Total posts: 3,520
Posted in:
It's been my experience that Atheists love to show up to religious threads. They get to have their say. They get to destroy their opponents. They get to prove how cool they are in the world of philosophy.
But this is why I say they are cowards. Because they are afraid to reveal what they believe. For instance, what do Atheists believe?
Nothing. One common doctrine. God doesn't exist. An argument based on a negative. That is it. Nothing else. We are not allowed to know what else they believe - because there is no common factor.
Hence why Atheists are COWARDS. They criticize - but without fear of being criticized. That is not criticism. That is safe ground. Bogus. really.
Are there more doctrines for the atheist than there is no God? No. nary a one. LOL! laughable. And weak. Cowardly really. there is no other words that can account for this state of being. A worldview - that is not really a worldview - a position - that is not really a position - a statement that allows no criticism. Imagine if we tried to apply to that any religion? It would be laughed out of the stadium. that is why Atheism is cowardly. One rule for them.
My view is that only people with worldviews should be allowed to contribute in a religious forum. An atheist ought be rejected unless they can provide a worldview to be considered. Unless this occurs - then there is no basis of comparing and contrasting. There is no basis for conversation.
Unless an atheist is able to come up with a worldview - then the atheist's opinions ought not be welcome.
We should not be permitted to criticize others unless we have something alternative to offer. Atheists have nothing to offer - of their own admission - so why ought we subject to ANY of their criticisms. By admitting they have no other doctrines, they admit they use religious doctrines to live their lives.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
@Deb-8-a-bull
#1 It's recorded in Matthew 10:34 that Jesus says:"Do not suppose I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn 'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter in law against her mother in law a man's enemies will be the members of his own household."Jesus, in my view[,………………………………...]I think part of the answer lies in the type of sword Jesus is talking about. Obviously it is a metaphorical sword, but the Greek word here is a dagger. Not a great big swashbuckling broad sword, but a short dagger. #34I don’t agree. There is absolutely nothing in the New Testament BIBLE that shows anything contrary to what Matthew 10:34 actually states and means.
Just for the record, can I assume you DID read my words, when I said "I think part of the answer" lies in the type of sword Jesus is talking about? Part of the answer implies ABSOLUTELY it is not the whole of the answer. Still, you disagree. That is your prerogative.
And, there are many other verses that clearly show that Jesus ‘ appearance in Palestine as a king returned to claim his throne and title would create conflict/war with Rome, it was unavoidable, which in turn would create division of opinions within the family.
Would you like to cite some please? You did say "many other verses" so we must assume more than 4 or 5.
These difference of opinions would, as Jesus himself admits, set “'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter in law against her mother in law a man's enemies will be the members of his own household."
Are you suggesting that EVEN if Jesus was not setting up an army that these opinions would do the same thing? Or are you saying that ONLY if Jesus is setting up an army that these opinions would do as Jesus indicated?
You see, there is no doubt that the reason for this is simple. Generations of Jews at the time had been Hellenised after centuries of influence under the Greek rule and their gods (weren’t even the gospels recorded in Greek?). So here we had an older generation still aligned to or hadn’t forgotten their Old Testament god Yahweh while the younger generations were not; “the children of Israel had gone astray”..The BIBLE clearly tells us that Jesus’ “mission” was to unite those Jews that had been “lost” Matthew 15:24 under one god and one rule.
Where is your evidence that there is a difference between the older and the younger generations of Israel? I would have thought that the older generation were just as gone astray as the younger one. After all, prior to Jesus, God had been silent for 400 years. I don't have an issue with Israel being Hellenized but to suggest that there is a generational gap is "reaching".
Also Matthew 15:24 unhelpful for you. It only tells us that Jesus was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel not what his mission was. It certainly provides no information about Jesus "uniting the Jews". It is not so CLEAR as you would so exaggerate.
In short Jesus was building an army. And I believe there is evidence in the New Testament that does go some way in proving this.
LOL! with two swords. What an amazing army that would be. I can't wait for you to prove this one Steve.
And, as with all ends of conflict, there would be the peace under one god and one rule and Jesus believed himself to be the man to bring this peace about. This is a recurring pattern throughout the whole of the BIBLE….. if not the whole of history.
You do realize that Jesus was only mentioned in the NT. So to call it a recurring theme throughout the bible is nonsense. Let alone history. Jesus is not interested in peace under God so much as he is interested in peace with God. You need to get with the bigger picture here Stevie.
Many Jews were happy with the situation under Greek rule as were many happy under Babylonian rule so much so many decided to remain in Babylon and many were full and active members of Babylonian society. After some 70+ years many Jews prospered. It is easy to imagine that many second and third generation Jewish Babylonians had no interest in leaving. As were many happy with the status quo under Roman rule and didn’t want any self proclaimed pretender king upsetting it:
This is a good statement and one I fully agree with. But I would go further back. Remember in the desert. The Jews wanted to go back to Egypt, didn't they? And I suspect that if we were to get ourselves a time machine and go back to Noah's flood, that if we were a fly on the wall, and were listening to Noah's family, that one of the sons and or daughters were probably saying, "Why can't we just go back to how things used to be?"
It is simply part of human life isn't it? We don't like change. Especially if it is confrontational or hard. We prefer the ways of humanism over the ways of God. So why in the world would we not think that the Jews in Jesus day would be any different?
John 11:48If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our temple and our nation.”Luke 22:36King James VersionThen said he [Jesus] unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.Indeed.
Yep, two swords. To start an army. Way to go Steve.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Nope. Jesus was not a stoner.
Is there anything else I need to comment on? No. rosends adequately adds REAL information. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7582/post-links/326198
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Tradesecret wrote: I don't care what others think of me".We know!And it is as I have always said of the pathological lying narcissists such as you Reverend Munchausen. People - such as you -with narcissistic personality disorders often do not care who they manipulate and lie to or how much harm it may cause by lying. The believability of the lie is of no concern or importance to the pathological lying narcissist. Of prime importance to NPD sufferers is their self aggrandizement and the propping up of their fragile egos, not the well being of their fellow men and women ,even if those men and women are upright, law abiding and that are peaceful.Also the illusion of victimhood is well buried in the Christian that has been caught on the backfoot hence s/he will try to create a few tall tales about him/herself and people with narcissistic personality disorders don't take well to being corrected by people they see as their inferiors.
Stephen, you speak as a coward knowing full well there are no consequences to your lies and stupidity. Cowards and bullies do that. Accusing me of things which are not true is the sad reflection of a man eaten up by jealousy. I don't tell lies. I sometimes say things which upon reflection probably requires some clarification. Yet, that is true of everyone. I am quite open about my background. This is because I have nothing to hide. I don't see myself as a victim, even from the incessant trolling and bullying behavior of you and the Brother.
I don't like your constant trolling and innuendos. And how ironic that if I ask you to stop you accuse me of playing the victim card. You really are a sad and pathetic person. As for being caught on the backfoot, LOL!. This is a religious site where people come to discuss things. The sad irony is that atheists like yourself come - and try to pick holes in religious people's views. At least when the religious come - they are fully aware that this might be the case. The Atheist however is the biggest coward on these sites. Why you ask? Because they don't believe anything. They don't reveal anything about what they do believe. All they do is try and unpick everyone else - without ever putting themselves on the table.
Hence, why atheism is a coward's philosophy. and it is why Atheists have no respect for others - because they don't actually have respect for themselves. Why is it that the biggest trolls on this religious forum are atheists? Obvious really. But let them figure it out for themselves.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Is the bible evidence on its own enough to prove the resurrection actually happened? Yes or no?Jesus said; But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.
Goad all of you like Stevie. I answered above. I also indicated that a yes or a no is simplistic response. Probably apt for you - but not for me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
MISS TRADESECRET, whose gender went from a “MAN TO A WOMAN,” and then to “OTHER,” then went to her being 53 years old, then 12 years old, then changed to being 14 years old, Debate Runaway on Jesus' true MO, Bible denier of Jesus being God in the OT, the runaway to what division of Christianity she follows, the pseudo-christian that has committed the Unpardonable Sin, the number 1 Bible ignorant fool regarding the Noah's Ark narrative, SHE SAYS THAT OFFSPRING THAT CURSE THEIR PARENTS SHOULD BE KILLED, states there is FICTION within the scriptures, and is guilty of Revelation 22:18-19, 2 Timothy 4:3, and 1 Timothy 2:12, she obviously had ungodly Gender Reassignment Surgery, Satanic Bible Rewriter, she goes against Jesus in not helping the poor, teaches Christianity at Universities in a “blind leading the blind” scenario, and is a False Prophet, says that Jesus is rational when He commits abortions and makes His creation eat their children, and that Jesus is rational when He allows innocent babies to be smashed upon the rocks, will not debate me on the Trinity Doctrine, and she is "AN ADMITTED SEXUAL DEVIANT!"I know, you knew I would easily Bible Slap you Silly®️ in front of the membership and Jesus (Hebrews 4:13) if you debated me regarding the Trinity Doctrine that you said I did not know anything about, but when I challenged you upon a debate upon this topic, you ran away in embarrassment again. :(Therefore, how about his situation, I debate you on the "Virgin Mary" biblical proposition that you said you knew all about, even though you ran away from my biblically vouchsafed FACTS upon this topic? Yes? Can you find your "big girl pants" and at least "try" in front of the membership?Miss Tradesecret, listen, to give you a better chance in this debate, I will approach my computer upon the topic of the Virgin Mary and will blind-fold myself, tie my hands behind my back, and type with my feet with my socks on!!! Agreed? Yes?Awaiting a NON RUNAWAY response this time.IS THERE ANY MEMBER THAT CAN HELP MISS TRADESECRET IN HOLDING HER HAND FOR HER TO AT LEAST TRY AND DEBATE THE BROTHER D. UPON THE TOPIC OF THE VIRGIN MARY WHERE SHE SAYS SHE KNOWS MORE THAN ANYONE UPON SAID TOPIC? ANYONE?
Integrity Brother. Integrity. When you find the balls to lose your fake persona - and stop being such a diddle brain. Then perhaps I might consider - whether I should debate you. For you, a debate is just to prove how wonderful you are. And perhaps how many friends you have. For me it is about the honor of Jesus. I don't debate just for the sake of it. If a debate is to take place - it must be in good faith and with integrity. That of course is a foreign concept for you - otherwise you would never have drawn up such a FAKE persona. While you retain such a persona - debating you - gives you kudos. I don't think you deserve such kudos in a formal debate.
If you lose your fake persona and reveal your real intentions, then perhaps we might be able to discuss a possible debate. but while you continue your sham - it ain't going to happen.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
MISS TRADESECRET, whose gender went from a “MAN TO A WOMAN,” and then to “OTHER,” then went to her being 53 years old, then 12 years old, then changed to being 14 years old, Debate Runaway on Jesus' true MO, Bible denier of Jesus being God in the OT, the runaway to what division of Christianity she follows, the pseudo-christian that has committed the Unpardonable Sin, the number 1 Bible ignorant fool regarding the Noah's Ark narrative, SHE SAYS THAT OFFSPRING THAT CURSE THEIR PARENTS SHOULD BE KILLED, states there is FICTION within the scriptures, and is guilty of Revelation 22:18-19, 2 Timothy 4:3, and 1 Timothy 2:12, she obviously had ungodly Gender Reassignment Surgery, Satanic Bible Rewriter, she goes against Jesus in not helping the poor, teaches Christianity at Universities in a “blind leading the blind” scenario, and is a False Prophet, says that Jesus is rational when He commits abortions and makes His creation eat their children, and that Jesus is rational when He allows innocent babies to be smashed upon the rocks, and she is "AN ADMITTED SEXUAL DEVIANT!"MISS TRADESECRETS QUOTE THROWING IN THE TOWEL OF DEFEAT IN ADMITTING THAT MY BIBLE KNOWLEDGE IS SUPERIOR TO HERS: "Brother, I have no desire to debate you. I don't care what others think of me".Thank you dear for outright admitting that if you debated me upon the Trinity Doctrine, I would have easily shown you in just how Bible stupid you were, therefore you took the safe course and RAN AWAY from a debate with me upon a topic that you said you knew all about, but when push came to shove, you bailed out in total embarrassment in front of the membership and ran! LOL!!!Not only do you retain your #1 Bible runaway status, and in being the #1 Bible stupid fool upon this forum, you also slapped Jesus in the face by violating His command to "defend the faith" that you could not perform as an ungodly woman as shown below:JESUS' INSPIRED WORDS STATE TO MISS TRADESECRET: "He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it." (Titus 1:9)Miss Tradesecret, It is totally beyond any reason in how you can continue to frequent this Religion Forum in being so inept of the Bible, your runaway status, your Bible stupidity, and running away from a debate, where the funny outcome is that you think you can call yourself a Christian?!! ROFLOL!!! NOT!!!NEXT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN 2ND CLASS WOMAN LIKE THE RUNAWAY FROM THE BIBLE AND DEBATE, AND BEING STUPID AND IGNORANT OF THE BIBLE, LIKE MISS TRADESECRET, WILL EMBARRASSINGLY BE ...?
where is the question?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
Yes, I can see how that follows.
Still, you demonstrate it positively.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
interesting stuff.
I didn't know you were a practicing Rabbi. good to know.
At least this explains not only your knowledge but also your ability to remain so patient on many levels.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
A lot of words to spend on a none answer,Reverend Munchausen. But it is the norm and is always expected of you.
More than you could read then.
There is an answer. You know it is there. You also know that you haven't got a clue how to respond to it - save and except to pretend it is not there. Or that it so silly that it does not deserve responding too.
That is your prerogative - but it is answer. A theological answer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
"Fact is though -I have answered all the questions I am going to answer."No dear, you have answered "some" of MANY questions posed to you by Jesus' spirit and myself, whereas many go unanswered because of the simple fact that you CANNOT answer them.
Wrong! please go back and ACTUALLY read what I wrote. I highlight it for you here. Since you are capable of finding it yourself. I answer questions I want to answer. I have told you and will continue to repeat it - with the hope that one day - it might sink into your tiny little brain. I won't hold my breath though. I will not answer personal questions. I will answer theological questions if they are put in such as way as to be searching for an answer. I will not go back and explain further to answers provided - just because you don't like it or can't comprehend it. Of course if you raise a valid reason for seeking further explanation, I will consider exploring it further with you. But responding to an answer I provide with ridicule is not a reason for me to articulate further.
Dear, my repetition is because you don't address the questions directed to you in the first place, other than to run away from them!
no Brother, you repeat because you can't think of another original question. I choose not to respond to silly questions. I choose not to respond to personal questions. Although at times I do respond to personal questions. It however is not my starting point - and I still choose when I am going to do that. It is my prerogative - not yours. you also repeat because you don't have a clue how silly it makes you look. Especially when many questions have been answered.
I will give you some more time to think about debating me upon the Trinity Doctrine, and other topics as well, that you continue to run away from in a SCARED manner, especially since you say that you know all about this topic, but fail to debate me about it because you are a https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uI7ni7zL8qU
Brother, I have no desire to debate you. I don't care what others think of me. I think you want a pissing contest because you think somehow you are a clever person. You may well be a clever person. Yet, with your fake persona, I have no desire to debate someone whose entire existence is bent of ridiculing and mocking God. Why would I bother giving you such a space? If you had any integrity, you would climb down from such a fake persona - and debate one on one - with all our cards on the table. Somehow I have a feeling you won't do such a thing. This is entirely consistent with your cowardly hiding behind a fake persona. Until you put your mask down - I won't debate you.
I wonder if you have the ....? No I don't actually.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
So after repeatedly asking you , in your capacity as a practicing Pastor & Chaplain to a congregation of 300 and that ministers to your countries defence forces and as a lecturer and tutor to students at Universities on all things biblical and theological and that was chosen by god to spread HIS word you just cannot answer.Well I have had my answer and you have had ours.😂😂😂😂
How about I just refer you back to https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7337/post-links/326132
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Is the bible evidence on its own to prove the resurrection actually happened?That is a question that requires a simple yes or no answer.
Perhaps for simpletons.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Your question was NOT straightforward so I asked you for clarification.It is . The bible is either enough on its own to convince you the resurrection of a dead man happened or it isn't.But you have no answer although you often cry loudly that you are more than happy to answer real theological questions. You are just too frightened to commit yourself for risk of showing yourself to be the absolute bible dunce that you are...... AgainLet it be noted that this bible dunce the Reverend Tradesecret after many requests refused answer a simple straightforward question about the very subject in which he claims to be extremely knowledgeable in and highly qualified to preach to others.🤣🤣🤣🤣
Ironic how you AWAYS fail to respond to my comments to you. I explained why it was not a straightforward question. Due to your own hypocrisy. Yet, you just omit it. Pretend it is not there and hope others won't see it. and then plain lie about it. Will you ever grow up?
I also provided a theological answer based on infallibility. Yet you say "no answer". Hmm can it be that you cannot read? Or comprehend? Or just do not know what a theological argument is? Possibly all three I suggest. To then just outright lie is simply evidence of your own fear.
So those who are reading Stephen's lie that I did not respond read my link - which once again shows Stephen to be lying. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7337/post-links/326132
The question was answered. It just was not to Stephen's liking. Typical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I am asking YOU in your capacity as a practicing Pastor & Chaplain to a congregation of 300 and that ministers to your countries defence forces and that was chosen by god to spread HIS word.what sort of answer you are looking for?What is the matter with you man!!? I have asked you a straightforward question. I am not looking for a "SORT" of an answer, I am asking you in your opinion if or not the bible on its own is good enough evidence for the resurrection. It either is or isn't. I have made my opinion clear many times. I personally do not believe the bible is evidence enough to prove a dead man came back to life. Do you?
Oh the boy bites. There is nothing the matter with me. Your question was NOT straightforward so I asked you for clarification. You say on one hand you want an answer in my capacity as a practicing pastor and chaplain and yet on the other hand you think I am a fraud. So given your obvious two faced approach, it is completely reasonable that I seek clarification from you.
Still, if you want a personal subjective answer about what I personally believe - irrelevant and independent to my capacity as a pastor and chaplain, then I will need to consider that given I have said on numerous occasions now that I will not answer personal questions. It is not like you have ever taken anything I have said on a personal level and then attempted to use it as a slur on my views (sarcasm) or character.
As for your question at least this time around, the theological doctrine of infallibility suggests that the Bible is evidence for anything it wants to use it for. In other words, given the Bible is breathed out by God, (yes using the hands and minds and experience of fallen and sinful man) then its contents are evidence per se.
Would that doctrine of infallibility be enough to convince fallen and sinful humanity of its truth? The answer ought to be yes, save that fallen and sinful humanity holds the truth down and refuses to acknowledge its author. This is part and parcel of the concept of proving anything. Facts are facts - and yet facts - all facts are interpreted differently by different eyes. In the end, people like yourself will not be convinced even if you fell over the truth, because it does not meet with your own criteria of what truth looks like. God could come down and stand in front of you - and you would still argue that he is not God. You could ask him all sorts of questions. He would not answer you to your satisfaction. You could ask him to do all sorts of tricks. He could do those. And yet you would still deny that it was God standing before you. Why? Because your prejudice and bias and self belief trumps everything including the truth.
For you, truth is whatever you decide truth is. And the measure of evidence for that truth will change depending upon whether it is confirming or contradicting your truth. If it confirms your truth, it requires very little evidence. If it contradicts it, then you require an impossible standard to stand your truth aside. Hence, why you remain stuck in your narrow views.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Hmmm
I am asking YOU in your capacity as a practicing Pastor & Chaplain to a congregation of 300 and that ministers to your countries defence forces and that was chosen by god to spread HIS word.
Please clarify what sort of answer you are looking for?
Personal?
theological?
Philosophical?
Evidence based?
Why avoid a response Stephen?
I thought you were enlightened and above all of that.
Why are you RUNNING away?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Is the bible on its own not good enough proof of the resurrection?
So just to make sure we both understand what you are attempting to find out.
Are you asking me - personally whether I think it is good enough. Are you seeking a subjective answer from me personally?
Are you asking me - theologically whether the revelation of God is all that is necessary for everyone or anyone to accept the resurrection? And in asking such, are you wanting a theological answer based on the scriptures or from historical church thought?
Are you asking me - philosophically whether such a position is plausible and acceptable from a philosophical position?
Are you asking me - from an evidence basis - such as a lawyer, or perhaps a scientist, or perhaps someone else might require?
Despite the fact that you ask such broad questions - it would be helpful for me if you specified exactly what you are asking?
I did suggest in another place that the resurrection of Jesus is a historical fact. I don't believe it ONLY because the bible says it is true. I certainly don't believe it as a matter of faith. Unless of course we are talking about reasoned faith and that may well add a better dimension to it.
I am just trying to understand your motivation for asking such a question. Clearly, it is not about you seeking truth for yourself. It can only be for you to acquire further ammunition against my views. Which incidentally - seems to be the focus of your life at the moment. Oh I am not taking this as a poor me or some kind of victim attitude. I laugh when you say that. Since it is so far from the truth. Yet I feel for you - and how sad and pathetic it is to narrow your focus on finding ways to try and ridicule me. but the way I see it - this is the same as the reason I ring up JWs or keep them at my door for as long as possible. I do this so that they won't go off and frustrate others and possibly mislead them into an emptiness. the longer they are focused on me - the less time they are hurting others.
While you and the Brother may well be stalking me and doing your best at that - it certainly takes you and Brother away for the most part from abusing and stalking others and spreading your misery. It is rare to see you or Brother actually engage with others - so for my part. I am doing my job - distracting you and keeping your attention diverted towards me. Yes, sometimes it becomes quite painful. but better me than others. I see it as a bit of a compliment really.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Well at least on this one you tagged me. That's a start at least.
I must admit feeling a little special the way you continue to spend your time highlighting all of my alleged issues.
Thanks for caring and sharing. I had better be careful or Stevie will accuse me of stockholms.
still if it makes you sleep better at night.
Oh for the record - not that you ever will put it on your list - I have never run away from you.
I'm here - waiting for you to ask genuine questions. Not personal ones. sincere theological ones.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Do you post these days without even tagging me? What are you afraid of?
reading your list of poor miss tradesecrets has made me smile. Thanks Brother.
Fact is though -I have answered all the questions I am going to answer.
And all you will do is go back to repeating and spamming. That's what you are good at.
Perhaps when you provide us with some original thinking - someone - apart from Stevie - will care.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
you can say whatever you want Stephen. No one really cares what you think.Probably not. But I know my opinions, ideas and thoughts concerning these ambiguous unreliable scriptures get right up your pompous pastors hooter.
No. Not at all. Everything you have ever said is simply a regurgitation of what others have said. Nothing original.
I wonder whether Stephen agrees with you in respect that Jesus is GodI guess you find it difficult to recognize sarcasm or a rhetorical question then.And you got your answer from the horses mouth , Reverend Munchausen.
Well no. You just said - you like to suck up to him. You NEVER criticize. If I said Jesus is God, you would do everything to try and prove me wrong. If the Brother says Jesus is God, you are silent. You are such a liar and so transparent - even when you pretend so hard not to be.
No, stop lying to yourself. You don't have the capacity to scrutinize. or question or criticize. You just pour over someone else's work - believe it - and cut and paste.I know that after all of your alleged supernatural ability to " memorise the bible"#52 and claims to know it backwards and frontwards" and to know it in multiple languages#191 that you don't know these scriptures at all . I only ever cut and paste from the bible itself you bible dunce. Very rarely will you see me even quote outside sources such as Historian Josephus or the Gnostic Gospels. BOTH of which tell a different story to the one that the likes you have been force feeding mankind for over 2000 years.
Classic misdirection. I call attention to the fact that you are biased. And you cry, and attack me. I don't care what you say about me. It's irrelevant to the truth.
I am still waiting for you to produce EVEN ONE original thought.I have produced over a hundred threads on this forum that contain my original thoughts. Even you recently plagiarised a thread of my own starting a thread that began with exactly the same question.. And this will be because for all of your alleged theological education under all of these scholars that included a Hebrew teacher not to mention your " mentor in Moscow", you haven't a clue as to what is going on in these scriptures.
nope. just another story you pretend. not once have you produced ONE original thought. The next one - will be the first one. Did you notice how rather than producing evidence to prove me wrong, you simply attacked. Oh wait, that's not an attack. You never attack anyone. LOL!
You insist on facts but cannot face facts even from your own scriptures.. Jesus was a man that Christians have wrapped in an ancient myth.Not according to the Brother.The Brother tells it as it is. He agrees that CHRISTIANS have wrapped Jesus in myth. He's admitted it many times, you bible dunce.
the Brother is an idiot. For you to support him shows you are an even BIGGER idiot. He says everything is literal. LOL! Well except when it contradicts him.
So do you give him ticks because you agree with him.I agree on many things the Brother has to say concerning these contradictory ambiguous half stories in the scriptures. But you wouldn't know either way, because you are an inept bible dunce that has to rewrite scripture and put words into the mouths of the characters and authors of the bible. Something the Brother never does himself.
Of course you do, you and he are the same person. Why else would you respond on his behalf on many occasions?
or because you have no other friends?I have plenty of friends Reverend Munchausen. And unlike yourself, I don't have to invent wild exaggerated stories about myself to make or impress my friends either. would you like reminding of all your will exaggerated cliams you make about yourself?
I'm not pretending to have friends. and telling lies doesn't help you either.
Jesus himself admits to being only the Messiah and what Christians cannot admit is that Jesus as messiah failed in his mission. He was cut down before his mission had even got off the ground.Again not according to the Brother. Are you calling him out for his errors?If I believe he is in error and mistaken and making claims he cannot support, JUST LIKE I DO YOU, I will call him on it. The difference is he doesn't lie about what is written in scripture as you intentionally and purposefully and repeatedly do. And he doesn't make claims of being "bullied" or "harassed" as you also repeatedly do when challenged.
You don't call him out - because you wouldn't call yourself out. Duh! As for being stalked. both you and Brother are sad and pathetic. I do hope your grandkids are safe from you.
Give me an example of something I should call him out on?
Oh I dunno - perhaps whenever he says Jesus is god.
But you won't do that will you - liar, fake and sad and pathetic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
As we can see, Miss Tradesecret is 3 DAYS into her frantically thumbing though her pseudo-christian Apologetic Books once again to try and get herself out of yet another blatant mess she is in because of her "Bible Duncery®️." We can only wonder in what little girly excuse Miss Tradesecret will use this time in not answering my post #441 and your post #436 and #444, that proves she is the #1 Bible dumbfounded, and runaway of same, pseudo-christian that has ever been seen in a Religion Forum, bar none!
Sorry no frantic behaviour here. I'm waiting for you to ask a half decent question.
You proffered Miss Tradesecret's quote towards Atheists herewith: "Most atheists I know are impractical and airhead. Many end up in prison, for theft and sex related crimes, mostly kiddie crime. Many commit suicide and or are on drugs and alcohol. Not too many get married, or if they do - are on to their 4 or 4th marriage. Many are gay or lesbian"
Yes, many do. So what? It's entirely consistent with their worldview.
Within Miss Tradesecret's quote above, it is nothing but an old adage of; "The Pot calling the Kettle Black." What did we expect from a 2nd class woman in breaking so many of Jesus' propositions that we have lost count! Therefore, Miss Tradesecret is guilty of this Jesus inspired passage subsequent to us Bible Slapping her Silly®️ ad infinitum : "Always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth." 2 Timothy 3:7)
There is no such thing as a second class woman. what a silly thing to say. As for being bible slapped, that is your forte not mine.
Since I have easily shown that Miss Tradesecret's gender is a woman (https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEAH39Y), that obviously before her Sex Change, she was a man that she purports, therefore she is also guilty of this Jesus inspired passage as well: “No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord. (Deuteronomy 23:1). This is easy and simple math, in her operation of turning into a woman from a man, she had her male anatomy cut off, notwithstanding her testicles crushed when doing so. Therefore, every time she enters a church in ungodly preaching to her congregation, she violates Jesus' command shown in the verse above! This is barring the FACT that she did not like her male gender that Jesus gave her at birth!
The truth stands much more than silly little boys who think they know. I don't agree with your position on females. There is nothing to respond too. Christians know there are various views on this. You don't which demonstrates again your immaturity.
Uh, instead of a "casual glance," could you take a "serious glance" instead in addressing Miss Tradesecret's Bible stupidity that certain members had to easily refute as shown throughout this thread? In essence, when is enough, enough?In the same vein relating to DEBATEART'S Code of Conduct of a member continuing in their hate speech within their posts, said member is subject to disciplinary actions, which is equal to Miss Tradesecret's continued Bible stupidity should also be addressed with discipline! Whereas Jesus agrees with me herewith: "Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid." ( Proverbs 12:1). WWJD?!
Jesus would probably allow you continue - since you are not going to have any joy later on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
YOUR QUOTE SHOWING MISS TRADESECRETS TOTAL BIBLE STUPIDITY WHEN SHE WROTE: "We don't generally refer to Jesus in the OT, since Jesus was not born until the NT. .........Christians have not adopted any God."HUH? First thing, in addressing Miss Tradesecret's Bible stupidity again, the Bible states there is ONLY one god (Jude 1:25, 1 Timothy 1:17), and since Jesus is this only god (1 Timothy 3:15-16), and since the Hebrew God always existed (Psalm 90:2), and when Paul portrays Jesus as the god that led Israel out of Egypt to the Promise Land (1 Corinthians 10:1-4), then Jesus existed in the Old Testament irrelative to His birth date as the serial killer Yahweh God incarnate!Then if the aforementioned isn't embarrassing enough for the Bible fool Miss Tradesecret, then she has the audacity to say that pseudo-christians have not adopted any God, where what God is left other than Jesus being the ONLY god for pseudo-christians?! H-E-L-L-O? Jesus H. Christ, how feather-headed can she get relative to the Bible in front of the membership and Jesus? ENOUGH is ENOUGH!
I see Stephen has once again given you a tick of approval. this just proves he is dumber than you.
Jesus is NT. The Son is OT. Can you spot the difference and the distinction? Possibly not. Repeating and regurgitating the same old lines does not make it a better argument. Again do you even realize how dumb you look? When was Jesus born? In the NT. How then can Jesus, be in the OT? Of course the Son can be. But the Son and Jesus although tied together in history are not ONE and the Same. Jesus is the Son, but the Son is not Jesus. Oh dear, what is going on? Jesus is God, but the Trinity is not Jesus. Oh dear more of the same. Until - you can at least grasp the nuances of the Trinity and God, you should really steer clear of it. Hence, why your words above are stupidity personified. but I really don't expect that you would grasp that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Dear Miss Tradesecret, the HABITUAL LIAR, what part of this link showing you to be a "female" don't you understand relative to you being a woman, where you want us to believe that you are a man: https://www.imagebam.com/view/ME9Q2UJ
I am not a liar. I am not a female. What part of that don't you understand? Calling attention to a link I have admitted I changed because you and Stephen were stalking me doesn't mean I am female. All it does it provide REAL and SUBSTANTIAL evidence that you should be locked up in prison for crimes of a sexual nature.
My profile page was changed to PROTECT me from you. That you continue to stalk me and throw it in my face IS a failure of this forum to protect its clients.
Seriously Brother, you are a real sad and pathetic bully and stalker. Next to you, I am a saint.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Well actually I responded and answered EVERY one of your questions which was worth answering. It's not my fault you don't understand my answers or that they don't satisfy you. Given your previous responses this is hardly to be expected. After all, you don't actually have a brain.
Or a background in which to answer.
You are a fraud. A fake.
Respectfully, that is you. Why should I bother responding more? You are façade admittedly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
ou had the audacity to say that I didn’t understand the Trinity Doctrine
Absolutely. You argue like a 12 year old girl or boy. Someone who is to young to understand. Grow up a bit. Add a little bit of maturity to your responses and then perhaps I might respond.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
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.Well of course you don't. It is an embarrassment to you to have to explain away the actions of a vile, murderous self confessed jealous god of war that will kill women and children at the drop of an hat on the one hand, while claiming Jesus to be the only one true god from the beginning and prince of peace on the other..I have said many times before, this is what comes of Christians adopting an ancient god that you/they neither understood from an ancient time that you don't understand and from ancient culture that you also don't understand. And by doing so have created a rod for your own back.
Seriously, are you going to lead with that old chestnut? God is God. God can do whatever he wants. I am not embarrassed by anything God has done or will do. Stop throwing out lies. Yet, I deny God is vile. God is not a murderer. He does not kill anyone at a drop of a hat. his jealousy is warranted and entirely justified and not our of insecurity. Hence not sinful.
You can say whatever you want Stephen. No one really cares what you think. Christians have not adopted any God. God has adopted Christians. We don't have a rod for our back. It is you who has the problem, not us. It is you who seems to find problems - it is you who is unable to think through issues. It is you who sees things through the lens of your own bias and hurt. Christians embrace the grace and generosity and love of GOD.
Yes, The Son is from everlasting. Is Jesus 100% synonymous with the Son according to Christian doctrine? Have you actually ever looked that one up? Of course you haven't or you would recognize the foolishness of what you are saying.
I wonder whether Stephen agrees with you in respect that Jesus is God?Then wonder no more. I have explained my position hundreds of times to bible dunces such as yourself Reverend Munchausen.Not that it matters either way, but the answer is no. I don't believe Jesus was a god or even half a god. [A] Jesus was a man with only the title "son of god" as other Israelite kings were. Kings David and Solomon were not " immaculately conceived" but their titles were "sons of god". Jesus only allows himself to be called "son of god" by the voices others (including one from the clouds), although, I will admit, the scriptures do not tell of Jesus objecting to the title. But then again, he wouldn't object considering he believed himself to be the true king of Israel. See[A] above.
Hmm, I guess you find it difficult to recognize sarcasm or a rhetorical question then. I drew this to Brother's attention and yours - for one reason only. It demonstrates exactly how stupid he is. He in his atheistic pretense as a theist is attempting to belittle others by proving - what no atheist does generally. It is utterly amusing from my end. (Why would I bother pursuing this line of thought with the Brother - when I know he is going to attempt to prove in his mind - and to score a point against me - that Jesus is God?) I have no issue with Jesus being God. You do. LOL! and yet for Brother to score his point - he has to over and over again - prove the point that Jesus is God according to the bible, despite the lies that people like you like to make. I win if he proves Jesus is God. How can I possibly lose? You are so dumb it hurts.
What Brother D. makes of my " blasphemy" is of no concern to me. I only ever scrutinize, question and criticise these ancient scripture for the unreliable, enigmatic and ambiguous half stories that Christians such as yourself like to preach, teach and "pass on" to further the Christian narrative. If you want that in plain English - Christian preachers and teachers Pastors and Priests such as you Reverend Munchausen have been "passing on" lies and have been deceiving hundreds of generations from the day Christianity was conceived.
No, stop lying to yourself. You don't have the capacity to scrutinize. or question or criticize. You just pour over someone else's work - believe it - and cut and paste. I am still waiting for you to produce EVEN ONE original thought. Yes, I pass on the the Christian narrative. Absolutely. And I will continue to do so. I don't have to tell lies like you do.
Bible dunces such as yourself, Reverend Munchausen like to forget that we now live in the 21st century. We are far more educated than those living at the time of Jesus. Even people the lowest of classes in the western world know the alphabet " forward and backward" because they are taught to do so " from a very early age" and can also count past the number two. We now are allowed, and what's more , able to think for ourselves without the control or fear of the local clergy ready to condemn us all to hell for "thinking outside the box" .
Why would I forget that dear Stephen? Unlike you, I read quite widely. and have traveled extensively. I suppose for you - that sounds like bragging. Oh well. When stating facts becomes a trigger for your jealousy - then I am fine with that. O for the record, the modern world is so much more educated - simply for one reason. The Christian gospel. This is the undeniable truth of history. Where the Christian gospel has spread - societies have evolved progressively. And faster. Without the church, there would have been no industrial revolution. No enlightenment.
No one in the church wants you to stop thinking. We don't want to control you. Stop being such a victim. Christians don't have to agree with the way that others do things. So what? We are allowed to think for ourselves, just like others can think for themselves.
You insist on facts but cannot face facts even from your own scriptures.. Jesus was a man that Christians have wrapped in an ancient myth.
Not according to the Brother. The one you keep giving ticks too. So do you give him ticks because you agree with him or because you have no other friends?
Jesus himself admits to being only the Messiah and what Christians cannot admit is that Jesus as messiah failed in his mission. He was cut down before his mission had even got off the ground.
Again not according to the Brother. Are you calling him out for his errors? Or do you just have an agenda against the real Christians? Why is it that you don't EVER call out the Brother? Hmmm.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@amandragon01
Faith cannot be used to prop up any belief. That is like saying our legs prop up our legs. It makes no sense. Faith and belief are the same things. They are synonyms along with the word trust.I would say that faith and belief are similar, but I wouldn't say synonymous. Faith is specifically a belief held through religious convictions rather than proof. I can believe in things without having faith in them. I believe my smart phone exists (I'm using it to write this), but I don't have faith in its existence (my belief is neither a religious conviction or lacking in proof).
Faith can be used in different ways, this is true. We can talk of the faith as a noun. Or we can talk of it as a verb. I have faith in that man.
the Greek word for faith - pistos. is a noun. It's used in Jude - to talk of the doctrines which have been delivered once and for all.
Greek also uses it in as pisteueo - - as in I believe - In the NT - belief and faith are synonymous on many occasions and on other occasions there is a distinction. For instance - the demons believe in God - but this is not in the sense of trust. but in the sense of "I know".
but it is also used on many occasions in the same way as trust. Do you believe in me? Says Jesus. this is - both the knowledge that he is the messiah, but also a trust that he will what is right.
I'm not sure what you are saying about religious conviction. In my view EVERYONE is religious. I say religion is inescapable. Humans are religious beings.
I actually don't think being religious has anything to do with faith per se.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Your posts are so BORING.
You repeat - over and over and over again.
I don't see a question that I have not previously answered that was worth answering.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
firstly, YOU ADMIT THAT JESUS IN BEING GOD, WAS A SERIAL KILLER when He brought forth His Great Flood and murdered His creation as described in the book of Genesis,
Nope, not once have I have made such a concession, since it is not true. God did judge the world in Noah's time and rightly so. It was not murder. Putting your lying spin onto a subject does not make it true.
But, what bothers many of us TRUE Christians, of which you are NOT, is the fact in how Jesus had to murder His creation in the Flood by the horrible death of drowning, where little innocent babies suffocated by the sea waters after their last gasp of air, and where Jesus watched these babies die this gruesome death !!! (Hebrews 4:13)
sorry old chap. It was not murder when God judged the world. This is what is called an impasse. Murder is unlawful killing. You need to be able to demonstrate that God acted unlawfully. And that is something which is impossible.
Since you do not get “squirmy” about Jesus murdering His creation, especially innocent babies, then the following "other examples of Jesus murdering innocent babies" will not bother you as shown in the link below:Subsequent to viewing the link above, we have to admit that Jesus is an outright ABORTIONIST as well as a serial killer of His creation shown throughout our Bibles! Miss Tradesecret, do you tell your congregation that Jesus is an ABORTIONIST, or do you remain silent upon this Bible FACT as an outright pseudo-christian LIAR?Now dear, if you runaway, or don’t address the entirety of this post, then you ADMIT to it’s content about our Jesus being a brutal serial killer and an abortionist!
I have said and I will repeat. God acted justly by destroying the world in Noah's time. I have indicated that I do not take the view that Jesus was OT.
Again - you just repeat - garbage. when are you going to present even a half hearted argument?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
"the NT clearly indicates Mary was a virgin. It indicates that God was Jesus' father. There was no rape. There was no sexual union between god and man.
1. If you are connecting Isaiah 7:14 to Mary being an alleged "virgin," you are WRONG as usual, Bible fool! Isaiah 7:14 uses the Hebrew word "alma" which refers to a "young woman," where it DOES NOT refer to an alleged "virgin" in any way whatsoever, understand? " If you want to discuss this further, then I will easily Bible Slap you Silly®️ once again in front of the membership, understood Bible fool?!
I never connected Is 7 to virgin in these posts. i could but I didn't. the Septuagint does. Luke does. So Luke under the direction of the Holy Spirit made the connection. I am quite content to do so. You of course fail to recognize that the Hebrew word does not exclude virgin. So if you think that is a slap - you are very much mistaken. Rather you have demonstrated only that you do not understand Hebrew.
2. Yes, as I have shown you many times at your embarrassing and runaway expense, Jesus was His own Father, Son, and Holy Ghost at birth, because Jesus is the "Triune' Christian God to begin with, understood again Bible fool?
No - you just show how dumb you are. Jesus is not the TRIUNE God. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Three persons. This is the Trinity. Yet the Father is not the Son nor the Spirit. The Son is neither the Father, nor the Spirit. The Spirit is not the Father, nor the Son. Jesus as the Son is part of the Trinity. He is not the Trinity.
3. Where did I say there was rape in connection to your post #389, Bible fool?
Idk - and to be honest i can't be bothered looking. I just copy your post and then follow it.
4. Where did I say there was physical sex between Mary and either Jesus or Joseph in connection to your post #389?
Probably you said in in the posts prior to that time. Again I can't be bothered looking now. So just for the record, are you conceding that Mary was not raped by God? And that there was no sex between God and Mary, either spiritual or physical?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
@BrotherD.Thomas
TS wrote: “Jesus in no place in the bible - ever kills any children - indeed any person.”
1. THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD: “To the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.” (Jude 1:25)2. JESUS IS THE ONE GOD: “But in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth. By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory.” (1 Timothy 3:15-16)
3. JESUS IS THE GOD OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS: “In Isaiah 44:6, the LORD (Yahweh/Jesus) refers to himself as “the First and the Last”. In Revelation 1:8, 17, Jesus similarly refers to himself as “the Alpha and the Omega” and “the First and the Last”.Paul portrays Jesus as that God that led Israel out of Egypt to the Promised Land which is our Hebrew ONLY God Yahweh: “For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.” (1 Corinthians 10:1-4)Paul again states with specificity that Jesus is the one God, therefore Jesus/Yahweh is the god of the Old Testament: “Yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.” (1 Corinthians 8:6)4. Jesus ADMITS that He is the only one god!!!: "Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who. has seen me has seen the FATHER, how can you say 'show us the FATHER?" (John 14: 9-)5. Thomas admits that Jesus is the ONE GOD!: "Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28)
Thanks for providing this valuable contribution Brother. I wonder whether Stephen agrees with you in respect that Jesus is God? I know he gave you a tick for the post - but it would be helpful to see if that was because he agrees with your view here that Jesus is God. Would Stephen care to elaborate.
When Jesus becomes the ONLY ONE GOD, in both the Old and New Testaments as explicitly shown above with the biblical axioms given, then our ever loving and forgiving Jesus is guilty of the following one example of many examples in KILLING innocent zygotes, fetus,' babies, children and men and women within the scriptures:
Having said the above I will qualify some of what you were trying to conclude. Although it is true - as you rightly put it - Jesus is God. It however is unhelpful to say Jesus is the ONE God. Or the only God. That of course is not consistent with Christian theology.
The Lord Jesus Christ is commonly known as the Son of God, the second person of the Holy Trinity. 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. Jesus in the Christian view is typically, understood as the messiah, as the human. We would say he walked among man, led by the Spirit and operating in the power of the Spirit.
Hence my opening statement which you have a problem with is entirely accurate. Jesus is NT. Jesus is not OT. Yes, we can find Jesus in the OT, Philip indicated that when he spoke to the Ethiopian in Acts. He found Jesus in Isaiah 53. Jesus too on the road to Emmaus when talking to the two disciples after his resurrection was able to give verse and chapter to the fact that the entire OT speaks to Jesus. So in that sense you Brother are not entirely wrong.
JESUS AS GOD, no matter for what reason, where the end result was Jesus brutally killing His entire creation in His Great Flood, including innocent zygotes, fetus’ babies, and children (Genesis 6:17). Furthermore, imagine little babies were calling out to their mothers for help before they went down into the deep sea for the last time as they gasped for air, in dying a horrific death of suffocation as Jesus watched, ewwwwwwwww! (Hebrews 4:13)
You have fallen into the trap of the utilitarian. One where truth is measured by the end result. Hence you dismiss "no matter for what reason". I am not a utilitarian. I don't agree that ends justifies the means. And nor does God. God not only ordains the beginning and the end. He also orders the means too.
God in the bible's view - and therefore in mine as well is the creator of life and therefore He is the only one worthy and justifiably in EVERY case able to take life. You seem for some reason to think I get squirmy about the deaths at the flood. I don't. I don't like the fact that people had to die, even the babies. If I were alive I would have been begging God not to kill these people - even if I had seen the parents eating their own children, and having sex with babies. I would have been horrified at their evilness but also at the fact that they would be killed. I also would have been praying to God to stop the evil. to stop the evil of parents eating their children and having sex with babies. God did stop it. I wonder why you don't see the good when evil is stopped. perhaps you prefer evil to good.
I pray today that abortions would stop as well. I pray that Putin might be stopped too. That might only occur if mother's and fathers stopped having sex outside of marriage. Or if Putin is killed. The bible declares that the evil that was going on in Noah's time was so pervasive that only man in the whole world was not seen as evil. We are not even told that Noah's children were nice people. In my view if God, he who does know everything and he who is good has checked it out and seen that the entire world ought to be destroyed or wiped out, then personally, how can I be squirmy? Honestly, it would seem that UNLESS God destroyed the world, that even more evil would have taken place. Since God is the author of life - it is IMPOSSIBLE to accredit him with murder because he has an ability that none of us have. He can bring people back to life. Neither you nor I can do that.
Therefore Miss transgendered Tradesecret, when you Satanically state that Jesus in being the only ONE GOD, therefore being the Yahweh God of the OT didn’t kill any children, or any person, YOU ARE A BLATANT SATANIC LIAR!
I said Jesus did not kill any people. I am not wrong. You have shown - quite well that God has killed people. You have shown that Jesus is God. What you have not shown is that Jesus ever killed anyone. Yes, Jesus is God - But Jesus' as we see him described most clearly in the NT does not kill anyone. Not in the NT. Killing by the way is not unlawful. It can be. But not on every occasion.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
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?
It certainly fits the criteria for the first one and not the latter. Why don't you rephrase your question - taking the personal pronoun out of it? After all, it is not a matter of me suggesting anything, is it? You have certainly said it lots of times that you don't care what I think. So please be consistent. If at all possible.
Created:
-->
@amandragon01
Can I ask what sources you'd suggest as being reliable for genuine research. As for the simplest solution being the most likely. I agree up to a point, but where does that end? At what point do we consider if the 'simplest solution matches what we know to be possible? What should lead us to conclude a dead man being ressurected is the most plausible explanation?
Great question. 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. If we were to research the works of Aristotle or Caesar, we would do the same thing. 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. There are of course many secondary sources and others which articulate very well the arguments attached too in relation for the resurrection and against the resurrection. To find those- either attend at pretty much any seminary college and they typically have books both for and against. Even a quick search on google will provide some basic coverage of the topic.
I take the view that when it comes to understanding the resurrection of Jesus - that the biggest hurdle people have is God not facts. If you don't believe in God, then the resurrection becomes an impossibility, no matter what the facts ought to lead us to conclude. In other words, facts become a side issue - to what we "know with our own experience". This is where many atheists tend to fall down. You can't beat something with nothing. In other words, historians of all positions accept something extraordinary happened in history that took a new Jewish cult in the backwaters of the world from almost next to nothing with few subscribers to a cult that within a couple of hundred years - had captured a very large proportion of the Roman empire. This occurred in a time while Christianity was still illegal and participants could very much expect to be sentenced to death. The question is what happened?
We know something happened. This type of growth is not atypical. Why would a Jewish cult transcend national boundaries and become such a thing as it did. What is the explanation?
Atheists attribute all sorts of explanations. Yet none really make sense. Persecution per se is not a satisfactory explanation. Some like to suggest that Constantine was the lever. Yet, the fact is - the increase in numbers was actually the reason he made it a state religion. The numbers were well and truly exponential before he came along. And I suspect along with many others - that it was his conversion along with the state approval which caused the slow down of Christianity. That also requires a sufficient answer.
When all of the varied theories put forward to the questions around the death and resurrection are considered - and weighted against plausibility. Against likelihood. Against possibilities, the preponderance of evidence is significant. I think overwhelming. For me - the resurrection of Jesus is not something I believe in faith. In fact I would counsel against Christians to believe such in faith. It is a historical fact for the church.
Hence the answer to your last questions is FACTS should have us arrive at that conclusion. We ought not let the bias and assumptions we have either in the belief or the disbelief of God come into it.
For there not to be a resurrection, requires a better, more plausible explanation. At this point in time, that still remains remarkably missing. Many people account for some part of the question - but NOT one takes into the account the entirety of the story. Where is the body? Why were there so many actual witnesses of the resurrection - who were prepared to die - if they knew it was a lie or a conspiracy? What caused the exponential growth of the church - that has so baffled historians?
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Honestly, it is easier to have a discussion with a JW than it is with you.
They at least try to think.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Why do you want me to LIE and be transgressing the 9th commandment?! You are a woman as shown in your profile and in many other instances that I have shown within this forum: https://www.imagebam.com/view/ME9Q2UJ
Actually, I just want you to START telling the truth and to STOP telling lies. Start in the first instance with your own profile. Deary me isn't that just a great big porky pie? Stop hiding behind a charade that tells us nothing about you save and except your character. Your character which is prepared to lie and mock in order to try and win some points.
When you pull your profile down and start telling the truth, then I will join you. Let's do it together. Or don't you have the balls to do so?
Yes that is a rhetorical question. Everyone ALREADY knows the answer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Miss Tradesecret, can we ask you a big favor? Can you leave this Religion Forum on a long vacation because at this point with your blatant and absolute Bible stupidity as shown ad infinitum, we can't take much more of it! Do the right thing, GIVE US A NEEDED BREAK, PLEASE!
Brother, you would like that, wouldn't you?
Then you can just make stuff up and laugh about it without anyone correcting and you showing how painfully stupid you are.
Now I know that you can do this all by yourself - and well - you do. no question about that.
But it is you who needs the break. It must be difficult - seeing your stupidity continually being destroyed week after week by someone you consider inferior.
Yet, there you have it. You can't leave for the sake of your pride. I am not going to leave for the sake of your pride.
Me, I enjoy my time here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Jesus, not chance, decides in what happens in human affairs: “The lot is cast into the lap, but it's every decision is from the LORD.” (Proverbs 16:33) GET IT?
Close. Good logic anyway. change Jesus to God and you would have it right - if we are discussing providence and God's first causes.
Nevertheless, your failure to engage with second causes being responsible for their actions is telling.
the fact that you can't even comprehend the difference speaks volumes about your one dimensional worldview.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
YOU ADMITTING THAT JESUS WAS HIS OWN FATHER AT BIRTH, PRAISE!: “Adam was a new thing. Jesus was a new thing. Adam's father - was God. Jesus' father was God as well.”Yes dear, in your quote above of "Jesus' father was God as well” is true in the biblical axiom that Jesus' Father was Himself since Jesus was God! (1 Timothy 3:16). Understood Bible fool?
since you have no understanding of the Trinity, your blundering is to be expected. Jesus is not his own father. Christians don't believe it. Suggesting that is the case is a strawman argument. I know that your only two arguments are ad hominin and strawman - so no surprises here. But it doesn't change the fact that you simply have not got a clue about the Trinity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Job teaches us that suffering might well come from God permitting Satan to have his day.And about time too, you bible dunce.So after having continually denying for years that god sanctioned the suffering of his faithful servant Job that included death of Jobs's ten children, you can finally admit that it was all down to god.
That's not what i said - but i really care less what you think. you interpret things worse than the allegorical monks of the past. You just read into it whatever you want.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
YOUR IGNORANT QUOTE OF NOT PROPERLY READING MY POST AS USUAL: “Jesus’ conception was not the result of a sexual union. There was no sex between Mary and a man or a god or an angel. Jesus was the result of God the Holy Spirit "breathing" into Mary's life in much the same way as God breathed into Adam and he became a living soul.”I said Mary was “Celestially Impregnated” spiritually without physical sex you dumbfounded 14 year old pseudo-christian woman! What part of this statement didn’t you understand Bible fool?! We can all see you took your "Bible Stupid Pills®️" again! LOL!
You seem to not even see your own little silly contradictions. Here you suggest spiritually impregnated. Above this you have said "no one inspected her nether regions" as some sort of weird argument. What is the point of inspecting nether regions if it is a spiritual impregnation?
Fact is you are the ones on stupid pills.
the NT clearly indicates Mary was a virgin. It indicates that God was Jesus' father. There was no rape. There was no sexual union between god and man.
you just want to make it appear dirty and suspicious because the facts irk you. That is your base mind trying to work it out.
It is just that there is no evidence to support your nonsense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
YOUR QUOTE OF NOT TRULY KNOWING: “the bible indicates Mary remained a virgin until after Jesus was born. this means ipso facto - Mary was not raped prior to Jesus' birth.”How do YOU truly know that Mary was a virgin, other than hearsay, and Jesus forbid, without someone inspecting her “neither regions” to prove that she did not have sexual relations, and as biblically stated! This is of courses as historically shown at the time of Jesus’ birth, where Mary had sex with the Roman soldier named Tiberius Pantera? Can you spell ungodly "A-D-U-L-T-E-R-Y?" Sure you can!
Luke 1:34 Mary claims to be a virgin. This is her direct testimony. Not hearsay. The angel had told her she would be found with child and this confuses Mary since she was still a virgin.
Matthew 1:25 tells us that Mary had no union with Joseph until after Jesus was born. Virgin until after she had Jesus.
Your silly rumors and hearsay are just that. silly rumors and hearsay.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
1. Tell the membership in how an innocent zygote, fetus, or baby be guilty of their parents sins that they do not even know about in them going against Jesus. Where Jesus will KILL these children within the womb, and outside of it as well, as shown in the passage above in having them dashed to pieces! Notwithstanding, having their mothers brutally RAPED!
I do take a different view on suffering as well here. I do reject your characterization of Jesus and what he condones.
Yet people suffer for all sorts of reasons. It is simply nonsense to say that innocent people do not suffer or that evil people do suffer.
Our world is not one where doing good means your life will be full of roses and never anything bad.
Christian theology does not teach such a lie either. If the book of Job teaches us anything - it is that good and righteous people will suffer in this life for reasons that they will never understand.
I don't hold to the myth and false doctrine that because God is all powerful that he is remiss not to stop people from suffering. Job teaches us that suffering might well come from God permitting Satan to have his day.
Innocents therefore - do suffer. And if that means I have contradicted myself. Then it does. I was wrong if I have suggested this. Yet this is clearly what the book of Job wants us to know. It is not always about the why. Sometimes and very often indeed we will never know the why. But this ought never to lead us to a conclusion that God is evil or that he is vindictive or malicious or not powerful.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
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?
God does not need permission from humans. Your idea of god is so small, no wonder you don't believe.
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.
Get the narrative right Stevie. Stop fighting against the goads.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I have never claimed to be scholarly. That will be your forte, you never seem to tire of telling us about your own exceptional theological education under all of those biblical and ancient language scholars. Would you like reminding?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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
1. Tell the membership in how an innocent zygote, fetus, or baby can be guilty of their parents sins against Jesus that they did not even know about, Where Jesus will KILL these children within the wombs in killing the mothers as well, and outside of the womb as well with a thrusted sword, as shown in the passage above, and in having them dashed to pieces! Notwithstanding, having their mothers brutally RAPED!
Let's examine your lies and misinformation. I never said anyone sinned against Jesus. That is your story and one that we have discussed before. Jesus in no place in the bible - ever kills any children - indeed any person. Please quote any verse that supports your lies. A parable or a story or a symbolic interpretation does not count.
Then let's examine your premises here. What makes any life innocent or guilty? If David was sinful from his conception, as Psalm 51 clearly tells us - and he was a man after God's own heart, what does that say about the rest of humanity? What say you about the biblical doctrine of "total depravity of sin"? I take the view that no one is innocent. I also take the view that since God is the author and creator of life he has the implicit right to destroy any life he wants too for his own reasons. Also since he is the author life - if he kills someone - he can bring them back to life if he so chooses.
As for abortions - when you actually start to criticize real abortions that are going on in the world today - then you might have a right to criticize any so called abortion the bible. Yet, since you actually think that females today have the right to abortions, then your words are nothing short of hypocrisy.
Furthermore - there is NOT one verse in the Bible that ever supports God condoning rape or authorizing such a thing. Not one. Describing what will happen to people by other heathen people as a form of judgment is not condoning it.
2. Is Jesus still considered to be ever loving and forgiving in His killing spree of innocent life in this biblical axiom shown above? (John 15:12, Luke 5:20)
Jesus is loving and forgiving. Yet he is also just and holy. He will judge the wicked and forgive those who repent. Again, you have not produced an innocent life - where Jesus has brought such judgment. You make stuff up.
3. Why would Jesus want women RAPED in this biblical scenario above as well? Whats this got to do with their alleged sinful ways in just Jesus brutally killing them as shown?! How would Jesus feel if His mother Mary was RAPED?
Jesus does not want people raped. Jesus does not condone rape. Jesus never raped any person. I expect Jesus would be horrified if his mother was raped. I expect Jesus would be horrified if any person was raped. Sex is a beautiful thing within the parameters of marriage - between two people who love each other and consent to each other.
4. What does an innocent baby child sound like when Jesus wants them to be dashed to pieces as their mothers watched? Any idea? HUH?
This is such a dumb question. Jesus does not want any child to be dashed to pieces. Innocent or guilty for that matter. What does the sound of your brain working sound like? I reckon the next time someone hears it - will be the first time anyone has heard it. You invent stuff. Just for the sake of it. And the saddest part is - you think you are clever and funny. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news - but you are neither witty nor clever.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
alleging I am a woman - AND STOP asking questions or for me to reply.You alleged that yourself, you contradictory clown. If you were to simply admit that you invented a false profile that was in no way true, then the Brother wouldn't have to prefix all his posts with what YOU ALONE claimed first. But as I have said many times where you in particular are concerned, that narcissist care not for the believability of the lies they tell, as long as they believe that it makes them important and significant is all that matters.
wow that is a big fat porky pie, isn't?
My profile page is my profile page. It is not yours and it is not Brother's. My profile page changed ONLY after both you and Brother decided to use it as your own stalking weapon against me. I have never alleged to be a woman and in fact have denied it entirely since being a member on this forum. My profile page has changed numerous times - yet so what? Since Brother's profile is obviously a façade and a lie -whatever I put on my profile - whether I change it or not is up to me.
I am loathe to put anything up since I know your intentions are evil. As are Brothers. So to keep repeating this lie that I am alleging anything is not only spurious it only highlights the fact that you Stephen and Brother are both bullies and stalkers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
When we talk about the sexual escapades of Jesus' mother Mary, the mother of Jesus, we can only wonder again about the Roman soldier named Pantera, *cough!*When our Jesus becomes Yahweh God incarnate (1 Timothy 3:16, and the Trinity Doctrine) then in the virgin birth scenario, Jesus “spiritually and celestially impregnated” his own mother Mary through godly incest. When Jesus did this act, He not only became Mary’s son, but His own Father as being Yahweh/God incarnate AND a bastard child through true Hebrew tradition because Joseph was not the paternal father!This very disturbing narrative has a lot more to reveal, but you get the idea of how utterly disgusting Jesus' entering into His world actually was!WAIT!!! I have a great idea! We need pseudo-christian opinions upon this topic, where all we have to do is call upon "Miss Tradesecret" to enlighten us further upon this Celestial, Spiritual and Incestual Impregnation of Mother Mary by her own Son, Jesus the Christ, praise!TRADESECRET, CAN YOU HELP US FURTHER UPON THIS VIRGIN BIRTH SCENARIO SHOWN HEREWITH? DON'T RUN AWAY AGAIN DEAR, OKAY? THANKS!Stephen and I await your womanly presence upon this notable topic, praise!
the bible indicates Mary remained a virgin until after Jesus was born. this means ipso facto - Mary was not raped prior to Jesus' birth.
Jesus' conception was not the result of a sexual union. There was no sex between Mary and a man or a god or an angel. Jesus was the result of God the Holy Spirit "breathing" into Mary's life in much the same way as God breathed into Adam and he became a living soul. Adam was a new thing. Jesus was a new thing. Adam's father - was God. Jesus' father was God as well.
Hence your ridiculous and blasphemous comments above are simply that. Nonsense. I don't propose to dialogue about such nonsense with you in the future. If you don't understand Christian doctrine, kindly talk about something you do know. Stop purporting to be one thing when it is clearly offensive to others.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
If you don't mind, I have to make an obvious entity that you forgot about to deduce your initial post down to its irreducible primary for the reader that does believe in a god concept.Therefore, which one of the God concepts that are listed below is the reader referring too, because it does matter?Azura Mazda, Angus, Belenos, Brigid, Dana, Lugh, Dagda, Epona, Allah Aphrodite, Apollo, Ares, Artemis, Atehna, Demeter, Dionysus, Eris, Eos, Gaia, Hades, Hekate, Helios, Hephaestus, Hera, Hermes, Hestia, Pan, Poseidon, Selene, Uranus, Zeus, Mathilde, Elves, Eostre, Frigg, Ganesh, Hretha, Saxnot, Shef, Shiva Thuno, Tir, Vishnu, Weyland, Woden, Yahweh, Alfar, Balder, Beyla, Bil, Bragi, Byggvir, Dagr, Disir, Eir, Forseti, Freya, Freyr, Frigga, Heimdall, Hel, Hoenir, Idunn, Jord, Lofn, Loki, Mon, Njord, Norns, Nott, Odin, Ran, Saga, Sif, Siofn, Skadi, Snotra, Sol, Syn, Ull, Thor, Tyr, Var, Vali, Vidar, Vor, Herne, Holda, Nehalennia, Nerthus, Endovelicus, Ataegina, Runesocesius, Bacchus, Ceres, Cupid, Diana, Janus, Juno, Jupiter, Maia, Mars, Mercury, Minerva, Neptune, Pluto, Plutus, Proserpina, Venus, Vesta, Vulcan, Attis, Cybele, El-Gabal, Isis, Mithras, Sol Invictus, Endovelicus, Anubis, Aten, Atum, Bast, Bes, Geb, Hapi, Hathor, Heget, Horus, Imhotep, Isis, Khepry, Khnum, Maahes, Ma"at, Menhit, Mont, Naunet, Neith, Nephthys, Nut, Osiris, Ptah, Ra, Sekhmnet, Sobek, Set, Tefnut, Thoth, An, Anshar, Anu, Apsu, Ashur, Damkina, Ea, Enki, Enlil, Ereshkigal, Nunurta, Hadad, Inanna, Ishtar, Kingu, Kishar, Marduk, Mummu, Nabu, Nammu, Nanna, Nergal, Ninhursag, Ninlil, Nintu, Shamash, Sin, Tiamat, Utu, Mitra, Amaterasu, Susanoo, Tsukiyomi, Inari, Tengu, Izanami, Izanagi, Daikoku, Ebisu, Benzaiten, Bishamonten, Fukurokuju, Jurojin, Hotei, Quetzalcoatl, Tlaloc, Inti, Kon, Mama Cocha, Mama Quilla, Manco Capac, Pachacamac and Zaramama, Vera.
LOL! @ your utter stupidity and foolishness. Thanks for giving us all a laugh.
TheMorningStar was making an argument in respect of a GENERAL god, not a SPECIFIC one. I know this is hard for you to understand - especially given your cognitive stasis but you really need to read the whole of his statement before you jump into one of your nonsensical states of mind.
Your focus on the specific - means ipso facto that you have ABSOLUTELY misunderstood his argument. You dill.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
#1 It's recorded in Matthew 10:34 that Jesus says:"Do not suppose I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn 'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter in law against her mother in law a man's enemies will be the members of his own household."Jesus, in my view[,………………………………...]I think part of the answer lies in the type of sword Jesus is talking about. Obviously it is a metaphorical sword, but the Greek word here is a dagger. Not a great big swashbuckling broad sword, but a short dagger. #34I don’t agree. There is absolutely nothing in the New Testament BIBLE that shows anything contrary to what Matthew 10:34 actually states and means.
Just for the record, can I assume you DID read my words, when I said "I think part of the answer" lies in the type of sword Jesus is talking about? Part of the answer implies ABSOLUTELY it is not the whole of the answer. Still, you disagree. That is your prerogative.
And, there are many other verses that clearly show that Jesus ‘ appearance in Palestine as a king returned to claim his throne and title would create conflict/war with Rome, it was unavoidable, which in turn would create division of opinions within the family.
Would you like to cite some please? You did say "many other verses" so we must assume more than 4 or 5.
These difference of opinions would, as Jesus himself admits, set “'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter in law against her mother in law a man's enemies will be the members of his own household."
Are you suggesting that EVEN if Jesus was not setting up an army that these opinions would do the same thing? Or are you saying that ONLY if Jesus is setting up an army that these opinions would do as Jesus indicated?
You see, there is no doubt that the reason for this is simple. Generations of Jews at the time had been Hellenised after centuries of influence under the Greek rule and their gods (weren’t even the gospels recorded in Greek?). So here we had an older generation still aligned to or hadn’t forgotten their Old Testament god Yahweh while the younger generations were not; “the children of Israel had gone astray”..The BIBLE clearly tells us that Jesus’ “mission” was to unite those Jews that had been “lost” Matthew 15:24 under one god and one rule.
Where is your evidence that there is a difference between the older and the younger generations of Israel? I would have thought that the older generation were just as gone astray as the younger one. After all, prior to Jesus, God had been silent for 400 years. I don't have an issue with Israel being Hellenized but to suggest that there is a generational gap is "reaching".
Also Matthew 15:24 unhelpful for you. It only tells us that Jesus was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel not what his mission was. It certainly provides no information about Jesus "uniting the Jews". It is not so CLEAR as you would so exaggerate.
In short Jesus was building an army. And I believe there is evidence in the New Testament that does go some way in proving this.
LOL! with two swords. What an amazing army that would be. I can't wait for you to prove this one Steve.
And, as with all ends of conflict, there would be the peace under one god and one rule and Jesus believed himself to be the man to bring this peace about. This is a recurring pattern throughout the whole of the BIBLE….. if not the whole of history.
You do realize that Jesus was only mentioned in the NT. So to call it a recurring theme throughout the bible is nonsense. Let alone history. Jesus is not interested in peace under God so much as he is interested in peace with God. You need to get with the bigger picture here Stevie.
Many Jews were happy with the situation under Greek rule as were many happy under Babylonian rule so much so many decided to remain in Babylon and many were full and active members of Babylonian society. After some 70+ years many Jews prospered. It is easy to imagine that many second and third generation Jewish Babylonians had no interest in leaving. As were many happy with the status quo under Roman rule and didn’t want any self proclaimed pretender king upsetting it:
This is a good statement and one I fully agree with. But I would go further back. Remember in the desert. The Jews wanted to go back to Egypt, didn't they? And I suspect that if we were to get ourselves a time machine and go back to Noah's flood, that if we were a fly on the wall, and were listening to Noah's family, that one of the sons and or daughters were probably saying, "Why can't we just go back to how things used to be?"
It is simply part of human life isn't it? We don't like change. Especially if it is confrontational or hard. We prefer the ways of humanism over the ways of God. So why in the world would we not think that the Jews in Jesus day would be any different?
John 11:48If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our temple and our nation.”Luke 22:36King James VersionThen said he [Jesus] unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.Indeed.
Yep, two swords. To start an army. Way to go Steve.
Created: