagree with you is what you actaully mean. Or is it that in actuality there are no mysteries at all?
neither will I give thee a kiss as did Judas."
Yes well even that is debateable isn't it? I mean which was it, did Judas identify Jesus with a kiss (all unnecessary he could have just pointed to him) or did Jesus identify himself.? Lets look at what you agree above at #35 is the accurate account of the scriptures.
Mark14:45 " “And as soon as he was come, he goeth straightway to him, and saith,Master, master; and kissed him”.
But John tells us different does he not?
John 18:5 “They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them”.
So those above ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ are from the very same scriptures that you claim are true, accurate and reliable.
Why is this? Because historically people like you would accuse us of being cannibals,
I haven't. But I will say that "drink this" because it is [representative of] my blood and and "eat this" because it is[representative of] my body, all sounds cannibalistic.
which would lead to our persecution.
I don't remember that last time monks were persecuted in the west, but I do have genuine concerns for your future with Islam on the rise all around the world.
You are deceitful with what is available to you..
That would be the bible, the very scriptures that you agree are a reliable source of the birth , life and death of the Christ. here>>> #35
and you take it upon yourself the mission to undermine the faith.
No. But I do take it upon myself to scrutinize and questions those things that you have faith IN such as the scriptures.
Thus you and those like you who are full of pride and absent of charity are not worthy of the mysteries.
Your arrogance knows no bounds.
The interpretations you yourself have of scripture are so unique to yourself that no one ever seems to agree with you.
No one here maybe. But I have found many that do. Not to mention those that have come around to "my interpretation" of the scriptures.
Who actually believes in sola scriptura?
You. And that is your big problem in my opinion. The bible and the New Testament in particular - makes absolutely no sense on the surface. It is contradictory and ambiguous and is full of half stories.
You yourself and even most nominal Christians look to other sources.
I do. Its called research.
Someone with just a bible is at a great disadvantage though when it comes to other things.
This appears to be contradictory to what you claims above. Still, tell me, what "other things"?
is The Trinity expressly stated in the bible?
Well any christian that has read these scriptures - for themselves - would have noticed that the one core belief that they have seems to be totally missing from the bible...…the word trinity cannot even be found in the bible.
The New Testament canon wasn't even settled until hundreds of years after Christ! It is our book, and we use it to teach what it is we teach.
And who is it that you teach while being hidden away in your isolation as a monk? Yourselves?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Also, good nonks don't talk much, they tend to pray in their rooms.
So is to pray inside alone different to praying outside alone.
How old are you?
Do you have children?
What is it that you are actually taught?
What is it that you actually learn ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Would you say that the New Testament is reliable concerning the birth, life and death of The Christ ?I am not avoiding the question. My answer is yes,
Well then I cannot see why you are making a distinction between yourself, that agrees that the NT is reliable concerning the birth, life and death of The Christ, and the Christians that believe the exact same? Why are you elevating yourself above these Christians? Why do you arrogantly believe that you are somehow privy to a greater knowledge that they?
If this is the case, then surely this "knowledge" was meant for all men, believers and nonbelievers alike? If not, why not?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
here is a list from https://www.drazin.com/index0602.html?6._The_"Son_of_G-D"_MYTHKing Solomon:I Chronicles 22:9-10Behold, 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.Angels:Job 1:6Now there was a day when the sons of G-d came to present themselves before the L-rd, and Satan also came among them.King David:Psalms 2:7I [David] will tell of the decree of the L-rd: He said to me, You are My son; today I have begotten you."Israel:Exodus 4:22And you shall say to Pharaoh: Thus says the L-rd: "Israel is My son, My firstborn."Hosea 11:1When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and out of Egypt I called My son.None of the above is a "son of G-d" in the familial sense. Each merely enjoyed a special relationship to G-d, like those called "sons" in the New Testament:Matthew 5:9Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of G-d.Luke 3:38...the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of G-d.
Stand by, rosends, to be told that you ;
Have "taken these verses out of context" .
Have "Cherry picked these verses".
That you " Don't understand them as they were written In the original ancient Greek, Aramaic or Hebrew or even Latin script". Funny how they never mention Sumerian script, isn't it? The very place where Adam and Abraham, among others, are said to have originated.
And that "you have simply misunderstood what has been written".
And that favourite of all theist , to completely rewrite the scriptures to "prove" you to be wrong and further their own agenda and to save embarrassment.
I am sure that there are those that pray for the days of ducking stools and witch burning to return.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
You are correct. From Wikipedia, The term "son of God" is used in the Hebrew Bible as another way of referring to humans with special relationships with God. In Exodus, the nation of Israel is called God's "Firstborn son". In Psalms, David is called "son of God", even commanded to proclaim that he is God's "begotten son" on the day he was made king. Solomon is also called "son of God". Angels, just and pious men, and the kings of Israel are all called "sons of God."
I appreciate your input , FLRW. The point here is that, as shown above, Christians as a rule, do not read these scriptures for themselves much less scrutinize and question them for themselves.
No. They are told which page to turn to, the page is read our aloud by the one taking the class or a church acolyte and then it is "explained" to them by the teacher. Then the "clients" "pass on" that which has been "explained".. As can be witnessed by the words of the self confessed Tradesecret at #1at post above.
I have found over the years that the followers - the sheep of the lords flock - have been steered only towards the fluffy sayings and so called miracles spoken and performed by the Christ and are completely steered away from the more problematic verses of the scriptures. To point reasonably highlight a flaw to a Christian is nothing less than anathema. They also have a terrible habit of believing that for a person to be able to understand the scriptures, a person must be a theist . How arrogant.
If there is one thing that religion robs a person of it is the ability to reason for one's self.
I do at times wonder, why "sheep" ? Could it be that the "sheep" are fleeced in more way than one?
Created:
Posted in:
I have mentioned a few times on this forum that kings of Israel and Judah were called sons of god and had never been challenged to put forward evidence for that claim until very recently -today in fact, when a extremely frustrated member said this:
"You have still to produce the evidence for your lies that all kings of Israel were called Sons of God". #21 Tradesecret
I don't ever remember being asked to "prove" this claim/ my claim before , but still here we are.
It is believed the evidence is there in the religious scriptures and these would be the same scriptures that Tradesecret tells us he " teaches to his clients" among telling them never to answer simple yes or no questions>>>> #15 "Besides - I counsel all of my clients never to answer yes or no". Poor clients, I say.
He admits to being told something and then simply passing it on, such as here, bottom two lines>>#20 Tradesecret. >>>>
"I in most parts are are merely passing on the teaching of what i have received. S/he didn't say if or not he actaully reads the damn scriptures for himself, but my guess he doesn't.
So what about the Israel's and Judah's son's of god? I cannot put my fingers direct on my own sources, but do not fret. As in todays age of the WWW there are commentators that can be found that confirm my claim. Odd don't you think that tradesecret didn't take the time to check out my claim for him/her self, isn't it,?....... before calling me a liar, AGAIN! he should know by now that I rarely make a claim I couldn't support..... and it didn't take me two seconds to find these sources. .
The evidence for my claim simply doesn't stop coming. I do wish we had the WWW when I was studying and researching these scriptures. It would have saved me thousands of hours in the library not to mention in travel and money.
God’s Son and Kiss the Son. Rabbi David Markowitz
"The term son of God appears a number of times in the Torah where it clearly does not refer to a biological relationship. See for example Deuteronomy 14:1: "You [Israel] are sons to the Lord your God," as well as Exodus 4:22, where God tell Moses to tell Pharaoh "My son, My firstborn Israel" (Exodus 4:22). The meaning is that God has a special relationship with His nation, but clearly the bond is emotional and not physical.
The Torah likewise uses this expression for other great individuals. See for example Psalms 89:27-28 in reference to King David, and II Samuel 7:14 in reference to Solomon: “I will be to him as a Father and he will be to Me as a son.”
In this verse, the commentators understand God’s “son” as referring to King David himself (or possibly the future Messiah (Ibn Ezra)), who serves God with the filial devotion of a son honoring his father (Ibn Ezra, Radak), who represents and protects a nation known collectively as God’s son (Rashi, Metzudat David), or who leads the world as an (inheriting) son who controls his father’s property (Malbim)..................."
The Torah likewise uses this expression for other great individuals. See for example Psalms 89:27-28 in reference to King David, and II Samuel 7:14 in reference to Solomon: “I will be to him as a Father and he will be to Me as a son.”
In this verse, the commentators understand God’s “son” as referring to King David himself (or possibly the future Messiah (Ibn Ezra)), who serves God with the filial devotion of a son honoring his father (Ibn Ezra, Radak), who represents and protects a nation known collectively as God’s son (Rashi, Metzudat David), or who leads the world as an (inheriting) son who controls his father’s property (Malbim)..................."
Professor, Claremont School of Theology
"Biblical authors claim that the kings of Israel and Judah were divinely chosen and that they were expected to abide by the covenant (see, for example, Deut 17:14-17, 1Sam 8-12, 1Kgs 2:3-4). Ps 2 calls the Davidic king a “son” of Yhwh. In a similar way, powerful kings in ancient treaties called their lesser allies “sons.” Thus, Israelites saw their king as a lesser agent of their god, ruling on his behalf (see Hag 2:20-23). Since Yhwh was in charge, he was responsible for protecting the king of Israel from threats by enemies (2Sam 7, Ps 2) and for punishing him and even removing him if he did not fulfill divine expectations (1Sam 13-14, 2Sam 7, 1Kgs 11:29-39). Ps 72 calls upon G-d to grant the king divine justice and righteousness so that he might rule the people properly, and Isa 32:1-2 calls upon the king to rule in righteousness so that his officers will govern with justice (see Isa 9:5-9, Isa 11:1-9).................."
The Jewish King as God. The Bart Ehrman Blog: The History & Literature of Early Christianity .
"The son of a human is human, just as the son of a dog is a dog and the son of a cat is a cat. And so what is the son of God? As it turns out, to the surprise of many casual readers of the Bible, there are passages where the king of Israel, widely called the son of God (e.g. 2 Sam. 7:14; Ps. 2:7), is actually referred to as divine, as god.
The Yale Hebrew Bible scholar John Collins points out that this notion ultimately appears to derive from Egyptian ways of thinking about their king, the Pharaoh, as a divine being. Even in Egypt, where the king was God, it did not mean that the king was on a par with the great gods, any more than the Roman emperor was thought to be on a par with Jupiter or Mars. But he was a god. In Egyptian and Roman circles, there were levels of divinity. And so too, as we have seen, in Jewish circles. And so it is that we find highly exalted terms used of the king of Israel, terms that may surprise readers who – based on the kind of thinking that developed in the fourth Christian century — think that there is an unbridgeable chasm between God and humans. Nonetheless, here it is, in the Bible itself, the king is called both Lord and God" .
The Yale Hebrew Bible scholar John Collins points out that this notion ultimately appears to derive from Egyptian ways of thinking about their king, the Pharaoh, as a divine being. Even in Egypt, where the king was God, it did not mean that the king was on a par with the great gods, any more than the Roman emperor was thought to be on a par with Jupiter or Mars. But he was a god. In Egyptian and Roman circles, there were levels of divinity. And so too, as we have seen, in Jewish circles. And so it is that we find highly exalted terms used of the king of Israel, terms that may surprise readers who – based on the kind of thinking that developed in the fourth Christian century — think that there is an unbridgeable chasm between God and humans. Nonetheless, here it is, in the Bible itself, the king is called both Lord and God" .
Created:
Posted in:
I think the spinless among the believers here can see, that just in those two verses, how ridiculous the whole story is.
First it tells us that "the man possessed" met Jesus as he was getting out of the boat. But just three verse later we have "the possessed man" running to him from afar to meet him.
Apparently then these 2,000 demons that have possessed this man's mind and body suddenly decide it would be a good idea to cause the man run to the only one that can exorcise them and banish them to the hell fires, or in the case a watery grave transported by pigs all the way.. Why would they do that?
Why would the demons run to the very person that they had been apposed to all of their existence? They had made sure that the mere mortals of the city couldn't bind them yet here they are, all 2,000 of them running to the only man that could bind and destroy them. Why?
John the baptist was said you have been possessed and to have had a demon. I suppose our resident Christians will tell us that this was a different kind of demon ( maybe a head of some long dead murdered priest that he didn't like and that he was once opposed to or had opposes him? .) Ya never can tell with these scriptures. And it is never mentioned if or not John had undergone an exorcism. Or who performed it.
In those ancient days I suspect that just behaving different or saying something others did not like or could not believe, one could, or would, be classed as demon possessed?
Mark 5:1-20
Healing of a Demoniac. New English Translation
5 So they came to the other side of the lake, to the region of the Gerasenes. 2 Just as Jesus was getting out of the boat, a man with an unclean spirit came from the tombs and met him.
3 He lived among the tombs, and no one could bind him anymore, not even with a chain. 4 For his hands and feet had often been bound with chains and shackles, but he had torn the chains apart and broken the shackles in pieces. No one was strong enough to subdue him. 5 Each night and every day among the tombs and in the mountains, he would cry out and cut himself with stones.
6 When he saw Jesus from a distance, he ran and bowed down before him.
7 Then he cried out with a loud voice, “Leave me alone, Jesus, Son of the Most High God! I implore you by God—do not torment me!” 8 (For Jesus had said to him, “Come out of that man, you unclean spirit!”) 9 Jesus[ asked him, “What is your name?” And he said, “My name is Legion, for we are many.”
10 He begged Jesus repeatedly not to send them out of the region. 11 There on the hillside, a great herd of pigs was feeding. 12 And the demonic spirits begged him, “Send us into the pigs. Let us enter them. 13 Jesus gave them permission. So the unclean spirits came out and went into the pigs. Then the herd rushed down the steep slope into the lake, and about 2,000 were drowned in the lake.”
And it goes on to tell us that all the people that witnessed this event, "ran off and spread the news in the town and countryside, and the people went out to see what had happened".
So Jesus exorcised a man of his demon/demons named "legion" and "we".
The "permission" is to me, the sticking point. Why did they need Jesus's permission?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
If it is so easy - why are you asking?
Easy for you, is what I mean as you know full well. So stop being so fkn pedantic.
And I have explained three fkn times now why I want you to confirm this for me. I am sure not I am reading it correct and I believe - with you being a teacher with "clients" of your own, should be able to simply confirm for me if or not I am correct.
A man runs to Jesus whilst possessed by 2.000 demons. He then starts talking to Jesus asking him a question and begs jeus not to torture him. Is this the correct reading.
6 When he [the man] saw Jesus from a distance, he [the man] ran and fell on his knees in front of him. [Jesus] .
7 He [the man] shouted at the top of his voice, “What do you want with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God?[ he,the man said ] In God’s name don’t torture me[ the man said]”.
What is so hard for you to confirm in those to verses? Just tell me if or not I have read it wrong.
And you ignored this completely: So these demons then , 2000 of them, have full control over this mans words and actions? Yes or NO?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Here is your proof.
Jesus was a Jew. when are you going to accept that fact. king Of the Jews He wasn't a spirit and he wasn't a Christian and he certainly wasn't a monk! https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4953/post-links/210684
So now you have accepted the fact that Jesus was a Jew NOT A CHRISTIAN! . Good for you, about time too. But this doesn't show where I have accused you of denying Jesus was a Jew , does it?
Will you now accept also the he wasn't king of the Christians either?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
u going to accept that fact. king Of the Jews He wasn't a spirit and he wasn't a Christian and he certainly wasn't a monk!I really do not understand your point here.
I am not surprised.
I have said over and over again that Jesus was a Jew. I have never denied it. If you think I have - find it please and post a link to it. Otherwise stop telling lies.
Strawman. I have never said that you have denied Jesus was a Jew and think you aught to show some evidence for YOUR accusation of me telling lies.
I have no issue calling Jesus the king of the Jews. I have never denied this either. Again I request that you find a post where I have done so - and make a link to it.
You are attempting to create a strawman. I have never said you have denied Jesus was Jew or king of the Jews, so why are you creating an argument around something that I have never said. You do this with the scriptures too.
Otherwise STOP TELLING LIES. I never said Jesus was a Spirit. Find a post where I say he was a spirit. Post a link. OTHERWISE STOP TELLING LIES.
That is three times you have accused me of lying in three short lines. I think it is time that you offered up some evidence for these accusations that you appear so damn sure of.
Where have I ever said Jesus was a Christian?
Strawman. I don't know, where have you said that? I haven't ever said you have said that, so who was it?
I make the claim, that he was the head of the church.
The Christian church? Did he know this?
I make the claim that he was the saviour and redeemer of all nations - not just the Jews.
Yes and you have never proven that. You Christians may well have made Jesus "your saviour", but the scriptures make it clear who he came to save , don't they. do you need reminding , here you are:
He answered, "I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Israel."Matthew 15:24. Tell me, who were those lost sheep? Christians?
I make the claim that he is the second person of the Triune Godhead.
According to Christians maybe. And again no evidence for that claim. But I reckon that is to say - ASSUME - if Jesus were here today he'd regard you Christians as Pagans and be appalled that a whole new religion had sprang up in his name and years after he had died.
I have never claimed he was a Christian.
And I have never claimed that you did .
He is the father of the church.
Yes you have said that twice now. And I take it you mean the Christian church and not the Jewish church? What church did Jesus mean when he said to Peter that he will build his church? Matthew 16:18
He is its head. Christians name themselves after Jesus.
Which means what?
Why would I call him a monk?
I didn't say you did. So I don't know why you would call him a monk, did you call him a monk? . My you are getting all confused and pants tied aren't you.
You have still to produce the evidence for your lies that all kings of Israel were called Sons of God.Your lies just get worse and worse.
That's plural. Your accusations are becoming more frequent and a little too often now . I suggest you start offering up some proof of my lies or simply stop.
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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I don't run away. I don't desert threads when they become difficult.
I hate to remind you but I have shown two occasions where you have simply left threads with questions unanswered. Here #21 and here #30 . I would rather say that you deserted these threads than "run away" but I suppose they do mean the same thing.
And again, I see that you would much prefer to argue about things irreverent to the ACTUAL theme of the thread that simply answer questions that you should be able to answer. I can only guess where you got that diversionary tactic from.
I answer questions - but never sufficiently for you - that is quite different.
Now that is lying. I have asked for you to simply qualify a verse from the bible. You have refused three times now having yourself admitted that you won't and don't answer simple yes or no questions.
I don't think you ever answer my questions -
You keep saying this but have never offered an example after I have asked you to do so.
and in fact up until very recently when you made a declaration, I was of the view that you refused to answer questions because you were a coward.
And you are still of that view I take it . But it is false isn't it. Show me where I have refused or ignored a direct question from you. Yes I made a declaration especially for you, saying I would answer every and all questions that are relevant to the thread. I asked you to cut out and keep .
I have said I don't have answers for every question.
You don't have to answer anything. I will simply take it that you simply have no answer.
In fact on many occasions I have said I don't know. I have indicated at times I will speculate. And I do at time.
Not to me. And if my memory serves me correct I have only ever seen you admit to not knowing an answer to a question once, very recently. And you was thanked for your candor/honesty. But I will stand corrected if you can show me three or four times where you have admitted to knot knowing an answer to a question that I have posed you, and I will apologise too.
But so far as I can tell - I have never run away from any question.
What do you mean "as far as you can tell"!???
You have point blank refused and said you will not answer my simple yes or no question above THREE TIMES!!!!!
I really don't have a need too. It is not me on trial here.
Correct. Its your scriptures that are being investigated and scrutinized.
Yes, sometimes I say things - or assert things which I need time to find the evidence for . On those occasions -- normally - not always - it is because you or the Brother or someone else has made some dumb assertion and I foolishly respond back with a similar retort.
Well I am not sure what "dumb assertions" you are accusing me of and it would be nice for you to give me an example. But you won't. Because, like your other accusations about me not answering your questions, you simply can't.
Saying I wont answer with a yes or a no is not running away.
It is. It is avoiding the question . Which in this case is a simply request for you to clarify a verse. I am not even asking you too explain it, but you won't.
I won't be led down a particular path for you to entrap me - which is the way you do things.
You are showing signs of paranoia. "they way I do things" is I scratch away at the surface of these contradictory and ambiguous scriptures the ask questions concerning my findings . This is called research and investigation. You just don't like it, and I don't care.
Besides - I counsel all of my clients never to answer yes or no.
I bet you do. That's' is your big problem. You have ben counseled and are now doing the same to your gullible "clients" . But again you like you, they too will not have been armed enough to be able to explain any embarrassing and awkward questions concerning these scripture that come their way.
Life is more complex than black and white - yes and no answers.
It is but asking for a simply qualification of a verse i.e. is it there or isn't it there in the bible is not the Nazi interrogation that you love to
In response to your question about what happened around the time Jesus died - I did answer.
Nope. Stop telling lies. I simply asked is the verse correct, you gave me a sermon.?
see here>
"52 the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.
This^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ is the description of what is said to have happened at the exact time Jesus is said to have died, isn't it? A yes or no will do.
You treated the question on this thread exactly the same.. I simply asked you to confirm if was I reading a few verses correctly and you have done nothing but dance around AGAIN!!!! HERE>>>https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4911-of-pigs-and-men?page=1&post_number=16
You are a coward. And by your own admission are teaching your "clients" to be cowards also.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
So is the point of our discussions for me to confirm and deny things is it?
As I have explained, I want to know if I am reading the text correctly. I am trying to work out who is talking to who . This is why I am asking these questions.
A man runs to Jesus whilst possessed by 2.000 demons. He then starts talking to Jesus asking him a question and begs jeus not to torture him. Is this the correct reading.
6 When he [the man] saw Jesus from a distance, he [the man] ran and fell on his knees in front of him. [Jesus] .
7 He [the man] shouted at the top of his voice, “What do you want with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God?[ he,the man said ] In God’s name don’t torture me[ the man said]”.
What is so hard for you to confirm in those to verses? Just tell me f or not I have read it wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
so perhaps this is only a brief reach-out to the outside world before he cuts himself off from it and commits fully to the monastery.
Well he has a foot in both camps at the moment. I just hope he removes the one foot in the right direction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Jesus was a Jew. when are you going to accept that fact. king Of the Jews He wasn't a spirit and he wasn't a Christian and he certainly wasn't a monk!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I never said I would not answer,
Saying "I don't answer yes or no"to questions is a refusal to answer questions, no matter how you want to spin it. And I see yet again that you are turning what is a simply thread asking for clarity into a personal slanging match. I have simply asked you to confirm or deny if the verse?
see here>
"52 the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.
This^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ is the description of what is said to have happened at the exact time Jesus is said to have died, isn't it? A yes or no will do.
You see. The question doesn't require any more than a yes or no. I just want you to confirm if or not that this is the description given in the text. Why are you so afraid to confirm that this is EXACTLY what the text states.
I just said I was not going to be led like a lawyer leads a witness. I also said I was not going to answer questions with a yes or a no.
This is the cowardice that many Christians show, not to mention the lack of faith in their own beliefs when they cannot or won't even confirm a verse from there own scriptures.
I think these questions require more complete responses.
Some questions do. But asking you to confirm a biblical verse requires nothing more than a yes or no. You are just too cowardly to dip your toe in the water of uncertainty.
And the fact that you detest this
Fact? What fact? I love it when when you refuse to answer the simplest of questions. I don't detest it, princess. It simply proves what I have said about you all along. That you have been read to, and been told to what page to turn to. and have had the scriptures ' explained ` to you. But you have never been equipped to answer probing questions concerning these, your own, contradictory and ambiguous scriptures. You admit to simply "passing on what you have been taught".
Here on a thread you have deserted>>
we I in most parts are merely passing on the teaching of what i have received.Yes I gathered that. But expect to be called out on what it is that you have "received" and are "passing on" and stop crying about it when you are. And it is apparent to me that you are simply not questioning for yourself what it is that you have "received" and are "passing on" before you have "passed it on"!#21
You desert threads when they become difficult; another example is here >>. #30 The Brother calls this "; running away" , and he may well have good reason to as well.
demonstrates that you are not interested in the truth - just your version of it.
No. I am and always have been open about what I seek from these scriptures. I have always said that I believe that there is something else entirely going on beneath the surface. And a quick scroll through many of my threads attest to this.
Besides, what's to say " my version " isn't the truth? You would never know would you,? Because you have never read these scriptures for your self, have you? You have had bible ' lessons' haven't you? You have been taught how to read the bible by someone that wants you to think exactly like them. You are or have already been cloned. You have become your teachers errand boy, and are simply "passing on" what you have been taught to pass on without question.
You see, the thing about these scriptures, is that they are tantalizing and not as clear cut as YOU want to believe and as your teacher wants you to believe.. They are a ancient mess. They are full of half told stories, innuendo, ambiguous statements, codes, and secret rituals ("raising the dead")going back hundreds of thousands of years.
And didn't Paul encourage and praise those that questioned the scriptures? I can only suppose that you received a slap instead.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Since Matthew is picturing their resurrection as it were as part of the entire scene here.....Yes he is isn't he. He telling us about it years after the fact after picturing the whole scene in his minds eye, isn't he? It simply hasn't entered your brain that Mathew just maybe talking spiritually, has it?LOL! Are you serious? I said above "I actually have a different answer."https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4948/post-links/210134.
Your link isn't working.
I am also the one who raised we need to look at it perhaps in different ways
No that was me . I said;
"I do have to say though, that all these bodies "sleeping" then suddenly leaving their tombs en masse does, as you correctly say appear to be " A crazy and ridiculous event" On the surface maybe, but below it may actually have meant something else entirely"? Last but one sentence.#4
"52 the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.This^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ is the description of what is said to have happened at the exact time Jesus is said to have died, isn't it? A yes or no will do.I don't answer yes or no.
Why ever not? That is a verse from the bible isn't it? Why can you not simply confirm that it is?
I am not a witness to be cross-examined or to be led by a lawyer.
Yes you are. You are a servant of Christ. Your job is to go out into the world and " bare witness" to the gospels and the life of the Christ. “You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and my servant ".
here try this on>>> “You Will Be My Witnesses”: Five Truths About Witnessing From the Book of Acts. https://davidschrock.com/2016/12/15/you-will-be-my-witnesses-five-truths-about-witnessing-from-the-book-of-acts/
to be cross-examined or to be led by a lawyer.
And that is the problem isn't it? When you are put on the backfoot you have absolutely nothing in reply. Because you are only taught to speak of what you "witnessed" (which - just like the gospel writers - in your case is absolutely nothing ). And when it comes to simple questions, BOOOM! you hit a brick wall and are turned into a mangled mess of hypocrisy and contradictions.
What was the point or purpose of a load believed "dead" people "coming out of the graves" and marching on the city en masse?
What happened when they got there?
Why didn't they "rise from their tombs" BEFORE the Christ was so viciously beaten and nailed to a cross?
Where are the gasps of shock, surprise or even fear of those alive on seeing these long dead rotten stinking corpses just walking into their city en masse??
Were they arrested as followers of Jesus?
Did they ever die again?
Were they also crucified?
Were they Killed?
Did they die again in the earthquake?
Were they re-resurrected?
This ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ is why the story makes no fkn sense! AND THIS is why it has to mean something else if it happened at all!!!!! I have told you, you are not clever at all. If you were you would be able to answer those simple questions above because they do have answers. But you cannot even bring yourself to confirm or deny if a biblical verse is correct. Trade secret? The only person to claim that title that has no secrets to trade.
. One just needs to be able to read the book in the way that he wanted us to read it.
I see. Which is how exactly?
Did he (Matthew) write the book for all those millions illiterate peasants of the time and in the future to be able to notice, and know, that when he wrote one thing, that they should automatically know and understand that he actually meant something else entirely?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
What do you find fulfilling about monastic life? What is it giving you that religion in the outside world wasn't giving you?
That's the problem though isn't it? He hasn't quite left the outside world has he?
This idea of monastic life was to be free of outside influences. To allow themselves to be free of sensual pleasures in their search for spiritual enlightenment and goals. Hence the perceived ' solitary life'; which we know can either be solitary or communal, and we can see Mopac has chosen the latter, which blows the lid off any of his perceived asceticism, right away.
But also in Mopac we have a "monk" that has full access to the world wide web and its influences. Maybe he is going to be a new, modern type of ascetic monk, in the new age? I have known hermits to lead a more ascetic life than Mopac, some by choice others by circumstances.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
People coming to life - because Jesus has died - actually has wonderful encouragement for me and believers.
And I am genuinely pleased for you.
It was after all, the point of his death and resurrection from the believer's point of view.
Ah, and this is what is bugging me about the verse. Try answering the question this time around .
"52 the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.
This^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ is the description of what is said to have happened at the exact time Jesus is said to have died, isn't it? A yes or no will do.
Since Matthew is picturing their resurrection as it were as part of the entire scene here.....
Yes he is isn't he. He telling us about it years after the fact after picturing the whole scene in his minds eye, isn't he? It simply hasn't entered your brain that Mathew just maybe talking spiritually, has it?
Created:
Posted in:
When I said the man was talking about Jesus as God - I was not meaning to indicate he was not talking to Jesus. The man said to Jesus - what do you want with me Jesus, son of the most high God? He is clearly not only talking to Jesus - but describing him as well.
I see you haven't bothered to confirm or deny anything either way above. So stop trying to be clever, because you'er not, by any means.
John the baptist was said to have " had a demon " too, didn't he?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You appear to be evading the question. So you are saying then that this..............>>>
Mopac wrote: The correct understanding is with The Orthodox Church. Any interpretation that contradicts the teaching of the church is heretical and not even Christian.
.....................answers this question>> Would you say that the New Testament is reliable concerning the birth, life and death of The Christ ?
Well it clearly doesn't and you know it doesn't. I am simply asking you if the New Testament conveys to us a true and reliable account of the Birth, life an death of Jesus and your none answer seems only to be saying that ONLY "the Orthodox Church has the correct interpretation".
Any interpretation that contradicts the teaching of the church is heretical and not even Christian.
Ok then, does, for example, the King James (authorised version) bible of 1611 tell a reliable story concerning the birth, life and death of The Christ ?
The lives of many saints also act as evidences.
Would this include Saint Teresa of Calcutta the Indian Albanian born Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu ?
I am sure you have no problem admitting that you are not a Christian.
I am not a practicing Christian. Christianity was forced on me without my knowledge as it is on many of those born to Christians in the west. And according to Muslims, anyone born in the west is a filthy Kufar Christian, especially if they are white.
Anyway. I can see you fear to commit yourself to my question for reasons only you know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
There is kerigma which is what is publically taught to everyone, and there is mystagogy which is taught to those in the church.
Well the Christ does admit to purposely speaking in riddles to those outside of his circle. And I expect when in the earshot of the Romans. "Let he with ears" etc etc.Matthew 11:15 . Not to mention the many coded expressions & names given in the NT scriptures.
Much in the same way, Christ taught in parables to the masses, but explained the parables to his disciples.
Yes I think you mean the "mysteries of the heavens" that he spoke about. But as far as we know, he didn't quite get around to teaching them about the heavens. This would be the mysteries as in astronomy I believe:
as in - “Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.Matthew 13:11 Although he did give them a heads up on what "signs" to look for at the end of the age.
Sola Scriptura is somewhat silly, because there is always an interpreter.
But you all claim to have the right version or interpretation don't you, while all the time conveniently forgetting that Jesus was a Jew and king of the Jews and never once even mentions the words Christian or Christians. Indeed he makes it more than clear about who he has come to save, doesn't he:
"I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel." Matthew 15:24 . Now considering that there were no Christians in Israel at the time of Jesus nor for years after, I think it is pretty clear who and only who, he had in mind when he spoke those words.
And didn't his brother James "The Just" Jew take over the leadership of the Jerusalem church after the death of both the so called "pillars" : John the Baptist and Jesus?
In my experience, protestants have little to no understanding of the concept of typology.
And I am sure they will say the same about you and your particular flock.
You didn't answer my question. Would you say that the New Testament is reliable concerning the birth, life and death of The Christ ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Surrendering to God's will,
Sounds all very Islamic, doesn't it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
apostasy of the west,
I did a thread on the decline of the Christian church and it members a while back.
Christianity won't be # 1 much longer.
Of course I had the deniers refusing every word I had said and refusing to even entertain the evidence which included the concerns that church leaders from around the world themselves have about rate and speed at which it was declining .
I am of the belief that the cause of this decline & apostasy is the New Testament and probably the way it is taught..
Would you say that the New Testament is reliable concerning the birth, life and death of The Christ ?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
The biblical God is reveled as three distinct Persons.
Yes, now commonly known as Dissociative identity disorder (DID), previously known as multiple personality disorder (MPD), is a mental disorder characterized by the maintenance of at least two distinct and relatively enduring personality states.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Can anyone have a stab at this for me.Jesus dies and then this happened52 the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.Matthew 27:52-53What does this actually mean?One reason is to depict that the killing of the messiah was an unnatural event.
So was there earthquakes and ripping of temple curtains and dead bodies entering the city when any of the other 14 "messiah's" before Jesus died?
One reason is to depict that the killing of the messiah was an unnatural event. A crazy and ridiculous event.[ .............]The picture of graves opening and people walking around clearly pictures an absurdity. A crazy and ridiculous event. So when the people of this earth intentionally killed their messiah - the universe went crazy around them. So one reason is that this is poetically picturing the intentional killing of the messiah as absurd - which set the world off for a moment in similar fashion.
A crazy and ridiculous event.
Yes. It was. And just when we thought we had left behind us the vile atrocities of perpetual rape and perpetual killing in the Old Testament ,too. We have again in the New Testament a terrible and murderous conspiracy to rid the world of who some believed to be the true heir to the throne of Jerusalem; Jesus king of the Jews, the (failed) Jewish messiah , one of many failed messiahs who it is said had been sent to free the Jews from the Roman yoke.
But then to others he was a religiopolitical agitator accused of , and found guilty of , among other charges, Lèse-majesté.
The picture of graves opening and people walking around clearly pictures an absurdity.
It does! I agree. And maybe this is STILL why I am not quite getting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"52 the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.
This^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ is the description of what is said to have happened at the exact time Jesus is said to have died, isn't it? A yes or no will do.
A crazy and ridiculous event.
So ridiculous it may not be true?
So when the people of this earth intentionally killed their messiah - the universe went crazy around them.
Not quite. There was it is said some curtain ripping and an earthquake. And didn't the sky go dark for a while? Hardly "universal".
I do have to say though, that all these bodies "sleeping" then suddenly leaving their tombs en masse does, as you correctly say appear to be " A crazy and ridiculous event" On the surface maybe, but below it may actually have meant something else entirely?
And to me these dead rising en masse certainly takes the shine off Jesus coming alive after being dead considering this type of event can be seen to be a regular occurrence and narrated in such a matter of fact way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
P16 When he [the man] saw Jesus from a distance, he [the man] ran and fell on his knees in front of him. [Jesus]7 He [the man] shouted at the top of his voice, “What do you want with me[ he,the man], Jesus, Son of the Most High God? In God’s name don’t torture me[ he the man]”Do I have P1 correct thus far?I presume you are suggesting that P1 is human and that the human is begging Jesus not to torture him. Please correct me if I assume incorrectly.
I though my illustration made it clear by my interjections of [the man] and in bold and separating [the man] from [Jesus].
I see that I have to make it even more clear for you. SO, At 6 there is a man possessed running towards Jesus. Yes or No?
And 7 is the man shouting two questions at Jesus. Yes or No?
No ordinary man is going to know from a distance or even close that Jesus is the Son of the Most High God.
The scripture does say "a man" though doesn't it? So lets stick to what the scripture CLEARLY states.
2 "Just as Jesus was getting out of the boat, a man with an unclean spirit came from the tombs and met him". So is this the demon possessed man, Yes or No?
And just three short verses on it states this>
"6 When he saw Jesus from a distance, he ran and bowed down before him. " Is the "he" in this verse, the man. yes or no?
You may have a good point of concerning a "ordinary man", as Jesus was in another country and no one of the general population probably wouldn't have know him. There again , no one in the city he was believed to be king of didn't even know him either , did they? Or what kind of a "man" he was either, did they?
This was clearly in the passage a particular knowledge known by the demons within the man -
I am not sure what you are trying to say there^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
the man being used by the demons to speak.
Yes, that is what I am assuming. So these demons then , 2000 of them, have full control over this mans words and actions? Yes or NO?
I assume the demon is talking about Jesus - as God,
No, it is clearly written and shown that the demon possessed man is talking TO Jesus. Not about Jesus.
I didn't need to address the rest of your sermon of who owned the pigs etc etc is irrelevant. So if we could just stick to the content of my questions and what the bible actually states and not what you believe or want it to state. This really isn't a lot to ask and the conversation would flow a lot better and quicker without your uncalled for (and certainly not asked for) asides and interjections that have nothing to do with the thread.
Created:
Posted in:
?
Can anyone have a stab at this for me.
Jesus dies and then this happened
52 the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.
Matthew 27:52-53
What does this actually mean?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Perhaps the author of the story just wants the demon(s) to act like it knows ........................
Well I am trying to work out who is talking to who at the moment.
Such as here>. 6 "When he [the man] saw Jesus from a distance, he [the man] ran and fell on his knees in front of him. [Jesus] . Ok simply enough, so all through 6 The MAN runs to Jesus and falls on knees.<<<<<<<<<< Is this the correct reading?
I will split the following verse 7 into A-B & C
7 (A)He [the man] shouted at the top of his voice,
(B) “What do you want with me[ the man said], Jesus, Son of the Most High God?
(C)In God’s name don’t torture me[ said the man]”.
Are A,B & C correct so far?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
I mean, how the hell was he ever getting on without us before all this creating of Hell,Satan, deceiving serpents, angels, disobedient women, floods, destruction, war, murder, kings, queens, sacrifice, priests, other idols to worry about and be jealous of and not to mention the "other gods" also to be jealousy of that appear to have been "loved" instead of him. However did he manage to occupied himself for all that time before we and this planet were even thought about and come into existence?He did manage. God is content in Himself, in the tri-unity of Beings - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Oh stop it. You now simply have to attempt to invent further something you that do not, and cannot, possibly have a clue about and all to be enable you to embellish even further and expand your initial simply response reply of " we were created to experience a relationship with Him and learn of His love for us, that we may choose to love Him".
You have been caught cold with just one question and two replies from me..
Genesis 14 God saw that the light was good
God may well have called it "all good", but WE now know it wasn't and isn't, don't we?
The earth for instance, has and always will be an unstable planet and becomes more unstable as it moves through the solar system and when it comes into close proximity with other planets. We know that the movements of the other planets have an adverse effect on our own planet causing the deaths of millions. AND SO DID those controlling priests of old, didn't they?
Indeed it was much more simpler then in past times of ignorance and fear, when priests faced less doubt and opposition to totally control a persons daily life not to mention to enable them to extort ones hard earned earthly goods.
Because he was bored stupid ' would have been a better reply. And just as easily been blown out of the water.Pure speculation without biblical evidence.
Says the man that always attempts to pass off speculation and belief as fact. Example>>
Stephen wrote: However did he manage to occupied himself for all that time before we and this planet were even thought about and come into existence?PGA2.0, Speculated "without evidence" ... "God is eternally present. Time needs a start, yet God is eternal. He transcends time. Time was created with the universe and humanity. Humans comprehend time because they think as well as have a beginning".
Created:
Posted in:
You really want to vote for Hidin’ Biden?He told Ukraine if they didn’t fire their prosecutor, son-of-a-bitch, he wouldn’t release $1B in aid.He said he’s running for Senate.He told you if you don’t vote for him, you ain’t black.He said unlike the Hispanic community, the black community is not diverse.He said Trump’s China and Europe travel bans were xenophobic.“I will beat Joe Biden.” [The media tried to excuse this by claiming he said [“I will be Joe Biden.” But that’s worse. Who is he now if he’s not Joe Biden?]He said Trump’s travel bans were a good idea.He said he has hairy legs. [tmi]He likes kids running their hands up and down his legs. [TMI!]He wants to sniff your hair. [TTTMMMIII!!!]Joe said you should not vote for him.He applauded the Harris administration.He said he’s running for the senate. [A second time.]“I pledge allegiance to United States America, one nation, indivis… under God… for real…”“Two million… twenty… two hundred thousand…”He said that when one person sneezes, it travels throughout the aircraft, and, “that’s me.” [What is he? A snot cloud? He said it, not me.]He said if you do everything right, there’s a 30% chance you’re still wrong. [Is that like truth over facts?]“Stand up, Chuck, let ‘em see you.” [said to Chuck Graham, who is in a wheelchair]Have you been to a 7-11 lately? Just asking because Joe told you who you would encounter.“Am I doing this again? My memory is not as good as Chief Justice Roberts.” [Even Oba’a poked him for that one.]Okay, go register your vote for this fool.
AND:
He said "all men women are go, by, you know created, created by the thing, you know the thing".
But what's "the thing" that Sleepy is talking about"? "The thing" is questioned here >>. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2lTIh536jY
And the explanation for creation of "thing" is explained comprehensively in the short 6 min video here>>> The thing that made the things for which there is no known maker. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVbnciQYMiM&t=150s
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
A better question I have asked hundreds of theists, is why did god create anything, at all, in the first place? and like much of the bible, I have never had a answer that couldn't easily be debunked.[A] For His pleasure. Because He wanted to, not because He had to.So simply put then we were created for his own self serving reasons as his toys or pets, to be discarded (killed and disposed of) at will as he could make more when he got fed up and bored with his old toys. He certainly knew when to dispose of his childish things didn't he; anytime he felt like it.No, we were created to experience a relationship with Him and learn of His love for us, that we may choose to love Him,
I just love how you have to further embellish your reply at [A] once it has been show to be absolutely ridiculous.
You simply cannot explain why god created anything at all can you? So you now have had to resort to injecting sentiment of exaggerated, self-indulgent feelings of caring, tenderness and love, not realising he wouldn't have the need to bother at all had he not created anything.
I mean, how the hell was he ever getting on without us before all this creating of hell, Satan, deceiving serpents, angels, disobedient women, floods, destruction, war, murder, kings, queens, sacrifice, priests, other idols to worry about and be jealous of and not to mention the "other gods" also to be jealousy of that appear to have been "loved" instead of him. However did he manage to occupied himself for all that time before we and this planet were even thought about and come into existence?
` Because he was bored stupid ' would have been a better reply. And just as easily been blown out of the water.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Stephen wrote: And all the above is "the world view" of atheists" is it?
janesix wrote: yes
Ok , it has been stated that a part of that " world view" is that : "An atheist chooses not to believe in God despite the evidence to the contrary". #1 Tradesecret
Would you like to show me "the evidence " that god does indeed exist?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
The worldview of an Atheist
And all the above is "the world view" of atheists" is it?
Created:
Posted in:
You have indicated on occasion that you don't like people asking you questions.
No true at all . And you cannot give me one example. But regardless I will then make yet another declaration just for you.
Declaration;
I welcome any and all questions that are relevant to any and all threads that I create and or take part in. Now cut that out and keep it should I fail to live up to that / MY. declaration.
You like to ask questions.
Yes. And?
You don't like to answer questions.
see Declaration; above
In fact you become irate when I have asked you questions.
Not if they are relevant to the thread. I admit to getting annoyed when YOU deliberately swerve and divert purposefully from the theme of a thread, especially when you cannot answer the question. . A very recent example of your diversionary behaviour can be seen here bottom of post here>>#28 and here #30, where on both those post I had to remind not to divert to something that has nothing to do with the theme/topic of the thread, and worse still, something that was ALREADY being discussed and argued on another thread. You ignored this, twice
You put questions. This is true. And it is fair to say that you put questions from the bible - questions that have been raised in your mind.
No. I put questions that have been raised because of what is written and or been said in and of in the scriptures as shown above.
You do not always produce your sources - very often I have asked and not received.
The bible is usually my source of queries. You just don't know your scripture enough to realise that. And something else that you always fail to realise, is that I don't have to prove anything.. at all, concerning the unreliable and ambiguous scriptures. That is your job unfortunately. But you haven't been equipped to deal with such deep and probing questions have you? or even simple ones. You have just had the scriptures read to you and told which page to turn to, haven't you? You have never really been given the chance to question, and probe and scrutinize these unreliable and ambiguous scriptures for yourself, have you? Or you don't know how to.
Most of your response here is WAFFEL. And does not deserve a response.
Then simply do not respond. I don't care either way.
Many times I have asked for your source and you refuse to provide it.
" many" . Ok give me one.
I cannot recall even one source you have provided that I criticized. Please provide an example.
That's your job, you are making the accusation and the claim. Show me where I have not given sources for what I have claimed. You can't can you.
Ok. But you should not make assumptions either which are contrary to what the teaching of the church has indicated was said.
YOU speak here of assumptions.
So we cannot assume that John was baptised and given authority by god? We cannot assume that the one authorized to baptise or performing the baptismal rite should have FIRST been baptised himself? YOU make assumption continually, you goddamn hypocrite!
we I in most parts are merely passing on the teaching of what i have received.
Yes I gathered that. But expect to be called out on what it is that you have "received" and are "passing on" and stop crying about it when you are. And it is apparent to me that you are simply not questioning for yourself what it is that you have "received" and are "passing on" before you have "passed it on"!
I do not have an agenda. I really don't.
You do. You have admitted as much right there above. You are passing on the word of your god, That is your agenda.
He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation".Mark 16:15
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Seems very odd that they for some reason needed permission to enter the pigs yet nowhere does it mention that these demons asked anyone's or needed permission to enter and possess this poor man?Idolatry answers the question.
Nope. Nothing there at all concerning idolatry . Could you dare to expand on your one word 'explanation'?
And this part is very confusing: tell me if I have this wrong
P1
6 When he [the man] saw Jesus from a distance, he [the man] ran and fell on his knees in front of him. [Jesus]
7 He [the man] shouted at the top of his voice, “What do you want with me[ he,the man], Jesus, Son of the Most High God? In God’s name don’t torture me[ he the man]”
Do I have P1 correct thus far?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I accept that it makes sense that someone who baptizes another ought to be baptized- and within a church setting that is correct. Or at least ought to be correct.
Yes that would be the "notion" that YOU spoke of here at, #27 that you say was "my notion".
I simply agree. Have you forgotten YOUR notion. Here it is , and just as you wrote it>>>> #29 "I do hold to the view that a person who baptizes another ought to be baptized themselves". And I believe that to be a more than reasonable assumption.
As I have said, it would be a diabolical liberty for someone to call for others to have their sins washed away and not have had their own sins cleansed first. I mean, what would be the advantage to have someone who's hands are covered in the filth of sin attempting to cleans another's filth. Do we wash our hands in muddy water? No we don't!!!
Nevertheless, the word baptism in the NT is quite unexpected from a word we would expect to equate the ordination of a Levite priest.John is the Baptizer. But is his baptism (what he does) always and in every way to be understood as congruent with the ordination of the Levite priests?
I don't care that is all irrelevant to this thread. And from this point on I will edit out anything irrelevant to this thread and respond only to what is relevant.
If or not Jesus is /was a Levite is being argued on this thread here >>>. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4858-josephs-two-dads?page=1
I am not convinced that John was baptized as we understand baptism.
Why not?
You tell us that John himself spoke of his own baptism , here;>>
I do hold to the view that a person who baptizes another ought to be baptized themselves. Yet, I also think that there is no specific power in baptism since it is a symbolic picture of a far more important baptism. Yes, in the main, but with exceptions, baptism is to do with sin and even the remittance of sins. Yet, even this is gets screwed up by many because as John says - his baptism is deficient - which is why a greater one with a greater baptism is coming. In what way was his baptism deficient? It was washing on the outside -and it is the heart which is the problem.The most important baptism in the NT is at Pentecost. This is the baptism that Jesus baptized with the Holy Spirit. This is the paradigm, not John's.
That above ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ is you, isn't it.
as we understand baptism.
Which is how?
Why do I feel another biblical re-write coming on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
-->@zedvictor4 wrote: Stephen just enjoys pointing out these flaws.....Pigs and demons are one of his latest issues.Stephen is harmless. He has a position. It would be nice if he actually put it - rather than trying to assume the mantle of teacher.
I think that you will find most of my threads concerning the scriptures, god, and Christianity are all question based. This is because I want and do expect answers. Teachers do not seek answers as a rule.
He very rarely reveals his sources - it would be nice if he was more transparent.
My sources all come from the scriptures. I scrutinise , question and criticize the scriptures. If for some reason I have to gather support from other - outside - sources, I will ALWAYS produce those sources, even though when I do so, my outside sources are always dismissed for any amount of reasons although they may have come from learned scholars and academics in the theological field AND indeed the clergy of the church. Example : From priests who call them selves "father " and are addressed as such, although the bible clearly states that we should call "no one father". Matthew 23:9. And also teachers that call themselves "Rabbi" though Jesus himself said "you are not to be called 'Rabbi"Matthew 23:8. We are told to honour our father and mother and not to curse them on one hand, yet, on the other , the same person tell us:
"If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters--yes, even their own life--such a person cannot be my disciple".Luke 14:26
I can't wait for your interpretation of that little christian biblical dilemma.
And when a disciple told Jesus the his mother- the blessed virgin Mary herself - and brothers and sisters wanted to speak with him , he offered this rebuff:"Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" Matthew 12:48. Honour thy father and mother eh.? Right. I see
He is also loathe to harshly criticize and is rash to putting people into boxes.
I do freely admit to criticizing the scriptures and your god. I also scrutinise closely as I possibly as I can what is written and purported to have been said by each and every character that I happen to be questioning and scrutinizing at the time. I think you just don't like the fact that I highlight the glaring faults (and some not so glaring) that your so called holy texts have to offer as "gospel truth".
But overall I welcome Stephen's position - I just wish he was not arrogant with his attitude.
It would be nice of you not to put words into the mouths of the authors and the characters in the scriptures and the proceed to discuss what no one ever has written and no one has ever said in the scriptures. Example, making up the BS that to "curse" in the bible means to kill ones parents Leviticus 20:9. This was just a blatant lie but you made pages of posts trying to prove this to be true.
SO. Any arrogance comes from you believers, you actually believe that you know something all the unbelievers don't know and proceed to convince unbelievers of what it is you believe you know. and I suppose that all goes swimmingly until, that is, you are called out and caught cold on something that you have tried to pass of as "gospel truth", simply doesn't ring true, and then out pour the excuses, the reinterpretations, the rewriting and the outright lies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Well , Vic.
I find it absolute astounding that these demons can just jump into a human willy nilly, without haven't to wait for any sort of sanction or permission, don't you.
Yet, here we have them just quivering and pleading to be allowed to possess these pigs, PIGS! VIC, PIGS!!!!!! Thousands of them!!!!
"The herd, about two thousand in number, rushed down the steep bank into the lake and were drowned". Mark 5:13
And I suppose we can only assume that these demons weren't Jew demons.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
-->@3RU7AL wrote: (IFF) the cosmos is controlled by a megalomaniacal lunatic who demands my fealty on pain of eternal torture (THEN) FUCK THAT GUY.Tradesecret wrote: I certainly don't have any regard for such a depiction of a person.Stephen wrote: I believe he was talking about your megalomaniac, self serving, vain, sadistic, narcissistic, egotistic, warmongering and jealous god.I am sure he will correct me if I am wrong..
I am not an atheist and nor do I serve and worship any god that is described as above. Which means that his logic is flawed.
Well your god freely admits to being jealous and a god of war.Exodus 34:14 & Exodus 15:3, KJV The first 11 commandments are all to do with his ego, narcissism and vanity Exodus 20:1-11. And it is only after these do we get to the few "thou shalt nots" .
What none of you ever really get is the flip side of the picture you paint. If the presumption that God is good holds true,
Yet not one single thing that he and YOU claim he created is faultless. Indeed it is full of flaws. In fact he had the brass nerve to say "it was good" >>>>"Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good." Genesis 1:31, when it clearly wasn't. Just for starters, the earth is and always has been an unstable planet., and this instability is bore out by the millions of deaths caused by the earth quakes, volcanoes, tidal waves and land slides, since it came into existence. But then again, this may well be "good" to your god considering that life , human life - is cheap to him.
then God will be seen to be good by those who love him and evil by those who don't.
Hope and wishful thinking doesn't make you right. And trying to claim that god doesn't do, or create, anything evil, is simply denying what your own scriptures have to say.. But again, you are good at contradicting what your own scriptures say aren't you, when there are over 100 biblical verses swearing to the fact that "god created everything in, on and of, the earth".
If the presumption is that God is not good but how you describe him, then everyone would see him as evil, and there would no place for good.
Don't be so naive. Do you agree with what everyone else has to say about anything. NO you don't.
Those opposed to God, don't see the good, refuse to see the good and cannot explain it even if they could see it.
I see lots of good in lost of things. But I see lots of bad too and the bad that I read in the bible for instance, without doubt , outweighs any good that one may be lucky enough to stumble across in its pages. . The OT from almost the offset starts with conflict and it simply gets worse and does't stop till the end. The NT is also beset with conflict, speaks of destruction and ends with torture and murder with predictions of doom thrown in, if it is to be believed.
Those in favor of God, see the good, can explain it and can also see where others are coming from and still see the good and explain it.
Piffle and rubbish. . You contradict the scriptures to suit your own narrative and make things up. You put words into the mouths of the biblical authors and characters and then presume to discuss what isn't even written or said by either. In short, you tell lies and make things up as you go when approached and challenged on almost anything biblical.
It is easy for someone who does not love God to see him as evil et al.
That is because your god makes it so fkn easy to see him as evil. The threats of death for minor or no reason don't stop coming do they? He sanctions the death of children for nothing less than a wager doesn't he. He intentionally caused a man to oppose him so he could kill all first born of everything on the planet? He teased and tested a man to kill his son although he knew full well that the man would be faithful and carry out his wishes . He killed a man simply for steadying and saving the most sacred possession of his "chosen people"!
It is however very rare to see any favorable comments about God from you.
Well now you listen to me princess. That is your job isn't it? You have to cause me to be able to see anything and all things "favourable" about your god. Or have you forgotten your gods command? Here you are>> "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation".Mark 16:15.
But there is just one problem with that command isn't there.;? He didn't equip you with the mental tools to be able to answer some of the simplest of questions on all matter biblical, did he. What a nasty, nasty god he is. . No, what he did instead was cause the likes of you to torture and put to death anyone that questioned his words and didn't believe in him; especially women.
Despite the many and overwhelming examples in the bible.
Examples of what? I have challenged many believers her to give me examples of gods " good". Now here is your chance to show us all. [A] Start a thread on all the good that god/Jesus has done.
How can such an evil god do any good?
See [A] above, you can't miss it, it is in BOLD
That is the question.
It is and you now you have the opportunity to put your gods case in a brand new thread.
In other words, even his goodness is seen as motivated by his own evil agenda. I am not sure if you could even see this if you wanted to .
Your gods "bad" simply out-weighs any good that one may be lucky enough to stumble on in those ambiguous , contradictory and unreliable scriptures.
But I await and anticipate your own spellbinding thread on the matter of gods "good".
And speaking of anticipation, you haven't corrected your false accusations about me on this thread here>.#28
Created:
Posted in:
Seems very odd that they for some reason needed permission to enter the pigs yet nowhere does it mention that these demons asked anyone's or needed permission to enter and possess this poor man?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Alternatively, you are having an imaginary conversation with your ultra ego because you are lonely.Why did "YHWH" create humans?Slavery."there was not a man to till the ground." Till = dig = mine.A better question I have asked hundreds of theists, is why did god create anything, at all, in the first place? and like much of the bible, I have never had a answer that couldn't easily be debunked.For His pleasure. Because He wanted to, not because He had to.
So simply put then we were created for his own self serving reasons as his toys or pets, to be discarded (killed and disposed of) at will as he could make more when he got fed up and bored with his old toys. He certainly knew when to dispose of his childish things didn't he; anytime he felt like it.
Yes. He gave us extremely good examples of his behavior in stories such as that of poor Job and his ten children where human life was, well, ten a penny.
Marvelous isn't it, that the bible, as do apologist , give us 'reasons' why god destroys humans including children. But has only ever given one reason for the creation of the humans species; "there was not a man to till the ground". Genesis 2:5
Created: