Stephen

solodite wrote: [A]The Bible is a book of metaphors giving examples of behaviors and the consequences of those behaviors, [[B]anyone who tries to interpret it as book of absolute fact and literal accounts of history is quite frankly a blithering idiot. [C]with that said, there is no better book ever written to guide a person on how to live clean and succeed in life.#420

Stephen wrote: #421 Doesn't B cancel out A?  And doesn't  C cancel out both A  &  B? And doesn't A & B cancel out C?

solodite wrote:Yes everything is canceled out, do what ever you want. I could not care less what you do with your life good or bad. If you do choose a life of poor decisions accept the consequences like an adult and don't make me the taxpayer bail your ass out. That's all.#426

Stephen wrote:Tell me;  with you being a Christian, what is the point of the bible if it holds no truth historically for you at all, sodolite? Doesn't this make you the contradictory" blithering idiot"?#427

solodite wrote:Whatever, do what you want believe what you want.#432

The human race is retarded and deserves it's coming demise by it's own hand.

[B]anyone who tries to interpret it as book of absolute fact and literal accounts of history is quite frankly a blithering idiot. [C]with that said, there is no better book ever written to guide a person on how to live clean and succeed in life.#420

Don't need a supreme being or book to tell me that.

All wars and all suffering have been for nothing.

The creator of this universe does not control outcome.

I defy you to prove otherwise.#432

solodite wrote: [A]The Bible is a book of metaphors giving examples of behaviors and the consequences of those behaviors, [[B]anyone who tries to interpret it as book of absolute fact and literal accounts of history is quite frankly a blithering idiot. [C]with that said, there is no better book ever written to guide a person on how to live clean and succeed in life.#420

Stephen wrote: #421 Doesn't B cancel out A?  And doesn't  C cancel out both A  &  B? And doesn't A & B cancel out C?

solodite wrote:Yes everything is canceled out, do what ever you want. I could not care less what you do with your life good or bad. If you do choose a life of poor decisions accept the consequences like an adult and don't make me the taxpayer bail your ass out. That's all.

where she has to run to her pseudo-christian Apologetic books and frantically page through them to hopefully  find a morsel  hope to TRY and refute our posts to her?

YOUR "LOGICAL DEDUCTIVE" QUOTE TO SADOLITE REGARDING HIS POST #420: "Doesn't B cancel out A?  And doesn't  C cancel out both A  &  B? And doesn't A & B cancel out C?"

The Bible is a book of metaphors giving examples of behaviors and the consequences of those behaviors,

anyone who tries to interpret it as book of absolute fact and literal accounts of history is quite frankly a blithering idiot.

with that said, there is no better book ever written to guide a person on how to live clean and succeed in life.

YOUR RUNAWAY QOUTE FROM BIBLICAL FACT IN YOUR INEPT POST #409:  “I never connected Is 7 to virgin in these posts.  i could but I didn’t.”

Yes, you didn’t connect the virgin birth of Mary to Isaiah 7:14 because it would have added more proverbial egg to your face in embarrassment! You as an “alleged” Hebrew language scholar? NOT!  LOL!

MIss Tradesecret, listen up you continued BIBLE FOOL, Matthew's texts set out to show that the birth of Jesus fulfills the messianic prophecies of the Hebrew Bible where he starts his gospel with a genealogy showing that Jesus was born of the Davidic male line, which was and still is held to be a must for Jewish messiahs where reading further, your statement of calling Jesus the Messiah falls flat upon its face in your post #408!  LOL!

BUT, after showing that Joseph as Mary’s husband, was descended from David, Matthew undermines his own argument by saying that Jesus was not really the son of Joseph: “…before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.” (Matthew 1:18). Why would Matthew do this?

Learn your Bible history in noting that the gospel of Matthew was actually penned many decades AFTER the death of Matthew the Apostle by an unknown writer, who wrote in Greek, whereas said writer evidently never read the original Hebrew text of Isaiah 7:14, but settled for reading the Greek translation, the Septuagint.

Therefore the simple math is that Matthew wanted to show that Jesus’ birth also fulfilled another Old Testament prophecy. He quotes from the Book of Isaiah: “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (Matthew 2:23).  GET IT?!

The Isaiah text is not discussing any prophesy of a future Messiah: whereas the ghost writer for Matthew is talking of an actual child being born at the time, but that is beside the point. More important is the fact that the original Hebrew text does not actually say "virgin."  Understood Bible fool Miss Tradesecret?  The word in Isaiah (7:14) translated as "virgin" is almah, which just means young woman, irrespective of her sexual history. The Hebrew word for virgin is betula.

Whereas these said FACTS make you the alleged scholar of the Hebrew and Greek language the continued FOOL!  LOL!

What misled the anonymous Greek-speaking writer for Matthew is that the Septuagint rendered almah into the word parthenos, which could be used to mean young woman,but more usually meant virgin.  UNDERSTAND THE BIBLICAL RUSE?!  HUH?

Notwithstanding, “virgin births” were commonplace in the Bronze and Iron Age, therefore Jesus allegedly being born in this way is no big deal, where the following gods all had virgin births BEFORE JESUS did, where Jesus is just a copyca:  Dionysus, Nimrod, Horus, Hercules, Buddha was born of the virgin Maya, Attis,  Zoroaster, Krishna, etc.

Most importantly, and most disturbing, is the historical FACT that the Greek deity Adonis was born of the virgin Myrrha, many centuries before the birth of Jesus. He was born at Bethlehem, in the same sacred cave that Christians later claimed as the birthplace of Jesus!  WTF!!!!  As if the god of Mithra that equals Jesus before Jesus’ time wasn’t embarrassing enough!  Get it, are you understanding that Jesus is just another copycat of other virgin birthed gods?

Virgin births were claimed for many Egyptian pharaohs, Greek emperors and for Alexander the Great.  TRUE Christians like myself have to accept with all honesty, that Jesus’ embarrassing virgin birth does not stand out over the listed virgin births of historicity shown above, that pre-date our serial killer Jesus!

Without air, we would die quicker.

Air

Air

On a side note;  can you as an Atheist get insurance against "Acts of God?"  

 The OT God however is mostly recognized, as the Trinity, within Christian circles.  We don't generally refer to Jesus in the OT, since Jesus was not born until the NT. 

I wonder whether Stephen agrees with you in respect that Jesus is God? 

If we are to research what happened to Jesus, then the sources which would be most reliable would be the manuscripts which are closest or oldest to his alleged existence. [...........]  Interestingly there are copious amounts of manuscripts for the alleged existence of Jesus.  Not just close in times of date but also multiple copies of similar documents.  For those interested in ancient documents - the narratives around the life of Jesus are quite extraordinary.  

Those would be the primary documents. 

Are you suggesting that the bible on its own is not good enough proof of the resurrection?

So just to be clear? Are you asking me a personal question or an objective theological question? 

  Besides, unfortunately Jesus was a "Demigod" being born from His human mother Mary which makes Him being a "minor God" concept, resurrected or not!. 

If we are to research what happened to Jesus, then the sources which would be most reliable would be the manuscripts which are closest or oldest to his alleged existence. [...........]  Interestingly there are copious amounts of manuscripts for the alleged existence of Jesus.  Not just close in times of date but also multiple copies of similar documents.  For those interested in ancient documents - the narratives around the life of Jesus are quite extraordinary.  

Those would be the primary documents. 

Miss Tradesecret is an embarrassment to Christianity and to Jesus as He looks down upon this 2nd class Sister of Eve! (Hebrews 4:13)

Tradesecret wrote: I am not sure if you read the story or not? 

Stephen wrote:  I have serious doubts whether you have ever read the whole  scriptures for yourself, or questioned them for yourself, Reverend Chaplin Tradesecrete? https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5194-i-have-two-virgin-daughters?page=1&post_number=8

Tradsecret wrote: I can't seem to recall where Lot was ever held up as a paragon of virtue or righteousness.  

Can you think of anywhere in the Scriptures where Lot is help up as being a model for Jews or for Christians? I can't and I would never hold him up as so.  

Stephen wrote: 2 Peter 2:7

"and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless" . https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5194-i-have-two-virgin-daughters?page=1&post_number=8

If you report this as Doxxing I will laugh my fucking ass off.

@Tradesecret: As we've seen before, you cannot come up with your own quips, therefore you have to use the memberships, of which, you use "ours" to try and save face within this forum,

@Tradesecret:

Remember I told you that this forum is sick and tired of your Bible STUPIDITY?!  Remember?  Then you display your complete stupidity upon the Bible AGAIN  where you  embarrassingly said to Stephen: "Where does it say that" regarding the Jesus passage relating to "Look at my hands and my feet ...." in your limp pseudo-christian post #88!  

OUR SERIAL KILLER JESUS SAID: "Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.” (Luke 24:39)

Every Muslim I know in Ireland is a doctor or software engineer, all highly educated and respectable people. 

You just read into it whatever you want.

They're bringing 200,000 "Ukrainians" into Ireland, and this is what they're getting, they'll end up full of Muslims, all part of the Barcelona declaration that they're all in on!

Apparently Stephen is ignorant of the fact that Ireland is already a more Islamic society than Ukraine.

Job teaches us that suffering might well come from God permitting Satan to have his day. 

The BIBLE  "indicates" that Mary  "the hand maid of the lord" (slave) had no say in the matter.  Did she pray unto the lord to give her a child as  other so called  'barren' biblical women do? Did she ask the lord to send a spirit to "come in unto her?  If the BIBLE indicates anything, it is that Mary the handmaid of the Lord, was forced against her own will by others.  

She was not raped. She did not have sex. No one forced themselves on her.  Stop mischaracterizing the narrative here.  Mary expressed that she was more blessed than any other woman to be the mother of the messiah. 

You seem to not even try to see this from the woman's perspective.  She was honored to be selected by God. 

In any event - what does it mean to be forced against your will - when it comes to the divine providence. 

Who did God ever ask in relation to being born? 

Can you find a spot anywhere in the NT where Mary pleads to not be the mother of Jesus? 

She actually suggests she is not worthy. 

  So are you going to point out for us where in those verses that you have offered up show where they speak of the "ending of a covenant with Israel or  the abolition of sacrifices" that accompany the temples destruction?  

No. 

I would refer you to a verse in the NT by the apostle Paul - but given you are such a fantastic bible scholar I don't want to embarrass you. Spotless and mature - or without wrinkle. I mean grown up. 

But this doesn't explain "spotless". ie absolutely clean or pure; immaculate without fault or blemish.

Are you sure? 

the point of an invisible church is to remove identity except generally. 

That is making no sense to me. Could you expand?

Sure, but what would be the point? You don't really care anyway.  

Yes.  Don't you? 

Sorry, I don't , that is why I asked you.  So will you be offering up any examples?

No. 

I guess you are reading a different NT to me then.  I know you have an aversion to the book of Hebrews. 

Not at all.  If you disagree simply show us where Jesus fulfilled all that was expected of his role as the expected Messiah. It shouldn't be difficult seeing that you are adamant that he did all that was expected of a Messiah.

Seriously.  Just go to a Christian bookshop. Most towns have them these days.  Try asking for some help.   It should be too difficult for you to do this - if you are genuinely interested.   

Jesus  appearing to his  some of his followers said- " Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself. Touch me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.”

Where does it say that? 

In the Bible.

Where specifically? 

Please. Don't tell me that you amazing memory of the bible has let you down again.  Are you trying to tell us that you cannot remember one of the most famous stories surrounding the events of resurrection?

LOL! in other words, the verse you claim to be quoting does not exist in the manner in which you alleged.  Surprise surprise. But thanks for the concession. 

And Paul says - "I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable".

So? 

 So you don't understand that verse then?  Paul is denying that Jesus resurrected from being of flesh and blood and physically dead  to being alive and living flesh and blood physically . If he had been he "cannot inherit the kingdom of God". 

Oh I am pretty sure I understand it as much as the next person.  Paul is doing no such thing.  You just need to read a little wider. 

You obviously do not. Paul is more than clear saying that;  stinking perishable rotting three day old flesh cannot return to its previous condition.

Wrong. Well mostly.  such things cannot return to its original condition - unless something happens.  It is always the something else that you tend to miss.  

This accomplished historically what had happened spiritually in Jesus' death on the cross. 

Do you have any biblical evidence to support that, or is this just your own opinion? It appears that Christians have quite a few opinions on why Jesus died on the cross and none are to do with ushering in  "old last days" or new ones.

Your the one telling the story.  

The last days of the world however is another occasion - the one which is also often mentioned. 

 " the last days of the world"? And where or who by is it mentioned?

Go down to the local street corner.  I am sure you will find someone with a poster saying the "the end is nigh". Or perhaps you turn on netflix - there is likely to be some show there discussing the end of the world. 

So the death of Christ the messiah on the cross and the destruction of the Temple were not the beginning  of the ushering in of the end times?

nope.  

So the destruction of the temple and the death of the Christ didn't signify anything at all then? 

I love how when I don't answer in the way you want that you immediately jump to the opposite position. 

His death was not signifying the end of times. 

It surely had a lot of things to signify though.  

the bible indicates Mary remained a virgin until after Jesus was born.   this means ipso facto - Mary was not raped prior to Jesus' birth

alleging I am a woman - AND STOP asking questions or for me to reply. 

How would Jesus feel if His mother Mary was RAPED?

Do any of the gospel writer confirm this? Do any of them for instance tell us that with the destruction of the temple that this was the end of time or the end of old covenant? 

  Mark 12 Matthew 24 Luke 21

Nope. Nothing there at all that mentions the "ending of a covenant with Israel or  the abolition of sacrifices" that accompany the temples destruction.. As you have claimed and that I can see.  Could you point it out for me?

yes I could but since you are this really fantastic bible scholar, I would not want to embarrass you. 

This last one however will not be ushered in until the church has historically grown up and become an adult - mature and spotless in every way. 

And the bible confirms this does it? Or is this just your own opinion? And  what do you mean by "spotless"? 

Yes. The bible confirms it.  You can go and look up the verse or don't you know it? 

 I don't know it. So it will be nice for me to read for myself once you have posted it up.  What do you mean when you say "spotless" and" mature"

I would refer you to a verse in the NT by the apostle Paul - but given you are such a fantastic bible scholar I don't want to embarrass you. Spotless and mature - or without wrinkle. I mean grown up. 

Given that the church is very much an adolescent. One which is having trouble understanding its identity, it is very unlikely it has occurred. 

Which church?

The church - invisible for want of a better word. 

What do you consider this "invisible churches understanding and identity" actually to be?

the point of an invisible church is to remove identity except generally. 

For the record, I don't think the Last Day of the world - when Jesus returns to judge the world - is the end of the world.

Neither do I. Jesus/bible only mentions the "end of the age"  which in my own opinion is clearly a term used often in astronomy of which the bible and Jesus makes many references to.

Age  / world often used synonomously. Eaon v kosmos.

 

Do you have a a biblical  example?

Yes.  Don't you? 

The imagery we have in Revelation - brings down that division - so that the city of Heaven - will be on earth.

You do know that none of the things that were expected of Jesus as messiah never came to fruition don't you? Not one.

Well - I obviously have a different position. How about you start by telling me what things were expected of Jesus that you say never came to fruition? 

Just to name a few. Jesus;

failed  to inherit the throne of David as was promised to his mother.

failed to become king of the Jews.

failed to free the Jews from the Roman yoke.

failed rebuild the Temple.

This wouldn't make him a Messiah, although some of his close disciples believed him to be.

I guess you are reading a different NT to me then.  I know you have an aversion to the book of Hebrews. 

Jesus has not yet returned in his fully glory to collect his bride.  

 I agree. Jesus hasn't returned in my time. But then the bible does mention that Jesus was  physically "resurrected" from being a three day old corpse as a man 2000 years ago and in his own body:

Well actually the bible is very clear that Jesus was physically resurrected. 

Indeed and  as I have already mentioned, Jesus is alleged to have been "resurrected from the dead" as a flesh and blood human man too. 

Well yes Jesus was resurrected flesh and blood. 

Jesus  appearing to his  some of his followers said- " Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself. Touch me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.”

Where does it say that? 

In the Bible.

Where specifically? 

And Paul says - "I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable".

So? 

 So you don't understand that verse then?  Paul is denying that Jesus resurrected from being of flesh and blood and physically dead  to being alive and living flesh and blood physically . If he had been he "cannot inherit the kingdom of God". 

Oh I am pretty sure I understand it as much as the next person.  Paul is doing no such thing.  You just need to read a little wider. 

Do you have any biblical evidence to support that, or is this just your own opinion? It appears that Christians have quite a few opinions on why Jesus died on the cross and none are to do with ushering in  "old last days" or new ones.

I never said it was to usher in the last days.  

So the death of Christ the messiah on the cross and the destruction of the Temple were not the beginning  of the ushering in of the end times?

nope.  

Saul referred to himself as the king of Israel.

so did David.

so did Solomon.

so did Herod. 

hmmm.  I reckon that therefore this means that Saul is David is Solomon is Herod.  Wow. glad someone decided to raise that question.

Why did he kick Satan out of heaven? 

The last days of the covenant between God and Israel has come and gone. Ad 70 - was the occasion of that time of when the historical temple was destroyed and the sacrifices were abolished. 

Do any of the gospel writer confirm this? Do any of them for instance tell us that with the destruction of the temple that this was the end of time or the end of old covenant? 

  Mark 12 Matthew 24 Luke 21

This accomplished historically what had happened spiritually in Jesus' death on the cross. 

Do you have any biblical evidence to support that, or is this just your own opinion? It appears that Christians have quite a few opinions on why Jesus died on the cross and none are to do with ushering in  "old last days" or new ones.

I never said it was to usher in the last days.  

This last one however will not be ushered in until the church has historically grown up and become an adult - mature and spotless in every way. 

And the bible confirms this does it? Or is this just your own opinion? And  what do you mean by "spotless"? 

Yes. The bible confirms it.  You can go and look up the verse or don't you know it? 

Given that the church is very much an adolescent. One which is having trouble understanding its identity, it is very unlikely it has occurred. 

Which church?

The church - invisible for want of a better word. 

For the record, I don't think the Last Day of the world - when Jesus returns to judge the world - is the end of the world.

Neither do I. Jesus/bible only mentions the "end of the age"  which in my own opinion is clearly a term used often in astronomy of which the bible and Jesus makes many references to.

Age  / world often used synonomously. Eaon v kosmos.

 

The imagery we have in Revelation - brings down that division - so that the city of Heaven - will be on earth.

You do know that none of the things that were expected of Jesus as messiah never came to fruition don't you? Not one.

Well - I obviously have a different position. How about you start by telling me what things were expected of Jesus that you say never came to fruition? 

Jesus has not yet returned in his fully glory to collect his bride.  

 I agree. Jesus hasn't returned in my time. But then the bible does mention that Jesus was  physically "resurrected" from being a three day old corpse as a man 2000 years ago and in his own body:

Well actually the bible is very clear that Jesus was physically resurrected. 

Jesus  appearing to his  some of his followers said- " Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself. Touch me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.”

Where does it say that? 

And Paul says - "I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable".

So? 

So with this in mind and your own opinion that the "last days" started with the destruction of the temple isn't it more likely that your lord Jesus has indeed been and gone and you have missed the bus?

Jesus has not returned yet.  Nothing you have said - would indicate anything else.  Perhaps you should fill in the gaps that you seem to see - but no one else does. 

 How  does one tell  and ready  thier 7 year old  girl about this end of times  being  only just around the corner ?

 Notice in that sentence I am using "will receive on the Last Day".  This is in the future tense.  The Last Day has not yet occurred.  

Its been over 2000 years now. How do you know the last day/s hasn't already happened and Jesus has come and gone before you were even born? 

It depends which last days we are talking about. 

The last days of the covenant between God and Israel has come and gone. Ad 70 - was the occasion of that time of when the historical temple was destroyed and the sacrifices were abolished. 

This accomplished historically what had happened spiritually in Jesus' death on the cross. 

The last days of the world however is another occasion - the one which is also often mentioned. 

This last one however will not be ushered in until the church has historically grown up and become an adult - mature and spotless in every way. 

Given that the church is very much an adolescent. One which is having trouble understanding its identity, it is very unlikely it has occurred. 

For the record, I don't think the Last Day of the world - when Jesus returns to judge the world - is the end of the world.

once sin has been dealt with

The imagery we have in Revelation - brings down that division - so that the city of Heaven - will be on earth.

Since we are not currently living in heaven -

Jesus has not yet returned in his fully glory to collect his bride.  

 warped ideologies

They can have any ideology they want; it's free speech.  Grow a thick skin you snowflake.

Londonistan for all intents and purposes is a foreign city on British soil.

How much welfare is handed out to your illegals? 

I don't support giving welfare to the undocumented. 

Stephen wrote: And allowed thousands of immigrants to enter the country illegally every fkn week from Africa and the Middle East and are putting up in £ 400 a night hotels and given £40-50 a week that "the productive " are paying for while the indigenous are queuing at food banks.

I support the undocumented being here; I do not support them living on government assistance.  The UK should stop giving free hotels to foreigners.

  But the British conservatives did that. 

How much welfare is handed out to your illegals? 

I don't support giving welfare to the undocumented. 

It is. And getting worse since government allowed an imported a culture that isn't compatible with my own

Letting immigrants move into your town is not the same thing as socialist.  

I have been stateside many times in my life and only ever had on problem. I found it better and more friendly down south. But that is just my own personal opinion.

The north is more culturally German and Italian. The south is more culturally rustic English.

  Notice in that sentence I am using "will receive on the Last Day".  This is in the future tense.  The Last Day has not yet occurred.  

Atheist troll trolls. Nothing new to see or read with that one.

All law isn't perfect. But it is the law. 

Any law that can objectively be improved should be changed. 

 But waiting for an accident to happen instead of trying to prevent or reduce the probability of an accident by a drunked or drugged smack head tard has to be commended.

Lest just hope that none of your own loved ones get killed by a twat tard going over the speed limit.

If you speed and are against speeding, your a hypocrite.

You are not one of the dozy bagheads that call themselves "Freeman on the Land" are you?

I'm an American, a member of the greatest country god ever created. 

  The UK is a socialist hell hole

It is criminal and unlawful for me to enter your country without permission.

It's criminal and unlawful to insult a horse.

It's criminal and unlawful to cut hair without a license. 

 It's also criminal and unlawful to speed 5 kph over the speed limit

If you aren't harming anyone else by breaking the law, who gives a fuck?

TU: undocumented

Stephen wrote: Is that a new word for 'illegals'?

TU: The term is well established..........They aren't documented with the US government, which is why they are undocumented.

Then that makes them illegals, doesn't it?

The term, "illegal" and "undocumented" are synonymous. 

I'll celebrate my survival because I really enjoy existing and stuff.

Michael Licona wrote:  Stephen was stoned to death after his witness before the Sanhedrin (Acts 6–8)

TU: undocumented

Stephen wrote: Is that a new word for 'illegals'?

TU: The term is well established..........They aren't documented with the US government, which is why they are undocumented.