Total posts: 3,520
-->
@Stephen
Do any of the gospel writer confirm this? Do any of them for instance tell us that with the destruction of the temple that this was the end of time or the end of old covenant?Mark 12 Matthew 24 Luke 21Nope. Nothing there at all that mentions the "ending of a covenant with Israel or the abolition of sacrifices" that accompany the temples destruction.. As you have claimed and that I can see. Could you point it out for me?
yes I could but since you are this really fantastic bible scholar, I would not want to embarrass you.
This accomplished historically what had happened spiritually in Jesus' death on the cross.Do you have any biblical evidence to support that, or is this just your own opinion? It appears that Christians have quite a few opinions on why Jesus died on the cross and none are to do with ushering in "old last days" or new ones.I never said it was to usher in the last days.But don't you agree that the destruction of the Temple was the catalyst to the "end of days"? Yes or No?
Nope.
This last one however will not be ushered in until the church has historically grown up and become an adult - mature and spotless in every way.And the bible confirms this does it? Or is this just your own opinion? And what do you mean by "spotless"?Yes. The bible confirms it. You can go and look up the verse or don't you know it?I don't know it. So it will be nice for me to read for myself once you have posted it up. What do you mean when you say "spotless" and" mature"
I would refer you to a verse in the NT by the apostle Paul - but given you are such a fantastic bible scholar I don't want to embarrass you. Spotless and mature - or without wrinkle. I mean grown up.
Given that the church is very much an adolescent. One which is having trouble understanding its identity, it is very unlikely it has occurred.Which church?The church - invisible for want of a better word.What do you consider this "invisible churches understanding and identity" actually to be?
the point of an invisible church is to remove identity except generally.
For the record, I don't think the Last Day of the world - when Jesus returns to judge the world - is the end of the world.Neither do I. Jesus/bible only mentions the "end of the age" which in my own opinion is clearly a term used often in astronomy of which the bible and Jesus makes many references to.Age / world often used synonomously. Eaon v kosmos.Do you have a a biblical example?
Yes. Don't you?
The imagery we have in Revelation - brings down that division - so that the city of Heaven - will be on earth.You do know that none of the things that were expected of Jesus as messiah never came to fruition don't you? Not one.Well - I obviously have a different position. How about you start by telling me what things were expected of Jesus that you say never came to fruition?Just to name a few. Jesus;failed to inherit the throne of David as was promised to his mother.failed to become king of the Jews.failed to free the Jews from the Roman yoke.failed rebuild the Temple.This wouldn't make him a Messiah, although some of his close disciples believed him to be.
I guess you are reading a different NT to me then. I know you have an aversion to the book of Hebrews.
Jesus has not yet returned in his fully glory to collect his bride.I agree. Jesus hasn't returned in my time. But then the bible does mention that Jesus was physically "resurrected" from being a three day old corpse as a man 2000 years ago and in his own body:Well actually the bible is very clear that Jesus was physically resurrected.Indeed and as I have already mentioned, Jesus is alleged to have been "resurrected from the dead" as a flesh and blood human man too.
Well yes Jesus was resurrected flesh and blood.
Jesus appearing to his some of his followers said- " Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself. Touch me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.”Where does it say that?In the Bible.
Where specifically?
And Paul says - "I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable".So?So you don't understand that verse then? Paul is denying that Jesus resurrected from being of flesh and blood and physically dead to being alive and living flesh and blood physically . If he had been he "cannot inherit the kingdom of God".
Oh I am pretty sure I understand it as much as the next person. Paul is doing no such thing. You just need to read a little wider.
So with this in mind and your own opinion that the "last days" started with the destruction of the temple isn't it more likely that your lord Jesus has indeed been and gone and you have missed the bus?Jesus has not returned yet. Nothing you have said - would indicate anything else. Perhaps you should fill in the gaps that you seem to see - but no one else does.I don't need to fill in any gaps, but you need to fill in the gap of some 2000+ years and the promise to return. I am of the opinion that you missed your heavenly ride to paradise. But it is only my opinion.
Jesus said he would return. I haven't missed any ride yet. In fact my view is that I will be long dead before he returns. Thousands and thousands of years yet.
Do you have any biblical evidence to support that, or is this just your own opinion? It appears that Christians have quite a few opinions on why Jesus died on the cross and none are to do with ushering in "old last days" or new ones.I never said it was to usher in the last days.So the death of Christ the messiah on the cross and the destruction of the Temple were not the beginning of the ushering in of the end times?
nope.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
@Deb-8-a-bull
Saul referred to himself as the king of Israel.
so did David.
so did Solomon.
so did Herod.
hmmm. I reckon that therefore this means that Saul is David is Solomon is Herod. Wow. glad someone decided to raise that question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Am I a woman?
If Brother says yes, then the Brother commands me to be quiet and not to respond. Permission indeed that it is impossible to run away. And that Brother has lost all discussions.
If Brother says no, then the Brother concedes that I am not a woman and therefore that the Brother has been relying upon his lies and charade as a means of trying to stop all discussion from taking place.
In either event, the Brother demonstrates only that he is ... .
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
TRADESECRET, whose gender went from a “MAN TO A WOMAN,” and then to “OTHER,” then went to her being 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 FICTIONwithin 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 Tradesecret, to save you from further embarrassment, I will only bring forth one at a time posts from me that you either cannot address, or have given lame excuses to run away from them, understood? You can thank me later.#1 POST DIRECTED TO YOU THAT YOU HAVE CONTINUALLY RAN AWAY FROM WHERE JESUS, AS YAHWEH GOD INCARNATE, WILL DO THESE HORRIFIC THINGS TO INNOCENT CHILDREN AND THE UNBORN: “Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished. Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eyes shall not spare children.” (Isaiah 13:15-16,18)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!2. Is Jesus still considered to be ever loving and forgiving in this killing spree of innocent life in this biblical axiom shown above? (John 15:12, Luke 5:20)3. Why would Jesus want women RAPED in this biblical scenario above as well? Whats this got to do with their alleged sinful ways?! How would Jesus feel if His mother Mary was RAPED?4. What does an innocent baby child sound like when Jesus wants them to be dashed to pieces as their mothers watched? Any idea?Miss Tradesecret, the membership is watching and waiting for a “rational” response to the questions above. Thanking you in advance.BEGIN:
Again - brother dopey sticks his foot right into his mouth. How does one "not speak" and address questions posed by the Brother? Idiot. Either you concede that it is impossible for a woman to reply to your questions or you concede that I am not a female. That is your choice. Either stop telling me to answer questions if you really think I am a woman - or concede that I am not one. Your choice . I am simply not going to respond to any more of your comments until you make up your mind what the problem here is dear.
Grow a brain. Think a little. The choice is clear.
Either you continue your pitiful stupidity alleging I am a woman - AND STOP asking questions or for me to reply.
Or
You admit you are incorrect about such allegations about me.
conclusion that rests upon your tiny little shoulders. Either you concede I am not a woman and therefore stop repeating such nonsense as you have in the past - or based upon your own logic, I will not respond to you in the future. And just to be perfectly clear, dearie, if you continue to push the charade of me being a female, then you have given me permission to NOT respond to you. Hence, implicit acceptance that you have lost the discussion and further concession that it is impossible for me to run away - since you have commanded me not to respond. If you were stupid enough to suggest that me not responding - while you continue to play your charade, is running away, then implicit in this is that I am not a woman.
If you want me to respond - stop being such an imbecile. I will be happy to oblige once you show a little bit of maturity. I won't hold my breath waiting for that to transpire.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
TRADESECRET, whose gender went from a “MAN TO A WOMAN,” and then to “OTHER,” then went to her being 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 where she is "AN ADMITTED SEXUAL DEVIANT!"YOUR VERY PITIFUL QUOTE IN POST #366: "There is no agreement. I have indicated before - that when you attempt this shot gun approach it helps no one."There wouldn't need to be an assumed "shot gun approach" if you actually addressed my godly topics to you when they presented themselves, instead of running away from them in letting them all pile up to the point as shown! H-E-L-L-O Bible fool, anyone home?! Obviously not!HERE IS THE MOST COMICAL QUOTE YOU HAVE EVER MADE TO ME AS YOU BEING A PROVEN WOMAN!!!: "Now I have answered your questions - well at least those links which have questions, we will wait to see if you have the capacity to be succinct in your reply - or will rather fill it out with the ordinary verbose you like to expel."Listen up Hell bound woman Miss Tradesecret, YOU do not tell me what to do, whereas, I can tell YOU what to do as being the superior man over your 2nd class woman status, do you understand Bible fool?!You are still going directly against Jesus' inspired words within this forum because you are a woman as explicitly shown in going against this passage:"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." (1 Timothy 2:12")Now, here is how it is going to go down woman, I will use as many words as needed to continue to show this forum your outright Bible stupidity that has no bounds, get it? Furthermore, if you cannot address my Jesus inspired posts to you from this point on, then you can show the forum that you have to RUN AND HIDE from them with yet more lame girly excuses in being only 14 years old as your profile so states, understood woman?
Thanks for conceding you are outwitted at every junction by others. Your condescending manner in which you simply want to stop others from responding is typical of a deluded little man. You are a moppet. More than that - you don't have a clue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Miss Tradesecret, the admitted 12 year old girl RUNAWAY from posts directed to her,Dear, once again I have to remind you, this is a Religion Discussion Forum, and NOT a "Runaway from Religion Discussion Forum" like you want it to be to save yourself further embarrassment of being Bible ignorant.As we can see ad infinitum, when my posts directed to you show you to be the outright Bible fool, you do not respond. Furthermore, when I easily catch you in another Bible stupid moment of yours, you run away from my posts address this fact. Again, when the posts that I direct to you show our Jesus as a brutal killer, of which I have had to accept, you remain silent and run away from these biblical axioms, and at the same time, you facetiously want to call yourself a Christian, NOT!Therefore dear, once again, here are the current RUNAWAY posts shown below in this thread alone, that Jesus and I expect you to address, and if you don't, then you accept that Jesus and I literally own your Bible stupidity without question!!!!BEGIN:NEXT BIBLE STUPID PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN WOMAN LIKE MISS TRADESECRET THAT CONTINUALLY RUNS AWAY FROM JESUS' DIRECT WORDS IN SHAME, WILL BE...?.
There is no agreement. I have indicated before - that when you attempt this shot gun approach it helps no one.
I will respond to each post / link above with one sentence. When you respond, you will use one sentence as well. A short sentence - if you can't respond in such a succinct manner - then your words are not worth reading.
A personal request to provide an explanation about my profile - specifically about my gender - is bigoted and discriminatory and therefore there is no obligation for me to answer.
A second request to provide proof of my gender will be met with a similar response to the last one.
Nothing to respond to in this denial of stalking post by Brother.
There is no question to respond to in this concession of having a "defected brain".
I changed the gender in my profile page as a response to your stalking me, it was a reasonable attempt to see if it might stop you from continuing to do so.
I understood that both you and Stephen are stalkers and that you following me around is evidence per se of such stalking.
There is no need to respond to your clumsy attempt to deny the obvious.
I don't need a crying towel and I am not running away so am unable to provide a description of running shoes.
Psalm 51:5 David, who was a man after God's own heart, reflects the biblical teaching that there are no innocents when he says "surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me".
What's the question in that post?
I think the bible makes it clear, God made the heavens and the earth, Gen 1 describes the earth being made, and Gen 2 the heavens.
Now I have answered your questions - well at least those links which have questions, we will wait to see if you have the capacity to be succinct in your reply - or will rather fill it out with the ordinary verbose you like to expel.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Then your argument is that EVERYTHING is subjective (dependent upon a subject) and no objective thing can exist ever.
No. that is not my argument.
I take the view that everything in this existence - is dependent upon God. Without God, nothing else can exist.
Is God subjective? No. and nor is existence subjective. the existence is real. It therefore is an objective thing.
Morality (which is notion of right and wrong) on an individual basis is subjective where individuals believe they have the right to determine morality.
that was Adam and Eve's position in the first place. God said - this is morality. Adam said no I will decide what is right for myself. God said - this is why you will be objectively kicked out of the garden.
Yet this does not make morality per se - subjective. In the religious perspective - God determines what is right and wrong. It is subjective to himself - yet - given his consistent character and holiness, his subjectivity is unable to change and therefore is a perfect measure of right and wrong. For us then - god's morality is objective. Since it is the determiner of right and wrong - and remains consistent and perfect, and since everyone else is able to know what God's morality is - then it is objective.
for us on the other hand - without God as that objective measure, we need to formulate other ways of determining right and wrong. Some would use the majority of the many, democracy. Whatever the majority thinks is right - is right and whatever the majority thinks is wrong is wrong. Some would base it on what their family culture taught them was right and wrong. If daddy says this is wrong - then this is wrong. And if daddy says it is right, then it is right. Others might use philosophy or logic to determine what is right and wrong. Utilitarians as we mentioned above, think - if the outcome is good, then it is must be right. Or if the greater good is better then that determines right. Others take the view that science is that measure of right and wrong - until science disagrees with a particular political point. Others have suggested that - morality - is a thing that just exists in the ether - people know this is right intuitively or not.
How do you determine what is right and or wrong? Do you take the view that such a thing is right or wrong absolutely or dependent upon the circumstances? and why do you think that is the most appropriate way of understanding right and wrong?
Created:
-->
@Stephen
The last days of the covenant between God and Israel has come and gone. Ad 70 - was the occasion of that time of when the historical temple was destroyed and the sacrifices were abolished.Do any of the gospel writer confirm this? Do any of them for instance tell us that with the destruction of the temple that this was the end of time or the end of old covenant?
yep. Mark 12 Matthew 24 Luke 21
This accomplished historically what had happened spiritually in Jesus' death on the cross.Do you have any biblical evidence to support that, or is this just your own opinion? It appears that Christians have quite a few opinions on why Jesus died on the cross and none are to do with ushering in "old last days" or new ones.
I never said it was to usher in the last days.
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?
That particular phraze is not mentioned. Last days is - as is the Last Day. As is the latter days. The day of the Lord. Nevertheless, many people do talk of the last day of the world in the same breath as many of the others. Not just then but today too.
This last one however will not be ushered in until the church has historically grown up and become an adult - mature and spotless in every way.And the bible confirms this does it? Or is this just your own opinion? And what do you mean by "spotless"?
Yes. The bible confirms it. You can go and look up the verse or don't you know it?
Given that the church is very much an adolescent. One which is having trouble understanding its identity, it is very unlikely it has occurred.Which church?
The church - invisible for want of a better word.
For the record, I don't think the Last Day of the world - when Jesus returns to judge the world - is the end of the world.Neither do I. Jesus/bible only mentions the "end of the age" which in my own opinion is clearly a term used often in astronomy of which the bible and Jesus makes many references to.
Age / world often used synonomously. Eaon v kosmos.
once sin has been dealt withDidn't baptism take care of that. The bible clearly says so. There are no appendages. But then there is the belief that the death of Jesus "washed away the sins of the world" . Is this not true?
Baptism of the Spirit of God is in accord with Jesus' atonement on the cross - both the judicial act and the executed act that both pays for sin and justifies the sinner. This is the once off act and is a declaration of the fact. Sanctification is the mortification of sin throughout the believer and the church's life. Hence Christians talk of - having been saved, being saved and will be saved. Yet this talks of three particular matters and doctrines. Justification, sanctification and glorification.
The imagery we have in Revelation - brings down that division - so that the city of Heaven - will be on earth.You do know that none of the things that were expected of Jesus as messiah never came to fruition don't you? Not one.
Well - I obviously have a different position. How about you start by telling me what things were expected of Jesus that you say never came to fruition?
Since we are not currently living in heaven -Define heaven?
God's home on earth.
Jesus has not yet returned in his fully glory to collect his bride.I agree. Jesus hasn't returned in my time. But then the bible does mention that Jesus was physically "resurrected" from being a three day old corpse as a man 2000 years ago and in his own body:
Well actually the bible is very clear that Jesus was physically resurrected.
Jesus appearing to his some of his followers said- " Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself. Touch me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.”
Where does it say that?
And Paul says - "I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable".
So?
So with this in mind and your own opinion that the "last days" started with the destruction of the temple isn't it more likely that your lord Jesus has indeed been and gone and you have missed the bus?
Jesus has not returned yet. Nothing you have said - would indicate anything else. Perhaps you should fill in the gaps that you seem to see - but no one else does.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
I knew this day would come
Another admission Brother. You do realize that therein is your confession that up until this day, you have been lying through your teeth, by saying that I have run away. LOL!
I answer you - when I feel like it. Unlike you, I actually have things to do and not spend all day on this forum.
I keep coming back to attest to the reality that I do not run away. I will respond in due course. As I invariably do.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Without moral actors no morality could exist.True or false?
A great question.
And probably true. I use the word probably because - it is impossible to rid everything of a moral actor.
Indeed I would go further than you, I would say without moral actors nothing would exist.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Evil is subjective by nature and therefore unless you agree to a common standard with your interlocutor the conversation will break down at "is x really evil though?"
Is it though?
In a post modern world - most likely it seems to be prevalent view. Consistently, we can't be too dogmatic about it.
Evil used to be considered objective in a modernist world. Like Poly's view - and your own moral intuitions - evil was quite clear.
Yet, in a world where right and wrong have blurred. We have seen a supreme court nominee declare she cannot even define female. It certainly seems to be in accord - with your assertion that evil is subjective.
I think evil is an adjective or a verb. I don't think it is a noun. I am theist and I believe in the devil. Yet I would not call the devil the personification of evil. He does evil things and the things he does can be described as evil. Similar to Hitler. Hence to say someone creates evil - must be understood as an action - a nation destroyed - might be described as an evil act. But evil per se as a thing is in my view not a thing, or a place or a person.
So the question really might be put - can an action or a description be objective? Rape is an action. It is an act. I would say yes - it is objectively evil. But why? Why is desecrating consent objectively evil? Or is it just in relation to sexual activity? After all, consent is often desecrated in legal manners, such as a criminal being locked up against his will. We would not call this latter action evil. In fact we might call it evil if we did not put the criminal in prison.
Consent is a right, apparently. In some cases, most probably. But it can be trumped by other rights? Killing innocent people seems to be an action most might suggest is evil. What is the evil? Is it killing people? Or is it because the victim is innocent? Let's not get into abortion because despite the fact that such people have been renamed as "not people" to get around the evil, it seems that such an action has divided views on its levels of evil. But what about the situation like Hiroshima? Was killing innocent people evil? Or did it lose its evil hardness because it allegedly saved millions more? Was it justified on a somehow alleged measure of utilitarian basis - the greater good? Was killing Saddam Hussain evil or not evil? Would getting rid of Putin be in the greater good of the world or Ukraine?
Rights, priorities, the greater good. Evil is a difficult thing to determine objectively, because rights and priorities and the greater good seem to change in the situation depending upon - someone else's rights, priorities and greater good.
Hence, I tend to agree that evil has become subjective in a world where everyone wants to determine what right and wrong is for themselves personally. Hence, it is a bigger issue in the West than it is in the East. We are all individualists in the West. The East - are not. Although many of them are becoming more so. Yet China does not have an issue with subjective views on evil. The Communist Party determines objectively what is evil. As does Putin in Russia.
In the West, evil used to be understood objectively in terms of its religious background. Once religion started to go into the background, subjectivity came to the fore. Yet many religious people - like me - still hold to an objective understanding of evil - since we accept it is subjectively evil based upon our religion. Hence why we see culture wars continuing.
Religious people actually prefer science since it is relatively objective. The modern individualist sees science as a tool sometimes, so far as it agrees with their own individual views. Yet the SCOTUS latest nominee - reflected that in her view science is only valid is if it agrees with her political point of view.
This I think demonstrates that the trajectory of our Western World is heading into a situation of even more nonsense.
And a place where any decent sort of debate will be gone - since everyone will have to agree with the major political views or be cancelled. That I personally think can be described as evil.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Notice in that sentence I am using "will receive on the Last Day". This is in the future tense. The Last Day has not yet occurred.Its been over 2000 years now. How do you know the last day/s hasn't already happened and Jesus has come and gone before you were even born?
It depends which last days we are talking about. The last days of the covenant between God and Israel has come and gone. Ad 70 - was the occasion of that time of when the historical temple was destroyed and the sacrifices were abolished. This accomplished historically what had happened spiritually in Jesus' death on the cross.
The last days of the world however is another occasion - the one which is also often mentioned. This last one however will not be ushered in until the church has historically grown up and become an adult - mature and spotless in every way. Given that the church is very much an adolescent. One which is having trouble understanding its identity, it is very unlikely it has occurred.
For the record, I don't think the Last Day of the world - when Jesus returns to judge the world - is the end of the world. I think it will a time when heaven breaks completely into this earth as we know it - such that the separation which is currently in place will disappear. As it was in the beginning with the Garden of Eden, in the world. So it will be - once sin has been dealt with not just lawfully in Christ, but soteriological as well. Justified - and sanctified. And then glorified.
The imagery we have in Revelation - brings down that division - so that the city of Heaven - will be on earth. The veil will be removed.
Since we are not currently living in heaven - then in my view - Jesus has not yet returned in his fully glory to collect his bride.
Created:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
YOUR CONTRADICTING QUOTE TO ONE OF MANY BIBLICAL AXIOMS THAT SAY YOU ARE WRONG: ”Hence, only Jesus was (in the past) resurrected. Those who trust in Jesus will receive (in the future) new resurrected bodies. “
Using the term “resurrection” is simply the state of one risen from the dead where it only took our Jesus 3 days to figure this out in being our serial killer Yahweh God incarnate, and therefore your Bible stupidity makes itself known once again in the following passage where Jesus was not the only one resurrected like you proposed, in the true sense of the word:
Resurrection from the dead in biblical terms is different in the case of Jesus. Every other person who was raised came back in their same bodies in which they died. But without immortality. In other words, they all died again.
Jesus on the other hand, rose with a new body - a glorified body - one which was the essence of his old body - but now resurrected and with immortality.
“Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost ... And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose. And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.” (Matthew 9:50-53)Dear Miss Tradesecret, once again you perceive that the members of this Religion Forum are as dumbfounded as you are when it comes to true biblical axioms that easily bury your Bible stupid quotes! LOL!
We are not told that these bodies were resurrected. They did come our of their graves - after Jesus' resurrection. Yet even in this verse they are not described as being resurrected. Jesus alone was resurrected.
Furthermore dear, you are still RUNNING AWAY from your subjective notion that Jesus disappeared or vanished because of His resurrection inside of the tomb, then obviously He set an example to you where our bodies upon the Last Day if we are dead at this time will disappear as well, where there is no need for an open casket at ones funeral! LOL!Can you find some straw in explaining this notion of yours above in providing more laughter for the membership?
i have never been to an open casket. They don't really do them in Australia. But 1 Thessalonians 4 tells us doesn't? not all will sleep - but those who are alive and remain at the end will be changed in the twinkling of an eye. On that last day - those who are asleep will be raised - and those who are alive will be changed.
Your theology is well - as dodgy as the local JW.
Created:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
I provided cogent answers above. It is your failure to comprehend which is the problem. I see no reason from your responses to reply. Not once were you able to refute even one answer.
This is what I wrote. Below is your intentional misquoting of me.
YOUR SELF-EVIDENT RUN AWAY QUOTE: “I don't have to find reasons to try and prove error. That is your problem. Not mine.“
Can you spot the difference? My point is you did not refute anything that I said. You suggest on the other hand that I think you are in error. In fact I never said you were in error - I said you did not rebut my points. In fact you did not even address them. You omitted to respond.
Hence why your next words are redundant.
Uh, yes dear, when you cannot address a topic, then you pull out the old "it is me that needs to prove the error, not you! The reason of my post is the FACT in how many 2nd class women like YOU visited the tomb, in which I showed blatant contradictions in the LITERAL form that you have yet to address other than in using your child like hermeneutics!
I'm not pulling anything. I clearly showed a verse you missed either recklessly or because you are cutting and pasting from someone else's work. There are no blatant contradictions in these verses. None whatsoever. If any of the verses said for instance - Mary went alone or Mary had only two others with her. Or Mary had fifteen people with her - then potentially a contradiction might arise. There is none of that here. If any of the verses had said Mary Magdalene wasn't there because she was in Africa, then that would produce a contradiction. Yet all of the verses say Mary was there. None say she was there alone. So I don't see a contradiction and all you have done is raise correctly that the different gospels provide stories which the author's knew about and put in. No contradiction of course.
In using these direct words from Jesus, then there’re contradictions and your apologetics fall flat upon their face: “EVERY word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.“ (Proverbs 30:5). Therefore, when EVERY word of Jesus is flawless, then there are contradictions in how many 2nd class women were at the tomb without your comical interpretation antics, understood Bible fool?
These words don't contradict themselves. Every word of God remains flawless. You are barking at trees Brother.
YOUR QUOTE ONCE AGAIN IN TRYING TO FIND STRAW: “Yet it does not say anywhere that "Only" these people attended.”OMG, your lack of education makes itself known once again, whereas the contradicting passages "does say in how many women were at the tomb" which is the topic at hand, and where each passage says a different amount of 2nd class women. 2+2=4, oil and water don't mix, and your Bible stupidity continues in front of the membership!
If you are so clever, explain the blatant contradiction.
Created:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
YOUR QUOTE CONTRADICTING YOURSELF AGAIN: “Only Jesus was resurrected from the dead.”YOUR CONTRADICTING QUOTE TO THE ABOVE QUOTE: “In fact this is the type of body that those who trust in Jesus will receive on the Last Day - new resurrected bodies.“
I will respond to this request because I can see how someone who has trouble comprehending might have got lost.
Let me repeat. Only Jesus was resurrected from the dead. I wonder if you noticed "was". This at least in my understanding is in the past tense. This is talking about something that occurred in the past. On the other hand, I also say that people who trust in Jesus will receive on the Last Day, new resurrected bodies. Notice in that sentence I am using "will receive on the Last Day". This is in the future tense. The Last Day has not yet occurred. So your comprehension skills seem to need some homework in relation to the distinction between the past and the future.
Hence, only Jesus was (in the past) resurrected. Those who trust in Jesus will receive (in the future) new resurrected bodies.
Sorry to have to call to your attention such basic comprehension skills, but as your teacher, it would be remiss of my not to.
Created:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Subsequent to you wiping the egg from your face again relative to my posts to you #19 - #22 , can you possibly clear up a serious question that I logically fail to answer at this time? It is where just how many 2nd class woman visited Jesus’ tomb in the resurrection scenario shown in the passages below, where they all contradict each other!The women visiting Jesus’ tomb is central to the resurrection story, and has to be without a doubt correct in every way, but how many women actually visited Jesus’ tomb? Therefore, your known expertise in Satanically “spin doctoring” the Bible at your laughable expense, I thought you could show us logically which passage is correct and the reasoning behind your decision because they all cannot be correct when they contradict each other!BEGIN:In Mark 16:1, Three women visit Jesus’ tomb: Mary Magdalene, a second Mary, and Salome.In Matthew 28:1, two women visit Jesus’ tomb: Mary Magdalene and another Mary.In Luke 24:10, at least five women visit Jesus’ tomb: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Joanna, and “other women.”John 20:1, only one woman visits Jesus’ tomb: Mary Magdalene.Miss Tradesecret, waiting a cogent reply this time, okay? Thank you.
I provided cogent answers above. It is your failure to comprehend which is the problem. I see no reason from your responses to reply. Not once were you able to refute even one answer.
This question you are putting is a common one put by people trying to find any alleged discrepancy. Let me suggest to you that sometimes the Gospel describes one person going to the tomb when there are actually more there. The others not mentioned by name or even in attendance. But take John 20:1 for example - it is clear that there were more than one person there. How can I be sure? Read John 20:2 - the very next verse. What does Mary say? "they have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put him". I have highlighted the personal pronoun for you. Mary says - "we". We means more than one. Well at least it did when I went to school. So in this example you have provided - which you suggest only one woman visits - the one woman herself says "we". Was she lying?
Also look at the common factor here. Mary Magdalene. In all accounts. 3 out of 4 mention another Mary. So in every account there is more than one person. And in every account Mary Magdalene is there.
So it appears that Mary Magdalene; Mary, the mother of James; Salome, and Joanna were there. None of the accounts actually provide the number of people who attended. The one thing which was necessary and which is consistent is Mary Magdalene was the first witness of the Resurrected Christ.
I don't know how many people attended. There might have been four or five or more. I do know that these passages are not a contradiction. I can see how people might perceive it to be the case. Yet that is reading into it. As John 20:1-2 clearly confirm - only Mary is mentioned, yet, she says "we". I am quite content to see harmony here as opposed to contradiction. I don't have to find reasons to try and prove error. That is your problem. Not mine.
If any one the readings you provided actually provided a specific "number" of people who attended, then that would give some substance to your allegation. Yet it does not say anywhere that "Only" these people attended. Really, it looks like you are desperately trying to find some straw.
Created:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
YOUR REVEALING QUOTE OF ANYONE IS STUPID IF THEY DON’T BELIEVE JESUS RESURRECTION FROM HIS 3 DAY TOMB NAP: “to reject the resurrection is to demonstrate the utter stupidity of humanity. It is to reject evidence. It is to put blind faith above the truth.”Simply put to you Transgender Miss Tradesecret, the resurrection from death to life again was no big deal in the scriptures as a few examples of which are shown below:1. Elijah raised a boy from the dead by stretching himself upon the dead boy three times:"He stretched himself upon the child three times, and cried unto the LORD, and said, O LORD my God, I pray thee, let this child's soul come into him again. And the LORD heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived." (1 Kings 17:21-22)2. Elisha brought a dead boy to life by laying on top of him, putting his mouth on the boys mouth, etc., until the flesh of the dead boy waxed warm.“And when Elisha was come into the house, behold, the child was dead, and laid upon his bed. He went in therefore, and shut the door upon them twain, and prayed unto the LORD. And he went up, and lay upon the child, and put his mouth upon his mouth, and his eyes upon his eyes, and his hands upon his hands: and stretched himself upon the child; and the flesh of the child waxed warm. Then he returned, and walked in the house to and fro; and went up, and stretched himself upon him: and the child sneezed seven times.” (2 Kings 4:32-35)3. A dead body was brought to life when it accidentally touched the bones of Elisha.“And it came to pass, as they were burying a man, that, behold, they spied a band of men; and they cast the man into the sepulcher of Elisha: and when the man was let down, and touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood up on his feet.” (2 Kings 13:21)4. And dead people rose and walked the streets of Jerusalem immediately after Jesus died.“Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost ... And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose. And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.” (Matthew 9:50-53)
It's shame you are so inept at reading. Yet what else can we surmise from your typical blundering. I said Jesus did not just revive - he was resurrected. No one said he was sleeping and then just woke up. He never said I am going to go sleep and then be raised from the dead. Like the little girl Talitha. Jesus said she was asleep. Lazarus was asleep - dead in that sense as well.
Jesus on the other hand did not wake up, he did not revive from sleep or death in that sense. He was resurrected. Quite a completely different thing. If you had read my words above which clearly you did not, then you would realize that the strips of linen prove Jesus did not just revive like those who Elijah, Elisha and even Jesus raised from the dead. Jesus was in a different realm altogether.
If Jesus has simply revived - itself an extraordinary matter, then the strips of line would have been cast off - much like Lazarus when he came out of the tomb. But they weren't. They were not on the floor in a disheveled state. No they were still on the slab where Jesus has been laid as a dead man. The strips and the burial cloth appeared just as though Jesus had disappeared or simply vanished. This resurrection of Jesus was not like the revivals of others. Surely even some one as ignorant of you can detect the differences.
Therefore the answer to your question is simple. Only Jesus was resurrected from the dead. Everyone else who was revived from the dead were revived. Although quite dead - asleep in their own sinful bodies. Jesus was resurrected. Hence the leaving behind of the strips and the burial cloth. Jesus now had a resurrected body. Just to be clear - resurrection and revival from the dead are two different types of activities in the Bible. One comes back with the same body - the other with a resurrected body. In fact this is the type of body that those who trust in Jesus will receive on the Last Day - new resurrected bodies.
Created:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
YOUR QUOTE WHERE YOU FORGOT JESUS’ KILLINGS AS BEING #1 IN THIS SITUATION: “Firstly, Romans are very good at killing people.”Dear, again you forgot our serial killer Jesus, as Yahweh God incarnate, where He made the Roman killings look like a Boy Scout picnic, where He killed His entire creation in the Great Flood, especially the innocent zygotes, fetus’ and babies within, and outside of the woman’s womb. You can save your normal incoherent explanation for this happening to save yourself from another whackydoodle response from you, where the bottom line is the fact that the end result is Jesus killed His creation, understood dear?
I have not forgotten that the God of the bible brings grace and judgment upon people in this world. I have never denied this fact. That you continue to misrepresent my views is "evidence" that you must rely upon lies and misrepresentation to justify your foolishness in being an atheist. Furthermore I am surprised that you would minimize the murderous activities of the Romans by alleging a worse activity by God. You do realize that your distraction only confirms that the Romans are very good at killing. And this is what the topic is about. The death of Jesus. Or are you suggesting that the Romans were shoddy and pathetic as killers? Hence, by NOT denying the Romans are very good at killing you inform the forum that you agree with me that Jesus was dead.
YOUR QUOTE OF ADMITTING THAT WOMAN ARE 2ND CLASS AND SHOULD LEARN THEIR PLACE OF BEING SILENT PER 1 TIMOTHY 2:12: “And then there is the eye-witness of a female. LOL! No Ancient Jewish author would have been caught dead using a female as a witness to corroborate such a story. It really is a significant issue.”
Again, I fully concede that females in that time, 2000 years ago were considered by their culture as second class citizens. In fact the Greeks and the Romans actually treated their females as lower than the slaves. Only Israel and then the church amongst these ancient cultures had a higher view of females. Yet despite this concession by my towards the ancient cultures, I do not personally hold to that view. Nor do I think that the church and Paul held to that view. It was the church infact that declared that females are equal with males. It was the church which declared that slaves are equal to their masters. It is the church which declared that all races are equal. For there is no distinction between these in Christ Jesus. Without the church, slavery would be running more rampant in the world. Without the church, females would never have got the vote. Without the church, racism would be accepted as normal. This is why John the Apostle was happy to use a female as a witness despite the culture around him ready to dismiss it. He was an advocate of truth not lies. Too bad, you can't distinguish between the two or rather - choose not to.
We thank you Transgender Miss Tradesecret in finally admitting that the woman is 2nd class, whereas before you didn’t take this position, good for you in your new enlightenment to be truthful to the scriptures for a change! We have to ask you though, as a transgendered woman now, when are you going to follow 1 Timothy 2:12 and remain SILENT within this forum?
Read above my comments to you. Again I repeat, I am male. Secondly, this is not a church. Thirdly, you have no authority over me. I am not married to you. Females were not to disrupt the service and more than a male could.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Not a single word in this thesis produced by Licona proves a dead and stinking three day old corpse came back to life."Eye witness".To what? That they seen a living man they called the Christ walking and talking and eating?No one "witnessed" a dead man rise from his stone cold slab.And empty tomb is only evidence that a tomb was empty and not that a supposed "dead man" come back to life."This does not prove that the resurrection is true" says Licona.Correct. This the is only thing in the thesis that Licona gets correct."But it shows the depth of the apostles’ convictions. They were not liars. They truly believed Jesus rose from the grave and they were willing to give their lives for it." https://www.biola.edu/blogs/biola-magazine/2013/did-the-apostles-really-die-as-martyrs-for-their-fAnd this simply shows the mindset of the time."They were not liars" says Licona that was was raised in a Christian family and had once served an apologetics coordinator as does or did the author of your link Sean McDowell.Maybe not, they were either deceived? Or in on the plot which would make them liars. Did they even see Jesus dead in the first instance? From what we can glean from scripture is that they all had it on there toes at the arrest in Gethsemane and weren't seen again with maybe the exception of Simon/Peter that was only identified became of his Galilean accent.Michael R. Licona is simply wheeling out the same old drivel that has and will continue to sell millions of books world wide. How many theological based books does Licona have under his belt now? He should have stuck to music but then again, theological books are among the top sellers next to children's book, I have been told.
Typical response by someone who has NEVER done any homework.
The empty tomb is significant. Where did the body go? Who took it? And why were the strips of linen and the burial cloth left in the fashion that they were? The Romans and the Jewish leaders did not take the body. If they had, then at the first whiff of "resurrection" then they would have produced the body. But they didn't. The apostles might have had motivation if they actually thought the messiah might rise from the dead. Yet they stupidly did not understand the meaning of the OT scriptures. Motivation and opportunity go against someone stealing the body.
The strips of linen in the tomb speak against Jesus not being dead and simply reviving in the tomb. Firstly, Romans are very good at killing people. To suggest he didn't die is simply stupid. Yet some do. So if he simply revived in the tomb, why were the strips of linen and the burial cloth laid in such an orderly and neat manner? People who wake up would leave everything in a disheveled fashion. Lying on the floor. but this is not what the facts state. And if someone robbed the body - why take such time as to unwrap the body? It doesn't add up. It's not plausible. The simplest solution is often the most plausible one.
and Mary Magdalene was an eye-witness. It is quite clear - that despite the fact that she recognized Jesus. She clung to him. The facts are clear. No one had motive or opportunity to take the body. No one would have risked their lives breaking a Roman Governor's seal. The circumstantial evidence of the linen is significant an points away from either a grave robber or an alleged waking up of a not quite dead Jesus. It does speak to a resurrection - of a body mysteriously resurrecting. And then there is the eye-witness of a female. LOL! No Ancient Jewish author would have been caught dead using a female as a witness to corroborate such a story. It really is a significant issue.
this doesn't even touch on the fact that the NT record has 500 witnesses. - who were alive in Paul's time - at his writing -and for EVERY skeptic to go and talk too. This doesn't take into account that the disciples were prepared and in many cases did die for their eye-witness account. True people do die for things they believe in - but it is implausible to suggest that they all died for something they knew was a lie. That does not make sense.
Furthermore, this does not even take into account the exponential growth of the church. A small Jewish cult - in a backwater part of the world - based on the resurrection of Christ - becoming within 400 years the largest religion within Rome - such that the Roman Emperor at the time - Constantine had no choice but to stop making it illegal to be a Christian but to actually turn the empire Christian. (Personally I think this act was the worst one for Christianity. It tried to normalise it)
the Resurrection of Jesus has more evidence to support it historical reality than many other things in history. It is not believed on in faith. It is disbelieved by people in faith. to reject the resurrection is to demonstrate the utter stupidity of humanity. It is to reject evidence. It is to put blind faith above the truth. And you dear Stephen are a master of such foolishness.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Perhaps that explains why the believers are in the wrong then, their logic is backwards.If a being has power to control and stop (as well as enable) everything, has infinite knowledge of all variables that are real and existent at any time and has omnipresence to be aware of all reality at all times and be active everywhere at once, it follows that nothing within the reality is able to unknowingly (accidentally) be occuring outside of God's wilful control
That just misses the point entirely.
God is Holy and God is good. Everything else is subservient to these characteristics. Hence, despite the convenience of language such as infinite - which is always used incorrectly in this context , God chooses to limit his power characteristics to ensure his character is not mischaracterized.
For example. God is powerful enough to send another flood to wipe out the world. Yet he has promised not to do so. So does this promise mean God can't send another flood or not? On one hand a promise doesn't reduce God's capacity to do so - yet his promise on the other hand is a choice God has made to reduce or limit his power.
He limits his power - as subservient to his character. Yet you are proposing we don't start with his character but with his capabilities of power. That is the difference between God and humanity. Humanity thinks authority is all about power. God knows authority is all about character. Putin thinks - my armies can beat anyone I want. That gives me authority. Yet his character has let him down and the world knows it. He put power over integrity.
God always begins with who he is - not what he can do. That is why your argument remains strawman. It is trying to win against a god no one really believes in. If God was going to start with power and not character - what in the world was the cross about?
For the believer the cross is victory, not defeat. It is there that the world changed. And that life is given. Character - not power. Humility not pride. Adam's initial sin was pride. I don't need God. I can do it myself.
The Cross demonstrates the powerlessness of humanity - and the humility of God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
You do realize that this is your beginning and one of the most often used strawman arguments provided by atheists.First of all, it’s not a straw man. I am not portraying anyone’s position, I am attacking a very specific concept of god that you either accept or you do not. Please learn the difference.Second, here’s your opportunity to fix it. Tell me which of the following statements is true:A) God is not all powerfulB) God is not all knowingC) God is not the creator of everythingLooking forward to your clarification.To start with the power and not with the character simply reflects the idea that God is power.I’m not “starting” anywhere. This is a specific rebuttal to a specific idea. You either accept the idea or you don’t, if you do then you need to resolve this, if you do not then this doesn’t apply to you.God's revealed will is that people should not worship other gods. You did not address this.Yes, I do address it. If you begin with the premises I laid out this is logically incoherent, so you have it backwards; you need to address the premises first so that we can talk about the God concept you advocate for. To do otherwise is what an actual straw man looks like.
so you want to retain your strawman argument. Your problem. not mine.
It is impossible to clarify your questions because it ignores God's character. Start there and come back to the other points. After all, God is holy and God is good. That is my starting point. Hence, every other attribute will be subservient to this character. You want to start with power and then read God's character into it as a logical conclusion. Yet the bible starts in reverse. Hence when your argument remains a strawman argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
As I have said and as I continue to say - It is my right to identify however I like. After all if you a ignorant and foolish atheist can identify as a Christian, then I can identify in any way I choose.
The only reasonable way you can deny this is by ceasing your fraudulent activities as a christian and not be embarrassed or ashamed of being an atheist. Of course I understand why you are ashamed to call yourself an atheist. It is embarrassing. It would admit to the world that you believe nothing. That you have no meaning in life. That you are nothing but a fool.
So I guess on one level, I can see why you would prefer to be a Christian - no matter what kind of Christian - because the longer you keep it up - the less time you have spend thinking about the shame and embarrassment of being an atheist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
And yet some people do worship other gods. The fact that some people worship other gods is NOT God's will.Let’s go back to the beginning.God is all powerful.God is all knowing.God is the creator of everything.These three qualities do not allow for anything that happens to be anything other than God’s will. Why?Because it is logically impossible under this set up for anything to exist without God having created it.And if God created it and is all knowing, then he created it knowing full well what the results would be as he created it.And if God is all powerful, then there are no circumstances where anything would have forced his hand to create anything he didn’t desire.For you to claim that anything he created was not in accordance with his will either violates that he is all knowing or that he is all powerful. This isn’t rocket science. If I bake brownies that turned out to be full of THC, and this was not my desire, then I either did not know what was in them or was somehow pushed by outside forces into creating them that way against my desire. There are no other options.
You do realize that this is your beginning and one of the most often used strawman arguments provided by atheists. Christians don't believe in the strawman god you have outlined. Christians begin with God is Holy. God is just and perfect. God is love. God is peace. God is truth. Christians begin with the character of God. Non-Christians begin with the so called power attributes.
To start with the power and not with the character simply reflects the idea that God is power. Christians say power is only a small part of who and what God is.
God's revealed will is that people should not worship other gods. You did not address this. You chose to try and rejig the discussion to AVOID answering it.
When you bother to address that question and statement - then we can look at the rejigging - to see if it is relevant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I love it. You get your knickers tied into all sorts of knots when you pretend you understand these passages and are caught out on your bad logic.
I indicated metaphor. I indicated literal for the sake of answering your question.
Jesus was not a pacificist. Yet he was not a war monger or a zealot. There just is no evidence for it. Even the verse which indicates he thought two swords was plenty is indicative of this position.
I referred to his disciple's varied previous occupations because some like you like to suggest that the former zealots in his group provides evidence for his motivations - which you simply pull out of thin air.
My so called speculations are not pulled out of thin air - but out of various commentaries. Hence - not personal speculations but considered positions by respectable commentators.
I don't propose to debunk anyone's position. I merely asked a question to see how people might like to reconcile the statements. You couldn't do it. That's your problem not mine.
even though one of his apostles was one prior to becoming a disciple.More conjecture, and assumption, and guesswork.The bible is clear that there were more than one zealot in his entourage.
Do you even read the stuff and contradictions you write. You suggest that if I say one of his disciples is a zealot - that it was conjecture and assumption and guesswork and in the VERY NEXT SENTENCE- say the bible is clear that there was more than one zealot. Duh!
Or are you going to suggest that because I made the comment that one was a zealot that I could not possibly also agree that there might have been more. I really can't be bothered discussing matters with someone whose only AGENDA is to play every piece like a game.
It really is pointless. At least others on this forum - even those who totally disagree with everything I say - have the decency to engage in the discussion without resorting to name calling. I concede that I have tried to stop name calling with you - but given your inane ability to turn every bit of truth into trash - I find myself falling to your level. There you go. Some influence. But again I will endeavor to stop it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
I reject your entire hypothesis.
You are the one who is stalking children. And quite literally telling them to reveal your secrets.
I am whatever I choose to identify as - as is my legal right within the forum.
I have amended my age in my profile.
You on the other hand ought to desist with your lies and misrepresentations.
And please keep to the topic or leave it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
If God is the all knowing all powerful creator of everything then everything that happens is in accordance with his will. This means every child rape, every malicious murder, everything, is in accordance with his will. That makes him amoral by any reasonable standard.
You are confusing God's will - with what happens. Both are not the same. God has a revealed will and a hidden will.
For instance God in the 10 commandments reveals that no one should worship any other God except him. This is his revealed will. There can be no question about it. It is in black and white. And yet some people do worship other gods. The fact that some people worship other gods is NOT God's will. When we talk about God's will being done. We are not talking about a fatalistic thing taking place. We are talking about people obeying God's revealed will.
Yet you might add - but everything that happens is because God brought it to pass. Isn't that God's will? I would say no. Again, we are talking at cross purposes - using the same word - for two different things that are going on. God's revealed moral will is very clear. God does not will that anyone sin. God does not will that child rape or malicious murder takes place. These things are NOT in accord with his revealed moral will.
To confuse the two, or to conflate the two is unhelpful in this discussion. It also sets up a strawman argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Christians should be tough and fight hard.As Jesus taught and encouraged the people he'd come to save. The Jewish zealots of Galilea, and with a sword in their hands.
Jesus was not a pacificist. Nor did he go looking for fights.
He was not a zealot, even though one of his apostles was one prior to becoming a disciple. Jesus was not encouraging anyone to go to war. One of Jesus' disciples was also a tax collector. This did not make Jesus a tax collector. Others were fishermen. Again, Jesus was not a fisherman.
Self-defense is a valid reason to have a sword. Jesus even rebuked Peter when Peter swung a sword.
There is no NT evidence to the contrary. For those who suggest otherwise - the onus is on you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Do you like picking on little girls?
Oh you are big bully, stalker and what is that other word, you know the one. The one where big bully stalkers bully and stalk young children.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
But Brother, I am being silent.
Isn't that what you expect?
It cant' be both cowardly and correct to be silent? Can it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Great question Stephen,
In this passage the sword is metaphorical. In the latter passage you quote - I would have thought Jesus meant a real sword.
The point however is why does he suggest a real sword there and not in the other one? I am sure you are just champing at the bit wanting to tell us all.
Here is your opportunity.
Created:
Posted in:
It kind of makes me laugh that Christians and Muslims think that the God of the Jews would just abandon them and give all of his special privilege to the Muslims or the Christians instead of the Jews. Do you realize how ludicrous that sounds the God that helped the Jews do all the things that he supposedly help them with would just all of a sudden say that f*** them I'm going to go with the Muslims or f*** them this Jesus guys got it down even though Jesus says way less about the law and worshiping God the way the Jews do. At least the Muslims keep the law. But all of a sudden the God of the Jew says if you're not Muslim then it's okay for the Muslims to kill you I mean it's absolutely the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
That certainly is an interesting take on what you think Muslims and Christians think. I don't think God ever abandoned the Jews. The Jews in history and even according to Paul - are still called by God. Paul even makes the point in Romans 11:29 that God's gifts and calls are irrevocable.
The ancient religion that the Jews embraced arose before Israel became a nation. Abraham himself was going to be the father of many nations. Noah was not a Jew. Jacob's name was changed to Israel. His sons became the fathers of each of the 12 tribes of Israel. Yet Abraham gave his allegiance to Melchizadek. He was an ancient priest who served the one True God. Moses later married into the Midianite Tribe. His father in law - Jethro was another priest who served the one True God.
Israel was chosen by God, not because of its greatness, but because it was small and hated by the rest of the world. Yet despite God's calling, Israel has had a multi-colored relationship with God. Sometimes embracing him and sometimes rejecting him. Jesus was and remains a Jew. He was a not a Gentile. Jesus' 12 apostles were Jews. The first 4000-5000 - possibly 10s of thousands of Christians were Jews.
Christianity was initially a Jewish sect. Yet, its mission, like God's, was never going to remain nationalistic. Pentecost - was an event where Jews from all the world came to worship God. God used that event to send his Spirit - so that Jews from all the world would embrace Christ and then go back to their countries and towns that they came from.
Christianity became one of the first - world religions. It embraced all cultures. Israel remains a treasure to the church. And Israel will once again embrace God fully.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
peace is referring to general tranquility among men not that Christ can't be violent or "bring a sword"
The world's understanding of peace is absence of conflict.
Christianity's view of peace is absence of conflict between God and humanity.
Jesus never came to bring peace to the earth - he came to bring peace between God and Man.
Christians ordinarily say - first we need peace with God, then peace with others, which leads to peace in oneself. Sometimes we use the acronym JOY.
Jesus
Others
You
Quaint - but nevertheless, helpful.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
But isn't the quote in question, "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."' "In that quote, the speaker (which I will assume to be Jesus according to the text) is saying that he is there to bring about the state of divided family. He has come to turn people against each other.
As I said above - that will depend upon how one looks at the sword. If one looks at the sword like a weapon then using it to divide the family has connotations of a power struggle - condoning evil. Yet if one looks upon the sword as the means of dealing with the cancer, then divisions that arise between father and son and other family members are naturally going to occur. After all, if the only means to start the healing process is going to cause more pain, many people would prefer to just die.
Here Jesus in talking to his disciples - is saying - "this message of healing is going to cause division because it will conflict with those who don't want to change". If you embrace Jesus' teaching it will force some families to divide. I know for instance a young Jewish guy who converted to Christianity. He now teaches at the local Pressie college. Yet this conversion has caused his family to kick him out. His family see this as an insult to their religion. They see him as now dead to them. Recently, my nephew was in a relationship with a young Jewish girl. Her family told my nephew if he wanted to marry their daughter then he would need to convert to the Jewish religion.
The point of course is that Jesus' mission - was not in accord with many of the Jewish families at the time. His message would be both a sword of division and a means of healing depending upon how people understood his message. This would naturally cause many families to divide. Not that Jesus wanted to divide families. Yet he knew his message would. Even as God knew in the OT that his message would divide families.
So unlike Micha's use, which was to be a sad commentary on an unfortunate and unwanted current state of affairs which would be resolved in the future by God, Jesus seems to be saying that he is responsible for creating this undesirable state - it is his goal.
This is where I disagree with you. Micah was a sad commentary with a future hope in God. Jesus in my view is saying that division already exists - and will continue to exist. Yet he is providing the means - which in the short term may appear to be even more painful - but will inevitably bring about healing and peace for many.
Hence, whereas Micah was hopeful Israel would once again turn to God in repentance - he also knew it would only be for a short term before they fail again. Jesus totally understood that - yet also wanted to bring a halt to that - even if it meant more pain in the short term.
I don't think Jesus is saying he is responsible for the undesirable state which clearly existed before he was born. Hence he must be saying something else. I see what you mean in that Jesus says he will turn family against itself. Yet I don't see how if the situation already existed, he must be accepting responsibility. That doesn't make sense. Hence it must mean something else. I would suggest that he is saying his means of dealing with this ongoing issue of sin - requires a knife. A surgical knife perhaps. It is this remedy - this solution - which is the cause of the division. Some would see it as a weapon. Others would see it as a means of healing.
And honestly, the cross of Jesus is exactly like that isn't it? For many, it is a major source of offence - and has been used as a weapon to hurt and harm. But on the other hand, for many others, it has been the source of healing and restoration and forgiveness. For those opposed to Jesus, he is the enemy. For those who embrace him, loyalty is a no brainer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
I wonder what it says about creepy old white men who stalk and abuse little kids?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
I understand what you are saying but it seems strange to invoke a statement about all the bad at the time of Micha (who then promises the people that God will, when they repent, swoop in a raise them up again) and use that text to describe what Jesus has brought. It is as if he is taking responsibility to the difficulties in his time. Instead of the state of disarray's being a problem, he views it as a desirable position for which is takes credit. That is what I don't understand.
I don't understand why you say Jesus is taking responsibility for the state of disarray. I certainly would never have thought that Jesus was seeing it as a desirable position. In fact, it seems to me that Jesus is saying - things need to change. But rather than taking a superficial approach, let's go for the deep seated reasons for the state of disarray and heal them.
I think the other thing here is that - Micah knew just like Jonah knew that God was slow to anger but quick to forgive. Jonah might have embraced that in relation to Israel, but not for the Gentiles. God however was much bigger and much more merciful than even Jonah could fathom or perhaps liked. Micah is rightly concerned for his own people in his own land. Yet Micah was also aware that even after repentance, even after reconciliation with God, that the Jews would once again go back to their old ways. The history of Israel and indeed the world, shows that this path is inevitable.
Jesus was very aware of this. His mission was therefore both the same but different. It was like the John the Baptist's a gospel to call his people to repentance - but it was also more than that. He, as the messiah, would not only deliver them from their sins, but would do it comprehensively. Hence, the clear message that he was not coming to bring peace in the way that people would normally have been thinking. Peace from the Romans. Peace with each other. Even peace with God for a temporary moment - only to fall back into their old ways again. It was to bring a sword. A sword that would cut away that which would send them back to their old ways and enable them to remain with God forever.
This sword as I mentioned above is not a big swashbuckling broadsword. It was a short dagger. One which could maim but also was used to remove arrows from the body after an attack. Jesus' was not taking responsibility for the situation at the time, he was not taking pleasure in the situation either. He wanted to change it. Remember these verses are in the context of a discussion Jesus is giving to his Apostles as they were being sent out as his disciples to help in the swooping up of those who are repentant.
Yet Jesus also knew that this message of his would be divisive. Hence the imagery of the sword as well. Some people would see sword and think "dangerous fool". Others however would see sword and think "savior". Those who rejected him would continue in their sin - perhaps from time to time dealing with it - but then just going back to the old ways. Those who embraced him would have their sin dealt with - once and for all. This is why Jesus then talks about loyalty in this context.
Families divided again. But this time it would be a division brought about loyalty to Jesus or those who were opposed to him. This has been the story of the world since then. Those who have embraced Jesus and those who have not. Jesus wanted his apostles to be fully informed of this as they went about their task. These verses - are therefore not directed to the world at large. They were directed at his apostles as instructions in how they would be received or not - in their mission to draw people back to God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Well it didn't take long for you to hijack this topic?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
Micha is talking about what he is observing about his own time and the sadness of the situation that he witnesses. By the end of the chapter, he speaks of a future in which the people return to God and God to the people. I don't know why Jesus would quote this as a status he would try to bring about.
I totally agree that Micah is talking about what he is observing about his own time. He also suggests that God needs to intervene to get rid of the strife.
This aligns with the people returning to God and God to his people. Nevertheless, there is an intervention - just like there is for other returns to God after the godly people have left.
Micah 7:1-2 describes this doesn't? the godly are not bearing fruit. It is like they are swept from the land. And the result is that evil starts to flourish and become normal. Corruption abounds. Society without the godly becomes a haven for evil - where no one trusts anyone anymore - neighbor, and friends, even family. Micah waits in hope.
Jesus, in my view, takes Micah's point and unpacks it. Society in Jesus' time was much like Micah's time. And as Stephen mentions much like our own time.
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. One that can be used to maim but more often is used to pluck arrows out of one's own body during a war. Some have called it a healing sword. Not that it heals, but it is part of the process of starting the healing. Like a needle is used to get rid of a splinter.
So Jesus is not trying to bring about misery, but rather is discussing God's intervention - and his own role in that as the Messiah. (I understand you don't see Jesus as the Messiah) The Jewish people in Jesus' time did have a view that when the messiah came he would bring peace and freedom. From the Romans primarily at that time, but perhaps from the many possible sects of the time.
Jesus' mission however was not that small. He wasn't coming to bring that kind of peace. His was a divine mission - to bring reconciliation and healing between God and humanity. The intervention was not going to be superficial but one that would go to the heart of the issue and deal with sin.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
How can Jesus on one hand bring peace and on the hand tell us that he has not come to bring peace? Is the simplistic answer to this that here is one of the many contradictions in the Bible or is there something else going on?I wonder how many of us have the capacity to think outside of the box. How is it possible to reconcile such statements?Isn’t this what you call post-modernism?
Nope.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Happy people reading a bible.Angry people reading a bible.IntoA happy person translating scriptures.Angry person translating scriptures.Who could ever possibly guess what it is that they might make their God tell them next ?Fingers crossed , it is good.
Perhaps that is all it is. Or then again - maybe it is all on point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
think outside of the boxCan you explain what you mean by "think outside the box"?Fair enough. In this topic it is about not just assuming these are contradictions but thinking of ways that might find a way to reconcile them. For example, how might the Jews have considered a messiah might bring peace to the land of Israel and perhaps relief from the Romans? And how might that compare to what Micah's point was in his prophecy.So you want us to use conjecture & guess work? Assume? To think in an original and creative way? To use our imagination? And in ways that are not limited or controlled by rules or tradition?
I am asking people for their opinion about these apparent contradictions. People will conjecture and guess - that is a matter for them. I am not asking for that - simply asking people not to automatically assume it must be a contradiction - which itself is also conjecture and guess work. I don't have an issue with people using ways that are controlled by rules or traditions. Is it possible that they can be reconciled?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Realistic response no problem Trade.....Refer to it as wooden if you must.And there are no recordings of Jesus's words.....Just after the event hand me down tales, recorded by those that possessed the ability to do so.....In their own words.Translated and reworked many times since, by other literary scholars in their own words.....And so on.And now it's your turn to reinterpret things.No problem.....If it makes you happy, then I'm happy.
Hi Zed, for me wooden is a very literal translation of what I asked. That's ok. I don't have a problem with you doing so.
There are literally no recorded conversations of Julius Caesar either from his own era. Nor of many people in ancient history.
Whereas the material we have of what Jesus was alleged to have said in the Gospels has a very significant credibility level.
The thing about translated works and even the reworkings is that we mostly have very early records. Earlier than almost every other work from those periods - and more of them. The quantity and quality of ancient documents is a pretty specialized field.
I actually am not trying to reinterpret anything. I am simply asking questions.
Pleased you are happy. Mostly, I am a happy person.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
think outside of the boxCan you explain what you mean by "think outside the box"?
Fair enough. In this topic it is about not just assuming these are contradictions but thinking of ways that might find a way to reconcile them. For example, how might the Jews have considered a messiah might bring peace to the land of Israel and perhaps relief from the Romans? And how might that compare to what Micah's point was in his prophecy?
Created:
Posted in:
Nothing Jesus says is compatible with the Old Testament. If you follow Christ, Christ not Paul, then you are not following the God of Abraham. Therefore the Jews/people who believe what he preaches will turn on those who choose to continue to follow the God of Abraham and the Law.
Thanks Poly.
I think everything Jesus says is compatible with the OT. For example his comments here are compatible with Micah 7. I also take the view that Paul and Jesus were on the exact same page. Both were following the same God of Abraham. Interestingly I agree that some Jews did turn on Jesus - because they thought he was not following Abraham and the Law. Yet, from my perspective it was not Jesus who did not follow the law or Abraham, it was those who turned on Jesus who were not following Abraham. Surely this is part of what Jesus explained when he pointed out to the Pharisees that they did not follow Moses.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
As usual in your initial post, you brought forth the "candy-assed" version in Matthew 10:34 of Jesus referencing Micah 7:6, whereas the Luke 12:49-53 version shows our Jesus to be more dreadful and contradicting to His alleged peace on earth scenario that He preached to His Jewish creation!OUR EVER LOVING, FORGIVING, AND CONTRADICTING JESUS SAID: "I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! But I have a baptism to undergo, and what constraint I am under until it is completed! Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? NO, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.” (Luke 12:49:53)The following passages, which are a few of many where Jesus promoted peace, are shown below in blatantly CONTRADICTING Jesus' statement above where He brought NO PEACE whatsoever amongst His Jewish creation:JESUS SAID: "The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: who is Lord of all." (Acts 10:36)JESUS SAID: "Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid." (John 14:27)JESUS SAID: "Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God." (Matthew 5:9)YOUR QUOTE REGARDING JESUS CONTRADICTING HIMSELF: "How is it possible to reconcile such statements?Miss Tradesecret, now we have popcorn in hand and our favorite beverage, for you to now show us how you are going to use your Devil Speak to SPIN DOCTOR away the damaging passages of Jesus shown in your wussy version in Matthew 10:34 of not bringing peace, and my true version of Jesus' modus operandi referencing Micah 7:6 in Luke 12:49:53, where Jesus can't wait NOT TO BRING PEACE, but turmoil and unrest!
Hello Brother and thank you for your response.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt and not simply ignore you. Nevertheless, you will play by the correct rules or I will ignore you.
Firstly, you have intentionally misdirected the conversation by quoting from another passage and NOT addressing the one I provided. Neither passage is weak or wussy.
Secondly, you omitted to discuss Micah 7. Is there a reason for this save and except it does not agree with your position.
Thirdly, the Luke 12 passage only illustrates my point - it does not weaken it. Jesus on one hand came to bring peace and on the other he said do not presume that I come to peace.
Fourthly, all your verses do is confirm what I said. It does not answer or address the question. You really should read the question. I have already indicated that this notion of the peace and the sword appear to be contradictory. Did you even read that? So you agree with me that it appears that way? Excellent.
Now answer the question. I raised the question. I am seeking people's views on it. The other posters at least attempted to provide a reason. You have just regurgitated everything I said. And YES - in doing so you confess you don't have the capacity to think outside the box. You confess you don't have the capacity to reconcile such statements.
Hence I will give you the benefit of the doubt once. But not a second time.
Please answer the question if you are able to? And if you merely think it cannot be reconciled, then refrain from answering since you have already stated that is your view. There is no need to waste either your time or mine.
If you had read and comprehended my question - you would understand that there is no need for me to address the verses you have provided. Why you ask? Because each of those verses are saying exactly what I stated in the first place. And that is that there appears to be an apparent contradiction.
Thanks in anticipation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
How is it possible to reconcile such statements.By accepting the bible for what it is.Multiple uncorroborated folk tales relative to a few people and places during a turbulent time of social development in one small corner of the Earth.Latterly developed and used has a worldwide system of social oppression and control.Believe this, do as we say and pay us for the privilege, or we will burn you at the stake.
Hello Zed and thanks for your wooden response to the question.
People can reconcile such statements by accepting it for what it is.
I'm not sure how Jesus' words originally were intended for people to be burnt at the stake.
If you go back a few verses in the passage (v.17) you will see that Jesus himself identified one of the types of wolves to be religious in nature.
Jesus knows that where there is power - it will seek to maintain that power - and will not give it up lightly. This is why he said be on your guard against such men.
We need to be aware of the religious wolves in our society. They might be other religions or they might be religious bigots in our churches. Both attempt to dissuade people from taking up the work in the harvest. His response in the first place is to be wise as serpents - in other words, avoid the fights if you are able to and also to be as innocent as doves. Make sure you are above reproach. Wolves will try and make you bitter and will relish in you not being above reproach. They will make you pay for every stuff up you do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
a couple ideas. the verse quoting jesus doesn't say that jesus condones people using the sword. it's possible jesus came to stoke division, and it just so happens peeps will use violence, not that jesus thinks it's ok.another idea. maybe jesus allows for self defense. self defense isn't necessary, such as jesus not fighting the crucifixion and when people turn the other cheek. but self defense is a person's right if they think it's the best course of action. jesus didn't say you have to turn the cheek, just that it's a good thing to do. (i think this is accurate, though i could be wrong)
Thanks n8nrgim for your response.
You seem to be correct in this context. Jesus is not condoning people using the sword. I do think the sword here is meant metaphorically. Yet metaphorical swords divide families just as much as a literal sword.
Why do you think Jesus is talking about self-defense?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
At a superficial guess,I'd say that he expected the values of Christianity to come into conflict with some other entrenched values,That by following the values espoused by Christ,People would come into conflict,Though I suppose he believed it was for the best, that people's values/beliefs change and/or evolve.
Thanks Lemming for your response.
Although it is probably a superficial guess, there are quite interesting points you raise. After all, in our day and age, values espoused in the bible and that which many Christians hold to are in direct conflict with those who are not Christian. In our day these seem to be around morals and right and wrong and ethical behavior - what God thinks is ok v what humanity thinks is ok.
It is clear that Jesus usage of the term "sword" is metaphorical not literal. Obviously if someone gets converted to Jesus and mentions it to his or her family, then depending upon how they react - will cause a division.
I wonder what the differences in value were in Jesus time? The context is about discipleship - sending workers into the harvest - and also a warning of the wolves who want to stop the work and discourage this work in the harvest.
I concur with you. I think Jesus was still trying to do good.
Created:
Posted in:
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 is quoting from the Micah 7:6.
What is Micah talking about in that particular chapter and why in the world would Jesus quote Micah in his time?
After all, isn't Jesus supposed to the prince of peace ( Isaiah 9:6) Didn't the angels sing at his birth "glory o God in the highest and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests". Luke 2:14
How can Jesus on one hand bring peace and on the hand tell us that he has not come to bring peace? Is the simplistic answer to this that here is one of the many contradictions in the Bible or is there something else going on?
I wonder how many of us have the capacity to think outside of the box. How is it possible to reconcile such statements?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
The problem is Stephen, you have been predictably nasty in the past many times in the past with your diatribe - a little like the boy crying wolf, that I don't trust you.
And I don't complain that people don't ask me theological questions. I just point out that the questions typically posed by you and the Brother towards me are not theological questions so much as personal questions about matters which are none of your business.
Many if not most of the other members of this forum ask theological questions without the added venom that and the Brother intentionally add.
If you are genuinely interested in people's theological views about the Garden of Eden, start your own topic. If I see that you are actively seeking answers then I might - no promises - provide information therein.
I don't invent stories - about God, the Bible or my background. I have no need too. I really don't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Stephen and I are not stalkers as you would like the membership to believe, we are only two individuals that have to follow you continually around this Religion Forum to show how biblically dumbfounded you truly are, and for me, Jesus' words want me to expose you for what you truly are (Timothy 5:20), A BIBLE FOOL!
Yep, you are. Time to quite Brother.
Created: