Total posts: 8,861
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I am a doctor#130
You just cannot help adding to your long list of imagined qualifications , can you Reverend. Maybe you should ask god for more wisdom of how to stop compulsively lying and aggrandizing about yourself.
if you are going to refer to that image - at least quote it in full.
Ok. The profile that you refer to is the profile you chose to share on a forum of the WWW. Here>>. https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEGZNA4
It shows you to be Female although you now insist that you are now Male.
It shows you to be a New Zealander although you insist that you are Australian.
It shows that your first language is Greek where your other profiles show your first language is English.
It also shows you to have a "doctorate" but are now denying that you are a Doctor but wish to be addressed as such!! << only someone with serious mental issues could make such a statement as that.
I personally do not care what you choose to be from one day to the next.
But I do have a problem with someone that masquerades as a person to have been "chosen by god" to be a " Pastor to a congregation of over three hundred". That also claims to be " a Chaplain to his countries Armed Forces" while preaching to others about truth and integrity with a bible in one hand and a sheet full of lies in the other but knows nothing about the bible he is holding, while also claiming to "read it three times a year" and to have " memorised it backwards and forwards from a very early age" and knows it in "Hebrew and Greek".
James 4:16 " As it is, you boast in your arrogance. All such boasting is evil".
You should stick with the farm that you also claim to own, imo.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
"I believe," "but I couldn't say for sure," that the pseudo-christian YouFound_Lxam "in a metaphor sense," "but then again," was sent here by SATAN where "it could have been 7 days" ago, "Or 7 thousand literal years," ago, "to disrupt this Religion Forum, "Or it could be an eternity" that YouFound_Lxam disrupts this forum in going against Christianity and the direct words by Jesus in the Bible since "God lives outside of time," "that is just my take on it."
Maybe he could try asking god for wisdom? This is what the Reverend resorts to, for whatever good it does for him.>>
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Stephen,Well, what are we to expect of a Bible fool like YouFound_Lxam
I don't know now, to be honest. I believed i going to be treated to some real insight and actual proof that god exists going by the claim made. But is all can see are, if's, but's , could be's and may be's.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
@YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam wrote: “I believe that this scripture is a metaphor and is trying to show the fact that God lives outside of time there for, a day could be like a thousand years for God, or it could be an eternity. But then again, it could have been 7 days, or 7 thousand literal years, I couldn't say for sure. That is just my take on it.BrotherD.Thomas wrote: OMG, STOP, STOP!!!! Look at all of your 8 comical “opinions” in one paragraph alone within your quote above, that are not vouchsafed Biblically.
He's certainly covering all bases there, Brother D.
And he's ignored this twice already>>
Created:
Posted in:
@the witch.
Says the guy who talks about how he wants to see broomsticks in my children's crotches.
Stop telling lies and being so dramatic, you attention seeking clown.
Created:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Why does this matter?
Because I don't know. And Jesus, if the bible is to be believed seemed to be in rather a hurry to get his mission done.
So you don't know either, then?
Created:
-->
@SirAnonymous
was I barking up the wrong tree?
Yes.
And I said 5 above when now I see that it could have been 6 or 7 in two days. There is no information on the remaining 5 or 6.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
If the claim is true, offer details so that whomever it was may be banned. Otherwise we'll be left with the conclusion you're lying as a desperate plea for attention.
I think this may agree with your conclusion, Barney.
Polythewitch: " I'm here to basically like I said drop my opinion like I'm taking a shit and walk away!.#140
Created:
Matthew 10:2
2 These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; 3 Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; 4 Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.
Was it a matter of days, weeks or a year?
The only thing we can be certain of is that at least 5 were gathered within 2 days.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Stephen wrote: So the 7 day creation story is not to be taken literally but the 1 day = 1,000 years is to be taken literally?How do you know?YouFound_Lxam Wrote: Here is the thing about the scripture. The scripture doesn't always mean something literally happened, and it doesn't mean something metaphorically happened.
All very ambiguous then.
So how do you know when to take something literal or metaphorical? Did the illiterate superstitious Jews and early Christians understand metaphor and idioms?
From what I have read even the disciples of Jesus didn't understand what he was talking about most of the time, so how can you claim that you understand what is meant by something spoken 2000 years ago, when the local goatherd and fisherman couldn't?
Stephen wrote: "So the 7-day creation story is not to be taken literally but the 1 day = 1,000 years is to be taken literally?"YouFound_Lxam wrote: Yes maybe. But maybe by the scripture saying that, it could be representing that God lives outside of time, therefore it was portrayed differently.But then again it could have meant a literal 7 days, or 7 thousand years. Thats the fascinating thing about the bible.
"maybe it is"? "could have meant"?
That's called make it up as you go along where I come from. And opens the door for you take literary licence and apply any excuse as long as it suites.
YouFound_Lxam wrote, That's the fascinating thing about the bible.
And it is fascinating to me that Christians have had 2000 years to iron out these ambiguous half stories that make up the NT and with every new excuse for these biblical ambiguities comes new dilemmas and questions To put that in English, you Christians have continually been putting patches on a burst innertube for over 2000 years and it has left you holding nothing but patches..
You should actually take note of what your Christ had to say on such matters.
Matthew 9:16-17 New International Version
“No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, for the patch will pull away from the garment, making the tear worse. Neither do people pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst; the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Just like Miss Tradesecret, you take away YouFound_Lxam in proffering his opinions, metaphors, and subjective interpretations of the Bible, and where he says that you are not to take the Bible literally all the time, and he falls flat upon his proverbial face! LOL!
Yet when the sandal is on the other foot , they -Tradesecret in particular - insist on that I quote only from the bible. But when I oblige, Tradesecret in particular will scramble for excuses claiming metaphor, subjective interpretations and "other commentators speculations and guesswork."
Stephen, do any of the passages above state that you can have your personal OPINIONS, METAPHORS and other SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATIONS of the Bible that you want?
Not at all Brother D. Those verses in particular mean exactly what they say today as the they did the day were written.... and in any language too. And that is why it came as music to my ears when the Reverend wrote this:
TRADESECRET WROTE: Each of the four gospels are telling the same story, Not exactly of course. But they are all presenting it quite different ways. Sometimes they use the same source and sometimes they don't. The question is not whether they agree perfectly but whether they actually contradict each other. Witnesses never tell exactly the same story - or else they are seen to be scheming - a conspiracy. When they give different aspects - and sometimes different scenarios - it adds to the picture - but also provides the vibe of authencity. #139Occam's razor tells us the simplest explanation is often the correct one. #116
The Reverend certainly opened the gate very wide for me with that comment Brother D. , while failing to realise he had just stuck both feet in that wide open Pastors pie hole of his.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Simon
–called Peter.
Whichever version one accepts of
Jesus’ alleged first meeting with Simon –called Peter everything
about it doesn’t make the blindest bit of sense.
It
is the belief of millions of Christians that Simon Peter (meaning rock) would be the rock on which Jesus would build his
church and “that nothing would prevail against it”. This belief
has come about because of this bible verse:
Matthew
16:18 “And
I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will
build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”.
And
at Matthew
16:19 he goes further saying to
Simon Peter:
“And
I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and
whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and
whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
(Matt.16:14–19.)
If
there is any literal truth in this at all then it didn’t age well
at all, did it?. Because only 5 short verses later and in the very
same chapter, we read Jesus saying this to “his rock” Simon
Peter :
Matthew
16:23 But he turned, and said unto Simon Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: you are a stumbling block to me.":
Using
verses from the bible it is proven what a Satan actually is and
means; an “accuser” here > https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8152-the-story-of-the-certain-witnesses?page=4&post_number=88
So
what caused this sudden change of attitude to his “rock” Simon Peter?
Well
it appears to have been nothing more than his “rock” saying that
he wouldn’t allow Jesus to die.
Well
there's’ gratitude for you. Simon Peter his “rock” is prepared
to put his life on the line for him and is all he gets in return is a
mouthful of abuse which includes variations of:
"Peter
you are a dangerous trap to me".
"
you are hindrance to me".
"
you are an offence unto me".
"you
are a scandal unto me".
"you
are an obstacle in my way". So we can be certain that Simon
Peter was well and truly off the Christmas card list and as far from
being a leader of anything never mind Jesus’ new church. It appears
that Jesus was onto Simon called Peter and had no intention of giving
him keys to the local latrine never mind the “kingdom of god or
heaven”. And let’s not forget Simon the “rock” and his brother Andrew had, after all, apparently
changed sides from once being a disciple of John the Baptist and some
believe on the orders of John himself?
For
Simon Peter “rock” aka “Satan the accuser” it wasn’t the
only time that he seemed to be purposefully being a “hindrance and
offence” to Jesus. Because, the bible states that on the night of
Jesus’ arrest Simon Peter the accusing Satan had failed Jesus something terrible!
It
was in the garden of Gethsemane that Jesus is said to have been
arrested. He had asked Simon Peter “Stay
here and keep watch.” but he, conveniently fell asleep, three
times!
Let’s
read it;
Mark
14:29-45 New
International Version
Peter
declared, “Even if all fall away, I will not.”
“Truly
I tell you,”Jesus answered,“today—yes, tonight—before the
rooster crows twice you yourself will disown me three times.”But Peter insisted
emphatically, “Even if I have to die with you,
I will never disown you.” And all the others said the same.
They
went to a place called Gethsemane, and Jesus said to his
disciples,“Sit here while I pray.”He took Peter, James and John
along with him, and he began to be deeply distressed and troubled.“My
soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death,”he said to
them.“Stay here and keep watch.”Going a little farther, he fell
to the ground and prayed that if possible the hour might pass from
him.“Abba,
Father,”he said,“everything is possible for you. Take this cup
from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.”
Then
he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping.“Simon,”he
said to Peter,“are you asleep? Couldn’t you keep watch for one
hour? Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The
spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.”
Once
more he went away and prayed the same thing. When he came back, he
again found them sleeping, because their eyes were heavy. They did
not know what to say to him.
Returning
the third time, he said to them,“Are you still sleeping and
resting? Enough! The hour has
come. Look, the Son of Man is delivered into the hands of sinners Rise!
Let us go! Here comes my betrayer!” [Judas]
From
the above
passages it clearly appears that Jesus wasn't expecting to be
arrested at all that night simply because he had three sleeping disciples that were supposed to be "keeping watch". Why
had he ordered this protection if it was all predestined? And
doesn't the scripture actually state that "Jesus therefore,
knowing all things that should come upon him"? Why
hadn't he just at there waiting for what he believed was the
inevitable? Why did he say "lets go" when his other accuser Judas had turned up to plant a betrayers
kiss on his cheek as an identifying sign?<<
Which is something else in dispute because John 18:4-8 tells us that Jesus
identifide himself. twice!
So
here then is Simon Peter/Satan the
accuser falling asleep three times. Are these the three "disownals
and denials" that Jesus speaks
of at Mark 14:30 in the above chapter? Or was there also another
time?
Well
of course there was. Simon Peter aka Satan the accuser
just happened to be one of those two disciples
that thought it would be a good idea to follow the arresting party
back to the trial. Why? And
this second round of denials comes when Simon Peter the accuser is
waiting outside the courtyard where the trial of Jesus is about to take place, waiting
to be brought in.
I
was asked earlier by you "but was Simon Peter brought in". Well
for someone that claims to read his New Testament twice a year and
preaches it to his flock of over three hundred this is an astonishing
question for you to have to to ask, here>
Tradesecret wrote: Was Peter let in? I will wait for the verse which says Peter was let in. #82
John
18:15-16 King
James Version
"And
Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple: that
disciple was known unto the high priest, and went in with Jesus into
the palace of the high priest. But
Peter stood at the door without. Then went out that other disciple,
which was known unto the high priest, and spake unto her that kept
the door, and
brought in Peter”.!!
But
mores the point at this Juncture we know for certain that Peter just
like Judas were standing in the court both in hearing and seeing
distance of Jesus. How? Because the BIBLE says so of course:
Luke
22:61
“And
the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him,
Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice”.
We
can see from this that Simon Peter aka Satan the accuser was well in
the thick of it. And it is because of this that it doesn’t take too
much of a leap to say that the Simon the Pharisee- Simon leper and
Simon the “rock” are all one and the same person.
The
three denials can be read here> Luke
22:56-60
But
a certain maid beheld him as he sat by the fire, and earnestly looked
upon him, and said, This man was also with him.
And
he denied him, saying, Woman, I know him not.
And
after a little while another saw him, and said, Thou art also of
them. And Peter said, Man, I am not.
And
about the space of one hour after another confidently affirmed,
saying, Of a truth this fellow also was with him: for he is a
Galilaean.
And
Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately,
while he yet spake, the cock crew."
“Galilaean”!
Now there’s a surprise. Galilee, aka “the desert” aka “the
wilderness” aka the bandit country of the murderous assassin Zealots
Tradesecret
wrote: 11. Simon
the Canaanite,
and the zealot.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8152-the-story-of-the-certain-witnesses?page=4&post_number=99
Indeed
but what you forgot to add was this Simon the Canaanite and the
Zealot was also the father of Judas Iscariot as explained to you earlier on this thread.
So
what do we know about Simon at number 11 on your list disciples,
Tradesecret? Because on the surface the bible tells us very little about him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Stephen wrote: So the 7 day creation story is not to be taken literally but the 1 day = 1,000 years is to be taken literally?How do you know?YouFound_Lxam Wrote: Here is the thing about the scripture. The scripture doesn't always mean something literally happened, and it doesn't mean something metaphorically happened.
All very ambiguous then.
So how do you know when to take something literal or metaphorical? Did the illiterate superstitious Jews and early Christians understand metaphor and idioms?
From what I have read even the disciples of Jesus didn't understand what he was talking about most of the time, so how can you claim that you understand what is meant by something spoken 2000 years ago, when the local goatherd and fisherman couldn't?
Stephen wrote: "So the 7-day creation story is not to be taken literally but the 1 day = 1,000 years is to be taken literally?"YouFound_Lxam wrote: Yes maybe. But maybe by the scripture saying that, it could be representing that God lives outside of time, therefore it was portrayed differently.But then again it could have meant a literal 7 days, or 7 thousand years. Thats the fascinating thing about the bible.
"maybe it is"? "could have meant"?
That's called make it up as you go along where I come from. And opens the door for you take literary licence and apply any excuse as long as it suites.
YouFound_Lxam wrote, That's the fascinating thing about the bible.
And it is fascinating to me that Christians have had 2000 years to iron out these ambiguous half stories that make up the NT and with every new excuse for these biblical ambiguities comes new dilemmas and questions To put that in English, you Christians have continually been putting patches on a burst innertube for over 2000 years and it has left you holding nothing but patches..
You should actually take note of what your Christ had to say on such matters.
Matthew 9:16-17 New International Version
“No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, for the patch will pull away from the garment, making the tear worse. Neither do people pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst; the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam, wrote:You don't have to believe the 7 days of creation are literal 7 days to be a Christian.
I believe that given inPeter 3:8-9 NIV states," But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." that for God, it was 7 days,
So the 7 day creation story is not to be taken literally but the 1 day = 1,000 years is to be taken literally?
How do you know?
And have you recanted on your belief that you can prove god exists and that there are many ways that you can to prove it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Well, Stephen.And you're accused of trolling. It would be futile to try and explain the internal chemistry that is spirituality, to a brain so intelligent and transcended that fails to overlook the basic concepts of reality.Whatever reality might be of course.
Well, I was sincerely hoping for a brain so intelligent and so spiritually transcended that could explain to me why the BIBLE insists in some 15+ verses that there is only one god and in another 40+ verses it clearly shows there to be more than one ?
I suppose even my simple question it was too much of an ask of anyone that believes themselves so intelligent and spiritually transcended. Vic, lad, so I don't think I should stretch my luck or curiosity by asking anyone to explain the basic concepts of reality.
And you're accused of trolling.
I am. And challenging claims has always been a trolling offence to those that don't appreciate being challenged, Vic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
Stephen wrote: Ok so you can explain the intelligence behind this classical mess for us then.https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8271-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it?page=2&post_number=34Sidewalker wrote: It would be futile to try to explain the complex ideas associated with spiritual transcendence to a mind too unintelligent to conceptually grasp anything deeper than surface level literalism.
So that will be a- no-, then.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
The trolls have arrived.
Well I will take it that you do not want to take on this biblical problem using your own biblical "intellect."
Here you are in case you missed it, Walkingsidways>>>. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8271-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it?page=2&post_number=34
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
I am sure that you've noticed that Miss Tradesecret is no where to be found in her 4 days
Indeed. I did think that the Reverend has settled on the customary three days in the tomb Jesus style, but it seems he has gone for it Lazarus style and decided on a four day sleep instead.
and then this YouFound_Lxam arrives to make us laugh even harder spewing forth his opinions which are like Miss Tradesecrets, instead of learning Bible axioms!
They must be clones. The Reverend was forever attempting to put the onus on the atheist to prove god doesn't exist using all kinds of backdoor approaches.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
If true intelligence involves the ability to view and understanding widely different things from multiple different perspectives, the ability to recognize connections, an aptitude for grasping a wide range of truths, relationships, and meanings, and the capacity for abstract and symbolic thought, then it follows logically that the insistent demands of our spiritual detractors that Genesis be understood and explained literally is an unintelligent claim.
Ok so you can explain the intelligence behind this classical mess for us then.
Is there only one god according to the bible?
Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him. Deuteronomy 4:35The LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else. Deuteronomy 4:39
Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord. Deuteronomy 6:4
See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me. Deuteronomy 32:39
The LORD, he is the God; the LORD, he is the God. 1 Kings 18:39
I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. Isaiah 43:10
I am the LORD, and there is none else ... There is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else. Isaiah 44:8
I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me. Isaiah 45:5-6
There is no God else beside me ... There is none beside me. Isaiah 45:21
I am God, and there is none else: I am God, and there is none like me. Isaiah 46:9
The Lord our God is one Lord. Mark 12:29
There is one God; and there is none other but he. Mark 12:32
That they might know thee the only true God. John 17:3
But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him. 1 Corinthians 8:6
There are several gods.
In the book of Genesis, God used a plural pronoun to refer to himself (herself, itself, or themselves), implying that there is more than one god up there.
And God said, let us make man in our image. Genesis 1:26And the Lord God said, Behold, then man is become as one of us, to know good and evil. Genesis 3:22
Let us go down, and there confound their language. Genesis 11:7
The Old Testament God is a "god of gods" who is worshiped by the other gods.
For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords. Deuteronomy 10:17Worship him, all ye gods. Psalm 97:7
O give thanks unto the God of gods. Psalm 136:2
No other god is like him.
Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord. Psalm 86:8
He is better than the other gods.
Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods? Exodus 15:11Now I know that the LORD is greater than all gods. Exodus 18:11
Thou shalt have no other gods before me. ... Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them. Exodus 20:3-5
What God is there in heaven or in earth, that can do according to thy works? Deuteronomy 3:24
Great is our God above all gods. 2 Chronicles 2:5
Our Lord is above all gods. Psalm 135:5
The other gods will die someday.
The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens. Jeremiah 10:11
The Hebrew God judges the other gods.
And against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment. Exodus 12:12Upon their gods also the LORD executed judgments. Numbers 33:4
God standeth in the congregation of the mighty, he judgeth among the gods. Psalm 82:1
And will punish them.
I will punish the multitude of No, and Pharaoh, and Egypt, with their gods. Jeremiah 46:25The Lord will be terrible to them: for he will famish all the gods of the earth. Zephaniah 2:11
He is a jealous God (whose name is Jealous). So he forbids us to "go after" or worship any of his competitors.
For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God. Exodus 34:14Ye shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the people which are round about you; (For the LORD thy God is a jealous God among you.) Deuteronomy 6:14-15
Thou shalt not ... go after other gods to serve them. Deuteronomy 28:14
If you give God glory, he'll go easy on you and all your other gods.
Ye shall give glory unto the God of Israel: peradventure he will lighten his hand from off you, and from off your gods. 1 Samuel 6:5And go not after other gods to serve them, and to worship them, and provoke me not to anger with the works of your hands; and I will do you no hurt. Jeremiah 25:6
But you must fear God more than all the other gods.
The Lord ... is to be feared above all gods. 1 Chronicles 16:25For the Lord ... is to be feared above all gods. Psalm 96:4
Don't sacrfifice to any of the other gods. (Or God will kill you.)
He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed. Exodus 22:20
Don't put any of the other gods before him.
Thou shalt have none other gods before me. Deuteronomy 5:7
Don't make a covenant with them.Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their gods. Exodus 23:32
Don't burn incense to them.I will utter my judgments against them ... who have forsaken me, and have burned incense unto other gods. Jeremiah 1:16
Or even mention their names.Make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth. Exodus 23:13
Put away your father's gods.Fear the Lord ... and put away the gods which your fathers served. Joshua 24:14
And stay away from the god named Chemosh.Wilt not thou possess that which Chemosh thy god giveth thee to possess? Judges 11:24
But don't revile the other gods.Thou shalt not revile the gods. Exodus 22:28
Other people served other gods (as did Abraham's father Terah).Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time, even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor: and they served other gods. Joshua 24:2
And a witch once saw gods going up to heaven.And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth. 1 Samuel 28:13
Always remember that people are gods too. (Jesus used this when he was accused of making himself a god.)I have said, Ye are gods. Psalm 82:6The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? John 10:33-34
And the three gods in heaven are really only one god. (Don't worry about this one too much. It's a mystery.)For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 1 John 5:7
When you are ready.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
@sidewalkerYouFound_Lxam, wrote: Proving gods' existence is a much harder argument to argue, and I should have changed my forum title to Disproving Scientists Claims about the origins of the Universe.Thank you for actually having an intellectual argument with me, and this just proves that unlike some people, I actually pay attention to people's arguments and work off of it.You have proven the argument I am making impossible with the evidence that I have. But I am sure with time and resources I will be able to prove gods' existence.
So then your argument should end right there. Because you don't have one. And the bold claim made in your title has been proven to be false.
YouFound_Lxam,There are many ways to prove gods' existence,
And you haven't offered a single one.
YouFound_Lxam, wrote: God exists, and I Can Prove It.
Well now you know you can't. That didn't age well, did it.
YouFound_Lxam, wrote: I believe that given inPeter 3:8-9 NIV states," But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." that for God, it was 7 days,
And why do you take Peter literally? Peter was called Satan by Jesus and Peter hijacked the early church from Jesus' brother James.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
@YouFound_Lxam
First off, why do you assume that I am pseudo-Chistian? I never stated that I am, and in fact said the opposite. I am a Non-Denominational Christian. Get your facts right before you start spewing out lies.
But your profile doesn't state that does it? So it isn't a lie is it? You say you are a male Christian on 20 grand year that works in government. So don't be so quick to call members here "liars SPEWING LIES" when it is you that hasn't filled in your profile truthfully. And claiming to be a Christian is your denomination.
Your profile here>>>.. chrome-extension://ebkihbjamcljmddijijlfachpgphldll/screenshot.html?imageId=3
I only use the bible for evidence in this case, because you quoted from the bible as well.You don't have to believe the 7 days of creation are literal 7 days to be a Christian.
Well if you are using the bible as evidence, it states "days". But then you say one doesn't have to believe the bible evidence literally.
You are not making things easy for yourself are you.
Like your profile, the bible is full of holes. You need to go away and have a rethink before digging any deeper.
Created:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Stephen wrote: King James BibleAnd the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. Exodus 7:1Must be very confusing & difficult for the believer to accept that there were other human sons of god along with god making gods of humans too. Brother D.Brother D. Thomas wrote: KEY PHRASE: "I have made thee a god to Pharaoh" which is to him personally, [................................] I don't have to tell you that the JUDEO-Christian bible contradicts itself ad infinitum, and TRUE Christians like myself have to accept this fact, whereas the #1 Bible fool Miss Tradesecret "tries" to remove said contradictions with her "opinions, metaphors, alleged context and such, to LITERAL PASSAGES, where she makes a complete Bible fool of herself again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again!
Indeed Brother D. I am waiting for the Reverends response to this BIBLICAL fact. But the chances are that the Reverend hadn't even seen it, never mind read it. "Twice a year" the Reverend claims to read and memorise the Old Testamant" and in Greek & Hebrew too!. And that verse should be one of those verses that leaps from the page and lodges itself in the memory never to be removed.
Created:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. Exodus 7:1
Must be very confusing & difficult for the believer to accept that there were other human sons of god along with god making gods of humans too. Brother D.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
1-5.
I thought you were going to prove god exists?. Is all you have done is make statements , made further claims and turned to asking me questions.
It is a backdoor way for you to avoid supporting your own claims.
And is all you have done further is attempt to put the burden on proof for the existence of a god onto someone else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
There are many ways to prove gods' existence.
"many ways"? Yet you haven't offered one.
I was hoping someone else would put in why they don't believe it so I can disprove their argument.
Yes, I bet you was. While conveniently forgetting already that it is you that has made the claim.
Created:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
THE CASE OF THE HISTORICAL JESUS AS GOD IN HIM MURDERING THE INNOCENT FIRST BORN OF EGYPT“And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle.” (Exodus 12:29)Can we all feel sorry for the poor innocent first born children in Egypt at the time that Jesus as God decided to show His strength to Pharaoh? Besides, what the hell did the first born of the cattle have to do with our Jesus as God being upset with Pharaoh?! Our Jesus is always killing innocent children, whereas to show Pharaoh in Him being the boss, why couldn't Jesus just create an earthquake to show His strength?
Yes, this is where god made Moses a god, if I remember correctly.
Created:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
JESUS AS GOD SAID: “The glory of Israel will fly away like a bird, for their children will die at birth or perish in the womb or never even be conceived. Even if your children survive to grow up, I will take them from you. It will be a terrible day when I turn away and leave you alone. I have watched Israel become as beautiful and pleasant as Tyre. But now Israel will bring out her children to be slaughtered oh Lord. what should I request for your people? I will ask for the wombs that don’t give birth and breast that give no milk. The LORD says, "All their wickedness began at Gilgal; there I began to hate them. I will drive them from my land because of their evil actions. I will love them no more because all their leaders are rebels. The people of Israel are stricken. Their roots are dried up; they will bear no more fruit. And if they give birth, I will slaughter their beloved children. (Hosea 9:11-16)I would suggest that any pseudo-christian that pickets Family Planning abortion clinics, be aware that our Jesus was a brutal abortionist as shown in the above narrative, especially in slaughtering the women's beloved children if they gave birth! Therefore, you don't want a hell bound Atheist bringing this horrific narrative shown above up to you in blatantly making you a hypocrite, agreed?
Have you ever heard a Pastor or a Priest utter these bible truths from the pulpit Brother D.?
These verses from Matthew 10:34-36 appear to be perfectly in line with your god of war and jealousy.
34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 And a person's enemies will be those of his own household.
His message seems to have gotten through to some in our present time of the new "woke" religion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
TRADESECRET WROTE: (A)Each of the four gospels are telling the same story, Not exactly of course. But they are all presenting it quite different ways. Sometimes they use the same source and sometimes they don't. The question is not whether they agree perfectly but whether they actually contradict each other. Witnesses never tell exactly the same story - or else they are seen to be scheming - a conspiracy. When they give different aspects - and sometimes different scenarios - it adds to the picture - but also provides the vibe of authencity. #139(B)Occam's razor tells us the simplest explanation is often the correct one. #116
How
very right you are. So with both your facts in mind, let see if we
can break this down events leading up to the trial.
Bethany
in Galilee in the bible appears to have been Jesus’ centre of
operations. This is where Lazarus lived and where Jesus is said to
have “raised” Lazarus from the “dead” – after saying he
wouldn’t die and that he
was only “sick” then “asleep”. It is more likely that Lazarus
had lost faith in the Jesus movement of the “living” as many
others had and had left it altogether to return to be among the “dead”. It
appears that Jesus may have talked him around to staying with a
promise or a bribe maybe? And it was here that John the Baptist was recruiting disciples to his
own flock via the ritual of baptism.
It
is also the home town of many of the women in Jesus's life. And it
was also where the house of Simon the Leper was located, so quite a
lot was happening in Jesus’ life in and around Bethany, including
an anointing at which the disciples present are not happy with the
situation and where Judas makes up his to betray Jesus? Matthew
26:6-14.
It
is questionable if Jesus would have gone to a lepers house unless, as
has been suggested, this was simply a “nick-name” which wouldn’t
be unusual at all as Jesus gave his disciples nick-names and
appellations. Another reason would be that this was simply a man at
the leper stage in the Jesus movement and was waiting to be promoted
in a cleansing ritual (A silk purse into a sows ear so to speak as
in water into wine). After all, it is a bit of a derogatory appellation to bestow on a man that had shown Jesus such generosity Did this particular Leper become raised? There
may be reasonable evidence that he was and a clue might be is that at
on a singular occasion at one point Jesus did reluctantly do exactly
this.
A
man with leprosy came to him and begged him on his knees,“If you
are willing, you can make me clean. Jesus was indignant. He reached
out his hand and touched the man.“I am willing,”he said.“Be
clean!”
The
odd thing about this is that there is no mention of Satan possessing
Judas at that moment. The possession of Judas by Satan comes only
much later in the story at the last supper.
So
we have a house of disciples all full of anger and disgust and that
includes Judas Iscariot son of Simon Iscariot/ Sicarii dagger men
also known as assassins among the zealot movement.. But what gave
them reason to be so outraged? Weren't they expecting this anointing
to take place? And was this the catalyst that caused them to turn
their backs on the Jesus movement altogether? We know many left and
well before Jesus’ arrest. John
6:66.
There
is good argument to be had that Jesus had well and truly upset the
Zealots in his camp. “Render unto Caesar”, “turn the other
cheek” and “love thine enemies” were far from anything a
Galilean Zealot would agree to where the Romans were concerned and
were certainly not the words of an expected Messiah that was supposed
to free them from the Roman yoke.
An
identical account of the anointing of Jesus appears at the house of a
Pharisee. One can suppose it only natural and not untypical for the gospel accounts to vary as the bible often shows and is
attested to by many a scholar. SEE A& B above #152 . The gospel writers can’t agree on Jesus’ day of birth or even
the day of the crucifixion or his linage or his pedigree. But again
on this occasion we have a disgruntled person that also appears to be
outraged disgusted with the situation.. It turned out that a strange
women simply invited herself to the party baring more of the same
oils and potions. Luke
7:37
Luke
7:36 KJV “And
one of the Pharisees desired him that he would eat with him. And he
went into the Pharisee's house, and sat down to meat”.
So,
leaving aside the fact that Jesus here appears to be eating with
enemy the owner of this house is also called Simon. The age old
question then is, are Simon the Leper and Simon the Pharisee one and
the same person? The similarities of these occasions are far too
close for them not to be. And as is often shown in these ambiguous
bible stories it is simply a case of one author filling in some parts others have omitted as is also testified to by many a scholar. SEE
A& B above #152 . Christians like to use the reasoning to deny that these two Simons
are one and the same on the grounds that the name Simon “was common
in those times”. There are nine people that we know of that are
connected to Jesus and they are all named Simon. But would a Pharisee
be seen dead in the presence of a “sinful” woman – a
prostitute? Luke 7:36-37
I
shall digress for a moment:
Think
on this. What
are the odds? The
day of the crucifixion by all accounts a man just happened to be
walking home and passing by the crucifixion party when he was pressed into carry the crucifix for Jesus, his name just
happened to be Simon too.
And
as mentioned above, others fill in parts others omit to mention.
Compare
Matthew
27:30-32. Mark 15:19-21.Luke 23:23-26.
So
much for baring your own cross, Luke 14:25-27, And John’s gospel is
totally silent on the matter.
Anyway,
this Pharisee/ leper at the anointing whose name just also happened
to Simon. What had happened to upset this Simon the Pharisee/leper?
Well, where we have in the first instance the disciples- Judas in
particular - were enraged at the “costly perfume” we also can
read that Simon the Pharisee/leper was so absolutely outraged at what
was happening in his house with the prostitute that he seriously
questioned Jesus’ credentials saying “this is no Prophet/
messiah”, Luke 7:39. And it has to be asked, why had a Pharisee
invited Jesus to his home in the first place? None of this part of
the story makes any sense at all on the face of it. But we may have a
reason for the invite?
Jesus
is said to have healed the mother in law of a Simon;
“And
he arose out of the synagogue, and entered into Simon's house. And
Simon's wife's mother was taken with a great fever; and they besought
him for her.
And
he stood over her, and rebuked the fever; and it left her: and
immediately she arose and ministered unto them”. Luke 4:38-39 < this is believed to have been Simon Peter’s house and his
mother in law that was sick,?
Do
any of the other gospels tell a similar story?
When
Jesus entered the synagogue [unnamed] leader’s house and saw the
noisy crowd and people playing pipes, he said,“Go away. The girl is
not dead but asleep.”But they laughed at him. After the crowd had
been put outside, he went in and took the girl by the hand, and she
got up. News of this spread through all that region. Matthew
9:23-26. Other versions say “rulers house”. “leaders house”
or “officials house”.So whatever his name, it is enough that we
know he was Pharisee.
Jesus’
first meeting with Andrew and Simon the fishermen?
“Jesus
was walking by the Sea of Galilee. He saw two brothers. They were
Simon called Peter and Andrew, his brother”. Matthew 4:18-20. Jesus
is alleged to have simply said “follow me” and hypnotically
-“they straight away” - abandon their nets, tools, boats,
business, home, wives, children and any other family without a single
good-by and followed a man they had never met in all of their lives.
So we have two brothers Andrew
and Simon and clearly we see that the BIBLE is making no mistake that this Simon was also
called Peter from the off.
Various
bibles leave this point out altogether, ex - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%201%3A16-18&version=NIV
We
can be in no doubt that the Christian will pounce on this and allege
that this Simon fisherman was called
Peter only at a later time in the story. But they ignore one very big
detail.
Let’s
read it:
“Andrew,
Simon Peter’s brother,
was one of the two who heard what John [the baptist] had said and who
had followed Jesus. The first thing Andrew did was to find his
brother Simon and tell him, “We have found the Messiah” (that is,
the Christ). And
he brought him to Jesus.
[A]Jesus
looked at him and said,“You are Simon son of John. You will be
called Cephas”(which, when translated, is Peter)”. John 1:40-42
So
here we see entirely different circumstances under which Jesus is
said to have first met Simon called Peter the fisherman. We see that
Andrew and his brother Simon weren’t together fishing or mending
their nets at all. And certainly no mention of a calling to “follow
me”. In fact Andrew had to go and find his brother Simon and bring
him to Jesus. And we hear Andrew proclaiming Jesus to be the
Messiah!. And it is here that the creation of another name for Simon
is alleged to have happened. What’s more they were both disciples
of the firebrand from Bethany in Galilee; John the Baptist. But there
is one other thing this story omits, that is the actual name of the
second of John’s disciple that was also following it only names
Andrew.
But
look harder. Is Jesus here is telling us that Simon, now also called
Peter, is the Son of the Bapatist John![A]
and let's not forget that Andrew and Simon now called Peter are
brothers!
Are
we to believe that in this version these two that are John's
disciples just deserted John the Baptist and suddenly discipled to
became followers of of Jesus with out being asked or invited to join
the Jesus party?
Were
they ordered by John the Baptist to join the Jesus movement? Or were
they ordered to follow Jesus to see where he went and what he got up
to? It
appears to be more of an infiltration of the Jesus party.
So we have a house full of outraged disciples that included Judas and of which some are told to follow Jesus on the orders of the firebrand John the Baptist, some known zealots, and what appears to be on the surface a generous and grateful Simon Pharisee the leper that is also outraged concerning the behaviour between Jesus and an uninvited prostitute. And let's not forget that the once sick, asleep and then "dead" Lazarus was also present after Jesus had performed the "raising from the dead" ritualistic ceremony on his friend.
So no one but Jesus and his whore are at all overjoyed with the situation as it stands . And this is where the cracks started to appear.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Have you ever wondered if Miss Tradesecret's congregation ever saw her outright Bible stupidity ?Well it maybe the case that she was telling the truth when she admitted to "simply passing on" what she has been told and taught to pass on. Which amounts to very little, Brother D.The trouble with Miss Tradesecret if she admitted to simply passing on what she has been told and taught, is that she obviously did not check said material to be true or not, and this is why we own her Bible stupidity, and because we have forgotten more about the Bible than she will ever learn!
I can agree with that , Brother D.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Have you ever wondered if Miss Tradesecret's congregation ever saw her outright Bible stupidity ?
Well it maybe the case that she was telling the truth when she admitted to "simply passing on" what she has been told and taught to pass on. Which amounts to very little, Brother D.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
I can only assume that Tradesecret has again gone into shoal for three days again, Brother. I am still waiting for a response myself here>
Created:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Stephen,It was funny when Miss Tradesecret stated to you "Repeating this shows how desperate you are," where in FACT, it shows how desperate Miss Tradesecret is in trying in vain to run away from her ungodly admitted SEXUAL DEVIANCY with family members, for god sakes!
Well the best part of that is that in pure desperation she attempted the ploy in trying to change the course of your conversation with her, was that it was she herself that resurrected a very old dispute as to weather or not she as a Pastor and a Chaplain should be addressed as Reverend. And had the audacity to accuse me of "bringing it up again" and telling me that I was "making a big deal of it"!
It as usual, certainly backfired on her spectacularly, here> https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4893-morality-is-atheism-more-reasonable-than-theism?page=64&post_number=1586
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Seriously, I am worried in seeing Miss Tradesecret's mental faculties deteriorating before our eyes
I'm not. Tradesecret's faculties have been scrambled through her own making.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
So both Peter and Paul agreed that Jesus, not Peter, was the foundation of the church.
yep. And if you know your scriptures, there is no way Jesus would have left "the keys to the kingdom" to Peter. No matter who the bible says he would "build his church on". The gnostic gospels make it clear that Jesus told his remain disciples that his brother James should lead the church if anything should happen to him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
But he [Lazarus] is a disciple using even the terminology you used.
But how do you know he was a disciple when he is nowhere named as one.? And I haven't used any terminology.
I have only used that which is only available from the BIBLE when I had to correct you where you have categorically stated that " Lazarus was a disciple". here>
Tradesecret wrote: My personal view is that it was more likely Lazarus who both wrote the gospel and who was this character. He by the way was a disciple but not an apostle.
My only input to that totally unfounded comment of yours was this, where the BIBLE only ever states Lazarus as being a friend. here>
Stephen Wrote: What makes you say he was a disciple? Does the BIBLE say he was a Disciple? Well NO it doesn't does it! YOU ARE WRONG AGAIN! The BIBLE clearly states that he was only a "friend".John 11:11 #114
And we don't here much about him afterwards either only to say that he was present at an anointing of Jesus and "reclining with Jesus". John 12:1–2
So can you state for me the "terminology" that the BIBLE is using to suggest Lazarus was a disciple?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
@ Brother D. Thomas: So your response to any of my comments is "what part don't you understand?". Seriously, This is another reason I don't bother responding to you.
Yet here you are, responding to him!
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Tradsecret wrote: https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEGUEW9Absolute unnecessary filth. And from someone that tells s/he was "chosen by god"!"Indian"!!!?From someone that claims to be a Chaplain to his/her "countries armed forces"! And "a Pastor with a congregation of over 300" including women and children?Someone that often declares her/his "honesty" and "integrity!Repeating this shows how desperate you are.
There is nothing for me to get desperate about, Tradesecret.
It's a terrible post you made there, Reverend and you should hang you had in shame imo.
Did you actually notice the title of this thread?
I am sure with your post concerning your own "morality" has answered the op "in a nutshell". I also noticed that your comments were a response to Ethang 5 the man that you "aspire to be like". Well, you certainly reached and achieved your aspirations with that post didn't you, Reverend.
Created:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Stephen,As it is unfortunately shown in the link in question at your post #1604 in Miss Tradesecret being an admitted and outright sexual deviant, then she is NOT A CHRISTIAN and the ramifications thereof are shown below!!!"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality" (1 Corinthians 6:9)MIss Tradesecret continues to give herself a despicable presence within this notable Religion Forum, and at least Shila knew when to throw in the towel of defeat and embarrassment and ran away from this forum never to be heard from again!
A complete walking talking contradiction then, isn't she, Brother D.
Created:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Therefore, what better vehicle to show signs and wonders from Jesus than on a dogs butt! As you would agree, the only drawback would be when said dog takes a dump where that would show Jesus spewing forth shyte out of His mouth
Well, what can I say?
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
@BrotherD.Thomas
Tradsecret wrote: https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEGUEW9
Absolute unnecessary filth. And from someone that tells s/he was "chosen by god"!
"Indian"!!!?
From someone that claims to be a Chaplain to his/her "countries armed forces"! And "a Pastor with a congregation of over 300" including women and children?
Someone that often declares her/his "honesty" and "integrity!
Created:
Posted in:
@ the Witch.
There is absolutely no historical evidence that Jesus ever lived.
What makes you to state that Witch?
There are no statues for Christ
There are but they are no more of a representation of those ancient gods from "another world" that you tell us that you believe in.
Jesus is a falsehood.
The mythical story wrapped around a revolutionary man named Jesus is a falsehood, I have to agree.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
But he [Lazarus] is a disciple using even the terminology you used.
But how do you know he was a disciple when he is nowhere named as one.? Even the "terminology" doesn't suggest it imo. Whenever Jesus is in the company of disciples the bible as a rule state it clearly. So can you state for me the "terminology" that the bible is using to suggest Lazarus is a disciple?
Created:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
I “dog sat” my neighbors new rescued dog appropriately named “Mary,” as in Jesus’ mother where He impregnated her through celestial incest since Jesus was her son and God, and couldn’t help but notice that when the dog Mary turned away from me, and in godly form, I explicitly saw Jesus on her dog butt, no shit, and no pun intended. as shown in the link below:
Are these the blessed parents of said waif, Brother D. ?
Created:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
I “dog sat” my neighbors new rescued dog appropriately named “Mary,” as in Jesus’ mother where He impregnated her through celestial incest since Jesus was her son and God, and couldn’t help but notice that when the dog Mary turned away from me, and in godly form, I explicitly saw Jesus on her dog butt, no shit, and no pun intended. as shown in the link below:Just look at the image in the link above that I took a picture of for every Christian to view, where Jesus is standing on Mary's dog butt with a recognizable face, hands, and feet! This is telling me the proof once again that Jesus does exist, whereas, why else would such an explicit image of Him exist on my neighbors dog butt in the first place?! 2+2=4, praise!Are there Christians present that can bring forth their face pareidolia of Jesus too?
That will take some lickin', Brother D
🤣🤣🤣
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
I would like to discuss the case for the historical Jesus with Miss Tradesecret, but as we know, her Bible stupidity would overtake any meaningful conversation,
There isn't much hope of that Brother D.
I have tried to engage her in a meaningful, polite and serious conversation on my own thread here> The Story of the "certain" Witnesses? (debateart.com) But once I had to start pointing out and correcting her biblical mistakes, she turned sour and defaulted to her usual MO of attempting to cause arguments with blatant denials, false accusations and outright lies and the usual sly barbs, veiled insults rising to outright ad hominem. None of which I have risen to. I am sure she will return when she gets over how ridiculous and bible ignorant, she has shown herself to be and believing no one has noticed.
besides, she would be to SCARED to even try and discuss this topic with me other than to run away from it! LOL!
Well, she deserts her own topics often so running away from one of your own shouldn't really surprise anyone, especially you, Brother D.
She even had the audacity to raise up and old argument concerning her title of Reverend and ended up showing herself to not only to be a liar, but accused me of raising it up again and "making a big deal of it"..Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism? (debateart.com)
It all smacks of desperation, Brother D.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
What was the big deal in eating Jesus' flesh, and drinking His blood, where His disciples left Him? I am sure that if Jesus was on planet earth today, and if you were a TRUE Christian, you would happily drink Jesus' blood and eat His flesh, would you not? How utterly disrespectful the disciples of Jesus in leaving Him in this manner, blaspheme!
This may be because this speech wasn't the kind of language that was expected of a Messiah. It was probably another one of those sayings that upset the Zealots in the Jesus movement, Brother D.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Stephen -[.........................]the fact that this is such a big deal is really on you.
Well you are the one making a big deal of it all, Reverend.
You claim to be a qualified Pastor and a qualified Chaplain with some serious accreditations on the on hand, but then refuse to accept that your title is REVEREND on the other and that this is how you should be addressed. !?
Tradesecret wrote: 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. "
Both of these qualified and revered positions grant you the title of Reverend .
And any one that cares to can simply google the fact.
So for all of your backpedaling and attempting to deny what you have claimed in the past is not going away. They are your claims about yourself. They are not my claims about you.
You above accused me of searching out "some obscure web page from the other side of the world" to prove my point. Ok you don't accept that. So here is the dictionary's definition
I don't doubt for 1 second that you will refuse this definition too on some made up spurious grounds because spurious is your middle name.. But there you have REVEREND.
Keep digging.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Stephen Wrote:So are you now saying that Lazarus was in fact a disciple, Tradesecret?Tradesecret wrote: I never said otherwise.
So you are staying with your claim that Lazarus was a disciple although the BIBLE doesn't mention this anywhere.
Ok. That is something else you may regret saying- twice.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
TRADSECRET WROTE:"I am a lawyer. There you go. Now you know. I always counsel my clients that "no comment" is the only wise thing to do when being questioned by the police. I don't care how you read that - no comment is the right thing to do. When we are in a contested hearing, I, in the first instance, will counsel my client not to get into the stand to be cross examined. It is the role of the prosecutor to prove their case. It is not mine to prove we are innocent. It is our job to make sure the prosecutor does his or her job properly. If my client insists in getting into the box - despite my advices - I will examine him or her asking open ended questions so that they can answer particular questions. I never ask a question I don't know the answer to. And I am not actually allowed to ask my client - yes or no questions because I would be accused of leading the witness. And then the prosecution will cross - examine my client. The cross-examiner is permitted to ask both open ended questions and leading questions. He would be foolish to ask open ended questions. His job is to ask leading questions. He wants a yes or a no. Why? Because then he can lead him into traps and inconsistencies. I counsel my clients - NEVER to answer a question with a yes or no - but always to qualify what you are saying - because the cross examiner never asks a question without a purpose or intention to lead to somewhere. But the first rule of cross - examination is NEVER ask a question you don't know the answer too. Because when you do - the answer you will get will probably upset the apple cart and throw you off. But I know that the same advice is being given to witnesses for the prosecution for when I cross examine. And there will be times when I insist to the judge - that the witness needs to answer the question - with a simple yes or no. But judges do not lightly support this submission. And the reason they don't is because they know that doing so - is leading the witness into unfair or unforeseen traps. Just because witness X saw Y do something with his left hand 6 months ago and wrote it in his statement does not mean that his evidence today that Y used his right hand and is confident that it was not his left hand - does not automatically mean that Y is innocent. statements made close to the time of the crime recalled differently 6 months later - are inconsistent and can be used to call into question the reliability of the witness's evidence - but that inconsistency does not necessarily weaken the prosecution's case.So, yes, my client's pay me for the work I do for them. Do you have a problem with people being paid?Do I charge people to listen to my version of the gospels? No, I don't charge students, I charge universities when they request me to lecture to them.Do I allow students to question me? Absolutely. I have no problem with this. Do I allow clients to question me? Not in a court setting, no. But they are free to ask me whatever the like about the law. I do charge them for that privilege.I never talked about counseling session. I said I counsel my clients. Lawyers are called Counsel. We council our clients. We give advice.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. "
Those last two lines in YOUR OWN quote above speak for themselves no matter how many times you attempt to deny them, REVEREND!
You are delusional Tradesecret. And anyone here that has swallowed you ever expanding tall tales and ripping yarns are as deluded as yourself.
You can't run from your own self-created past Tradesecret like you do many threads on this forum.
Created: