Total posts: 3,520
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
So you think you are the only one allowed to answer questions. Ok I will leave. You are not a teacher. You don't have an answer. You just make it up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Jesus was not a Levite Priest.This is where your bible ignorance stands out stark.Yes so you keep saying he was not a levite but no one knows for sure because like many many other things, the bible is silent on the matter. . BUT, you keep ignoring gods own fkn laws don't you? although you have recognised gods ordination of Aaron and HIS descendants/Levites. concentrate on the word - DECENDANTS - at least for 30 seconds.I have asked you then what kind of priest was if not a levite? You haven't replied.
And I have answered and answered and answered - MELCHIZADEK, MELCHIZADEK, MELCHICZADEK. Can you not read? Jesus is of the order of Melchizadek. The Book of Hebrews knows for sure. I already quoted the text. You just ignore it. You choose not to know. This choice of your is clearly a lie.
I pointed you back to Melchizadek who also was a priest of GOD as indeed was Moses' Father.It doesn't matter one iota what "Moses father was". What matters is the FACT that god had handed down - during the Exodus - to Arron and his descendants, the sole control of the of religion practices and the priesthood.
Perhaps for you it does not matter. For me it does. You are the one who claims that the Exodus priesthood is the all and powerful. Not me. So You prove it. I said in principle I agree- but in principle is obviously a qualification. The book of Hebrews clearly has a problem with your position. You just ignore this. It tells us that Jesus is not a Levite. Moses Father is relevant. He was a priest of God. What Order was he in? I suggest it is also Melchizadek. Can I prove this? No. But if there were several priests at around the same time - who were priests of GOD, then it is reasonable to assume that it was part of an Order.
You even tell us this:Jesus was baptized by John who was of the Levite line. And I am of the view that John baptized him to fulfill the law of the OT so as to do all righteousness.And that law was what!? HERE IS A BIG FKN CLUE>>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron#:~:text=High%20Priest,-See%20also%3A%20High&text=The%20books%20of%20Exodus%2C%20Leviticus,on%20the%20altar%20to%20YahwehDid John - a Levite - break any of those religious laws of GOD when he baptised Jesus? YES OR NO?
John never broke the law. Not in relation to baptizing Jesus anyway. But where in the OT does it tell us that a Levite Priest is not allowed to ordain or baptize a non-levite to a priesthood? John the Baptist was an unusual priest. He was known as a prophet not as a priest. HE did not hang around with the priests and pretty much considered the hierarchy of the Israel Church heretics. We only know he is a Levite because his father and mother were from Aaron's line. His father being the high priest. John pretty much did his own thing. Did he ever break any of the laws? Probably - but in relation to the baptism? I think not. But that begs the bigger question - why not? I just don't see where the Levites are forbidden from baptizing people - and John clearly did - for many more people than Jesus - many who were neither Levites nor from the tribe of Judah. But none of the other baptisms - were ordaining the priest.
You are the one getting your knickers into a knot. You want to focus on Exodus and the Levites. I want to focus on Hebrews and on Jesus. You are the one who has no knowledge and continually demonstrates it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Who was Jesus?Son of man or son of a god.Above, you clearly suggest that Jesus was descended from, mankind.
My view is that the bible teaches that Jesus was Son of Man and equally Son of God.
His Mother is Mary. From Mary he is able to claim he a Son of Man all the way back to Adam.
His Father is God, the Holy Spirit. From God he is able to claim divinity.
His step - father and adopted father is Joseph. From Joseph through adoption, he is able to claim to be the Son of David.
- The Christian tradition teaches Jesus is Fully God and Fully Man. Not half each - but fully each. Jesus is of course also the second person of the Trinity. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Interestingly the term Son of Man - seems to be a reference to Daniel 7. I prefer understanding who the Son of Man is from Ezekiel. There Ezekiel referred to himself - on many occasions as the Son of Man. Typically it was referring to himself as man - but also in relation to his role as a priest. It is therefore a possibility that Jesus often referred to himself by this title since he understood his role as a priest.
Others start with the picture in Daniel 7 and suggest that the Son of Man was almost a super - hero. I am not persuaded that is its meaning. Nevertheless, it is an interesting picture.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I am still curious as to how you miss my point about Jesus being a priest in the order of Melchizadek. I have referred to it many times. I even linked it for you.
Jesus was not a Levite Priest. No one in the NT suggests he was. I do not think he was. The book of Hebrews denies that he was.
I have accepted in principle that Aaron's priesthood had a monopoly in Israel for Israel, at least until the temple was destroyed. Jesus was baptized by John who was of the Levite line. And I am of the view that John baptized him to fulfill the law of the OT so as to do all righteousness.
Yet as I have pointed out - Jesus was from the tribe of Judah. Hebrews 7:14 "For it clear that our Lord descended from Judah and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests".
I pointed you back to Melchizadek who also was a priest of GOD as indeed was Moses' Father. This priesthood was not a Jewish priesthood. It did not pretend to be one - and yet was honored by God in the OT and also by the writer of the book of Hebrews. Nowhere in the OT or the NT is this particular priesthood condemned by God nor is it said to have no authority.
Jesus needed to be baptized by a priest - but this does not necessarily make him an Aaronic Priest or a Levite - especially given he was not Levite. Yet, John's baptism did infer Jesus' priesthood - the question is if not Levi, then what? And the answer is provided in Hebrews.
This priesthood is far older than the Levites and has standing before the king of kings. By becoming part of this priesthood rather than the Levitical one it placed Jesus into an order that does not rely upon bulls and goats. But one who serves in the throne room of heaven.
Created:
-->
@RoderickSpode
What are the creator's responsibilities to mankind? Or are there any?
How could we know? I suspect an inference is not really good enough. God would need to tell us if he had responsibilities towards humanity. Otherwise he would have none.
Would they depend on whether or not the creator is associated with a religion.?
I don't understand what this question is supposed to be asking? If God has responsibilities to humanity - then why would it matter if God or the creator is associated with a religion or not? It seems he either has responsibility or not. I don't see how he or she or it, if it is associated with a religion would change his or her responsibilities. Not without understanding what those non-inferred responsibilities are.
For instance, would Yahweh's responsibility to mankind (whatever that may be) be the same for the god of deism?
The Deist God is the clockmaker god. He creates the world and then winds it up and leaves it until it runs out. In that position - God is still responsible for the world even if he leaves it alone because he created it. It raises the question of determinism and freedom. If determinism then God is responsible - if freedom, then perhaps not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
We have been told here that at least one of the requirements for one to be able to perform baptism is for the one baptising to have been baptised himself.
Who said this and where was it said?
Created:
-->
@Castin
I don't personally care which is older. I don't have an agenda or a bias.
But it makes sense that copies copy. there must be an original somewhere for it to be copied.
The Bible of course declares that there is one God - so probably I would start there.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
LOL @ you.
None of these floods have destroyed the world in the way that Noah's flood did.
Not even close.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
previously: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4754/post-links/199648, and
2. You haven’t addressed why you continue to slap Jesus in the face by not defending the faith to particular posts of mine that show that you should:
responded immediately to your lies. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3557/post-links/199646
3. You are still running away from this post showing that Jesus did sin, where your Bible ignorance says he didn’t:
Responded:
4. Because of this post saving your sorry biblical ignorant ass, you have yet to thank me:
Response of no need to respond to patheticness: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4754/post-links/207052
5. We could make millions off of your complete Bible ignorance and the subsequent comedy of same, no response from you:
No need to comment or respond to:
6. You have cowardly run away from this post to you FOUR TIMES, I REPEAT, FOUR TIMES IN YOUR THREAD, where you were wrong once again in your perceived knowledge of Jesus not interfering with the suffering of His creation, where in biblical FACT, Jesus did interfere:
I did not run away. I was not responding to you - because you were trolling me. Responded: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4726/post-links/207094
7. It was blatantly shown in how utterly Bible and Zoology ignorant you truly are relative to the Noah’s Ark narrative, of which you have run away from this post:
responded:
8. YOU have sheepishly run away from this revealing post in showing exactly who you embarrassingly are in this forum, bar none, WHY?:
Responded:
9. You have yet to tell us why Jesus is not flooding the world again because the sin is thousands of times greater per capita in the world now:
10. Since you remain in my thread regarding everyone is saved, even non-believers, you have run away from said topic post directed to you below:
11. Still no response from you in this running away from Jesus inspired post:
12. You never answered a simple request in how Jesus allegedly showed mercy upon innocent zygotes, fetus’ and babies by Him killing them: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4726-evidence-in-a-religious-forum?page=9&post_number=213
responded even though it was not necessary https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4726/post-links/207122
13. This runaway post of yours relates to you being a POE/Parody, because no true Christian would make fun of the faith like you do:
This is simply repeating no. 8. I have already responded - refers to number 8.
14. Here you erroneously state that Jesus is not superhuman as God, where He only created a billions of light years large universe which is in fact superhuman, LIAR:
15. You ran away from me addressing the FACT that you stated the Bible contains FICTION!
responded:
16. You have yet to address you wanting me to quit showing you to be the Bible fool upon this forum, and by telling the moderators as well, but in not addressing your runaway posts in the meantime
17. You ran away from me correcting you upon the fact that “anyone” is used by Jesus that curses their parents, and not ADULTS like you stated!
18. You RAN AWAY from me correcting you once again in relation to Jesus being the #1 Abortionist of all time! https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4827-what-should-we-make-of-the-passover-and-god-killing-his-peoples-first-born-kids?page=2&post_number=30
19. Here you ran away from me correcting you AGAIN in that you say when unlawful acts were present, it was through judges that gave the punishment, whereas you were WRONG once again as I showed you!https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4827-what-should-we-make-of-the-passover-and-god-killing-his-peoples-first-born-kids?page=2&post_number=31
Responded :
20. I gave you a deal NOT to make you the complete Bible fool, but you threw it away and will not discuss why you did this!
21. You RAN AWAY from the biblical axiom that for Jesus to be the Messiah, he had to be through the fruit of the loins of King David!
Responded:
22. You RAN AWAY from me “schooling” you again, this time on the topic of Jesus’ genealogies
23. You have yet to address your complete RUN AWAY status on DEBATEART religion forum!
I have addressed it now. Why don't we just keep it simple now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
POST #32, YOUR COMPLETE BIBLE IGNORANCE IS SHOWING ONCE AGAIN IN STATING MARY IS FROM THE LINE OF DAVID: “Was Mary a Levite? I have not heard this thought before. Mary however did come from the fruit of David, just from a different line than Solomon.”You have never heard the biblical FACT that Mary was a Levite, and why am I not surprised because you have shown such biblical ignorance many times before! When you insidiously "try" and use Mary as a genealogy of Jesus, you forget that BOTH genealogies of Jesus in Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38 are through Joseph as biblically shown, period! Mary in being a Levite takes her out of the consideration of Jesus’ genealogy altogether,
I don't believe Mary was a Levite. If she was Jesus and his disciples would have made that claim. They did not. Hence, your last comment makes no sense.
Nowhere in the third Gospel, or in the entire New Testament for that matter, is there a claim that Mary was a descendant of the House of David. On the contrary, Luke plainly asserts that it is Joseph who was from the House of David, not Mary. “To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.” (Luke 1:27)
I would refute that. I think Luke makes the claim.
In fact, Luke claims that Mary was the cousin of Elizabeth, who he says was a descendant of Aaron the high priest, (Luke 1:5) placing her in the tribe of Levi, not David’s tribe of Judah. Moreover, in Luke 2:4, the author writes that the reason it was necessary for Joseph and Mary to return to Bethlehem was because it was Joseph, not Mary, who was from the House of David. "And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; because he was of the house and lineage of David." (Luke 2:4)
Yes, Mary is the cousin of Elizabeth. This means that either Mary's mother or father was a sister or brother of Elizabeth's mother or father. And this is only if cousin here means first cousin and not second or third or fourth. It is plausible given the age of Elizabeth as being older that she was actually a second cousin and not a first cousin. This would mean that Mary's parents might have been the nephew or niece of Elizabeth's parents. Zechariah clearly a Levite - Elizabeth is descended from Aaron. Thanks for pointing that out. I learned something today. But it is a pretty big stretch to say Mary was also a descendant of Aaron. There just is not enough evidence to rest that on. Elizabeth had two parents - one was from Aaron - the other one we don't know. We don't know the exact relationship of cousin between Mary and Elizabeth. If they were first cousins - it still is only a small chance of Aaronic connection. If second cousins which seems quite plausible given their age difference - then even more remote. The fact that neither Jesus nor his disciples nor anyone else attempts to claim Jesus as a Levite - and actually suggest very strongly that he is not - would seem to throw that connection out the window.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
YOU STATE JESUS WAS ADOPTED BY JOSEPH, THEREFORE HIS KING DAVID LINAGE,: “Joseph was not Jesus' biological parent. Joseph was Jesus' adopted parent. Joseph adopted Jesus into his family. This gave Jesus all of the rights and inheritances and titles that belonged to Joseph. This is the teaching of the Bible and the teaching of Christianity. The greater point is that Jesus by being adopted into the family of David is entitled and welcome to the title Son of David.”First thing, Joseph is Jesus’ “Step-Father” where he was not His “Paternal Father” and in no way could he adopt Jesus and fulfill the requirements for being the Messiah, understood, Bible fool? Leaving Joseph's bloodline to King David aside, which was a direct precursor for Jesus being the Messiah, Joseph could never pass to Jesus his paternal blood line in any way whatsoever because Joseph descended from Jeconiah (Matthew 1:11) and fell under the curse of that king that none of his descendants could ever sit as king upon the throne of David. (Jeremiah 22:30; 36:30).
You do realize don't you, that paternal parents do not need to adopt their children? Step parents very often adopt children. Of course Joseph could adopt Jesus. He married Mary - and knew that Jesus was not his biological child. He also heard the news of the angel and understood what needed to be done. Adopting Jesus is not passing his blood line - it is passing all of his rights and entitlements. Jeconiah was a son of David - do you deny this? Joseph was in the blood line of David. Do you deny this? It is not as though Joseph was acting on any inheritance he received from David except he was the Son of David. Yes, he went back to Bethlehem. And so Jesus was born in Bethlehem. But Jesus as an adopted son of Joseph could rightly call himself a son of David. This is the point. So your reference to Jeconiah is a red herring.
Barring the biblical axiom above, in addition let me continue, tell the membership what don’t you understand regarding that biblically Jesus’ linage had to be DIRECTLY from the “fruit of the loins according to the flesh” of King David to become the Messiah! Since Joseph did not pass Davids’ bloodline onto Jesus because of the Celestial Impregnation, he is discarded and out of the picture, period, understood Biblical fool?
What you fail to recognize is that both Matthew and Luke provide genealogies. Both go back to David. But both are different. Jesus is a child of Mary. She was not born into a vacuum. Did Luke or Matthew get the lines mixed up? I suppose that is one possibility and obviously because of your bias the way you would naturally see things. Yet, others see things differently. And this includes experts of biblical material - one of which you are not. There is sense that Jesus has two parents - and one of those at least was human. I say Mary's bloodline is reflected in Luke. Many agree - many don't. For me however, I am prepared to accept the bloodline goes back to David - although not in the kingly line. Hence your argument is refuted.
"Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;" (Romans 1:3).“Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;” (Acts 2:30)
Confirmed.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
“Some have suggested that God drowned his entire Jewish creation, including zygotes and babies in his great Flood Scenario according to Genesis 7. I would suggest that this statement is absurdly put.”
Yes, I quoted you. I did not refer to you in person because I just wanted to answer the question that you put without receiving the ABUSE that would inevitable come.
“Jesus horrifically drowned his entire JEWISH Creation, including innocent zygotes, fetus' and babies in His Great Flood scenario. (Genesis 7)
Absolutely your quote. I don't deny it. I obviously foolishly thought you wanted me to respond to your questions. Was I incorrect?
1. Tradesecret, remember when you cowardly asked me not to post to you anymore, nor post about you in your whimpering and crying statement shown below in your posts last paragraph:
I never posted anything cowardly - so no I don't remember something that never happened. Yes I did ask you to respond to me nor post anything about me. I did not want to engage with an abusive bully. That is a normal thing to do. And it remains the case. I don't have to put up with your abuse - and I am quite content to report you to the moderator. I don't have any qualms about that at all. It is not cowardly to ask bullies and fools to stop responding. Nevertheless, I still wanted to answer the question in the attempt to stop you from future bullying. Of course that did not work. And your fellow bully Stephen helped in that as well.
2. Tradesecret, remember when I honored your cowardly request that I wouldn’t make you the continued Bible fool in this forum anymore at my following link:
Again - you never honored any cowardly request because no cowardly request was ever made. If you think that this was a cowardly request then you are the paradigm example of a bully - have you stopped beating your wife?
3. Furthermore, I reiterated in the follow up link to the above that I would save you any further embarrassment and honor your cowardly request of me not making you the Bible fool anymore? Remember?
Again - no cowardly request was made - a request was made by me to you to leave me alone. As it is you have deliberately engaged with me. For the record, as I write this - this is the first time I have read this particular post of yours. I intentionally not only asked you to stop responding to me - I stopped reading any posts you wrote. You are a bore and dullard. You are abusive and to be perfectly honest - you don't actually contribute anything useful to this site. Nevertheless, you are a member and as such you are entitled to do whatever members do - I don't have to respond. I just don't have too.
Unfortunately for you, it works both ways, therefore, you posted an actual link of mine as the main topic of your thread in a disparaging way and you expect me to remain silent upon it, NOT! LOL
Exactly the kind of words that a bully would use. I have explained why I did what I did. Perhaps it was nonsense on my part but that is why I did it. It was not to engage with yuo but to attempt to address your question without being abused.
Therefore, guess what? Our deal of me continuously making you the absolute biblical fool in this forum is off, DEAL OVER! In simpler terms for you to possibly understand, you can't have your cake and eat it too, GET IT?
Except I was not having my cake and eating it. I was simply addressing your questions without abuse.
BUT, the moderators will see that I had followed your cowardly request in NOT SPECIFICALLY MENTIONING YOU BY NAME like you wanted, and that I agreed to do for you, and did, to save you tons of embarrassment! BUT, what do you do? You brought forth my link as absurd in your main topic of this thread from your embarrassing CLOSED THREAD shown in the link below where you got your ass paddled by the moderator because of your outright violation of COC rules! LOL In doing so, you threw our agreement in the trash bin, because it works both ways BIBLE FOOL!
You think so. LOL! @ you. We never had an agreement. I asked you to stop being a dick and for a couple of days you did. But then you could not resist any longer so you threw sense to the wind and just plunged right in. You of course are asking for what you will receive and I am very happy to oblige.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
"is that the death sentence in Israel was never carried out simply by people who think they have been wronged. It was not vigilante justice - it was court convened and proper legal justice - with judges."
Tell us, did the one biblical narrative of MANY relative to your topic shown below have a court convened where proper legal justice was given? NOT!"If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then hates her and accuses her of misconduct and brings a bad name upon her, saying, ‘I took this woman, and when I came near her, I did not find in her evidence of virginity,’ then the father of the young woman and her mother shall take and bring out the evidence of her virginity to the elders of the city in the gate. And the father of the young woman shall say to the elders, ‘I gave my daughter to this man to marry, and he hates her; and behold, he has accused her of misconduct, saying, “I did not find in your daughter evidence of virginity.” And yet the and they shall fine him a hundred shekels3 of silver and give them to the father of the young woman, because he has brought a bad name upon a virgin of Israel. And she shall be his wife. aHe may not divorce her all his days. But if the thing is true, that evidence of virginity was not found in the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done an outrageous thing in Israel by whoring in her father’s house. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.
Let me take a quote from the quote above. I have also underlined it for you as well - since you seem to be hard of reading. "bring out the evidence of her virginity to the elders of the city in the gate." This is exactly what I am saying. A court was convened with evidence necessary. The elders were the judges in that time.
“If a man is found lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman. So you shall purge the evil from Israel.
“If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor’s wife. dSo you shall purge the evil from your midst.
Again - do you notice where they were brought - to the gate of the city. The judges or the elders sat at the gate of the city. Go and read something about the culture. You really show you are a simpleton.
“But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death. For this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor, because he met her in the open country, and though the betrothed young woman cried for help there was no one to rescue her. (Deuteronomy 22: 13-27)
This is a statute not an example. It is like our statutes which provide what the law is. It is not providing to us an example of something that is actually happening. Duh! Go back to school.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
"In our modern world we justify the murder of millions of unborn babies on the basis that it is inconvenient to some."Jesus as our serial killer Yahweh/God incarnate controls everything, remember? Since Jesus controls LIFE (Job 12:10), and he knows EVERYTHING (1 John 3:20), then Jesus knows when he is going to spontaneously abort innocent zygotes and fetus’ from the wombs of billions of women! Therefore, one can only wonder in how many of these innocent MURDERS Jesus has done in the past and will do in the future! Jesus, not chance, decides what happens in human affairs; “The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord.”(Proverbs 16:33)“Not a single sparrow falls to the ground apart from His will.” (Matthew 10:29). “Not a single sparrow falls to the ground apart from His will.” (Matthew 10:29). In the same vein as Jesus “willing” the fall of a sparrow, he also “wills” the ABORTION of innocent zygotes and fetus’!Barring Jesus' Great Flood where he aborted hundreds of thousands of innocent zygotes and fetus' within the mothers womb, Jesus as God, is held culpable for ALL, I repeat ALL spontaneous abortions upon planet earth, period, and you have the audacity to state that millions of unborn babies are aborted on the basis that it is inconvenient to some!
It is a strange thing is it not? I say - Modern Man justifies millions of murders because it is inconvenient. Yet, the Brother rather than addressing this monstrous issue - simply rolls his eyes - thinks nothing about the fact that millions of babies are murdered and then lo and behold attempts to pin it all back on a god he does not even believe in. The audacity is amazing. In fact the irony here is that Brother actually thinks it is justified to kill millions of babies every year. Yet - inconsistently looks at God in the bible and thinks it is cruel when it is truly justified to kill all of humanity.
But look at his argument. This is just nuts. Somehow it is God's fault that people who hate God murder their babies because God controls life, knows everything, and decides what happens in human affairs. Just nuts. He forgets conveniently that this simply gives everyone a license to go out and do whatever they like - just blame it on God. Imagine if we tried this in the court room. Sorry your honor - not guilty for buggering these young children - not my fault. It is God because he controls life, knows everything and decides what happens in human affairs. It had nothing to do with me. The courts would simply throw him into prison.
The Brother's argument denies human responsibility. This is not what the Bible teaches. It teaches that each person is responsible for their own actions. Yes it teaches that God controls life, knows everything, and decides what happens in human affairs. But the Bible NEVER sees these things as contradictory even if people like Brother do. And if the Bible is going to say that God controls all things and also that humanity is responsible for their own actions - why would someone think that only half of this is true. It is either the case that both are true or that neither is true. It cannot be that one is right and one is wrong.
Of course God knows every sparrow that falls. Of course God judged the world in Noah's day killing everyone. But this does not diminish the responsibility that anyone has for their own actions. It doesn't. The world we live in does not think that - the legal world does not think that - the bible does not think that - there are just a few people who do think that - and they all have a grudge against God. They all want their cake and to eat it as well. Fools.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Tradesecret: that says kids that curse their parents should be killed!"'Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. "Leviticus 20:9“I think firstly this is talking about adult children. Not infants.”Are you calling Jesus a LIAR once again in His following direct words relating to Leviticus 20:9?! Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. (Matthew 15: 3-4)
No Jesus is not a liar. He was talking to adults and using that verse. That is the intent of the verse and it was a verse which was used to demonstrate the high value of marriage and honoring parents in the OT and kingdom dynamic. I answered numerous times. Yet you just go to "anyone". Now I freely concede I helped you out here. Freely because I have some intellectual honesty. I agreed that anyone could certainly suggest anyone including infants. But while I conceded that it could appear that way - I never agreed in any instance that it actually meant that. And I still don't. In fact I asked you to find any instance in the Bible where such a situation might have occurred involving infants and you just completely ignored it. Of course everyone else reading it - well apart from Stephen - saw the duck and weave that you did.
In any event, the OT laws considered those under the age of 20 exempt from capital punishment. This is the reason why only Joshua and Caleb as adults got to go into the promised land and every adult did not. IT is not an age of accountability - but it recognizes that there is a different criminality attached to adults as to children.
Now, tell us, what part of the word "anyone" that Jesus used in the passage above don’t you understand? The word "anyone" can include infants, toddlers, preschoolers, school-age, high schoolers AND ADULTS, therefore in an absolute sense, Jesus was not only talking about adults like you insidiously stated but infants as well!
It was not the intent of the statute - and if it was - then the words "put to death" are to be seen as a maximum penalty not as the ordinary penalty. It is clear that the way the phrase is put that it is talking covenantly. "Dying they shall be put to death" A clear Hebrew Idiom that is seen right back in the Garden of Eden. If you can use a modern day dictionary, then I can also relate our maximum penalties to the same. In fact Blackstone the great lawyer in his famous commentaries - argues that our maximum penalties arise from the Jewish OT and not the Roman Law. http://files.libertyfund.org/files/2140/Blackstone_1387-01_EBk_v6.0.pdf
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
“Having said the above, I am now going to take the prudent step of politely asking you to not to respond to my posts or to mention me in your posts. I do not appreciate being harassed. And I have copied the moderator in as well to ensure the date and time of my polite request.Per your request in your quote above, AND BEFORE I FOLLOW IT TO SAVE YOU FURTHER EMBARRASSMENT, I am going to give you one last chance to redeem yourself in front of your fellow Christians to address your RUN AWAY posts listed below! In doing so, it is NOT harassment in any way whatsoever because this is a religion discussion forum, and not a religion running away from discussion forum, understood?
This was not me throwing in the towel. It was me saying "enough is enough". I don't have to put up with your abuse. You are abusive in your so called parody. I find it repulsive even if you think it is amusing. As for me running away - if that were the case why did I then commence topic by topic dealing with the questions you suggested I did not answer. It was because I wanted to do so in a forum of non-abuse. Unfortunately, dear Stephen just took up where you left off. And he continued to goad me towards the topic which was closed in order for me to so breach some suggested agreement with you - which incidentally I have never seen. It would be nice if you could post a link to it so that everyone can see what so called agreement had been reached. So far as I knew - I had simply requested you to stop responding to me. You never did.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Tradesecret ... now states there is fiction within the scriptures!YOUR UNBELIEVABLE UNGODLY QUOTE IN YOUR POST #43: "The Bible is not a fictional book. Parts of it might be."WTF? How could say such an ungodly statement?! Do you need this adage explained to you? Huh? You therefore put a chink in the armor of Christianity by your Devil Speak that "PART OF THE FAITH IS FICTIONAL!"Does a TRUE Christian like me have to remind you of the following passages?“EVERY word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.“ (Proverbs 30:5)Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.” (Matthew 4:4)So, according to your thinking, and that every word of Jesus is flawless, then this includes the FICTIONAL words as well and the FICTIONAL words from Jesus mouth since He inspired the entire Bible?! (2 Peter 1:20-21)
The Bible contains lots of different genres within it. It has 66 books by approximately 40 different authors - written over several thousand years. It has poetry. It has prophecy. It has history. It contains statutes and legislation as well as the odd court case. It has parables and stories. It even contains an entire book of songs. It has wisdom literature and proverbs.
The Word of God is flawless. Just because God chooses to speak in different ways to different people does not prevent it from being flawless. Nor does it stop people from using it as shield. I entirely am of the view that the bible is God breathed. I just don't agree that every word is meant to be read or taken literally. Literalism is a modern concept - not an ancient one.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
I checked those links you have given regarding Tradesecret being the #1 Bible ignorant fool on this forum. Didn't you love this outstanding statement when he said "For God to do supernatural things would be to suggest that God is some type of superman. He is not."
HUH?!!! The serial killer Christian God named Yahweh/Jesus only created the entire universe of billions of light years in size, flooded the entire world and murdered His entire creation, including innocent babies, caused sickness in His plagues, AND GOD IS NOT SUPERHUMAN? !!!ROFLOL!!! OMG! No pseudo-christian is this dumbfounded, therefore this proves once again that Tradesecret is a POE/Parody in being a fake Christian to make fun of the faith!As shown in the following link, Tradesecret continually RUNS AWAY from my posts relating to Jesus' true words within the scriptures, where I have listed 8 of them at this time, and they will continue to grow in number because what he thought he knew about the faith, he embarrassingly didn't. LOL
I repeat God is not superhuman. He is God. He is divine. To say he is superhuman is the dumb response. Do we say birds are superhuman because they fly? No. Do we say fish are superhuman because they can swim underwater for hours? No. Do we say that Chameleons are superhuman because they change their color to adapt to their surroundings? No. God is not superhuman because he does things which Gods do. It is just dumb to say otherwise. At least try and given an explanation - that might provide some reason. But no and true to form - the Brother just asserts - never answers a question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
YOUR WANT TO BE CORRECT QUOTE: "This is an amazing picture of how God deals with mercy and kindness towards even the enemy. And to say otherwise - simply is nonsense."Can you try and keep a straight face and tell us how did Yahweh/Jesus/Ghost show mercy to the innocent zygotes, fetus' and babies that did not know our aforementioned named God to begin with to believe in Him, by brutally drowning them in his Great Flood as their mothers watched in horror?
Again I am not required to answer a question just because you ask me too. I indicated in the context to the question at hand about how Israelite military treated captured females. That is where my response was too. I did not assert in that sentence that EVERY PASSAGE in the bible shows mercy and kindness. I said in that particular context it demonstrates the same. I know you hated my response which is why you had to take it to another passage because you could see the logic of my reasoning.
In relation to Noah's flood, every creature and human not in the Ark died. It was judgment after warning after warning against the evil that was in every person's heart.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
What part of my post #51 above didn’t you understand? Do you need help with the english language once again? Since you are in my thread pertaining to the biblical axiom that EVERYONE is going to heaven without believing in Jesus the Christ?
I ask you, what is your next EXCUSE for not discussing Jesus’ inspired words in 1 Timothy 4:10 within my initial post of this thread? SCARED AGAIN? LOL
Timothy 4:10
And for this we labor and strive, that we have put our hope in the Living God, who is the savior of all men, and especially of those who believe".
You it seems are arguing that since Paul indicates that Jesus is the savor of all men - that this must mean salvation from Hell. Ok. So if this is the case - can you prove it please?
And when you do - please comment on the qualifier in the verse which talks of "especially, those who believe"? After all, this must mean something. I would take the view that this especially is talking of special grace - and the the former is talking of common grace. In other words, JEsus coming to this world has saved all people from the previous and total sin of the world - enabling his grace to shine into the world in a new way. And this is true, isn't? Slavery has been seriously dented. Longer life is apparent all over the world. Freedoms have started which would never have been known without Jesus. Females have rights. Children have rights. Blacks have rights. So from the time of Christ until now - and while there is life on this planet - the world is being saved - not from Hell of course, but from sin.
And then because the second part of the verse - talks of especially of those who believe - which must have some meaning so as to make it "especially" refers to the special grace that Christians receive by trusting in Jesus. Special grace and common grace,
But not that everyone goes to Heaven - I think you should stop eating pizza before you go to bed.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Why do you conintue to clog up my thread with your OFF TOPIC comical acceptance of infants were placed upon the ark in the number of 98,000 like you said, and the direct ramifications thereof?! YOU COULD HAVE STOPPED AT YOUR RUNAWAY POST #8 TO THE MAIN TOPIC! When I posted my #9 post in response, the only thing that I did was casually mention my number one favorite of your comical rewrites of the Bible was said infants were loaded on the Ark. You could have said to take the conversation to the appropriate thread to make you the continued Bible fool that you are!NOW, SINCE YOU REMAIN IN MY THREAD REGARDING EVERYONE IS GOING TO HEAVEN, INCLUDING NON-BELIEVERS AND YOU AS A CHRISTIAN POE IN MAKING FUN OF CHRISTIANITY, THEN CHAIN UP AND DISCUSS THE THREADS TOPIC!
I did not run away from the topic. I thought it was simply bait. And I did not feel like engaging with you since you don't actually engage - but shoot from the hip.
I think probably you had too much pizza the night before - which is why in your prayer you heard God talking to you. I don't believe in fresh revelation - so there is nothing for me to add to your so called prayer - except it contradicts the Bible. John 3:16 is a good example.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
YOUR DEFINING GOD QUOTE WHICH IS LAUGHABLE: “For God to do supernatural things would be to suggest that God is some type of superman. He is not. He is divine. Divine beings doing things which divine beings do - they are not miraculous per se.”please address why Jesus hasn’t produced another flood to murder the inhabitants of planet earth AGAIN!
“The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.” (Genesis 6:5-6)Barring the biblical axiom that our Yahweh/Jesus/Spirit is omniscient, therefore knowing that His JEWISH creation were going to be terribly evil in the future, was just another insidious set-up to murder them. Why hasn’t Jesus flooded the world again today? Per capita, the evil in this world is thousands of times greater than it was in biblical times when it was nothing for Jesus to pull the trigger to flood humanity!
It is because he is patient with you - not willing that any would perish. 2 Peter 3:8-9.
He also promised he would never send another flood to wipe out the world. He keeps his promises because he can be trusted. And do you seriously want him to send another flood?
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
" I also notice that the apologist here have given the OP a very wide birth."As I have shown in my initial post, I knew the Bible ignorant Tradesecret could never address the outright outcome of 1 Timothy 4:10,
Can you explain what that verse has to do with anything?
Therefore, he owes me! LOL.
I don't owe you anything.
I still say that Tradesecret is an outright POE/Parody of a pseudo-christian, because who other than a POE would make such fun of the Christian faith like he has explicitly done in his comical Noahan Flood posts?
I am not a parody. That is your character.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Barring Tradesecrets biblical ignorance in the numbers game relative to Genesis 7:2, therefore, we will use his exact numbers relative to his comical Bible rewrite of the amount of infant animals upon the ark.
Tradesecet says there were 98,000 animals upon the Ark: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1097-why-should-we-take-the-story-of-noah-as-literal?page=5&post_number=105
In turn, you NEVER demonstrated BIBLICALLY where Noah put 98,000 infants upon the Ark in an absolute manner, do you understand this simple return deduction, or do you need further help, Mr. attorney?
“I also know that many infants in our world survive without their mothers so far as their are others who are willing to take on that role. And in the story of Noah - there are 8 people who are willing to take on that role. AND who would do well in the circumstances.”
In relation to your quote above, you are to answer the following to "TRY" and save what face you have left within this forum:
Actually I don't have to do anything of a sort. This is your bugbear. Not mine. What occurred in that previous post - was that you were attempting to mock the story because you could see no way that any of the large beasts and fish in this world could fit into the Ark. My response was simply to counter with the idea that there was no commandment that they had to be adults - but could be infants. This befuddled you - because you had never even considered that idea.
I had previously indicated I did not have all of the answers to all of the questions about the ark and even indicated the language might be poetry. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1097/post-links/196502; https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1097/post-links/196723.
1. How did Noah determine clean and unclean infant animals upon the Ark X 98,000 “kinds?”
The same way that Moses determined it years after this time. God told him.
2. How many specific infants out of the 98,000 animals have the ability to survive without their mothers milk for 371 DAYS UPON THE WATERS with only one pair of unclean animal to feed upon?! How many Zoologist fool?!
I don't know. How many non-adult animals require milk?
3. Logically, how did the 8 people you mentioned upon the Ark take care of 98,000 infant animals for 371 days upon the waters in giving them food and the clean up thereafter, let alone themselves?
I don't have an answer and I don't need to answer it. It changes nothing for me either way. It is your bugbear, not mine. How is it possible for evolution to occur? Statistically impossible. Does the fact that you can't answer that - mean you throw evolution away or think it is less of a fairy tail?
4. Within the 8 people upon the Ark, and with the said 98,000 infants you proposed, did the women folk BREAST FEED these 98,000 motherless infants 3-4 time per day as normal, and where said women DO NOT have the genetic antibodies that are needed for that specific "kind" of animals immune system?
Same as for the last answer. I had said well before this that I don't have an answer - and that I don't particularly need one. No one has all the answers for all the absurdities about philosophy or science or evolution - we just say - let's just wait a bit longer and perhaps - an answer might present itself. We don't however just throw out our entire doctrine just because there are some difficulties to do with it. My doctrine is not dependent upon being able to answer every question about Noah's Ark.
5. Subsequent to the Ark reaching dry land, how are these 8 individuals going to teach 98,000 infant animals to hunt for their prey? Huh? Does drawing the short straw tell that person they have to head beyond the Arctic Circle to teach the polar bears how to hunt? Do you understand your laughable premise yet?
A laughable premise - do you mean like the odds or probability that evolution might occur? Like someone winning tatts every second of every day for a million years. That is not at all laughable - LOL! But hey let's go with Noah's Ark being laughable.
“As for the notion that mothers need to be their to protect them - eh what? a new world with only animals from the ark - not a heck of a lot of other animals to protect them from - and ah what - the other animals are infants - so not too dangerous yet?The 98, 000 infant animals of various “kinds” upon the ark have to be the same animals that are present today. Therefore, as only one example, the gazelles upon the ark need protection from the lions, and so on and so forth, Then you take the remaining “kinds” where they have to be protected from their known predators as well!
My response is that I don't need to respond to every detail about every incident. I really don't and I do not plan too. This is not about avoiding the question it is about saying I don't have an answer - but that it does not matter to me, presently. It may well be that someday, someone might address it - I do not have to be the one to do it. Just like you won't be the one to figure out evolution. Or how nothing was there and then for no particular reason - nothing exploded. And no one is expecting you to answer that question or even have an inkling about it - because it does not matter whether you have every answer - for you to believe it. Which you do blindly and by faith.
:“Your argument is baseless and you know it. It sucks doesn't when a creationist - although I am not one - beats you up with logic.”We ask you, where do you get this authority to change adult animals for infant ones? TELL US!
My point was simple - the bible does not command that there must be ADULT animals. You assumed adult animals because you so much wanted to mock. The notion of the animals being infants did not even enter your brain - and when it did - it bamboozled you. That's ok. All this really shows is your bias - and your inability to actually think things through by yourself. Not that you cannot think - but that you just read what others have written and when someone goes away from their narrative - it bamboozles you. Again that is ok. But it is bias.
Therefore, will you take it upon yourself to lobby your fellow equally Bible inept pseudo-christians throughout the world that what has been perceived in your opinion over the millenniums in only showing ONE PAIR OF ADULT ANIMALS entering the Ark is blatantly wrong, where you explicitly state it should be 98,000 "infant animals" loading upon Noah's ark instead! YES? MAYBE? LOL!
Why? It is not my bug bear - I am quite happy for people to come to their own conclusions. They don't need my help.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
"God does not make it a habit of interfering in the ordinary things of life in relation to suffering. He does and has sometimes. But he is not obligated to do so. He is under no jurisdiction to do so."First off, you erroneously state that our serial killer Jesus, as Yahweh God incarnate, "does not interfere in ordinary things of life in relation to suffering," THEN YOU CONTRADICT THIS STATEMENT BY STATING; "He does and has sometimes!" LOL! Therefore, where do you actually stand upon this topic?! As expected, the pseudo-christian like you wants it both ways to try and save your further embarrassment to biblical axioms! Priceless.
Please re-read my statement. I said God does not making it a habit of interfering - I never said he did not involved himself. I know you can read - but deliberately misquoting me is your bad not mine. I am not asking for it both ways. I am merely noting that Jesus did walk on the water - but every other time he took the boat.
Tradesecret, Yahweh/Jesus most certainly has interfered in the ordinary things of life relating to His Jewish creations SUFFERING.
Yes, I know that is what I said. I can't help it that you can't read. Duh!
1. Jesus commanded that babies would be smashed to pieces, and their women ripped open (Hosea 13:16).
Responded to this already. Devoted an entire topic to it. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4792-does-god-command-babies-be-smashed-and-their-women-ripped-open.
2. Jesus horrifically drowned his entire JEWISH Creation, including innocent zygotes, fetus' and babies in His Great Flood scenario. (Genesis 7)
Answered again - devoted an entire topic to it. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4793-did-god-drown-his-jewish-creation-including-in-noahs-ark
3. Jesus brutally slays the fruit of the womb of the women in Ephraim. (Hosea 9:11-16)
Hosea 9:7 explains clearly that this is not unjust - but in fact is a punishment and a day of reckoning because their sins are so great as well as their hostility. And in fact it is a warning. Like every prophecy - it is not primarily foretelling - but forthtelling. That means - to the listener - listen up and repent of your sins - turn back to God or else you will find yourself weighed and found wanting. Ephraim refused to turn away from their sins - so the entire nation fell under judgment. From the mightiest man and king to the weakest and most vulnerable female and child. If only Ephraim had turned from their wickedness - then their punishment would not have come. Question is - how do nations get judged? One way is by way of foreign nations - heathens - and atheists and those with foreign gods marching in with out regret and remorse and taking and slaughtering and killing all and plundering. When a people rejects God - his blessing of protection is lifted and he allows - permits them to live according to their own steam and with the protection of their own gods, and humanistic thinking. This is what happened here. They rejected God - and so according to v. 17 which you omitted to refer to - God rejected them because they did not obey him. This was a just punishment - and was of their own doing. They rejected God - they rejected his blessing and his protection and so God accepted their request to leave them alone. In doing so - their enemies killed and plundered and slaughtered them. So Jesus - or God did not slay the fruit of these women. He allowed them to live as they wanted without his protection. In other words - it was their own doing.
4. Jesus commands the death to helpless “suckling” infants (1 Samuel 15:3).
Yes, read the context - v 2 says why God orders this punishment on the Amalekites. Because they the Amalikites waylaid the People of God on their way up from Egypt. If the Amalakites had left them alone - then this would not have been required. The unfortunate thing here is Saul - the king of Israel did not comply with God's commandments - and this non-compliance has caused Israel regret ever since. Is it unjust? I say no. But the context is that God ordered everything to be put to death - not just infants - all humans and all property. Moving down to v. 23 Samuel explains to Saul why this was wrong. IT is rebellion. Divination. A rejection of the Word of God.
5. Jesus is praised for slaughtering the innocent first born. (Psalms 135:8 & 136:10)
Just plain wrong. GOD is praised for delivering his people from the Egyptians and their slavery. I suppose you would think it wrong to thank people who ended slavery.
The Egyptians were warned and commanded to let God's people go and they refused to do so. They were also warned that unless they listened to GOD's plea that their firstborn children and animals would die. A warning to the king who refused means that he and his people are not innocent but stubborn and disobedient. They trusted in their own gods and their own gods were proven to be weak and useless. Both verses relate the same information. And the same response is - that this is a situation where the people of Egypt and their king refused to listen to God - so God made them listen. God made a threat and carried it out. The gods of the nations - could do nothing to protect their slaves - This demonstrates the awesomeness and overwhelming superiority of the God of Israel. The God who protects his own people.
6. Jesus commands that infants should be “dashed upon the rocks.” (Psalms 137:9) Ever wonder in what that would sound like? Maybe a watermelon being dropped on a huge rock? What do you think? Huh?
This Psalm is a song by the Israelites who had been taken into captive by the Babylonians. A song by God's people showing remorse for their own sins - and for turning away from God, A song whereby they are seeking God to have take vengeance on their behalf. There is no command in here from God that any should dash anyone upon the rocks. This song is a song by the captives of Israel seeking justice. It is not God saying to do anything.
7. Jesus commanded that children shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.” (Isaiah 13:15-16)
This chapter is a prophecy against Babylon. It is talking in one sense of the day that the Medes would take over Babylon, v.17. It contains significant imagery depicting God's judgment on that land, using heavenly language, v 3, 9; using de-creation language, v. 10-13, it refers back to Sodom and Gomorrah - v. 19. All of these images are depicting that the God of Heaven is going to judge Babylon for its wickedness. In another sense it is talking about the end of the world. v.11 says - he will punish the world for its evil.
In this sense - what is happening here is no different to Noah's flood. God punishes the wicked for their rebellion against God. And it stands as a warning for anyone who rejects God. It always amazes me that he does not just wipe us out all now. But to say that God is commanding children to be dashed is somewhat misleading. God is not simply or only asking for them to be killed - but that the entire nation is destroyed. He is saying - no one will be spared. If God asked for the children to be killed and let everyone else live - this would I think bring a cruelty above what is natural. In the context - it is not God's people doing the killing - it is the Medes in the first instance - who just went about doing what they normally do - something the Babylonians would be well aware of - because they themselves were well known to do this to their enemies - it is in one sense a picture of "he who lives by the sword dies by the sword".
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Seriously, have you ever thought about going into “Christian Stand-up Comedy” relative to your spin doctoring and the rewriting of the Christian Bible and religion? All you would have to do is act naturally with your assumed knowledge about the Bible and the earthly entities outside of the Bible! You would have sell out crowds, where people would be lining up for your Christian Comedy Shows as shown alone in your posts relative to Noah's ark! You are truly missing your calling!Listen, I could take time away from my Greyhound Bus Depot Ministries, my Nevada State Brothel Ministries, and my ever so popular, Nudest Camp Ministries to be your road manager. We would make millions of dollars on your Satanic Devil Speak apologetics and Satanic spin doctoring!Give it a serious thought, okay? Thanks.
Again no need to respond to such comments.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
There is nothing to thank you for.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
"Jesus rising from the dead is not a miracle. It was always going to happen because he had not committed sin"how can Jesus in His Triune Doctrine not have committed any sins? As if Jesus' presence in the Old Testament wasn't sinful enough with his brutal killings of the innocents, how about the time in the New Testament when Jesus said this to His disciples: JESUS SAID: “I tell you that everyone who has will be given more; but the one who does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. And these enemies of mine who were unwilling for me to rule over them, bring them here and slay them in front of me. After Jesus had said this, He went on ahead, going up to Jerusalem.….” ( Luke 19:26-28)Jesus must have had enough of His murdering ways, as Yahweh God incarnate, in the Old Testament, so by proxy He wants His disciples to murder for Him! LOL. Even when uttering such a statement from Jesus as shown, IT IS A SIN to want others do your bidding for you in the way of murder!Yes, we know, this parable is related to Jesus' 2nd coming, it is attributed to Jesus, and it is spoken by Jesus, nonetheless, it is SINFUL to state that Jesus wants His disciples to murder His enemies, especially when Jesus says to love your enemies, what a hypocritical irony from the mouth of Jesus ( Matthew 5:44-45 )!
I said Jesus did not sin. Brother alleges without any justification - not proves - that Jesus sinned because in a parable about the second coming, he symbolized as a king with all the powers and rights of a king to execute all treasonable offences, asks his servants or soldiers or whoever has the power to arrest them, to bring lawful execution on his enemies. Further, the Brother alleges without any justification- again not proves - that even conceding this is a parable and talking about the second coming that this is inconsistent with with loving your enemies and hypocritical. I assume that the Brother is alleging that hypocrisy is sinful.
In the first place - Jesus as King is lawfully able to execute anyone who commits treason. No Sin there. Secondly, Any one who the king delegates responsibility to do the executing is lawful. Again no sin there. Thirdly, The question of loving your enemies is a historical one - not an eternal one. The purpose is to bring your enemy to Christ. If at the end of history the enemy has not responded to the love of GOD and his people during history, then it is just to execute the enemy - who have shown no desire to run from their treason. No sin there either. The issue is - to be loving to your enemy in history - but in eternity - to show your enemy justice.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
"And the other thing you conveniently leave out is that I have said on numerous occasions that there is no significant reason why a infant T Rex could not have been included on the ark. It was not necessary to take adults. At least give your responses some dignity."To address your blatant biblical circular reasoning in wanting Noah to load only “infants” of the "kinds" of 7000 animals that you promoted, and to support your wanting proposition to fit all of the 126,000 “kinds” of animals per Genesis 7:2 upon the Ark, I’ll give you some science facts,.animal infants without their FULL GROWN MOTHERS are lacking child-rearing regimens from 1 year and beyond, of the mothers sustenance, the teaching of hunting skills, and where all mothers teach their young to be independent, productive adults who can support themselves in their given environment. Therefore, without the "infants" ADULT MOTHERS rearing regimens, and being upon the waters for 371 days, these animal infants would be dead before they saw dry land!!!
Brother, thanks for the science lesson. But unfortunately, just because you make such an assertion does not make it true. Please prove your point. I by the way, am able to accept that some of the animals were full grown, some infants, and some somewhere on the line between newborn and full grown.
,then what you are saying is that the following images within the links below of ADULT ANIMALS X 2 loading upon Noah’s Ark are WRONG over the years? WTF!
Answers in genesis can say what ever they like. - I don't base my theology or my philosophy on an image from their site nor their theology. They are not the bible. They don't have any authority over me. They may well be wrong. It is irrelevant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Therefore I will easily show you that Mary was in fact a Levite, and that Luke was a Jew, SUBSEQUENT to you addressing EVERY POST of yours listed below that have been directed by me to you!
SO, this is your way of saying you can't prove it?
Ok.
This of course demonstrates yet another post you won't answer or can't answer. Unlike you, though I don't keep a score. I always thought the person who kept score reveals much about themselves. Intriguing really.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
“Dear Brother D Thomas, perhaps you might ponder about whether you really want me to respond to you or not?” It seems to me and I suspect to the majority of the forum site that I am not running awayWTF! LOL! I have been trying to make you respond to me ... i
If you want to have a discussion with me - have one. Just stop with the unnecessary comments. Stop repeating your lies that I am running away.
In fact this forum is very aware of the fact that I called you out - even devoting an entire post to demonstrate every one of your fibs to be untrue.'Why don’t you bring forth this alleged “Thread” that you claim is calling me out?
Obviously because it is now a closed link because I did not technically with the Code. But we both know it is there. And I do not believe referring to it breaches the code - but referencing it might. Who knows?
“You made the assertion about woman. Not me. I admit I responded - but it is clear Paul was talking to Christians within Christians circles and churches.”No dear, Jesus’ inspired words about your 2nd class Bible status as a woman and I made this assertion, understood? Yes, Paul within the church stated specifically that YOU and other Bible 2nd class women are NOT, I repeat, NOT to teach or usurp the authority over the godly man, but to be in silence, understood? Again, what part of this passage don’t you understand since your Sister Eve is responsible for the original sin, and where you degrading womanly status began?
Ok - you want to play it that way. I reject your position. Justify it. What does usurping authority mean? It is also good to see that you notice it refers to the godly man and not everybody. Thanks for the concession. I underlined your words just in case you missed it.
“ Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.” (1 Timothy 2:11-15 )
When the woman is learning in silence - where is she? There must be times when she is not learning but putting things into practice. And when she is teaching she is not learning. is she? So even from this position - that you are bringing it does not address the fact that all believers are called to sing and to pray. Singing and praying are not silent acts in church. So Paul provides exemptions. Paul also says that elder women should teach younger women. The only place forbidden for the woman to teach is in a didactic setting - preaching to the congregation. And you have not shown otherwise with your cherry picking.
"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man;and the head of Christ is God." (I Corinthians 11:3)
So as it looks:
God - Head of Christ
Jesus - head of the church
Men - Head of women
Children
Employees
Yes, we see a hierarchy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
So again I see you have no case at all in the Bible to prove
- Mary was a Levite
- Luke was a Jew
Both your assertions which I denied.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
But I eagerly wait you evidence that Luke was a Greek.Ha Ha. I don't have to prove what is the status quo.No evidence then. Why doesn't that surprise anyone..at all.And I am not going to be bothered doing it for you. You know as well as I do that he was a Greek.On the contrary. I believe Luke was Jew with a capitol J.
I am not going to bother with your games. You looked at the commentaries and you know what they say. This is why you said "not all the commentaries will agree with you". https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4858/post-links/206623 Luke is a Greek name. Luke wrote in a more classical style of Greek than the Jewish writers did. Luke is traditionally a Gentile by all of the early church and the consensus of the church. I said all of the commentaries. I have never seen anywhere but you declaring otherwise, sorry and the Brother, otherwise. There is NO evidence that he was Jew or even a Hellenized Jew. I cannot prove or disprove a negative. This means that you must believe in blind faith that Luke was Jew.
As for Jesus - of the line of David. I think we both agree with that.GOOD! As was Joseph. So how then can Jesus also be a priest when he had no connection to the house/tribe of Levi, Aaron and "his decedents" .
Let me refer you back to the following:
“Only the tribe of Levi you shall not number, nor shall you take their census among the sons of Israel. But you shall appoint the Levites over the tabernacle of the testimony, and over all its furnishings and over all that belongs to it. They shall carry the tabernacle and all its furnishings, and they shall take care of it; they shall also camp around the tabernacle.
What do you think that has to with Jesus?
“For they [the Levites] are wholly given over to Me from among the children of Israel; instead of those that open the womb all the firstborn of Israel I have taken them for Myself . . .” The monopoly of the priesthood was given to Aaron
Again, what you think that this verse is saying about Jesus?
You want it all ways yet Jesus himself makes it clear that he hasn't come to "change the law". Mattew 5:17
What law do you think I am suggesting Jesus has changed?
The books of Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers maintain that Aaron received from God a monopoly over the priesthood for himself and his male descendants (Exodus 28:). The family of Aaron had the exclusive right and responsibility to make offerings on the altar to Yahweh.
Where does it say this? Don't just assert it. I will wait patiently for your response.
Jesus being baptised or ordained as a priest - does not make him a Levite Priest.Ok then what kind of priest was he? Keeping in mind the orders of god and also and that it was his law that Jesus coming to "fulfill".
See above. I have discussed this before.
And let us not forget that you haven't even proven that Jesus's baptism by John was a ritual anointing Jesus king, prophet and priest as you have claimed several times now here>>#2
I have shown the link to the priesthood. Jesus was without sin but needed to baptised to fulfil the law. I pointed us back to the law in the OT which describes age, male, and water ceremony. Unless you can demonstrate as to why this is not the case - the question and link is established.
As for the kingship - my reference initially was in relation to king's being anointed by a prophet. Most of Israel considered John the B a prophet. Jesus did. Jesus was of the line of David. It was witnessed by the crowd, but more importantly by God the Father, and the Holy Spirit. Is there more than this necessary to answer the question. Obviously, the state of Israel did not accept it at the time. Nor did Jesus ever lay any right as the king of Israel.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I hear what you say. I am not persuaded by it at all. Nevertheless, I am prepared to accept it on good faith - and the condition that you stop accusing me of lying, to put it aside.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I really don't see what you point is.
I do hold to the view that a person who baptizes another ought to be baptized themselves. Yet, I also think that there is no specific power in baptism since it is a symbolic picture of a far more important baptism. Yes, in the main, but with exceptions, baptism is to do with sin and even the remittance of sins. Yet, even this is gets screwed up by many because as John says - his baptism is deficient - which is why a greater one with a greater baptism is coming. In what way was his baptism deficient? It was washing on the outside -and it is the heart which is the problem.
The most important baptism in the NT is at Pentecost. This is the baptism that Jesus baptized with the Holy Spirit. This is the paradigm, not John's.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Agree in principle.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Well that is not at all true. Very selective memory you have there. No surprises though.I fact this is a deliberate lie to make it look like the Brother was running scared from you when the truth was about face. The Brother didn't seem to care either way.The thread was actually flagged by someone else as "a call out thread"#2 and BEFORE the Brother had even posted on the thread. I won't ask that you apologise to the Brother, fake Christians can never do that. But I will say stop with your lies just for once!!!!
Read it however you like. The fact is I started that thread to address the Brother's questions. Although he did not call out my thread initially. Once it was called out - he did as best he could to try and have me banned. And you joined in as well. If he were wanting me to answer - he would not have tried to get me banned.
I don't recall in any post on that topic - that he wanted the mods to leave it alone so that I could respond. The only logical conclusion is he did not want me to respond.
I don't recall you doing the same either. The fact is - you wanted me to be banned for breaching the rules. And the only conclusion that makes sense about that is that you wanted me gone.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Ha Ha.
I don't have to prove what is the status quo. And I am not going to be bothered doing it for you. You know as well as I do that he was a Greek.
As for Jesus - of the line of David. I think we both agree with that.
Jesus being baptised or ordained as a priest - does not make him a Levite Priest. I fail to see what the rest of that paragraph is trying to achieve. I agree that most if not all priests in Israel were Levites. This is not the issue. The issue is that Jesus was not a priest in the Order of Levi. He was not a Levite. This is why I pointed the passages in Hebrews which also says the same thing. Jesus was a priest in the order of Melchizadek. A priesthood older than Levi and older than Israel.
The NT recognizes that Jesus was not a priest in the order of Aaron of Levi.
This is another reason - why despite your reference about Jesus coming to the Jews only - misses the point. Even in the passage Jesus says that, he ministers to a Gentile lady. I know Jesus said it - and he did - and the gospel did go firstly to the Jews. But it did not stop there. And if the point that you are laboring over MEANS that Jesus did not have ANY Gentiles in mind - then he would not have helped and ministered to the Gentiles at all. You need to be able to explain why he did on many occasions - all through the gospels minister to the Gentiles if his mission was not for the Gentiles as well.
His priesthood is of a nature older than Israel. He ministers to more than the Jews.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Evolution is the paradigm example of confirmation bias. Next comes the global climate change.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
But can you please direct me to any passage that says that Elizabeth or Mary were Levites, apart from Elizabeth being married to a Levite?I didn't say they were. What I did do was ask a question concerning a remark that you made.
Ok.
Here it is. Take not of all the bold especially.Was Mary a Levite? I have not heard this thought before.#35 Yes, I can believe that.
Ok.
Although you have said on another thread that you believe Jesus was a prophet, Priest & king.#2 ( I too happen to believe the latter two). And I thought that it was common knowledge to know all Christians that to be a true priest in those times, one had to be of the family of Arron, said to be a Levite or " of the tribe of Levi". And wasn't the priestly covenant, the biblical covenant given by god to Aaron and his descendants only? In other words only those of the line of Arron could be Priests as those of the line of David "the lion of Judah" could only be kings ( aka sons of god).
Ok.
The Brother did say it. I am happy to agree with you that you did not say it. I don't care really. Mary was not a Levite.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I was under the impression that only men were Levites.... A bit sexist I know, but the bible is extremely sexist.
Yes - the Levite Priests were men. But there were female Levites. Levi was a tribe of Israel. It was a priestly tribe. Just go back and read the story of Moses and his sister - and mother - all were considered Levites. Although it was not until their brother Aaron was declared to be a priest that the tribe became the tribe known for priests. Again not everyone born into the tribe was a priest - but it was the tribe from whence priests came. And yet also - each of the other tribes also gave up some of their own to join the tribe as well - as part of their devotion to God.
I reject that the bible is sexist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
“And what you seem to miss on every occasion because of your sheer cleverness is that Luke was not a Jew and was not writing to Jews. So the Hebrew Tradition in that era was not relevant. He was writing too Gentiles. So this refutes entirely your argument. Surely even you in all of your cleverness can see this?”It matters not in who Luke was writing too, but what he was writing about, ! He was writing about JEWS through the linage of JOSEPH in Luke 3: 23-38, and NOT Mary like you Satanically propose and still laugh at! Furthermore, all Gentiles of the "circumcision" were to follow ALL Jewish traditions, and that includes the linage of their families had to be through their fathers.
It matters very much he was writing to because Gentiles would not understand any of the traditions of the Jews. It was unimportant to them. Obviously what he was saying was important - but every speaker or writer is communicating directly to the people he or she is writing. Otherwise he is just a bell making noise. And as for suggesting that all Gentiles of the "circumcision" were to follow Jewish traditions - prove it. The fact is - the people Luke were writing to were not Gentiles of the Circumcision. They were Gentiles - who were not Jews - and mostly likely in Rome or Greece or Turkey. And given that you raised this particular alleged fact - the onus is on you to prove it.
Furthermore, LUKE WAS A JEW to begin with and NOT a Gentile like you erroneously propose to save face within this forum. The idea that Luke was a Gentile is based on nothing more than your wishful thinking, and as usual, without substantiating your Devil Speak claim!
Luke was a Greek Doctor. Every commentator affirms this. But since you reject this - please provide even one credible sources who agrees with you?
Heads up, remember when Paul asks the question, “What advantage has the Jew?” His answer was “Much every way, chiefly because that unto them were committed the oracles of God” (Rom. 3:1–2). Therefore, the MAIN advantage that Paul refers too and recognizes in regards to Jesus’ chosen Jewish people above all others, was that when Jesus gave revelation as Yahweh God incarnate to the Hebrew human race, He gave it to and through the Jews ONLY,?
I think your argument is that GOD only the Jews to write words of Scripture. Yet that is not what is arguing? His point was the that the Words of God - the oracles of God have been entrusted to the Jewish nation. And he was referring in particular to the OT. He was not referring to the authors- given that Job was not a Jew. And there are other non-Jewish contributors the texts - take Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 4 for instance. Not to mention Ruth. The point is you are grasping at straws because Luke the Gentile is writing to Gentiles not to Jews - and that your argument holds no water at all.
Yahweh/Jesus DID NOT use the Gentile people in any way whatsoever for this purpose of revelation because the Jews were the vehicle for said revelation. Therefore in your embarrassing accounting of Luke allegededly being a Gentile and proffering revelation in Josephs linage in Luke 3, is once again on your part, A FARCE! Either Luke has to be a Jew to speak of revelation of Josephs linage in Luke 3, or if Luke is a Gentile like you comically propose, then when he speaks of revelation of the linage of Joseph, it is moot!
Not true. Luke was a Gentile. There is not a scrap of evidence otherwise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
@BrotherDThomas
SO I take it - then that neither of you are able to find any evidence in the Bible that either Elizabeth or Mary was a Levite?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I do in fact. You did not exist for billions of years before your birth and were quite unbothered by it so I wager when you don't exist for billions of years after your death you will find it equally untroubling. Also have you heard the good news? No god(s) are waiting to throw you into eternal torment after you die for real or imagined transgressions you can neither avoid nor understand. In fact I find the whole idea of heaven and hell to be very disquieting and I don't think Christians have much to offer that counts as comfort when examined logically whether they are correct or not.
With great respect - there is no comfort in anything you have mentioned. To tell me that I am nothing more or less than the rest of the universe simply tells me that I am meaningless. It tells me that my life on earth is not worth the effort of the struggles I will inevitably face or that my children will face. And further more to put it in the context of eternity really only gives a depth of despair that is overwhelming. Just because I did not find something troubling in the past and I will not find it troubling in the future does not take the struggle or the grief that comes with the knowledge of lost ones or me.
The good news of the Gospel is not about heaven or hell. That misses the point. It is about reconciliation with God. I would see no point in heaven unless there was reconciliation with God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Dear Hellbound woman, where does it state that you as a 2nd class woman are not to teach believers, and in addition, and as shown, I have forgotten more about the Bible than you will ever learn, where the proof of this proposition, is that you have RUN AWAY from the majority of my posts where I have shown you to be the Bible fool! LOL
Dear Brother D Thomas, perhaps you might ponder about whether you really want me to respond to you or not? It seems to me and I suspect to the majority of the forum site that I am not running away. In fact this forum is very aware of the fact that I called you out - even devoting an entire post to demonstrate every one of your fibs to be untrue. And what did you do? You had a little cry about it. You did everything you could do to close me down. You cried "foul". That topic which remains for all to see - is a testament to the fact that I did not run away but in fact welcomed the opportunity to respond to you and your errors.
So everytime you repeat your tired old cliches', it just reminds us all of who really ran away.
I am not perturbed by your endless nonsense. You made the assertion about woman. Not me. I admit I responded - but it is clear Paul was talking to Christians within Christians circles and churches. (1 Timothy 2:11-15 ) is a good start. I don't hold to the non-thinking position that a suitable verse answers everything. I don't personally go looking for verses that support my position. Anyone can find a quote in the bible and then twist it the way they like. I suggest try reading it in context. That normally brings out the meaning. But why I should I tell you how to suck eggs? You can read can't you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
What? So, a teacher that is a female cannot teach a Christian kid? That makes no sense.
The bible says - hey read the Brother's words - he knows - that females are not meant to teach Christian adult males in religious matters. Actually the term teach is a very specific word - it is not all forms of teaching - just in the didactic proclamation of the gospel in the worship service. She can teach in sunday school, she can teach in a home group bible study, she can even teach in a seminary. The teaching only really formally instructs that females cannot preach in the regular worship service.
But shhh don't tell the Brother, we don't want his faith to waiver under the force of the truth. Sometimes it is necessary to let people hold onto their nonsense or else they might go nuts. This is why I don't talk to strongly about evolution. I would not want to see a wave of nuts - not knowing what to do when their world caves beneath them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Within the same vein as everyone is going to heaven, even the Atheists, that I proposed in this link: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4754-in-prayer-with-jesus-last-night-he-said-atheists-are-going-to-heaven-wtf, the use of the pagan ritual of water baptism is not needed anymore because as Paul stated: "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit." (1 Corinthians 12:13)Paul describes that every believer is spiritually baptized into one body because every Christian has God's Spirit within them. Therefore, on Sunday mornings, TRUE Christians like myself don't have to listen to crying and choking babies being submerged into water that is not warm enough for them, praise Pauls' direct words!
Hi Brother, there is an element of truth in your words. Water does not make a person a believer. Water can only wash the outside- just like John the Baptist says. What is needed is the heart cleaned - by Jesus, our Lord and Savior. And he does this by baptising us - cleaning us by the Holy Spirit. Isn't this fantastic?
But of course this only applies to those who ACTUALLY trust in Jesus. Just like Jesus - the mighty King Jesus rightfully reminds us in John 3:16. For God so loved the world that he gave his only son so that whosoever believes in him shall not die but have everlasting life. I underlined the part that tells us that it is only for whosoever - not everybody. It is good that we can trust Jesus' words, eh?
I also agree that children should never be put under - or submerged under the water. In fact no one - even adults should be submerged. That is not how the bible portrays baptism. Baptism is a pouring out - or a sprinkling - just like the Holy Spirit was poured out from heaven and from above onto the disciples. Putting people under the water is just wrong. People should listen to Jesus' words.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Hi there Brother,
My profile is as honest as yours.
If you read the passages, it says that a woman shall not teach men who are believers. Since you are not a believer - it does not prevent me from instructing you.
SO Jesus is correct and I am correct. We are both correct. And you on the other hand are grasping at straws. Imagine being putting in your place by me - a mere female.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
There is no coin. I cannot show you what is not there.Is it not then reasonable to assume that stance with all propositions? That if you cannot show me it is likely that nothing is there to show?
What would make that a reasonable assumption?
You started a post about a hypothetical story about a mark under a cup. It was your way of attempting to demonstrate the ridiculousness of how you perceive the gospel story or rather the notion of religion and finding the right one.
I think it only really demonstrates your ignorance of what the Bible teaches and what Christians teach about God.
I say there is no mark - because you are coming from the whole picture from the wrong angle. You still keep putting God into a box - one that looks like you.
Created: