Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Ricky Spanish on January 10, 2016, 10:36:20 PM
-
.. is not a prophecy as it is written in the past tense, so relates to events pre 700 BCE.
Makes no mention whatsoever about a Messiah.
Time to move on and stop the misrepresentations that the servant is someone in the future and is in actual FACT a representation of Isreal/Judah at said time.
-
Example 1:
"3 He was despised and rejected by mankind,
a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.
4 Surely he took up our pain
and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God,
stricken by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds, we are healed."
Considering the book was written circa 700 BCE and all the events described are in the past tense it takes a HUGE leap [of faith] to try and shoehorn it as a "prophecy", (it isn't), about "Jesus". (It isn't).
What else does it leave?
-
Example 1:
"3 He was despised and rejected by mankind,
a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.
4 Surely he took up our pain
and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God,
stricken by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds, we are healed."
Considering the book was written circa 700 BCE and all the events described are in the past tense it takes a HUGE leap [of faith] to try and shoehorn it as a "prophecy", (it isn't), about "Jesus". (It isn't).
What else does it leave?
That Jesus as Messiah is rubbish? As is most of the New Testament.
-
Eho says a prphecy cannot be in the past tense? The prophet is describing a vision of some sort. That explains the past tense.
-
Eho says a prphecy cannot be in the past tense? The prophet is describing a vision of some sort. That explains the past tense.
Because the word "prophecy", by Oxford Dictionary definition, is ptrediction of a "future" event. Thus it cannot be in the past tense.
Except in your disordered mind and inability to accept error in your rather stupid book of Chinese whispers.
-
Because the word "prophecy", by Oxford Dictionary definition, is ptrediction of a "future" event. Thus it cannot be in the past tense.
Except in your disordered mind and inability to accept error in your rather stupid book of Chinese whispers.
It is descibing a future event. You're so one dimensional! As I said, he is describing a vision of some sort, hence the past tense. That says nothing about when the evrnts in the vision occurred.
-
It is descibing a future event. You're so one dimensional! As I said, he is describing a vision of some sort, hence the past tense. That says nothing about when the evrnts in the vision occurred.
Keep ojn talking bollocks Ad O - for the reason for my not caring see the "Murderous bastards" thread!
-
Keep ojn talking bollocks Ad O - for the reason for my not caring see the "Murderous bastards" thread!
AO is not a bad guy at heart, but he is a good example of what religious indoctrination can achieve.
-
Keep ojn talking bollocks Ad O - for the reason for my not caring see the "Murderous bastards" thread!
You're the one talking bollocks, I'm afraid. If you accuse me of being an anti-Semite then you're clearly a rabid anti-Christian.
-
.. is not a prophecy as it is written in the past tense, so relates to events pre 700 BCE.
Makes no mention whatsoever about a Messiah.
Time to move on and stop the misrepresentations that the servant is someone in the future and is in actual FACT a representation of Isreal/Judah at said time.
The problem is that not only are most of us working from the English language version, a language which has two distinct 'Future in the past' tenses - the Future Perfect and the Future in the Past, both of which allow a speaker to refer to something that is to occur in the future, using the past tense.
Interestingly, the tense used in the very first verse of your reference, TtB, is the simple future, which sets the scene for the rest of the passage.
Unfortunately, I don't know ebnough Hebrew grammar toi know whether the original tenses used in the passage match those used in the English version or not. Does anyone else?
-
Example 1:
"3 He was despised and rejected by mankind,
a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.
4 Surely he took up our pain
and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God,
stricken by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds, we are healed."
Considering the book was written circa 700 BCE and all the events described are in the past tense it takes a HUGE leap [of faith] to try and shoehorn it as a "prophecy", (it isn't), about "Jesus". (It isn't).
What else does it leave?
Example 2, TtB - Isaiah 52:13
"13
See, my servant will act wisely;[a](will prosper)
he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted."
-
.. is not a prophecy as it is written in the past tense, so relates to events pre 700 BCE.
Makes no mention whatsoever about a Messiah.
Time to move on and stop the misrepresentations that the servant is someone in the future and is in actual FACT a representation of Isreal/Judah at said time.
I guess you have not related the truth that the end from the beginning is told within the books of the OT?
If all past tense then Christ could not have been a reality all those years after they were wrote.
Want to explain why this passage and why you believe the child or King was born in the time of Isaiah?
-
Thrud you really are desperate starting a thread like that.Dead on its feet before it started.
~TW~
-
Christians don't understand Issy 53 - and all of us non-christians really love winding you up about your lack of knowledge about what it actually means.
Which is why we post on these such forums and then piss ourselves laughing about your "suffering servant" mistranslation/understanding.. even when we point it out - you still don't understand. It's a HUGE joke to us who actually understand who the servant is in Isaiah 53...
-
You're the one talking bollocks, I'm afraid. If you accuse me of being an anti-Semite then you're clearly a rabid anti-Christian.
And when and where have the Christians been persecuted except by the Muslims? Certainly they have never been systematically murdered by either Pagans or Jews (not in thge last 2000 years anyway)
-
You're the one talking bollocks, I'm afraid. If you accuse me of being an anti-Semite then you're clearly a rabid anti-Christian.
No, just able to read the swivel-eyed conspiracy nut garbage that you vomit up on a regular basis.
-
And when and where have the Christians been persecuted except by the Muslims? Certainly they have never been systematically murdered by either Pagans or Jews (not in thge last 2000 years anyway)
In the Church's infancy Christians were systematically persecuted and murdered by both pagans and Jews. We all know of the Roman persecutions and in the scriptures we see the first martyr, St. Stephen, murdered by the Jews.
-
Christians don't understand Issy 53 - and all of us non-christians really love winding you up about your lack of knowledge about what it actually means.
Which is why we post on these such forums and then piss ourselves laughing about your "suffering servant" mistranslation/understanding.. even when we point it out - you still don't understand. It's a HUGE joke to us who actually understand who the servant is in Isaiah 53...
Making claims doe all non-christians? Think best you change that to
Christians don't understand Issy 53 - I really love winding you up about your lack of knowledge about what it actually means.
Which is why I post on these such forums and then piss myself laughing about your "suffering servant" mistranslation/understanding.. even when I point it out - you still don't understand. It's a HUGE joke to me who actually understands who the servant is in Isaiah 53...
-
I reckon that the so called prophecies referring to some sort of messiah were used by the gospel writers to when scripting the life of Jesus!
-
Christians don't understand Issy 53 - and all of us non-christians really love winding you up about your lack of knowledge about what it actually means.
Which is why we post on these such forums and then piss ourselves laughing about your "suffering servant" mistranslation/understanding.. even when we point it out - you still don't understand. It's a HUGE joke to us who actually understand who the servant is in Isaiah 53...
But the joke is then on us Christians when a bit of simple Bible Study shows that your interpretation is so far from anything the Hebrew means.
-
But the joke is then on us Christians when a bit of simple Bible Study shows that your interpretation is so far from anything the Hebrew means.
Unlike Thrud, I agree with you and Ad-O that the text in question might well have a future application. Firstly because, as you say, Hebrew does not have the same tense-system as English, and in any case, I see no problem using a past tense 'metaphorically' to refer to a future situation. I further see no problem in considering the text in question to refer to the ongoing tribulations of the Jewish people throughout the ages.
The question is why, when 'Israel' has been used to represent the Jewish people as God's Servant throughout the book of Isaiah, when we get to chapters 52-53, we should suddenly start considering the 'Servant' to refer to Jesus uniquely.
Cue something about Jesus taking over the task that the Jewish people were supposed to have performed, but failed in.....
-
What's your problem Matty? What are you doing here spouting your hate? You have never read Isaiah 52 for one thing. You cry your head off about how you are treated and this is what we always get from you.
Isaiah 52, well there are several Bible commentaries and I would be more comfortable reading them then what Luci has gathered off some atheist site.
-
The question is why, when 'Israel' has been used to represent the Jewish people as God's Servant throughout the book of Isaiah, when we get to chapters 52-53, we should suddenly start considering the 'Servant' to refer to Jesus uniquely.
Cue something about Jesus taking over the task that the Jewish people were supposed to have performed, but failed in.....
I think the clue is that Israel is never referred to as 'he' in such contexts.
-
I reckon that the so called prophecies referring to some sort of messiah were used by the gospel writers to when scripting the life of Jesus!
But the interesting thing is that those prophecies existed before Christ, and have something other than simple reference to the people of Israel.
-
But the interesting thing is that those prophecies existed before Christ, and have something other than simple reference to the people of Israel.
So what? It is quite possible the gospel writers created the life of Jesus to fit in with those 'prophecies'. He was killed three years after he started threading the boards, and there is no evidence he resurrected. Most of the Jews, including his family, didn't recognise him as a messiah!
-
So what? It is quite possible the gospel writers created the life of Jesus to fit in with those 'prophecies'. He was killed three years after he started threading the boards, and there is no evidence he resurrected. Most of the Jews, including his family, didn't recognise him as a messiah!
Just a very naughty boy!
-
Christians don't understand Issy 53 - and all of us non-christians really love winding you up about your lack of knowledge about what it actually means.
Which is why we post on these such forums and then piss ourselves laughing about your "suffering servant" mistranslation/understanding.. even when we point it out - you still don't understand. It's a HUGE joke to us who actually understand who the servant is in Isaiah 53...
Let's test that so called lack of knowledge...
Tell us what the believers know in the Spirit and the Jews knew in the Spirit about the Messiah?
Also tell us where in the OT the Jews are told about the Messiah.
Then tell us why the Samaritan woman at the well said:- King James Bible
The woman saith unto him," I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things."
Maybe, just maybe you are the one chasing his own tail in the circle of things relating to truth,Christ, the word and God.
"My words are Spirit and they are life" it is really is far out of your grasp. What is more you know why it is far out of your grasp yet right in front of you. Nothing else can fill that emptiness that disappointment leaves..
-
Let's test that so called lack of knowledge...
Then tell us why the Samaritan woman at the well said:- King James Bible
The woman saith unto him," I know that Messiah cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things."
Why?
Simple because some translator in 16whatever decided that that was what the Latin meant - the latin having been derived from Greek, the Greek from Hebrew!
The whole Book of Bollocks is suspect, if on no other basis, on the number of times the damn thing has been (mis)translated or edited - See Exodus 22:18
-
So what? It is quite possible the gospel writers created the life of Jesus to fit in with those 'prophecies'. He was killed three years after he started threading the boards, and there is no evidence he resurrected. Most of the Jews, including his family, didn't recognise him as a messiah!
Floo, we don't know exactly what his family consisted of - other than Joseph, Mary and James. It's telling that at least those 3 people believed that he was the Messiah - and not just any old messiah. It's also worth noting that Church history suggests that James wasn't that much of a fan of his brother initially, but we also know that he ended up leading the Church in Jerusalem.
As for your argumentum ad populum, ...
-
Why?
Simple because some translator in 16whatever decided that that was what the Latin meant - the latin having been derived from Greek, the Greek from Hebrew!
The whole Book of Bollocks is suspect, if on no other basis, on the number of times the damn thing has been (mis)translated or edited - See Exodus 22:18
Why 16whatever, Matt? Are you suggesting that there were no Biblical materials in English in existence before then? PS, I'll give you a couple of clues - the Venerable Bede and Aldhelm
-
Floo, we don't know exactly what his family consisted of - other than Joseph, Mary and James. It's telling that at least those 3 people believed that he was the Messiah - and not just any old messiah. It's also worth noting that Church history suggests that James wasn't that much of a fan of his brother initially, but we also know that he ended up leading the Church in Jerusalem.
As for your argumentum ad populum, ...
Well if the guy was the messiah he is a busted flush and DEAD!
-
Well if the guy was the messiah he is a busted flush and DEAD!
And you have evidence for that assertion? In case you have forgotten, people have been making that argument for nigh-on 2000 years but none have ever managed to produce a body. In view of the serious issues that the Jewish religious leadership had with him and his teaching one would expect that they would have ensured that the body couldn't be spirited away.
-
And you have evidence for that assertion? In case you have forgotten, people have been making that argument for nigh-on 2000 years but none have ever managed to produce a body. In view of the serious issues that the Jewish religious leadership had with him and his teaching one would expect that they would have ensured that the body couldn't be spirited away.
Not this nonsense again - at that the point of Jesus being executed the 'authorities', as you've referred to them before, would have no need to produce the body of a routine troublemaker.
-
Why 16whatever, Matt? Are you suggesting that there were no Biblical materials in English in existence before then? PS, I'll give you a couple of clues - the Venerable Bede and Aldhelm
Because, you patronising plonker, Sassy quoted the KJV! Simple!
-
And you have evidence for that assertion? In case you have forgotten, people have been making that argument for nigh-on 2000 years but none have ever managed to produce a body. In view of the serious issues that the Jewish religious leadership had with him and his teaching one would expect that they would have ensured that the body couldn't be spirited away.
There is NO evidence he is alive. As people do not come back if they are truly dead, it is not credible to believe Jesus is still alive.
-
Why?
Simple because some translator in 16whatever decided that that was what the Latin meant - the latin having been derived from Greek, the Greek from Hebrew!
The whole Book of Bollocks is suspect, if on no other basis, on the number of times the damn thing has been (mis)translated or edited - See Exodus 22:18
Pity you know nothing about the real history of the bible.. Boo Hoo to you,... ;D
-
Pity you know nothing about the real history of the bible.. Boo Hoo to you,... ;D
And you do? ;D
-
And you do? ;D
Of, course I do. The bible is God given to man by the power of the Holy Spirit in those whom God chose.
I am surprised it wasn't rammed down your throat... but perhaps they never read the bible or knew the LORD to be able to reveal the truth... :o :-\
-
There is NO evidence he is alive. As people do not come back if they are truly dead, it is not credible to believe Jesus is still alive.
Although I don't believe in God. Jesus etc I've never understood this argument. Surely it's the point that normal people don't come back to life, but Jesus wasn't an ordinary person so could have. All this argument that miracles etc aren't credible because they don't normally happen seems to me to be mssing the point.
-
Although I don't believe in God. Jesus etc I've never understood this argument. Surely it's the point that normal people don't come back to life, but Jesus wasn't an ordinary person so could have.
But that's just special pleading - the assertion, on zero evidence, that Jesus is the exception to the fate which has befallen every single last living thing in the entire history of the world since for ever. This is precisely and exactly the sort of special pleading you'd expect of anyone trying to make Jesus a special case, but that's merely assertion.
-
Of, course I do. The bible is God given to man by the power of the Holy Spirit in those whom God chose.
I am surprised it wasn't rammed down your throat... but perhaps they never read the bible or knew the LORD to be able to reveal the truth... :o :-\
You cannot prove the Bible has anything to do with any deity.
As I have said before I know that book too well having read it so many times.
As I have also said before many times, if Jesus couldn't come through for me when I desperately needed him as a child, either he doesn't give a damn, or is long dead. Of course the latter is the most likely by far.
-
But that's just special pleading - the assertion, on zero evidence, that Jesus is the exception to the fate which has befallen every single last living thing in the entire history of the world since for ever.
And you are certain that there is 'zero evidence', Shakes?
The problem with your argument is that you have to ignore documentary evidence that exists to the fact of the resurrection because you, nor anyone else, has ever been able to disprove the evidence. That's special pleading, if anything is.
-
You cannot prove the Bible has anything to do with any deity.
Evidence required
-
And you are certain that there is 'zero evidence', Shakes?
The problem with your argument is that you have to ignore documentary evidence that exists to the fact of the resurrection
Belief in, not fact of. Two different things. Belief in.
because you, nor anyone else, has ever been able to disprove the evidence. That's special pleading, if anything is.
No - you already know precisely and exactly what that is. Or at least, any normal person would do by now.
Your idea of "documentary evidence" seems to consist of nothing more than "is written down in a book somewhere." In which case there's documentary evidence that Cronus ate his first six children and the seventh, Zeus, only escaped because Rhea gave Cronus a stone wrapped in swaddling clothes which he swallowed in place of the baby Zeus. You don't accept this mythology because you happen to favour another mythology for emotional reasons, that's all.
-
It would be nice to see Christians be honest here about their beliefs being in spite of the evidence and not because of it.
-
Pity you know nothing about the real history of the bible.. Boo Hoo to you,... ;D
I know as much as you! I WAS brought up Christian for 15 years.
And my understanding of its contents are not clouded by a blind attachment to the myths contained in it.
-
Evidence required
You have to provide the evidence to substantiate the existence of the Biblical deity, which is as credible as fairies at the bottom of my garden!
-
You have to provide the evidence to substantiate the existence of the Biblical deity, which is as credible as fairies at the bottom of my garden!
Leave the fairies alone! The Christians are hassling them quite enough what with rejecting same-sex marriages etc. They are not damaging the garden are they?
-
You have to provide the evidence to substantiate the existence of the Biblical deity, which is as credible as fairies at the bottom of my garden!
I'm afraid your opinion isn't evidence, Floo.
-
I'm afraid your opinion isn't evidence, Floo.
I never said my opinion was evidence, but neither is yours!
-
I never said my opinion was evidence, but neither is yours!
Oh yes it is, young Floo, because our Hope is omniscient - he's told us so often enough and some of us still have a good laugh every time he does it and disproves it in the same sentence!
-
And you have evidence for that assertion? In case you have forgotten, people have been making that argument for nigh-on 2000 years but none have ever managed to produce a body.
If your bar of belief is set as ridiculously low as that then Hitler is still alive ::)
-
Oh yes it is, young Floo, because our Hope is omniscient - he's told us so often enough and some of us still have a good laugh every time he does it and disproves it in the same sentence!
Thanks for the 'young Floo' comment, I LOVE you! ;D
-
Dear Rhiannon,
It would be nice to see Christians be honest here about their beliefs being in spite of the evidence and not because of it.
Not in spite of, because of, the exact same for a follower of Islam, Judaism, Paganism etc etc, but it is personal evidence, it works for them.
Gonnagle.
-
And you have evidence for that assertion? In case you have forgotten, people have been making that argument for nigh-on 2000 years but none have ever managed to produce a body. In view of the serious issues that the Jewish religious leadership had with him and his teaching one would expect that they would have ensured that the body couldn't be spirited away.
'One would assume' is not historical method. Publish a history book stuffed with assumptions and 'no evidence to the contrary so I can believe what I like however bonkers' and you're dead in the water. But Lion will publish it for you and call it 'theology' or maybe 'Christian studies'.
-
But that's just special pleading - the assertion, on zero evidence, that Jesus is the exception to the fate which has befallen every single last living thing in the entire history of the world since for ever. This is precisely and exactly the sort of special pleading you'd expect of anyone trying to make Jesus a special case, but that's merely assertion.
Yes it is, it is a belief. But to argue that it can't have happened because it doesn't normally happen misses the point. People who believe it are making a special case for Jesus because they believe he was special.
-
Yes it is, it is a belief. But to argue that it can't have happened because it doesn't normally happen misses the point. People who believe it are making a special case for Jesus because they believe he was special.
But them the onus is on them to prove the specialness - to prove why the rules that apply to every other human being don't apply here. Otherwise we're back to can't have happened.
There is at least a certain honesty with those who make faith about belief and not evidence.
-
Yes it is, it is a belief. But to argue that it can't have happened because it doesn't normally happen misses the point. People who believe it are making a special case for Jesus because they believe he was special.
In a viciously circular way at that - he was special because he was Jesus, and because he was Jesus he was therefore special. It's a pretty dismal and depressing way of going on, to me.
-
In a viciously circular way at that - he was special because he was Jesus, and because he was Jesus he was therefore special. It's a pretty dismal and depressing way of going on, to me.
He was special, as far as they are concerned, because he was the Son of God or God in human form or whatever.
-
And you are certain that there is 'zero evidence', Shakes?
The problem with your argument is that you have to ignore documentary evidence that exists to the fact of the resurrection
Anecdotal accounts, Hope, not facts - and you've still explain how you've excluded the risks of mistakes or lies in the account since as things stand they are indistinguishable from fiction.
because you, nor anyone else, has ever been able to disprove the evidence. That's special pleading, if anything is.
Nope - this is you deploying the negative proof fallacy again: at this rate you'll wear it out.
-
But them the onus is on them to prove the specialness - to prove why the rules that apply to every other human being don't apply here. Otherwise we're back to can't have happened.
There is at least a certain honesty with those who make faith about belief and not evidence.
Sure - but that's not my point. My point is that an argument which says Jesus couldn't have died and come back to life because humans can't do that misses the point that Christians do not consider Jesus to be an ordinary human like everyone else.
-
And you are certain that there is 'zero evidence', Shakes?
The problem with your argument is that you have to ignore documentary evidence that exists to the fact of the resurrection because you, nor anyone else, has ever been able to disprove the evidence. That's special pleading, if anything is.
The one thing which I would see as support for Jesus' resurrection would be the clear belief in it of the authors of the Gospels. If I had a belief in God I am sure I would see this as good evidence. Since I do not then I see other possible explanations for what is written in the Gospels as being much more likely.
-
Sure - but that's not my point. My point is that an argument which says Jesus couldn't have died and come back to life because humans can't do that misses the point that Christians do not consider Jesus to be an ordinary human like everyone else.
In which case we are talking matters of faith and not facts. Which is fine if that is where it gets left. Only it doesn't.
-
Sure - but that's not my point. My point is that an argument which says Jesus couldn't have died and come back to life because humans can't do that misses the point that Christians do not consider Jesus to be an ordinary human like everyone else.
Then it is important to point out that their arguments are fallacious.
-
Thanks for the 'young Floo' comment, I LOVE you! ;D
Thanks, Young Lady!
-
Then it is important to point out that their arguments are fallacious.
But do you see my point?
-
In which case we are talking matters of faith and not facts. Which is fine if that is where it gets left. Only it doesn't.
We are indeed talking about matters of faith - but if Jesus was who he said he was I see no reason to say that he couldn't have risen from the dead. I don't believe he was/did but my point, pure and simple, is that arguing that Jesus couldn't have risen from the dead because humans don't do that is missing the point about Jesus.
-
We are indeed talking about matters of faith - but if Jesus was who he said he was I see no reason to say that he couldn't have risen from the dead. I don't believe he was/did but my point, pure and simple, is that arguing that Jesus couldn't have risen from the dead because humans don't do that is missing the point about Jesus.
Thing is though, the point that Jesus was who he said he was (or more accurately what other people claim he said) would be fine if: a) Christians could demonstrate this via an appropriate method, which they can't, or b) since they can't they would keep this stuff to themselves: but they don't since they have had, and would like to keep but are losing, special privileges for their beliefs in the public arena (such as in the public education system).
Therefore it is reasonable to challenge whatever points they assert, such as that a claimed miraculous resurrection from being dead is a historical fact.
-
Therefore it is reasonable to challenge whatever points they assert, such as that a claimed miraculous resurrection from being dead is a historical fact.
... as claimed by Hope five-and-a-half hours ago in #41 on this very thread, for example.
-
Thing is though, the point that Jesus was who he said he was (or more accurately what other people claim he said) would be fine if: a) Christians could demonstrate this via an appropriate method, which they can't, or b) since they can't they would keep this stuff to themselves: but they don't since they have had, and would like to keep but are losing, special privileges for their beliefs in the public arena (such as in the public education system).
Therefore it is reasonable to challenge whatever points they assert, such as that a claimed miraculous resurrection from being dead is a historical fact.
Absolutely - but that is not my point. My point is purely and simply that saying to Christians that Jesus couldn't have risen from the dead because humans can't do that misses the point that, in Christian's eyes, Jesus is unlike any other human. Its the same as arguing that miracles are not credible because things like that don't normally happen - but that's why they are considered miracles.
-
But none of that means the argument shouldn't be made.
-
But none of that means the argument shouldn't be made.
People can make whatever arguments they like. But it makes no sense to me.
-
Absolutely - but that is not my point. My point is purely and simply that saying to Christians that Jesus couldn't have risen from the dead because humans can't do that misses the point that, in Christian's eyes, Jesus is unlike any other human. Its the same as arguing that miracles are not credible because things like that don't normally happen - but that's why they are considered miracles.
I get that, but I still think that for as long as they make their claims in the public arena they should be rebutted in the public arena.
-
People can make whatever arguments they like. But it makes no sense to me.
If a Christian asks us to believe something as true for us then it's right to make the argument that without evidence that Jesus was divine there's no reason to think that different rules apply to him compared to other humans. I accept that there's no need to argue with someone just going about their business, but if someone wants to make their true for them true for me also, that needs challenging.
-
If a Christian asks us to believe something as true for us then it's right to make the argument that without evidence that Jesus was divine there's no reason to think that different rules apply to him compared to other humans.
Yes - but saying Jesus couldn't come back to life because humans don't do that doesn't address the point of whether he was divine or not. The non-Christian takes it he wasn't so the argument applies - a Christian takes it he was so the argument doesn't apply.
I accept that there's no need to argue with someone just going about their business, but if someone wants to make their true for them true for me also, that needs challenging.
Absolutely, but the 'challenge' has to make sense doesn't it?
-
The challenge begins with proving Jesus not to be divine. Going on from that every argument has to start from 'Jesus was human. What happens to humans?' Otherwise there's no sensible argument to be made at all.
-
The challenge begins with proving Jesus not to be divine. Going on from that every argument has to start from 'Jesus was human. What happens to humans?' Otherwise there's no sensible argument to be made at all.
Absolutely.
-
Given the fairly easy time Christianity has had over the centuries (apart from fighting amongst themselves) in portraying its core beliefs as facts, which is due in part to them having the social and political influence to enforce their agenda, I'd say that it is essential in these more enlightened times to counter the myths of Christianity for as long as organised Christianity seeks to promote these in the public arena.
Therefore, it is quite reasonable to point out the fallacious nature of the arguments Christianity makes to justify itself, as is exemplified by the likes of Hope and Alan Burns, and press them regarding what methods they can appropriately use to confirm the supernatural - and it is clear they don't have any and depend instead on a set of logical fallacies.
If they kept it to themselves then fine: but they don't.
-
Given the fairly easy time Christianity has had over the centuries (apart from fighting amongst themselves) in portraying its core beliefs as facts, which is due in part to them having the social and political influence to enforce their agenda, I'd say that it is essential in these more enlightened times to counter the myths of Christianity for as long as organised Christianity seeks to promote these in the public arena.
Therefore, it is quite reasonable to point out the fallacious nature of the arguments Christianity makes to justify itself, as is exemplified by the likes of Hope and Alan Burns, and press them regarding what methods they can appropriately use to confirm the supernatural - and it is clear they don't have any and depend instead on a set of logical fallacies.
If they kept it to themselves then fine: but they don't.
Shamanically waving words like fallacious again Gordon?
Do you know what it means or do you just like the feeling it makes as you roll it round your mouth?
-
Shamanically waving words like fallacious again Gordon?
Do you know what it means or do you just like the feeling it makes as you roll it round your mouth?
I do indeed know what it means, Vlad: some of the theists here provide textbook examples on an almost daily basis.
-
I do indeed know what it means, Vlad: some of the theists here provide textbook examples on an almost daily basis.
So, they are not much different to some of the atheists, then, Gordon.
-
Given the fairly easy time Christianity has had over the centuries (apart from fighting amongst themselves) in portraying its core beliefs as facts, which is due in part to them having the social and political influence to enforce their agenda, I'd say that it is essential in these more enlightened times to counter the myths of Christianity for as long as organised Christianity seeks to promote these in the public arena.
So, what if it turns out that they aren't myth, but truth? Aren't you then denying millions of individuals access to the truth?
If they kept it to themselves then fine: but they don't.
You could argue that if atheists kept their thinking to themselves 'then fine' as well.
-
So, what if it turns out that they aren't myth, but truth? Aren't you then denying millions of individuals access to the truth?
Then demonstrate it using an appropriate methodology.
You could argue that if atheists kept their thinking to themselves 'then fine' as well.
You could, but I'm not - rebutting your arguments is perfectly reasonable for as long as you make claims in the public arena: keep them to yourselves and there is nothing to rebutt. Problem is you can't stop yourselves from proselytising.
-
So, they are not much different to some of the atheists, then, Gordon.
Not this "They do the same thing/are just as bad" shite again. This is the one you wheel out when you're even more bereft of ideas than usual - probably the definitive example of this being your assertion that I've not only used the negative proof fallacy at all but even more so than you have*. Evidence provided despite repeated requests in the nearly six months since then = zilch.
We all know that you're never, ever going to provide a scrap of substantiation or backup for this assertion, so why bother doing it? Oh I forgot - I'm talking to the man who has been told umpteen times why the negative proof fallacy is a type of defective reasoning and still does it almost daily.
* http://goo.gl/XykRzs
-
Then demonstrate it using an appropriate methodology.
Oh my sides!
-
You could, but I'm not - rebutting your arguments is perfectly reasonable for as long as you make claims in the public arena
... and in this case demand, and get, special privileges for the same.
-
So, what if it turns out that they aren't myth, but truth?
And how would that 'turn out' to be the case? How would one know?
-
And how would that 'turn out' to be the case? How would one know?
I really think we'd know by now to be fair.
-
. . . or do you just like the feeling it makes as you roll it round your mouth?
What like your never-ending list of -isms?
-
Given the fairly easy time Christianity has had over the centuries (apart from fighting amongst themselves) in portraying its core beliefs as facts, which is due in part to them having the social and political influence to enforce their agenda, I'd say that it is essential in these more enlightened times to counter the myths of Christianity for as long as organised Christianity seeks to promote these in the public arena.
Therefore, it is quite reasonable to point out the fallacious nature of the arguments Christianity makes to justify itself, as is exemplified by the likes of Hope and Alan Burns, and press them regarding what methods they can appropriately use to confirm the supernatural - and it is clear they don't have any and depend instead on a set of logical fallacies.
If they kept it to themselves then fine: but they don't.
I seem to be having to repeat myself. My point is not that the arguments put forward by Christians shouldn't be challenged. My point is that saying to Christians that Jesus couldn't rise from the dead because humans don't normally do this makes no sense as an argument since Christians believe Jesus was the Son of God and not like other humans.
-
I seem to be having to repeat myself. My point is not that the arguments put forward by Christians shouldn't be challenged. My point is that saying to Christians that Jesus couldn't rise from the dead because humans don't normally do this makes no sense as an argument since Christians believe Jesus was the Son of God and not like other humans.
My point is that saying to non-Christians that Jesus could rise from the dead because they believe Jesus was the Son of God and not like other humans makes no sense as an argument since non-Christians believe Jesus was like other humans.
-
My point is that saying to Christians that Jesus couldn't rise from the dead because humans don't normally do this makes no sense as an argument since Christians believe Jesus was the Son of God and not like other humans.
But, if they are having an argument with non Christians, that's not an argument they can use.
This is particularly true of Christians like William Lane Craig who use the death and resurrection of Christ as an argument for the existence of God.
-
My point is that saying to non-Christians that Jesus could rise from the dead because they believe Jesus was the Son of God and not like other humans makes no sense as an argument since non-Christians believe Jesus was like other humans.
Yes, a different point and quite right. I accept your point. Do you accept mine?
-
But, if they are having an argument with non Christians, that's not an argument they can use.
This is particularly true of Christians like William Lane Craig who use the death and resurrection of Christ as an argument for the existence of God.
Again, a different point and quite right. I accept that. Do you accept my point?
-
Thanks, Young Lady!
WOW! How much do you want to borrow? ;D ;D ;D
-
But, if they are having an argument with non Christians, that's not an argument they can use.
jeremy, I think that it is an argument that is perfectly valid - the non-Christians have somehow got to show evidence that the understanding is false.
-
jeremy, I think that it is an argument that is perfectly valid - the non-Christians have somehow got to show evidence that the understanding is false.
Not really. It is a matter of personal belief, or lack of belief, so isn't a valid argument to use. If a Christian says something is true because Jesus is divine then the Christian has to show that to be true or else the argument is invalid.
-
And how would that 'turn out' to be the case? How would one know?
Well, one way would be for a skeleton that can be positively proved to have been that of Jesus to be discovered (there will no doubt be plenty of Jews who trace their ancestry back to Joseph and Mary thus providing a source of her DNA). Another would be the discovery or release of an official Jewish document of the time attesting to the events surrounding the crucifixion of this clearly dangerous man (after all, which other 'messiah' was initially arrested by the Jews, found guilty and then handed over to the Romans?) and the long-term disposal of his body.
In other words, there are ways in which the documentary evidence for the resurrection story could be categorically shown to be false.
-
jeremy, I think that it is an argument that is perfectly valid - the non-Christians have somehow got to show evidence that the understanding is false.
Nope - you're back to the negative proof fallacy again.
Pointing out that in the absence of an appropriate method and related evidence that Jesus 'was divine' is a fallacious assertion is sufficient as a rebuttal. The burden of proof remains yours no matter how often you try to offload it.
-
jeremy, I think that it is an argument that is perfectly valid
No it isn't. Non Christians do not accept special magic explanations. If you want to convince us that Jesus could have resurrected because he was "special", you first need to show that he was special.
the non-Christians have somehow got to show evidence that the understanding is false.
No we don't. You are the one making the argument, you show it to be true.
-
Not really. It is a matter of personal belief, or lack of belief, so isn't a valid argument to use. If a Christian says something is true because Jesus is divine then the Christian has to show that to be true or else the argument is invalid.
Again, I'd disagree, insofar as it is the 'lack of belief' position that most atheists and non-Christians base their arguements on. They can't use science - such as the suggestion that because humans can't come back to life (but don't forget to tell the hundreds of doctors, who perform such miracles every year, that they can't), simply because they can't categorically prove that Jesus was 'merely' human.
As I've said on many occasions previously, the problem is that the two sides of the debate are arguing from completely different starting points which are largely mutually exclusive. Sadly, there is no conclusive evidence for the sole validity of either pov.
-
No it isn't. Non Christians do not accept special magic explanations. If you want to convince us that Jesus could have resurrected because he was "special", you first need to show that he was special.
It is a perfectly valid argument simply because - as I've just pointed out in my previous post - the two side of the debate are starting from hugely differenct understandings of reality. Is naturalistic science and its thinking, the sole arbiter of reality - or is reality broader, more multi-faceted than 'mere' naturalism? Without an answer to that conundrum, no-one will be able to claim an argumentative 'victory'.
No we don't. You are the one making the argument, you show it to be true.
Sorry, jeremy, when atheists and non-believers make categorical statements and assertions, as many here do, believers here are just as entitled to request evidence to support those statements as non-believers are of believers. Furthermore, whilst documentary evidence of what Christians believe remain on the table of public accessibility, that evidence has to be shown to be wrong. Arguing the case that it could be wrong, or might be wrong, yet without providing evidence of that case, doesn't hold water.
-
Well, one way would be for a skeleton that can be positively proved to have been that of Jesus to be discovered (there will no doubt be plenty of Jews who trace their ancestry back to Joseph and Mary thus providing a source of her DNA).
It's 2,000 years since Mary lived. Probably every Jew alive today is related in some way to every Jew who was alive in 1CE. DNA won't help you.
Another would be the discovery or release of an official Jewish document of the time attesting to the events surrounding the crucifixion of this clearly dangerous man (after all, which other 'messiah' was initially arrested by the Jews, found guilty and then handed over to the Romans?) and the long-term disposal of his body.
As far as we know this does not exist. Since the preservation of documentary evidence was at one time monopolised by Christians, a document refuting the resurrection is unlikely to survive.
However, I think it is much more likely that no such document exists because the importance of Jesus and the earliest church has been exaggerated and it was never written in the first place.
In other words, there are ways in which the documentary evidence for the resurrection story could be categorically shown to be false.
It can be categorically be shown to be false by observing what happens to a dead body over the course of two days.
-
Again, I'd disagree, insofar as it is the 'lack of belief' position that most atheists and non-Christians base their arguements on. They can't use science - such as the suggestion that because humans can't come back to life (but don't forget to tell the hundreds of doctors, who perform such miracles every year, that they can't), simply because they can't categorically prove that Jesus was 'merely' human.
I've been making that point regarding the use of that argument.
As I've said on many occasions previously, the problem is that the two sides of the debate are arguing from completely different starting points which are largely mutually exclusive. Sadly, there is no conclusive evidence for the sole validity of either pov.
Agreed.
-
It is a perfectly valid argument simply because - as I've just pointed out in my previous post - the two side of the debate are starting from hugely differenct understandings of reality. Is naturalistic science and its thinking, the sole arbiter of reality - or is reality broader, more multi-faceted than 'mere' naturalism? Without an answer to that conundrum, no-one will be able to claim an argumentative 'victory'.
That doesn't make it a valid argument
Sorry, jeremy, when atheists and non-believers make categorical statements and assertions, as many here do, believers here are just as entitled to request evidence to support those statements as non-believers are of believers. Furthermore, whilst documentary evidence of what Christians believe remain on the table of public accessibility, that evidence has to be shown to be wrong. Arguing the case that it could be wrong, or might be wrong, yet without providing evidence of that case, doesn't hold water.
Agreed
-
but don't forget to tell the hundreds of doctors, who perform such miracles every year
You are claiming a doctor can revive a two day old corpse. I want to see some evidence to support that bullshit.
-
It can be categorically be shown to be false by observing what happens to a dead body over the course of two days.
Only if Jesus was human and not divine, so this argument is based on a belief or lack of belief so categorically shows nothing.
-
Well, one way would be for a skeleton that can be positively proved to have been that of Jesus to be discovered (there will no doubt be plenty of Jews who trace their ancestry back to Joseph and Mary thus providing a source of her DNA).
So what would be the protocol for an investigation on this basis, such as the basis to conclude that a specific skeleton was that of Jesus. In any event that the Jewish people today whose current DNA is studied show descent from Jews in antiquity would be no great surprise so I can't see how this helps.
Another would be the discovery or release of an official Jewish document of the time attesting to the events surrounding the crucifixion of this clearly dangerous man (after all, which other 'messiah' was initially arrested by the Jews, found guilty and then handed over to the Romans?) and the long-term disposal of his body.
The 'authorities;, as you've often referred to them, appear to have recorded nothing about Jesus being anything special and he was executed as a routine troublemaker, allegedly alongside two other routine troublemakers - so this suggestion seems like you flying a kite, again.
In other words, there are ways in which the documentary evidence for the resurrection story could be categorically shown to be false.
-
Only if Jesus was human and not divine, so this argument is based on a belief or lack of belief so categorically shows nothing.
There is no evidence that Jesus was divine.
Either
- some humans lied about a resurrection
- God suspended the laws of physics
Which do you think is the more likely?
-
There is no evidence that Jesus was divine.
Either
- some humans lied about a resurrection
- God suspended the laws of physics
Which do you think is the more likely?
Once again you seem to be missing my point. Saying to someone who believes that Jesus was divine couldn't do this or that because humans don't/can't do that is pointless since that person believes Jesus was special and could do such things. Because I have no belief in God I see other natural explanations much more likely but that is not what I am talking about.
-
jeremy, I think that it is an argument that is perfectly valid - the non-Christians have somehow got to show evidence that the understanding is false
No Hope, it is the ones claiming a fantastical tale is true who have to provide the evidence to support their belief, as you have been told many times! ::)
-
Saying to someone who believes that Jesus was divine couldn't do this or that because humans don't/can't do that is pointless
Wrong. It's the person who believes that Jesus was divine who is making the argument, therefore it is for them to show he was divine.
since that person believes Jesus was special and could do such things.
Then they should be honest and just say "I believe Jesus was resurrected because I have faith". They shouldn't waste time trying to engage in rational discourse where the rules say they can't make such assertions without evidence.
-
Again, I'd disagree, insofar as it is the 'lack of belief' position that most atheists and non-Christians base their arguements on. They can't use science - such as the suggestion that because humans can't come back to life (but don't forget to tell the hundreds of doctors, who perform such miracles every year, that they can't), simply because they can't categorically prove that Jesus was 'merely' human.
Drivel - medicine isn't 'miraculous': it is applied naturalistic science within a field where the science continues to develop. I see you've again used the negative proof fallacy: when will you even learn to avoid this obvious reasoning error bearing in mind it has been pointed out to you numerous times.
As I've said on many occasions previously, the problem is that the two sides of the debate are arguing from completely different starting points which are largely mutually exclusive. Sadly, there is no conclusive evidence for the sole validity of either pov.
More drivel - constantly pointing out your repeated use of fallacies doesn't imply an alternative point of view.
-
Wrong. It's the person who believes that Jesus was divine who is making the argument, therefore it is for them to show he was divine.
Missed the point again.
Then they should be honest and just say "I believe Jesus was resurrected because I have faith".
Yes they should.
They shouldn't waste time trying to engage in rational discourse where the rules say they can't make such assertions without evidence.
Agreed - they should present their beliefs as beliefs. Fair enough to look for supporting evidence - if a claim for divinity is made it has to be supported evidence if it is to be used as a basis for other points.
-
Missed the point again.
Keep trying, you'll get it eventually.
-
Keep trying, you'll get it eventually.
Very funny.
-
As I've said on many occasions previously, the problem is that the two sides of the debate are arguing from completely different starting points which are largely mutually exclusive. Sadly, there is no conclusive evidence for the sole validity of either pov.
You couldn't be more wrong, although you do try.
There's a ton of evidence for one position, none at all for the other.
-
It is a perfectly valid argument simply because - as I've just pointed out in my previous post - the two side of the debate are starting from hugely differenct understandings of reality. Is naturalistic science and its thinking, the sole arbiter of reality - or is reality broader, more multi-faceted than 'mere' naturalism? Without an answer to that conundrum, no-one will be able to claim an argumentative 'victory'.
You could always provide some methodology for what no doubt you think of as your alternative to naturalism.
Not that you will, of course.
Sorry, jeremy, when atheists and non-believers make categorical statements and assertions, as many here do, believers here are just as entitled to request evidence to support those statements as non-believers are of believers. Furthermore, whilst documentary evidence of what Christians believe remain on the table of public accessibility, that evidence has to be shown to be wrong. Arguing the case that it could be wrong, or might be wrong, yet without providing evidence of that case, doesn't hold water.
You know what this is called, don't you?
-
Drivel - medicine isn't 'miraculous': it is applied naturalistic science within a field where the science continues to develop. I see you've again used the negative proof fallacy: when will you even learn to avoid this obvious reasoning error bearing in mind it has been pointed out to you numerous times.
He not only won't but apparently can't, because by all appearances he seems to have built what he no doubt thinks of as his faith position on it. Let go of that and presumably the whole lot comes tumbling down around his ears. What other explanation can there be for the fact that the negative proof fallacy and why it's wrong has been pointed out to him so many times by so many over such a long period, yet he can barely put fingers to keyboard with committing it?
-
WOW! How much do you want to borrow? ;D ;D ;D
About 30 years?
-
Yes, a different point and quite right. I accept your point. Do you accept mine?
Yes, but what gets me is the way in which believers question the sanity (we are nuts, silly, etc) and intelligence (stupid) of those who do NOT believe.
-
No we don't. You are the one making the argument, you show it to be true.
How many more times has the Almighty and All-Knowing Hope got to tell you - IT IS IN THE BIBLE SO NO FURTHER PROOF IS REQUIRED!
-
Once again you seem to be missing my point. Saying to someone who believes that Jesus was divine couldn't do this or that because humans don't/can't do that is pointless since that person believes Jesus was special and could do such things. Because I have no belief in God I see other natural explanations much more likely but that is not what I am talking about.
Hi Maeght, this is what Thomas Paine had to say about it just over two hundred years ago it still stands, he was a Quaker:
"If we are to suppose a miracle to be something so entirely out of the course of what is called nature, that she must go out of that course to accomplish it; it raises the question in the mind very easily decided, which is: Is it more probable that nature should out of her course, or that a man should tell a lie"?
Just thought you might like it?
ippy
PS Just a thought, you could say Hope's having another one of his Alan Burns moments.
-
I think the clue is that Israel is never referred to as 'he' in such contexts.
If that's meant to be an argument, it's worse than threadbare. If it had anything going for it, you'd have to assume the sudden switch of identity occurred between Isaiah chapters 41 and 42.
In Isaiah 41 we read:
"[8] But you, Israel, my servant,
Jacob, whom I have chosen,
the offspring of Abraham, my friend;
[9] you whom I took from the ends of the earth,
and called from its farthest corners,
saying to you, "You are my servant,
I have chosen you and not cast you off";
and in chapter 42:
[1] Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights;
I have put my Spirit upon HIM,
HE will bring forth justice to the nations.
I suggest that Isaiah 52 - 53 were just texts used to source the narrative and theology of the NT, just as so many other OT texts appear to have been used for this purpose, without there being much actual history to corroborate the details. Those details being somewhat meagre: Jesus went around preaching and teaching, and was crucified.
-
Hi Maeght, this is what Thomas Paine had to say about it just over two hundred years ago it still stands, he was a Quaker:
"If we are to suppose a miracle to be something so entirely out of the course of what is called nature, that she must go out of that course to accomplish it; it raises the question in the mind very easily decided, which is: Is it more probable that nature should out of her course, or that a man should tell a lie"?
Just thought you might like it?
ippy
PS Just a thought, you could say Hope's having another one of his Alan Burns moments.
Thanks Ippy, but afgain what I am referring to is the mindset of the Christian to whom the point is being made. If they believe miracles happen it is pointless arguing that such events don't happen otherwise.
I am, I must say, at a bit of a loss as to why so many clever people on here are having trouble understanding my point. I am not arguing that miracles happen, I am saying to someone who believes in them just saying 'humans don't do that' is a non argument.
-
Thanks Ippy, but afgain what I am referring to is the mindset of the Christian to whom the point is being made. If they believe miracles happen it is pointless arguing that such events don't happen otherwise.
I am, I must say, at a bit of a loss as to why so many clever people on here are having trouble understanding my point. I am not arguing that miracles happen, I am saying to someone who believes in them just saying 'humans don't do that' is a non argument.
I just think that people are compressing several stages of an argument into one. I mean, the full argument is quite complicated, e.g. 1) a miracle is a violation of natural law, willed by a divine intelligence; 2) Jesus is claimed to be able to will such a violation, since he is God; 3) hence, the claim is that he could walk on water, impossible for a normal human; 4) however, nobody has ever demonstrated that such violations happen; and 5) nobody has demonstrated that divine beings exist; 6) therefore, walking on water can't happen.
Well, nobody is going to say all that!
-
Is isaiah regarded as a prophecy text/book?
-
I know as much as you! I WAS brought up Christian for 15 years.
And my understanding of its contents are not clouded by a blind attachment to the myths contained in it.
Nah!
You don't even understand what it means to be a real Christian.
Sorry if you were raised a Christian it was obviously by someone who did not know what a Christian is...
-
Is isaiah regarded as a prophecy text/book?
Scroll... Well, you asked...
-
Nah!
You don't even understand what it means to be a real Christian.
Sorry if you were raised a Christian it was obviously by someone who did not know what a Christian is...
Sassy, sometime you are a supercilious old goat.
-
Sassy, sometime you are a supercilious old goat.
Ain't that the truth!
I don't know, and don't particularly care, what branch of Christianity Sassay adheres to, but I was brought up by a member of the High Anglican Church, one of who's brothers was a Bishop in that particular branch.
-
Nah!
You don't even understand what it means to be a real Christian.
Sorry if you were raised a Christian it was obviously by someone who did not know what a Christian is...
I don't know about Owlswing but I can see that, for you, being a Christian means spending your life trying to convince your choice of god not to burn you after you've died.
-
I don't know about Owlswing but I can see that, for you, being a Christian means spending your life trying to convince your choice of god not to burn you after you've died.
Nil points... That is what you wish and choose to think.
I guess the truth is getting to you. The truth is YHWH is the only God and he chose Isaac not Ishmael.
You just got the wrong son. The wrong covenant and you know I am right.
My God isn't a liar and you would have known if part of the Abrahamic covenant through Isaac. God took care of Ishmael and his descendants, but he never made them the chosen people he made Isaacs descendants the chosen ones.
God sent a saviour and NOTHING can separate us from the love of God and his promises.
First to the Jew and then to the Gentile.. Whom do you believe and say Christ is?
It is sad anyone will be lost... But the truth is that eternal life is knowing the One true God AND Jesus Christ whom the one true God sent...
King James Bible
And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Eternal life and avoiding the fire is not something we can do anything to earn. It is freely given by believing in Christ.
As I said and have been proved to be speaking the truth....
Nah!
You don't even understand what it means to be a real Christian.
Sorry if you were raised a Christian it was obviously by someone who did not know what a Christian is...
The above quote is what you replied to. And you proved that I am right. Our righteousness if from God through Christ Jesus.
He paid the debt for us... May want to brush up on Christianity.
-
That is what you wish and choose to think.
Absolutely! It is what I choose to think. You should try it someday - it's much better than being told what to think.
I guess the truth is getting to you. The truth is YHWH is the only God and he chose Isaac not Ishmael.
Truth? I guess that's your truth and no doubt it differs from the truth of the thousands of other Christian denominations, sects and cults. Such a shame the word of your god is so confusing.
My God isn't a liar
No?
Bible prophets are supposed to speak for God.
Check out Elisha – he’s one of the heroes of the Bible.
“And Elisha said unto him, Go, say unto him, Thou mayest certainly recover: howbeit the LORD hath shewed me that he shall surely die.”
2 Kings 8:10
Here is a deliberate lie. Elisha’s official prophecy was that Ben-hada was going to live even though Elisha knew he would die. That makes him a liar.
Here are some more lies that originate from God:
"Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee."
1 Kings 22:23
"Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets."
2 Chronicles 18:22
"Ah, Lord GOD! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people."
Jeremiah 4:10
"O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived."
Jeremiah 20:7
"And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet."
Ezekiel 14:9
"For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie."
2 Thessalonians 2:11
God sent a saviour and NOTHING can separate us from the love of God and his promises.
Nothing? So you're free to worship whatever god you choose and your god will still hold your place in heaven open for you?
Eternal life and avoiding the fire is not something we can do anything to earn. It is freely given by believing in Christ.
You just contradicted yourself.
As I said and have been proved to be speaking the truth
Proven? Please show me this proof that your god really exists. In the meantime, I'll await your imminent receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize.
Our righteousness if from God through Christ Jesus.
Righteousness?
There are religious words that refer to real things, like church, bible, scripture, and prayer. Does righteousness belong there?
No, it belongs with those words which refer to nothing at all when used in the literal (non-metaphorical) religious sense, like holy, blessed, divine, sacred, soul, god, angel, heaven, hell, salvation, grace, miracle, blasphemy, and sin - religious concepts that refer to imagined qualities and substances that cannot be identified in the world any more than leprechauns.
The whole concept of the supernatural belongs to this category. Natural refers to everything that exists, including whatever things we may as yet be unaware.
In any event, what makes your understanding and interpretation of the scriptures more reliable than mine?
I can read them without your confirmation bias. I can read the absurd and laugh, where you would be taking notes and trying to memorise the absurdity.
You have no more authority in biblical interpretation than you do in matters such as what spirituality and love are, or in what constitutes a basis for morality, meaning or purpose in life.
-
He's good, this Khatru chap. Must keep an eye on him ;)
-
He's good, this Khatru chap. Must keep an eye on him ;)
Indeed! We need somebody to put Sass in her place, and he does it with ease.
-
Khatru appears to know what they are talking about. :)
-
Dear Khatru supporters,
Yes the boy is good but he must learn to put his Scripture quotes in bold ::)
Gonnagle.
-
He's good, this Khatru chap. Must keep an eye on him ;)
Nah. He's just a cherry picker.
-
Dear Khatru supporters,
Yes the boy is good but he must learn to put his Scripture quotes in bold ::)
Gonnagle.
No thanks! We get more than enough of the from Sass!
-
Nah. He's just a cherry picker.
And theists never do that? ;)
-
And theists never do that? ;)
That's essential for Christianity to work.
-
I don't know about Owlswing but I can see that, for you, being a Christian means spending your life trying to convince your choice of god not to burn you after you've died.
I don't know whether this is a caricature or whether it isn't, to be honest. Some Christians - some theists generally - are universalists. But there's no getting away from the fact that the plain meaning of the texts as found in the Gospels have Jesus saying that he is the sole path to God and that nobody gets to the father except via him.
It would help matters enormously if more Christians would be honest as to what they actually believe happens at the point of death to those who haven't accepted Jesus, either because they haven't heard the message in the first place (isolated Amazonian/New Guinea tribes, let's say) or have heard it but don't believe it and actively reject it (which is practically everybody else of another religion or no religion. The embarrassed coughing, shuffling of feet and general shiftiness isn't really a suitable answer. Whether hell counts as a supposedly literal fire (how does that work on immaterial/incorporeal entities) or eternal separation from God (a prospect unlikely to trouble most atheists)*, it's would be a politeness to know.
* Though often heard, I've always felt that this turns God into a sort of divine Jim Bowen off of Bullseye circa 1986 as I grew up with it - anybody old enough to remember the programme will remember that at the end losing contestants were 'treated' to the spectacle of "what you could have won."
-
I don't know whether this is a caricature or whether it isn't, to be honest. Some Christians - some theists generally - are universalists. But there's no getting away from the fact that the plain meaning of the texts as found in the Gospels have Jesus saying that he is the sole path to God and that nobody gets to the father except via him.
It would help matters enormously if more Christians would be honest as to what they actually believe happens at the point of death to those who haven't accepted Jesus, either because they haven't heard the message in the first place (isolated Amazonian/New Guinea tribes, let's say) or have heard it but don't believe it and actively reject it (which is practically everybody else of another religion or no religion. The embarrassed coughing, shuffling of feet and general shiftiness isn't really a suitable answer. Whether hell counts as a supposedly literal fire (how does that work on immaterial/incorporeal entities) or eternal separation from God (a prospect unlikely to trouble most atheists)*, it's would be a politeness to know.
* Though often heard, I've always felt that this turns God into a sort of divine Jim Bowen off of Bullseye circa 1986 as I grew up with it - anybody old enough to remember the programme will remember that at the end losing contestants were 'treated' to the spectacle of "what you could have won."
I remember Jim Bowen - Hell, I remember Michael Miles!
I still think that if there is/are some supreme cosmic mega being(s) and assuming that it/they consider us important enough to pass judgement then it will be our deeds that we're judged on. Not just because we make the right noises on Fridays, Saturdays or Sundays (depending on your choice of Abrahamic belief system).
-
It's really quite baffling that those Christians who do believe in salvation solely through belief can't see how monstrous that makes their god.
-
It's really quite baffling that those Christians who do believe in salvation solely through belief can't see how monstrous that makes their god.
Why? Are you suggesting that every human being should be embraced by the deity, regardless of their wish to be or not?
-
Why? Are you suggesting that every human being should be embraced by the deity, regardless of their wish to be or not?
If I survived my own death (there's a contradiction in terms) to be greeted by a deity (doesn't have to be the Bible god), I would want to be judged on my deeds and how I lived my life.
-
It would help matters enormously if more Christians would be honest as to what they actually believe happens at the point of death to those who haven't accepted Jesus, either because they haven't heard the message in the first place (isolated Amazonian/New Guinea tribes, let's say) or have heard it but don't believe it and actively reject it (which is practically everybody else of another religion or no religion. The embarrassed coughing, shuffling of feet and general shiftiness isn't really a suitable answer. Whether hell counts as a supposedly literal fire (how does that work on immaterial/incorporeal entities) or eternal separation from God (a prospect unlikely to trouble most atheists)*, it's would be a politeness to know
A pity that you haven't paid attention to the various threads on this topic that there have been over the past couple of years, Shakes.
Whilst it is certainly the case that the Gospels record Jesus' teaching that he is the only way to the Father, it is also the case that Jesus taught that calling him 'Lord' doesn't automatically mean that Jesus will recognise someone as a follower of his. Furthermore, Jesus also tells his disciples that he has other flocks to tend.
Contrary to your assumption that Christians are suffering from 'embarrased coughing, shuffling of feet and general shiftiness', they are suffering from uncertainty as to exactly what Jesus meant by such teaching.
-
Why? Are you suggesting that every human being should be embraced by the deity, regardless of their wish to be or not?
Hasn't it occurred to you that if you really did have a god of unconditional love then few if anyone would want to refuse?
Besides, if we are all god's children then yes, the embrace should be for all, even if some want to refuse it. But that would make your club far less exclusive.
-
A pity that you haven't paid attention to the various threads on this topic that there have been over the past couple of years, Shakes.
Whilst it is certainly the case that the Gospels record Jesus' teaching that he is the only way to the Father, it is also the case that Jesus taught that calling him 'Lord' doesn't automatically mean that Jesus will recognise someone as a follower of his. Furthermore, Jesus also tells his disciples that he has other flocks to tend.
Contrary to your assumption that Christians are suffering from 'embarrased coughing, shuffling of feet and general shiftiness', they are suffering from uncertainty as to exactly what Jesus meant by such teaching.
That's your version apparently. Other Christians feel differently. Like that chap we had to ban for his depictions of what happens to the bodies of female atheists when they burn in hell.
-
A pity that you haven't paid attention to the various threads on this topic that there have been over the past couple of years, Shakes.
I haven't been here for the past couple of years, but it's precisely and exactly because I've paid attention to aforementioned threads since I have been here (and elsewhere) that I'm aware that the answer you get to the issue varies from one Christian to the next - which stands in stark contradiction to the my-way-or-the-fry-way of the Gospels. This suggests that rather a lot of people who call themselves Christians appear not to know what to believe and seem to be making it up as they go along, quite contrary to what the manual says. That's OK by me because in good people who claim a religious adherence you see good, kindly beliefs which are essentially humanistic views with a thin patina of Christianity quite needlessly laid on top - that inherent goodness remains should all the Jesus baggage fall away (as it often does), because it's an intrinsically human quality and not a religious one. From the point of view of simple, basic human kindness, goodness and decency this is fine; but it's not what the supposed instruction book says.
Contrary to your assumption that Christians are suffering from 'embarrased coughing, shuffling of feet and general shiftiness', they are suffering from uncertainty as to exactly what Jesus meant by such teaching.
Why would they be uncertain? Are the Gospels straightforwardly clear or are they not? And if they are not, why are they not? Is this god that you claim to believe in, the same one capable of creating a universe and all within it out of nothing according to your belief system, apparently unable to get its message to humankind across clearly and without ambiguity, thus obviating unclarity, confusion and the need for so many conflicting, mutually contradictory interpretations? Does this god have a message for humankind, and does it want humankind to see, know and understand it clearly without ambiguity or confusion, or does it not? Does this deity actively seek unclarity, confusion and ambiguity, or not? It's patently obvious as to why anyone disposed to believe in a god might think so. Interpretation only comes into play when the text in question is sufficiently unclear to allow for it; and unclarity is not what one would reasonably expect from an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent deity (though you remain as coy as ever as to whether the god you purport to believe in actually possesses these attributes. The reticence is understandable, but cowardly). There are so many denominations of Christianity because every sect chooses to interpret the words as contained in the Bible in a manner that suits them - all claiming their own interpretation to be the only right, true and correct one, of course - and nobody can credibly refute any other interpretation because there's no correct, definitive Ur-text with which to compare them in order to prove them wrong.
Good writers try to say whatever it is they want to say as simply and as clearly as they can in order to communicate their point(s) effectively, which means doing everything they can to minimise ambiguity and maximise clarity, so that 'interpretation' (which as already noted is subject to the vagaries of individual whim over time) isn't even an issue. Can your god do this? If so, why didn't it? If not, why call it a god? Why is this god supposedly powerful enough to speak creation into being by its will, but such a bad writer that the Plain English Campaign would give it an almighty bollocking for being unable to communicate what it supposedly needs to effectively? This seems to make your god the Almighty Creator of All That Is when it comes to a cosmos but all of a sudden with the writing skills of those people who construct the instructions for flat-pack furniture. Do you or do you not consider that any god worthy of the name would want to do better than this, would know how to do it and furthermore would be able to do so? Yet this is not what we see when we look around at the real world.
I feel the Incredible Shrinking God coming on again.
-
Absolutely! It is what I choose to think. You should try it someday - it's much better than being told what to think.
Truth? I guess that's your truth and no doubt it differs from the truth of the thousands of other Christian denominations, sects and cults. Such a shame the word of your god is so confusing.
No?
Bible prophets are supposed to speak for God.
Check out Elisha – he’s one of the heroes of the Bible.
“And Elisha said unto him, Go, say unto him, Thou mayest certainly recover: howbeit the LORD hath shewed me that he shall surely die.”
2 Kings 8:10
Here is a deliberate lie. Elisha’s official prophecy was that Ben-hada was going to live even though Elisha knew he would die. That makes him a liar.
Here are some more lies that originate from God:
"Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee."
1 Kings 22:23
"Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets."
2 Chronicles 18:22
"Ah, Lord GOD! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people."
Jeremiah 4:10
"O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived."
Jeremiah 20:7
"And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet."
Ezekiel 14:9
"For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie."
2 Thessalonians 2:11
Nothing? So you're free to worship whatever god you choose and your god will still hold your place in heaven open for you?
You just contradicted yourself.
Proven? Please show me this proof that your god really exists. In the meantime, I'll await your imminent receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize.
Righteousness?
There are religious words that refer to real things, like church, bible, scripture, and prayer. Does righteousness belong there?
No, it belongs with those words which refer to nothing at all when used in the literal (non-metaphorical) religious sense, like holy, blessed, divine, sacred, soul, god, angel, heaven, hell, salvation, grace, miracle, blasphemy, and sin - religious concepts that refer to imagined qualities and substances that cannot be identified in the world any more than leprechauns.
The whole concept of the supernatural belongs to this category. Natural refers to everything that exists, including whatever things we may as yet be unaware.
In any event, what makes your understanding and interpretation of the scriptures more reliable than mine?
I can read them without your confirmation bias. I can read the absurd and laugh, where you would be taking notes and trying to memorise the absurdity.
You have no more authority in biblical interpretation than you do in matters such as what spirituality and love are, or in what constitutes a basis for morality, meaning or purpose in life.
The truth is you are caught up in your particular brand of Bull Sh*t.
1 Kings 22:23
"Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee."
I understand that perfectly and it does not say what you assume it to say.
Think about the verse and explain it in details giving the examples....
Stop copying and pasting things you cannot discern for yourself.
Clue:Ezekiel 14:9
"And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet."
2 Thessalonians 2:11
"For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie."
King James Bible Ezekiel 14:9
And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.
2 Thessalonians 2:11-12King James Version (KJV)
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
Your the perfect example. You and they believed not in the truth so now you are lead by strong delusions you believe it says something different to what others see. These people who perish do so, because like you they have no love of truth.
The bible tells the end from the beginning. God warns you. You choose not to believe and are lead by your delusions of what it means... Try reading it, instead of looking for points that don't exist.
Even Shaker cannot make it through his own deceptions and deliberations of the bible.
You need to point out what you are trying to prove with evidence. I just did, but you can't.
-
You need to point out what you are trying to prove with evidence. I just did, but you can't.
You have proved nothing except your own, closed-minded bigotry, Sass ... and you are fooling nobody here except yourself! :)
-
You have proved nothing except your own, closed-minded bigotry, Sass ... and you are fooling nobody here except yourself! :)
Rubbish... understanding the bible has absolutely NOTHING to do with Bigotry., Shame on you Leonard.
-
Rubbish... understanding the bible has absolutely NOTHING to do with Bigotry., Shame on you Leonard.
Bigotry is intolerance of any other view than your own, and that description fits you like a glove, my dear.
I know it isn't your fault that your brain has been addled by religion since infancy, but you must not expect those of us who can see it to let you get away with your nonsense. :)
-
The truth is you are caught up in your particular brand of Bull Sh*t.
Nice refutation! I can see I'm going to have to watch you.
Still, I quote a load of scriptures from your holy book and you say they are BS - I can't fault you there.
I understand that perfectly and it does not say what you assume it to say.
Think about the verse and explain it in details giving the examples....
Stop copying and pasting things you cannot discern for yourself.
Clue:
Your the perfect example. You and they believed not in the truth so now you are lead by strong delusions you believe it says something different to what others see. These people who perish do so, because like you they have no love of truth.
The bible tells the end from the beginning. God warns you. You choose not to believe and are lead by your delusions of what it means... Try reading it, instead of looking for points that don't exist.
Even Shaker cannot make it through his own deceptions and deliberations of the bible.
You need to point out what you are trying to prove with evidence. I just did, but you can't.
Take a look at the popular culture to see where you stand. How are the religious portrayed in movies, TV and music?
Like ineffectual, delusional nut jobs out of the loop in real life.
Are you that crazy lady from "The Mist"?
Maybe you should consider joining the rest of the bipedal apes that have chucked the clumsy security of ancient mythologies and their false promises.
-
Well you can't be so secure in your atheism. God is on your mind everyday and you bring your fight against God here everyday, repeating the same old lines gleaned from atheist sites.
You're late to the rodeo, YAWN.
-
Well you can't be so secure in your atheism. God is on your mind everyday and you bring your fight against God here everyday, repeating the same old lines gleaned from atheist sites.
You're late to the rodeo, YAWN.
Obviously! We're not going to leave a clear field for nuts like you to spread your religious rubbish.
-
Take a look at the popular culture to see where you stand. How are the religious portrayed in movies, TV and music?
Like ineffectual, delusional nut jobs out of the loop in real life.
We've had a discussion on this very theme before and that's by no means always the case - the two signal examples that sprang to mind, I recall, were The Vicar of Dibley and Rev, where Christian clergy were portrayed very sympathetically as flawed, fallible, sometimes troubled but deeply kind and compassionate human beings. I'm not saying that that's the norm, but if we're going to be even-handed here they have to go on one side of the scales.
-
We've had a discussion on this very theme before and that's by no means always the case - the two signal examples that sprang to mind, I recall, were The Vicar of Dibley and Rev, where Christian clergy were portrayed very sympathetically as flawed, fallible, sometimes troubled but deeply kind and compassionate human beings. I'm not saying that that's the norm, but if we're going to be even-handed here they have to go on one side of the scales.
Fair enough point.
I agree.
-
Bigotry is intolerance of any other view than your own, and that description fits you like a glove, my dear.
I know it isn't your fault that your brain has been addled by religion since infancy, but you must not expect those of us who can see it to let you get away with your nonsense. :)
Again you are trying to say anyone who has a firm faith in their God is a Bigot.
You have a firm faith in homosexuality being right for you, does that make you a bigot.
I believe 100% that heterosexuality is right for me does that make me a bigot.
You WRONGLY accuse me of being brainwashed by religion from infancy. I wasn't does that make you a bigot.
Clearly you are deliberately misusing the word the word bigot
a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.
"don't let a few small-minded bigots destroy the good image of the city"
synonyms: dogmatist, partisan, sectarian, prejudiced person
Religion is not an opinion it is a personal held belief system and we know many such religions exist.
Whilst each may have faith in their own god's it does not make them bigots.
Because a belief system is not about opinions but the personal beliefs of another which are held independently of the society or world we live in.
Clearly you have been able to get away with your abuse of the word and people by such an 'opinion' which in itself is bigoted because you believe your beliefs about atheism to be the only possible true belief.
I believe the word BIGOT and bigotry fits you aptly more than those who hold a religious belief about God.
Since all hold different beliefs about a god none can be said to be bigots when it is a individual matter for each person.
Whereas your belief you believe makes all those who hold a religious belief wrong.
THE CAP TRULY FITS YOU BEST...
-
Leonard, you must be doing something right as Sass has picked you as her target for today! ;D
-
Nice refutation! I can see I'm going to have to watch you.
Still, I quote a load of scriptures from your holy book and you say they are BS - I can't fault you there.
Is that a deliberate effort to twist what was actually said or is intelligence lacking as well as your knowledge when it comes
to the Scripture. Seen it all before when people who are not articulate or well versed in the English language and unable to answer the point turns to insult and sarcasm. What's wrong, couldn't you find an answer to copy from the internet...
Take a look at the popular culture to see where you stand. How are the religious portrayed in movies, TV and music?
Like ineffectual, delusional nut jobs out of the loop in real life.
Tell me how faith in God is portrayed by Christ in the bible.
If you can't then you really should not be watching films about religious people or watching tv and listening to their music.
After all, you would not be able to tell what is ineffectual, delusional nut jobs out of the loop of real life.
But you don't appear to let that bother you. Do you like looking so stupid by ignoring the real arguments in a post to bring it down to sarcasm and insult. Hey, if that is all you can do you need to be pitied. But more importantly anyone who reads this knows you could not argue the truth about Jesus Christ and his teachings because you don't know or understand them.
Are you that crazy lady from "The Mist"?
Maybe you should consider joining the rest of the bipedal apes that have chucked the clumsy security of ancient mythologies and their false promises.
May be you need to believe in a god WHO exists and can help his people rather than one who leaves you to make an idiot of yourself in such a spectacular way. What's up don't you know anything about the god you believe in? Or is it the truth that he isn't there to guide you?
I guess even the apes could give a better answer about my religion than you. ::)
-
Is that a deliberate effort to twist what was actually said or is intelligence lacking as well as your knowledge when it comes
to the Scripture. Seen it all before when people who are not articulate or well versed in the English language and unable to answer the point turns to insult and sarcasm. What's wrong, couldn't you find an answer to copy from the internet...
This from the person who leaves a trail of unanswered questions behind her. I was just responding to the way you failed to refute me and resorted to calling my post BS; an insult that you threw at me, so if you don't like being insulted then perhaps you should refrain from insulting others.
Tell me how faith in God is portrayed by Christ in the bible.
If you can't then you really should not be watching films about religious people or watching tv and listening to their music.
After all, you would not be able to tell what is ineffectual, delusional nut jobs out of the loop of real life.
But you don't appear to let that bother you. Do you like looking so stupid by ignoring the real arguments in a post to bring it down to sarcasm and insult. Hey, if that is all you can do you need to be pitied. But more importantly anyone who reads this knows you could not argue the truth about Jesus Christ and his teachings because you don't know or understand them.
There you go with the insults again. You really don't like it when people challenge your superstitious mumbo jumbo, do you?
I don't care what you believe Jesus said. What I do care about is what people do with their beliefs.
I can practically guarantee that at some point you will post that so-and-so wasn't a true Christian because they did such-and-such. You really should know that I don't give a toss about whether your ju-ju is the real one. I have no interest in what people who call themselves Christians believe, say or do as long as they don't impinge on my life.
I'm reminded of a mammoth that has blundered into a tar pit, thrashing around, bellowing and threatening life on dry land while all the time sinking ever deeper into the ooze. All I need to do is sit and watch you weaken and eventually disappear; after all, survival of the fittest is the natural order, even for religions.
May be you need to believe in a god WHO exists and can help his people rather than one who leaves you to make an idiot of yourself in such a spectacular way. What's up don't you know anything about the god you believe in? Or is it the truth that he isn't there to guide you?
I guess even the apes could give a better answer about my religion than you. ::)
I choose to turn away from all the gods (not just yours). After all, you don't need to know all about fairy lore to have a sensible opinion about the existence of fairies.
Yet when it comes down to it, as an unbeliever, I'm quite capable of accepting I may be wrong. Contrast that with you who blindly adheres to rules that your particular religion is never wrong. Darkness rules your mind.
Still, you're perfectly entitled to believe in whatever gods you want - I really don't mind. I don't even mind if you have a burning desire to nail a dead chicken to your bedpost and run around naked while howling at the moon if it brings meaning to your life.
-
I don't even mind if you have a burning desire to nail a dead chicken to your bedpost and run around naked while howling at the moon if it brings meaning to your life.
:o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o
Such behaviour on Sass's part would make just as much sense as what she already believes.
-
The question is why, when 'Israel' has been used to represent the Jewish people as God's Servant throughout the book of Isaiah, when we get to chapters 52-53, we should suddenly start considering the 'Servant' to refer to Jesus uniquely.
Keil & Delitzsch OT Commentary says,
The very same person who was introduced by Jehovah in Isaiah 42:1. here speaks for himself, commencing thus in Isaiah 49:1-3 : "Listen, O isles,...." Although the speaker is called Israel in Isaiah 49:3, he must not be regarded as either a collective person representing all Israel, or as the collective personality of the kernel of Israel, which answered to its true idea. It is not the former, because in Isaiah 49:5 he is expressly distinguished from the nation itself, which is the immediate object of his special work as restorer and (according to Isaiah 49:8 and Isaiah 42:6) covenant-mediator also; not the latter, because the nation, whose restoration he effects, according to Isaiah 49:5, was not something distinct from the collective personality of the "servant of Jehovah" in a national sense, but rather the entire body of the "servants of Jehovah" or remnant of Israel (see, for example, Isaiah 65:8-16).
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/kad/isaiah/49.htm
-
Obviously! We're not going to leave a clear field for nuts like you to spread your religious rubbish.
Pack it up Leonard,I've been letting you get away with it in the past but I can't let it go any more, "Stop keep taking the words out of my mouth", this must be the umpteenth time!
ippy
-
Pack it up Leonard,I've been letting you get away with it in the past but I can't let it go any more, "Stop keep taking the words out of my mouth", this must be the umpteenth time!
ippy
Sorry mate! I clearly waste more time here than you do! :)
EDIT.
I might also point out that you do the same to me very often! >:(
-
ippy,
And that explains why you are a nice guy but talking to you is like being alone. Leo is guilty of stealing your words.
-
ippy,
And that explains why you are a nice guy but talking to you is like being alone. Leo is guilty of stealing your words.
Woody, even "Monty Python" knows about what the average Canadian male gets up to and now we all know.
ippy
-
Woody, even "Monty Python" knows about what the average Canadian male gets up to and now we all know.
ippy
He likes to press wild flowers, put on women's clothing and hang around in bars?
-
He likes to press wild flowers, put on women's clothing and hang around in bars?
"Viva" Monty Python!
Python's composed of exaggerated real life events, one of my favourites, is the author trying to promote his new book but Eric Idle wont let him give a review by turning everything he says to something else about his shed.
A double wammey, taking the P out of GBS at the same time, it's making me laugh thinking about it again.
ippy
-
Is that a deliberate effort to twist what was actually said or is intelligence lacking as well as your knowledge when it comes
to the Scripture. Seen it all before when people who are not articulate or well versed in the English language and unable to answer the point turns to insult and sarcasm. What's wrong, couldn't you find an answer to copy from the internet...
Tell me how faith in God is portrayed by Christ in the bible.
If you can't then you really should not be watching films about religious people or watching tv and listening to their music.
After all, you would not be able to tell what is ineffectual, delusional nut jobs out of the loop of real life.
But you don't appear to let that bother you. Do you like looking so stupid by ignoring the real arguments in a post to bring it down to sarcasm and insult. Hey, if that is all you can do you need to be pitied. But more importantly anyone who reads this knows you could not argue the truth about Jesus Christ and his teachings because you don't know or understand them.
May be you need to believe in a god WHO exists and can help his people rather than one who leaves you to make an idiot of yourself in such a spectacular way. What's up don't you know anything about the god you believe in? Or is it the truth that he isn't there to guide you?
I guess even the apes could give a better answer about my religion than you. ::)
This from the person who leaves a trail of unanswered questions behind her. I was just responding to the way you failed to refute me and resorted to calling my post BS; an insult that you threw at me, so if you don't like being insulted then perhaps you should refrain from insulting others.
If the truth insults you that is your problem. Nothing and no one can insult you better than your own posts and what is clearly shown as a blatant attack on anything or anyone who does not agree with you. Get over it, only you take you seriously. You haven't enough education to pose a threat to anyones faith.
There you go with the insults again. You really don't like it when people challenge your superstitious mumbo jumbo, do you?
I don't care what you believe Jesus said. What I do care about is what people do with their beliefs.
If the truth is insults to you perhaps you should stop chatting rubbish about things you know nothing about. As for challenge when do intend to start?? Nothing so far written by you has challenged anything or anyone to do with Christ. Just shown your ignorance about Christ and his followers. More importantly it has shown you bias and inability to hold a debate about these things...
I can practically guarantee that at some point you will post that so-and-so wasn't a true Christian because they did such-and-such. You really should know that I don't give a toss about whether your ju-ju is the real one. I have no interest in what people who call themselves Christians believe, say or do as long as they don't impinge on my life.
WRONG... Show me where it has been written. You cannot guarantee...
How could anything you believe not to be real impinge on your life. Why not get a life then you would understand light and darkness cannot exist in the same place. All the light does for you is show up your inconsistencies and ability to attack that which you do not understand and cannot change.
I'm reminded of a mammoth that has blundered into a tar pit, thrashing around, bellowing and threatening life on dry land while all the time sinking ever deeper into the ooze. All I need to do is sit and watch you weaken and eventually disappear; after all, survival of the fittest is the natural order, even for religions.
YOU are the mammoth.. had you looked where you were going you not have fell in the tar pit.
Christs followers have not disappeared in over 2,000 years and it won't happen no matter how long you sit there. Would have thought that a no brainer and easy. Why make such stupid remarks. Not clever and not big.
I choose to turn away from all the gods (not just yours). After all, you don't need to know all about fairy lore to have a sensible opinion about the existence of fairies.
Fairies don't exist and I didn't need to know or be told by anyone to know this.
Sure you want to carry on being silly.
This from the person who leaves a trail of unanswered questions behind her. I was just responding to the way you failed to refute me and resorted to calling my post BS; an insult that you threw at me, so if you don't like being insulted then perhaps you should refrain from insulting others.
There you go with the insults again. You really don't like it when people challenge your superstitious mumbo jumbo, do you?
I don't care what you believe Jesus said. What I do care about is what people do with their beliefs.
I can practically guarantee that at some point you will post that so-and-so wasn't a true Christian because they did such-and-such. You really should know that I don't give a toss about whether your ju-ju is the real one. I have no interest in what people who call themselves Christians believe, say or do as long as they don't impinge on my life.
I'm reminded of a mammoth that has blundered into a tar pit, thrashing around, bellowing and threatening life on dry land while all the time sinking ever deeper into the ooze. All I need to do is sit and watch you weaken and eventually disappear; after all, survival of the fittest is the natural order, even for religions.
I choose to turn away from all the gods (not just yours). After all, you don't need to know all about fairy lore to have a sensible opinion about the existence of fairies.
Yet when it comes down to it, as an unbeliever, I'm quite capable of accepting I may be wrong. Contrast that with you who blindly adheres to rules that your particular religion is never wrong. Darkness rules your mind.
Still, you're perfectly entitled to believe in whatever gods you want - I really don't mind. I don't even mind if you have a burning desire to nail a dead chicken to your bedpost and run around naked while howling at the moon if it brings meaning to your life.
Still, you're perfectly entitled to believe in whatever gods you want - I really don't mind. I don't even mind if you have a burning desire to nail a dead chicken to your bedpost and run around naked while howling at the moon if it brings meaning to your life.
This from the person who leaves a trail of unanswered questions behind her. I was just responding to the way you failed to refute me and resorted to calling my post BS; an insult that you threw at me, so if you don't like being insulted then perhaps you should refrain from insulting others.
There you go with the insults again. You really don't like it when people challenge your superstitious mumbo jumbo, do you?
I don't care what you believe Jesus said. What I do care about is what people do with their beliefs.
I can practically guarantee that at some point you will post that so-and-so wasn't a true Christian because they did such-and-such. You really should know that I don't give a toss about whether your ju-ju is the real one. I have no interest in what people who call themselves Christians believe, say or do as long as they don't impinge on my life.
I'm reminded of a mammoth that has blundered into a tar pit, thrashing around, bellowing and threatening life on dry land while all the time sinking ever deeper into the ooze. All I need to do is sit and watch you weaken and eventually disappear; after all, survival of the fittest is the natural order, even for religions.
I choose to turn away from all the gods (not just yours). After all, you don't need to know all about fairy lore to have a sensible opinion about the existence of fairies.
Yet when it comes down to it, as an unbeliever, I'm quite capable of accepting I may be wrong. Contrast that with you who blindly adheres to rules that your particular religion is never wrong. Darkness rules your mind.
Still, you're perfectly entitled to believe in whatever gods you want - I really don't mind. I don't even mind if you have a burning desire to nail a dead chicken to your bedpost and run around naked while howling at the moon if it brings meaning to your life.
The truth really gets to you doesn't it.
You can see from your post the pattern of thinking that keeps you locked up in your chain thinking and disbelief.
A disbelief that you push your thoughts onto other as being a truth about them but is in fact a lie.
Glanging gong....
You really are lost in your own waffle and lack of knowledge.
I can see you believe in your own fairy stories. I never had to be told fairies did not exist.
I already worked this out for myself. Same with Father Christmas.
But the one truth I do know is God is real. I really don't have a problem with you disbelieving.
But if Christs followers the Mammoths has not disappeared individually or as a group in 2,000 year they won't disappear whilst you are watching.
YOU are the one lacking. Now everyone knows it...
-
More hilarity from Sass! ;D
-
YOU are the one lacking. Now everyone knows it...
Such irony! Do you really believe that everybody thinks that? Of course you don't, you are just lying to make yourself feel better.
The fact is, Sass, that almost everyone on this forum sees you as a harmless nut case, who has allowed herself to believe that only SHE has the truth. :)
-
Sassy
Religion is not an opinion it is a personal held belief system and we know many such religions exist.
Whilst each may have faith in their own god's it does not make them bigots.
Because a belief system is not about opinions but the personal beliefs of another which are held independently of the society or world we live in.
???
I always thought personal beliefs were an opinion :o even shared ones.
Surely just because someone wrote them down, and lots of people believe it, it still means it's their opinion?
:-\
-
YOU are the mammoth.. had you looked where you were going you not have fell in the tar pit.
Christs followers have not disappeared in over 2,000 years and it won't happen no matter how long you sit there. Would have thought that a no brainer and easy. Why make such stupid remarks. Not clever and not big.
Fairies don't exist and I didn't need to know or be told by anyone to know this.
Sure you want to carry on being silly.
Still, you're perfectly entitled to believe in whatever gods you want - I really don't mind. I don't even mind if you have a burning desire to nail a dead chicken to your bedpost and run around naked while howling at the moon if it brings meaning to your life.
The truth really gets to you doesn't it.
You can see from your post the pattern of thinking that keeps you locked up in your chain thinking and disbelief.
A disbelief that you push your thoughts onto other as being a truth about them but is in fact a lie.
Glanging gong....
You really are lost in your own waffle and lack of knowledge.
I can see you believe in your own fairy stories. I never had to be told fairies did not exist.
I already worked this out for myself. Same with Father Christmas.
But the one truth I do know is God is real. I really don't have a problem with you disbelieving.
But if Christs followers the Mammoths has not disappeared individually or as a group in 2,000 year they won't disappear whilst you are watching.
YOU are the one lacking. Now everyone knows it...
Hey Sass!
Do me a favour please.
When you're in Heaven and I'm in Hell, please ask God why he favoured you with a credulous, undiscerning mind but cursed me with a well-developed faculty of reason and a love and respect for reason and logic.
While you're at it, please ask him why he filled the world with the fruits of reason that he knew would impress me, while you wouldn't notice.
Also, why did he then go further out of his way to deceive me by filling the world with false clues, like the geological column and the fossil record? He knows that something like that leads men of reason to question and even reject religion but it doesn't even faze you. Why did God do this? Especially as he knew it would make his Bible seem untrue and his followers seem deceived to people like me who have been cursed with this damn reasoning faculty. Please ask God why he did this to me but not you.
And please ask him why I never once saw him. That would have helped me a lot in overcoming this cursed faculty of reasoning.
Oh, and tell him that while he may count 1000 years as a day, I count it as 1000 years, and I was the one he asked to make a choice. He was not slow as some count slowness? Who doesn't count "soon" being over 2000 years as slow? Once again, I had to make that decision, not him. So how does it matter how God sees it?
Ask God why he did all of that to me, will you, Sass? Then shout his answer down to me, too, will you? I'll be right next to the Serpent, whose name, in his infinite wisdom and love, he refused to whisper to you.
I’ll try to stop screaming and gnashing my teeth just long enough to hear why God made it so very much harder – impossible, really – for me than for you.
I guess that I shouldn't have trusted my mind, or anything I saw or thought. Whatever it is, I’m sure that we’ll both find his answer just and loving, and maybe laugh a little.
Oh, please make sure to have an eternity of nice days for both of us, alright?
-
YOU are the mammoth.. had you looked where you were going you not have fell in the tar pit.
Christs followers have not disappeared in over 2,000 years and it won't happen no matter how long you sit there. Would have thought that a no brainer and easy. Why make such stupid remarks. Not clever and not big.
Fairies don't exist and I didn't need to know or be told by anyone to know this.
Sure you want to carry on being silly.
Still, you're perfectly entitled to believe in whatever gods you want - I really don't mind. I don't even mind if you have a burning desire to nail a dead chicken to your bedpost and run around naked while howling at the moon if it brings meaning to your life.
The truth really gets to you doesn't it.
You can see from your post the pattern of thinking that keeps you locked up in your chain thinking and disbelief.
A disbelief that you push your thoughts onto other as being a truth about them but is in fact a lie.
Glanging gong....
You really are lost in your own waffle and lack of knowledge.
I can see you believe in your own fairy stories. I never had to be told fairies did not exist.
I already worked this out for myself. Same with Father Christmas.
But the one truth I do know is God is real. I really don't have a problem with you disbelieving.
But if Christs followers the Mammoths has not disappeared individually or as a group in 2,000 year they won't disappear whilst you are watching.
YOU are the one lacking. Now everyone knows it...
Coor Sass you've really thrown a wobbly here, everything OK?
I didn't even bother with how many assertions you've made again on this one Sass, it's a bit worrying.
ippy
-
Such irony! Do you really believe that everybody thinks that? Of course you don't, you are just lying to make yourself feel better.
The fact is, Sass, that almost everyone on this forum sees you as a harmless nut case, who has allowed herself to believe that only SHE has the truth. :)
In reality that isn't true. How can Jesus be portrayed as a persons own truth?
The bible says God will raise up a prophet like Moses whom God shall put his words into his mouth and everyone is to listen and obey those words.
Luke Writes that the Angel told Mary that Jesus is a Holy thing and is to be called the Son of God.
What is it about those truths that make them any one persons here on earth?
What is about these following truths that make them belong to any one person - living.
"I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father but by me."
"Eternal life is knowing you the ONLY TRUE GOD and Jesus Christ whom you sent."
" For God so loved the World that he gave his Only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him shall not perish but
have eternal life"
Isn't it more the reality and truth you do not understand what it means to be a believer born of the Spirit and the truth about Jesus Christ?
You can make all kinds of false accusations but my beliefs are reflected in the word of God in the OT and the NT.
And if it isn't in the OT about Christ then you can be sure the NT would be incorrect.
The truth and the fact is that Christ completed everything written by the Prophets about him before he died.
That all that was now to come was the judgement and his return.
If you want to prove something then prove the truth to be wrong otherwise accept that you falsely accuse others because of the truth so hiding and masking your own inability to disprove it.
The truth is what I believe stands independently of any human being because it comes from God.
Jesus Christ was independent of all mankind in his life because we saw what God would be if God was a man by the way he lived. He has made Gods true love known to us.
But in a world which lacks love who really wants to hear the truth that makes us all see how short we fall.
Don't blame the messenger either disprove the truth or admit you attack the person because you cannot successfully attack the truth. Because God stands in your way.
-
;D ;D ;D
-
???
I always thought personal beliefs were an opinion :o even shared ones.
Surely just because someone wrote them down, and lots of people believe it, it still means it's their opinion?
:-\
Not at all, ((Rose))
Personal beliefs are nothing if they hold no gravity of truth through experience and actions.
The fact Christ said...
King James Bible
Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
Means faith is about hope and seeing the things God promises come into being. It is a relationship of truth.
Where we claim and stand on those promises and we see the truth revealed to us.
"Ye shall KNOW the truth and the truth shall set you free"
Opinion is about what we observe and thoughts formed from those observations.
But personal faith is about what we are told will happen and that happening as promised.
It faith which sees.
Faith in religion should be about asking and receiving. About believing and seeing.
Otherwise what would truly be the point of that personal faith and belief.
Faith should be a living reality. Jesus Christ showed that his knowledge and belief in Gods word brought actions because God was with him.
38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
Christ did all he did because he believed what God had said and he knew God.
Which is what God wants for everyone and we can be sure that is true...
John 14:12King James Version (KJV)
12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
So those who believe can do as Christ did. Imagine believers today raising the dead and healing the sick. It happens Rose but people are not willing to look for it. Christ is for those who love truth and want to know God.
That is how our lives should be progressing in the paths God has for each of us as believers.
-
In reality that isn't true. How can Jesus be portrayed as a persons own truth?
The bible says God will raise up a prophet like Moses whom God shall put his words into his mouth and everyone is to listen and obey those words.
Luke Writes that the Angel told Mary that Jesus is a Holy thing and is to be called the Son of God.
What is it about those truths that make them any one persons here on earth?
What is about these following truths that make them belong to any one person - living.
"I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father but by me."
"Eternal life is knowing you the ONLY TRUE GOD and Jesus Christ whom you sent."
" For God so loved the World that he gave his Only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him shall not perish but
have eternal life"
Isn't it more the reality and truth you do not understand what it means to be a believer born of the Spirit and the truth about Jesus Christ?
You can make all kinds of false accusations but my beliefs are reflected in the word of God in the OT and the NT.
And if it isn't in the OT about Christ then you can be sure the NT would be incorrect.
The truth and the fact is that Christ completed everything written by the Prophets about him before he died.
That all that was now to come was the judgement and his return.
If you want to prove something then prove the truth to be wrong otherwise accept that you falsely accuse others because of the truth so hiding and masking your own inability to disprove it.
The truth is what I believe stands independently of any human being because it comes from God.
Jesus Christ was independent of all mankind in his life because we saw what God would be if God was a man by the way he lived. He has made Gods true love known to us.
But in a world which lacks love who really wants to hear the truth that makes us all see how short we fall.
Don't blame the messenger either disprove the truth or admit you attack the person because you cannot successfully attack the truth. Because God stands in your way.
The usual pot-pourri of words conveying nothing but the fact that you are completely besotted with what you believe the Bible says.
Sing on, sweet bird! :)
-
Miracles don't happen in reality!
-
Miracles don't happen in reality!
How can you be so sure of that Floo?
-
How can you be so sure of that Floo?
Flop decides what is real for every man woman and child.
-
Hey Sass!
Do me a favour please.
When you're in Heaven and I'm in Hell, please ask God why he favoured you with a credulous, undiscerning mind but cursed me with a well-developed faculty of reason and a love and respect for reason and logic.
While you're at it, please ask him why he filled the world with the fruits of reason that he knew would impress me, while you wouldn't notice.
As his WORDS clearly tell you.
King James Bible
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.
Proverbs 3King James Version (KJV)
3 My son, forget not my law; but let thine heart keep my commandments:
2 For length of days, and long life, and peace, shall they add to thee.
3 Let not mercy and truth forsake thee: bind them about thy neck; write them upon the table of thine heart:
4 So shalt thou find favour and good understanding in the sight of God and man.
5 Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.
7 Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the Lord, and depart from evil.
8 It shall be health to thy navel, and marrow to thy bones.
9 Honour the Lord with thy substance, and with the firstfruits of all thine increase:
10 So shall thy barns be filled with plenty, and thy presses shall burst out with new wine.
11 My son, despise not the chastening of the Lord; neither be weary of his correction:
12 For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.
13 Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding.
14 For the merchandise of it is better than the merchandise of silver, and the gain thereof than fine gold.
15 She is more precious than rubies: and all the things thou canst desire are not to be compared unto her.
Would you have asked if you knew the bible or the words of God. It is like chewing small pebbles with your teeth. Which do you think will break first?
Also, why did he then go further out of his way to deceive me by filling the world with false clues, like the geological column and the fossil record?
Man deceives himself. Who created the knowledge of geological column and fossil records?
There is a scientist who teaches why you cannot trust the things you use. Look for truth not for confirmation.
Because confirmation of the independent type for your beliefs cannot be find. MAN MADE.
He knows that something like that leads men of reason to question and even reject religion but it doesn't even faze you. Why did God do this? Especially as he knew it would make his Bible seem untrue and his followers seem deceived to people like me who have been cursed with this damn reasoning faculty. Please ask God why he did this to me but not you.
It is reasoning it is the worst kind of faith you hold... it is blind faith BECAUSE you never see any REAL EVIDENCE to support what you believe that is a 100% fool proof. Some believe the lie because as the scriptures above show. They seek not truth
and God.
And please ask him why I never once saw him. That would have helped me a lot in overcoming this cursed faculty of reasoning.
You have never received 100% fool proof truth that what scientist tell you is anything but theory. It did not stop you believing.
You never sought God and the truth which requires a lot more than being told what to think as the scientist have done with you. Knowing God requires a sincere thirst for true truth and knowledge.
Oh, and tell him that while he may count 1000 years as a day, I count it as 1000 years, and I was the one he asked to make a choice. He was not slow as some count slowness? Who doesn't count "soon" being over 2000 years as slow? Once again, I had to make that decision, not him. So how does it matter how God sees it?
Whilst God is immortal and see the end from the beginning then it would be natural for a 1,000 years and a day to be the same for him. He is the God from the past, the present and future. Time and space cannot hold God.
You could not live a 1,000 years to know the difference. But as you can see the knowledge of who God is and his word reveals why a day and thousand years are the same to him. He has seen all the days from beginning to end and so all the thousands of years. No matter how many, he knows them all. So it tells us what God is like and that he is OMNIPRESENT and omnipotent.
Only man is held by time.
Ask God why he did all of that to me, will you, Sass? Then shout his answer down to me, too, will you? I'll be right next to the Serpent, whose name, in his infinite wisdom and love, he refused to whisper to you.
You did it to yourself. Because instead of listening and seeking truth you want to make yourself as a man appear to be clever to others by ridiculing God and man. But instead today you have been silenced because the truth is Gods wisdom makes those who think themselves wise in this world look foolish.
I’ll try to stop screaming and gnashing my teeth just long enough to hear why God made it so very much harder – impossible, really – for me than for you.
WELL! I THINK YOU NEED TO EXPLAIN WITH EVIDENCE EXACTLY HOW YOU DETERMINED THIS AND SHOW WHAT IT EASIER FOR ME AND HARDER FOR YOU. I am not shouting just did not want you to miss it.
I guess that I shouldn't have trusted my mind, or anything I saw or thought. Whatever it is, I’m sure that we’ll both find his answer just and loving, and maybe laugh a little.
Oh, please make sure to have an eternity of nice days for both of us, alright?
Compare the life of any scientist to the life of Christ. Then tell me why Christ never claimed the Glory for himself?
Tell me why he did all things to Glorify God and not himself.
When a man who is a scientist claims something it is of himself. When Christ did something he claimed it was of God.
What scientist do has never been as great as what Christ acheived. So why did one man who did things science cannot acheive give the Glory to God? And why and how did Christ do those things?
Faith and wisdom in God are more powerful and potent then anything a man and science can procure.
It is nice to laugh and love in truth.
Sadly, I find not gratification or happiness in the thought of others being lost. :(
-
As his WORDS clearly tell you.
King James Bible
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.
Proverbs 3King James Version (KJV)
3 My son, forget not my law; but let thine heart keep my commandments:
2 For length of days, and long life, and peace, shall they add to thee.
3 Let not mercy and truth forsake thee: bind them about thy neck; write them upon the table of thine heart:
4 So shalt thou find favour and good understanding in the sight of God and man.
5 Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.
7 Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the Lord, and depart from evil.
8 It shall be health to thy navel, and marrow to thy bones.
9 Honour the Lord with thy substance, and with the firstfruits of all thine increase:
10 So shall thy barns be filled with plenty, and thy presses shall burst out with new wine.
11 My son, despise not the chastening of the Lord; neither be weary of his correction:
12 For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.
13 Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding.
14 For the merchandise of it is better than the merchandise of silver, and the gain thereof than fine gold.
15 She is more precious than rubies: and all the things thou canst desire are not to be compared unto her.
Would you have asked if you knew the bible or the words of God. It is like chewing small pebbles with your teeth. Which do you think will break first?
Man deceives himself. Who created the knowledge of geological column and fossil records?
There is a scientist who teaches why you cannot trust the things you use. Look for truth not for confirmation.
Because confirmation of the independent type for your beliefs cannot be find. MAN MADE.
It is reasoning it is the worst kind of faith you hold... it is blind faith BECAUSE you never see any REAL EVIDENCE to support what you believe that is a 100% fool proof. Some believe the lie because as the scriptures above show. They seek not truth
and God.
You have never received 100% fool proof truth that what scientist tell you is anything but theory. It did not stop you believing.
You never sought God and the truth which requires a lot more than being told what to think as the scientist have done with you. Knowing God requires a sincere thirst for true truth and knowledge.
Whilst God is immortal and see the end from the beginning then it would be natural for a 1,000 years and a day to be the same for him. He is the God from the past, the present and future. Time and space cannot hold God.
You could not live a 1,000 years to know the difference. But as you can see the knowledge of who God is and his word reveals why a day and thousand years are the same to him. He has seen all the days from beginning to end and so all the thousands of years. No matter how many, he knows them all. So it tells us what God is like and that he is OMNIPRESENT and omnipotent.
Only man is held by time.
You did it to yourself. Because instead of listening and seeking truth you want to make yourself as a man appear to be clever to others by ridiculing God and man. But instead today you have been silenced because the truth is Gods wisdom makes those who think themselves wise in this world look foolish.
WELL! I THINK YOU NEED TO EXPLAIN WITH EVIDENCE EXACTLY HOW YOU DETERMINED THIS AND SHOW WHAT IT EASIER FOR ME AND HARDER FOR YOU. I am not shouting just did not want you to miss it.
Compare the life of any scientist to the life of Christ. Then tell me why Christ never claimed the Glory for himself?
Tell me why he did all things to Glorify God and not himself.
When a man who is a scientist claims something it is of himself. When Christ did something he claimed it was of God.
What scientist do has never been as great as what Christ acheived. So why did one man who did things science cannot acheive give the Glory to God? And why and how did Christ do those things?
Faith and wisdom in God are more powerful and potent then anything a man and science can procure.
It is nice to laugh and love in truth.
Sadly, I find not gratification or happiness in the thought of others being lost. :(
Please.........
Calm down, Sass.
Try muttering at the ceiling light. I've heard you folks like that.
-
Rarely were so many, many words wasted on absolutely no meaningful content.
-
Rarely were so many, many words wasted on absolutely no meaningful content.
Sass has no words of her own on this subject, her whole vocabulary consists of Bible quotes.
-
How can you be so sure of that Floo?
If by a 'miracle' you mean a supernatural event directed by the sky fairy, then there is absolutely no evidence it has performed any. I am of the opinion there is a natural explanation for any unexpected healing.
-
If by a 'miracle' you mean a supernatural event directed by the sky fairy, then there is absolutely no evidence it has performed any. I am of the opinion there is a natural explanation for any unexpected healing.
So am I, but I could be wrong. This is why I asked how you could be sure - do you consider you could be wrong?
Those who do believe would argue that the accounts in the Bible are evidence of course.
-
So am I, but I could be wrong. This is why I asked how you could be sure - do you consider you could be wrong?
Those who do believe would argue that the accounts in the Bible are evidence of course.
Of course I could be wrong, and everything in the Bible is true! That would be the worst thing possible if that were true, the deity featured there is a psycho! >:(
-
Sass has no words of her own on this subject, her whole vocabulary consists of Bible quotes.
Perhaps it's a case of Biblical apologetics apoplectics. ;)
-
Of course I could be wrong, and everything in the Bible is true!
Great - that doesn't really come across ion your postings though, that's all.
-
Perhaps it's a case of Biblical apologetics apoplectics. ;)
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Or diarrhoea biblioteca.
-
Please.........
Calm down, Sass.
Try muttering at the ceiling light. I've heard you folks like that.
I see it is still true for you...
Is that a deliberate effort to twist what was actually said or is intelligence lacking as well as your knowledge when it comes
to the Scripture. Seen it all before when people who are not articulate or well versed in the English language and unable to answer the point turns to insult and sarcasm. What's wrong, couldn't you find an answer to copy from the internet...
Makes light work for us when you aptly revert back to what you do best.. Insult and sarcasm... laughable to everyone else.
-
Great - that doesn't really come across ion your postings though, that's all.
I say what I think, but have never once said it the 'truth' like others do! ::)
-
I see it is still true for you...
Makes light work for us when you aptly revert back to what you do best.. Insult and sarcasm... laughable to everyone else.
It is your garbage which is laughable, NOT that of Khatru!
-
I say what I think, but have never once said it the 'truth' like others do! ::)
So you don't think posting
'Miracles don't happen in reality!'
comes across that way?
-
I see it is still true for you...
Makes light work for us when you aptly revert back to what you do best.. Insult and sarcasm... laughable to everyone else.
Not everyone else Sassy - I've pointed out this bad habit of yours of claiming that everyone sees things like you do before.
-
So you don't think posting
'Miracles don't happen in reality!'
comes across that way?
OK but where is the evidence to support any miracles? I was once told by an intelligent guy that the dead were being resurrected in Africa. When I challenged his statement he couldn't provide the evidence to support it. In my opinion, the default position should be disbelief until corroborative evidence is provided.
-
OK but where is the evidence to support any miracles? I was once told by an intelligent guy that the dead were being resurrected in Africa. When I challenged his statement he couldn't provide the evidence to support it.
Alan Burns claimed, not tremendously long ago, that a miracle occurred with regard to a very sick baby in a London hospital, an event witnessed not by him personally (needless to say ...) but by several other persons still living and thus potentially capable of being tracked down and contacted in order to be asked about this alleged incident to see if their record of events matched Alan's second-hand account.
Needless to say, the response was precisely and exactly the same ...
In my opinion, the default position should be disbelief until corroborative evidence is provided.
That's the only rationally defensible position to take.
-
OK but where is the evidence to support any miracles? I was once told by an intelligent guy that the dead were being resurrected in Africa. When I challenged his statement he couldn't provide the evidence to support it. In my opinion, the default position should be disbelief until corroborative evidence is provided.
Wouldn't it be better to ask those who believe in miracles for the evidence and to challenge that evidence?
I don't suggest that miracles happen - far from it - but would just like this forum to be more about discussion rather than a series of one liners with smilies and the like which really are just people 'having a go' at each other. If it was more like that I might post more often but sadly every thread seems to be derailed into petty (and repetative) sniping. I know this is a vain hope but I do keep holding it.
-
Needless to say, the response was precisely and exactly the same ... That's the only rationally defensible position to take.
If one has a belief in God then it seems reasonable to think that such events could be due to divine intervention. The irrational element comes in when not investigating the events and blindly believing what one has heard or been told.
-
A person will get better unexpectedly from time to time, but that doesn't mean a deity has cured them. There is more than likely a natural explanation. Besides which, as has been pointed out many times before, if the deity can cure someone, why does it do it so infrequently, playing silly beggars with people's lives? Alan's friend Becky is a case in point, if the poor lady does recover eventually, no doubt god will get all the praise, in spite of stringing along her poor family for all this time. If she doesn't recover, no doubt the deity won't be blamed and an excuse will be found for its vile behaviour!
-
Wouldn't it be better to ask those who believe in miracles for the evidence and to challenge that evidence?
A fairly pointless exercise, since at this juncture they will wheel out the same old gripes about "But you think the only evidence is physical, empirical evidence ..." thereby implying (and at least sometimes explicitly stating) that they have a different kind of evidence which isn't physical/empirical. The sceptic then obviously replies: "OK, so provide us, even in outline, with a working methodology of your own supposedly able to evaluate your claims and ascertain their truth or falsity." And at that point the believers suddenly remember they've left the gas on, or that the books need to go back to the library, and disappear.
-
A person will get better unexpectedly from time to time, but that doesn't mean a deity has cured them. There is more than likely a natural explanation. Besides which, as has been pointed out many times before, if the deity can cure someone, why does it do it so infrequently, playing silly beggars with people's lives? Alan's friend Becky is a case in point, if the poor lady does recover eventually, no doubt god will get all the praise, in spite of stringing along her poor family for all this time. If she doesn't recover, no doubt the deity won't be blamed and an excuse will be found for its vile behaviour!
Not sure why you posted that Floo - if aimed at me - since I have said I personally don't believe in miracles.
-
A fairly pointless exercise, since at this juncture they will wheel out the same old gripes about "But you think the only evidence is physical, empirical evidence ..." thereby implying (and at least sometimes explicitly stating) that they have a different kind of evidence which isn't physical/empirical. The sceptic then obviously replies: "OK, so provide us, even in outline, with a working methodology of your own supposedly able to evaluate your claims and ascertain their truth or falsity." And at that point the believers suddenly remember they've left the gas on, or that the books need to go back to the library, and disappear.
Absolutely - then you can leave the discussion gracefully, which is what I try to do. Stating things in one liners doesn't really take the discussion on at all.
-
I have no idea what you are on about Maeght; are you having a bad day?
-
I have no idea what you are on about Maeght; are you having a bad day?
I'm not in a good mood, no - but am surprised you have no idea what I'm on about none the less. Which part don't you get?
-
It is your garbage which is laughable, NOT that of Khatru!
As if you understood, either.
That is the most laughable...
-
Not everyone else Sassy - I've pointed out this bad habit of yours of claiming that everyone sees things like you do before.
You have just under 3,000 posts. Come back when you are around often enough to comment... :)
Ps. How many of those posts are addressed to me? ;) 8) ::) ;D
-
You have just under 3,000 posts. Come back when you are around often enough to comment... :)
Ps. How many of those posts are addressed to me? ;) 8) ::) ;D
Sass, even someone with only one post would be able to clock that most of your posts are badly put together and nonsense! ;D
-
You have just under 3,000 posts. Come back when you are around often enough to comment... :)
How often I post is irrelevant. Perhaps you should listen to what is being said because you do often claim that everyone else thinks like you do when this is not the case. A bit of self awareness wouldn't go a miss.
Ps. How many of those posts are addressed to me? ;) 8) ::) ;D
Probably quite a few since I tend to post when people make mistakes, claim things to be true when they aren't or misrepresent the views of atheists or scientists and so on. What difference does it make?
-
How often I post is irrelevant. Perhaps you should listen to what is being said because you do often claim that everyone else thinks like you do when this is not the case. A bit of self awareness wouldn't go a miss.
A truth as rock-solid as a mountain!
Probably quite a few since I tend to post when people make mistakes, claim things to be true when they aren't or misrepresent the views of atheists or scientists and so on.
Blimey, that would involve answering every post from Sass! :)
What difference does it make?
In this case, none! You are talking to a mind closed to everything except her personal interpretation of what the Bible claims. ;)
-
You have just under 3,000 posts. Come back when you are around often enough to comment... :)
You have fewer than 9,000 posts. Come back when you have got to five digits and then we'll see if you are worthy.
-
So anyway - have we established that Issy 53 has fuck all to do with a messiah and/or the Christ yet?
-
So anyway - have we established that Issy 53 has fuck all to do with a messiah and/or the Christ yet?
Even if it did have anything to do with a messiah, that's not Jesus.
By the way, Christ is the Greek for messiah. Both mean "anointed one" and that could refer to a Jewish superhero saviour or to an ordinary king (who is anointed at his coronation). King David was a messiah (assuming he existed).
-
As if you understood, either.
That is the most laughable...
Oh, I understand alright.
I understand that I put humanity ahead of religious dogma based on the ramblings of late iron age goat herders.
I understand that the world is big enough for all faiths and atheists.
I understand that true Christians don't think the world is big enough.
I understand that true Christians cannot rest until the whole world bows the knee.
I understand that true Christians say that those who have declined their faith have forfeited their right to exist.
-
How often I post is irrelevant. Perhaps you should listen to what is being said because you do often claim that everyone else thinks like you do when this is not the case. A bit of self awareness wouldn't go a miss.
It isn't irrelevant. It is very relevant when commenting about a poster.
As for thinking as I do. I believe had you looked closely many people feel Floo's post are really a waste of time since there is nothing relevant to the topic more insults to believers. A little less self-awareness and awareness of the things said on the whole of the forum would not go amiss with you.
Probably quite a few since I tend to post when people make mistakes, claim things to be true when they aren't or misrepresent the views of atheists or scientists and so on. What difference does it make?
As, if you had the knowledge or ability to do when it comes to Christianity. More of an attack of people with you than really adding anything to the topics... Sad but true.. now be a good boy and stop wasting peoples time on here.
See you when you next pop in... :D
-
You have fewer than 9,000 posts. Come back when you have got to five digits and then we'll see if you are worthy.
How many of those with over 9.000 are from posts in the music thread?
Get a life Jeremyp and realise most of mine are answering threads. Not true of others is it?
You forget most of the threads are cut and posts lost so the count lessens. Even with the loss I still have 3 times that of the person I am responding to. You don't even have that with mine.
I guess the clue was about commenting on the contents of my posts... Clue being he is not here often enough to note the whole members of the board....
-
So anyway - have we established that Issy 53 has fuck all to do with a messiah and/or the Christ yet?
You have established NOTHING. Since there are Jews who claim it does.
-
Oh, I understand alright.
I understand that I put humanity ahead of religious dogma based on the ramblings of late iron age goat herders.
I understand that the world is big enough for all faiths and atheists.
I understand that true Christians don't think the world is big enough.
I understand that true Christians cannot rest until the whole world bows the knee.
I understand that true Christians say that those who have declined their faith have forfeited their right to exist.
All this from someone who couldn't even understand the reply he is answering was to FLOO.
Do you have multiple personality disorder where you think you are Floo....
Quote from: Floo on February 19, 2016, 10:18:20 AM
It is your garbage which is laughable, NOT that of Khatru!
As if you understood, either.
That is the most laughable...
Quote from: Khatru on February 21, 2016, 11:44:00 PM
Calm down dear! You cannot answer, I understand and think this little show of misplaced sarcasm and rage will cover it.
You really do lack don't you. You do yourself harm with posts like the above.
You write but it is all wind. No truth to it for yourself.
-
It isn't irrelevant. It is very relevant when commenting about a poster.
It is totally irrelevant. What is relevant is if I have read your posts - and I have.
As for thinking as I do. I believe had you looked closely many people feel Floo's post are really a waste of time since there is nothing relevant to the topic more insults to believers.
But you make your claims for lots of other posters not just Floo and often to support points that many other posters don't agree with you on. It is a bad habit you need to get out of in my view.
A little less self-awareness and awareness of the things said on the whole of the forum would not go amiss with you.
I read a lot more than I post so am aware of the forum and what is being posted. Rather than just repeating back to me what I said about you, any particular things you think I need to be self aware about? ALways open to feedback.
As, if you had the knowledge or ability to do when it comes to Christianity.
I don't claim any knowledge about Christianity and don't post about it particularly. Perhaps you need better awareness of the forum in the way you suggested I do.
More of an attack of people with you than really adding anything to the topics
I guess you meant 'more of an attack on people with you not really adding anything to the topic' - if so, again, you need better awareness of the forum because I certainly don't attack anyone.
... Sad but true..
Not really.
now be a good boy
Patronising and unnecessary Sassy.
and stop wasting peoples time on here.
Again - suggesting supporting numbers for your view. If you think I'm wasting your time just don't reply - quite happy with that.
See you when you next pop in... :D
You never know your luck.
-
How many of those with over 9.000 are from posts in the music thread?
I have maybe posted once or twice in the music thread.
Get a life Jeremyp and realise most of mine are answering threads. Not true of others is it?
Since most of your posts consist of canned scripture quotes, let's discard those arbitrarily. You're not looking so good now, are you. In fact, once we have done the pruning of your scripture posts, I bet Maeght's posts outnumber yours.
You forget most of the threads are cut and posts lost so the count lessens. Even with the loss I still have 3 times that of the person I am responding to. You don't even have that with mine.
Firstly, the count does not lessen when they prune the board.
Secondly, I have nearly twice the number of posts that you do, so why don't you put a sock in it?
I guess the clue was about commenting on the contents of my posts... Clue being he is not here often enough to note the whole members of the board....
You claim post count matters until somebody with more posts than you calls you out on that. You are a hypocrite. If your god exists, he probably face palms every time you log into this forum because he knows you are going to spout some stupid nonsense.
Post count is irrelevant, argue the point, not the man.
-
All this from someone who couldn't even understand the reply he is answering was to FLOO.
Do you have multiple personality disorder where you think you are Floo....
As if you understood, either.
That is the most laughable...
Calm down dear! You cannot answer, I understand and think this little show of misplaced sarcasm and rage will cover it.
You really do lack don't you. You do yourself harm with posts like the above.
You write but it is all wind. No truth to it for yourself.
If you want a private conversation with someone you can always pm them.
What's telling is that you didn't even deny the points I made.
Your silence speaks volumes.
-
If you want a private conversation with someone you can always pm them.
What's telling is that you didn't even deny the points I made.
Your silence speaks volumes.
Then it's a great pity she doesn't speak volumes all the time. :)
-
Since most of your posts consist of canned scripture quotes,
...in bold, this cannot be emphasised enough.
Bold = right!
-
Even if it did have anything to do with a messiah, that's not Jesus.
By the way, Christ is the Greek for messiah. Both mean "anointed one" and that could refer to a Jewish superhero saviour or to an ordinary king (who is anointed at his coronation). King David was a messiah (assuming he existed).
Sorry Jerry, but we both know that Issy 53 is not a messianic text. It doesn't predict anything. In fact, it does the exact opposite and tells the story of a past event. You know an event before Isaiah existed.
It's not my fault that modern christians are too dumbass to understand this..
-
If you want a private conversation with someone you can always pm them.
What's telling is that you didn't even deny the points I made.
Your silence speaks volumes.
You cannot seriously think your reply actually carries any weight or purpose.
Got caught out again and trying to regain face. Sorry, not in this case.
No points to answer as the post was clearly addressed to Floo about Flool
EPIC FAIL on your part. Grow up and stop being a mard ass. Boo Hoo you got caught out again.
Re: Isaiah 52:13-53: whatever..
210 on: February 21, 2016, 11:27:34 AM
Quote from: Floo on February 19, 2016, 10:18:20 AM
It is your garbage which is laughable, NOT that of Khatru!
As if you understood, either.
That is the most laughable...
PM not required unless it is FLOO you think should have used the system....
-
Obviously Sass thinks very highly of me as I am not far from her thoughts! ;D ;D ;D
-
Nor she from yours, so it seems floo!
-
But it doesn't exclude the fact that Issiah 53 has fuck all to do with Jesus.
Why do certain idiots keep claiming it does?
-
Thanks Ippy, but afgain what I am referring to is the mindset of the Christian to whom the point is being made. If they believe miracles happen it is pointless arguing that such events don't happen otherwise.
I am, I must say, at a bit of a loss as to why so many clever people on here are having trouble understanding my point. I am not arguing that miracles happen, I am saying to someone who believes in them just saying 'humans don't do that' is a non argument.
But surely then if you are arguing against a theist saying 'God doesn't exist' is a pointless argument. So why bother at all?
-
But surely then if you are arguing against a theist saying 'God doesn't exist' is a pointless argument. So why bother at all?
There is no point in just saying 'God doesn't exist' no, which is why I don't say that. What I comment on are the arguments made for the existence of God, the misrepresentation of science and the misrepresentation of atheism. I don't have a belief in God, see no reason to believe in one and think it is highly unlikely one as represented in the Bible exists, but cannot say for certain God doesn't exist.
-
There is no point in just saying 'God doesn't exist' no, which is why I don't say that. What I comment on are the arguments made for the existence of God, the misrepresentation of science and the misrepresentation of atheism. I don't have a belief in God, see no reason to believe in one and think it is highly unlikely one as represented in the Bible exists, but cannot say for certain God doesn't exist.
I understand your point. But if you are arguing against the case made for God existing why not argue similarly against the case in favour of Biblical miracles?
-
I understand your point. But if you are arguing against the case made for God existing why not argue similarly against the case in favour of Biblical miracles?
Maeght appears to do exactly that, just pick up Floo on her certainty that they don"t happen. I think Maeght has been clear as to having no belief in God and/or miracles, but just not thinking that an absolute case against has or can be made. That no case has neen.made for either is also their position.
-
I understand your point. But if you are arguing against the case made for God existing why not argue similarly against the case in favour of Biblical miracles?
I don't argue against belief in God, only comment on the evidence which people of belief put forward to support that belief - presenting alternative explanations which seem to me more likely or showing that they are not really evidence at all. I try to get them to accept that they ave a belief and to accept there is no supporting evidence as they often claim there is. if they do that then fine by me. This approach can equally be applied to biblical miracles. This is not the same as just saying miracles can't happen because the those things don't normally happen to someone who recognises they don't normally happen - if they did they wouldn't be considered miracles. It is perfectly reasonable to say 'look, there is no evidence for these miracles' but that is a different approach to the one i am commenting on.
What would you say would be the equivalent to this (the point I am making) regarding the existence of God? If you can suggest that I can say, firstly if I agree with that suggestion and secondly if I have ever used it in an argument.
-
Maeght appears to do exactly that, just pick up Floo on her certainty that they don"t happen. I think Maeght has been clear as to having no belief in God and/or miracles, but just not thinking that an absolute case against has or can be made. That no case has neen.made for either is also their position.
I hope I am being clear and consistent, but happy to be picked up if not. I try to avoid claiming certainty and making assertions - possibly due to my scientific training but also possibly due to my nature. Not clear what the last line meant though NS - which 'their'?
-
I hope I am being clear and consistent, but happy to be picked up if not. I try to avoid claiming certainty and making assertions - possibly due to my scientific training but also possibly due to my nature. Not clear what the last line meant though NS - which 'their'?
As in 'your' position but since I was talking about you to Rhiannon, I used their to cover that.
-
As in 'your' position but since I was talking about you to Rhiannon, I used their to cover that.
Ah, okay.
-
Thrud, What's your opinion about Isaiah 49:1-6, in which the Servant is distinguished from Israel twice?
-
Thrud, What's your opinion about Isaiah 49:1-6, in which the Servant is distinguished from Israel twice?
What happened to Holmes at the Richenbach falls, Spud if you don't know what's your opinion?
Both questions are of equal validity; it's not that important about whatever happened to Holmes because it's fiction, how do you know if there would be any difference when applied to your question?
ippy
-
Oh, I understand alright.
I understand that I put humanity ahead of religious dogma based on the ramblings of late iron age goat herders.
I understand that the world is big enough for all faiths and atheists.
I understand that true Christians don't think the world is big enough.
I understand that true Christians cannot rest until the whole world bows the knee.
I understand that true Christians say that those who have declined their faith have forfeited their right to exist.
All of those 'understandings' would seem to confirm Sassy's comment, Khat. The only one that would seem remotely valid is the 2nd. Just because the "world is big enough for all faiths and atheists", does it mean that all/some/none of these worldviews are true or correct?
-
Thrud, What's your opinion about Isaiah 49:1-6, in which the Servant is distinguished from Israel twice?
And verse 3 definitively says that Israel is the Servant.
-
And verse 3 definitively says that Israel is the Servant.
Yes Israel is the servant,but it is not speaking of the nation and I am not going to point you to the scripture that identifies Israel.You can dangle.
~TW~
-
What happened to Holmes at the Richenbach falls, Spud if you don't know what's your opinion?
Both questions are of equal validity; it's not that important about whatever happened to Holmes because it's fiction, how do you know if there would be any difference when applied to your question?
ippy
Holmes at the Reichenbach falls might have direct relevance to the supposed resurrection of Jesus. I don't know if it has any particular relevance to determining who Isaiah was referring to when he spoke of "The Suffering Servant". The nation of Israel certainly existed (to whom Isaiah is indeed referring) and most of it was led into captivity in Babylon, events which have particular relevance to this particular OT book, whether you think it was written by one scribe or three.
Of course, Isaiah believes he is speaking for his 'God' here, and I know that upsets you. But I don't why every question on these matters has to be reduced to "there's no proof that God exists" (even though I certainly agree with the latter).
-
Yes Israel is the servant,but it is not speaking of the nation and I am not going to point you to the scripture that identifies Israel.You can dangle.
~TW~
Well, thank you for re-stating the theme of the thread. Isaiah is chocker-block with scriptures (plural) that identify Israel - I don't need them pointing out.
-
Well, thank you for re-stating the theme of the thread. Isaiah is chocker-block with scriptures (plural) that identify Israel - I don't need them pointing out.
You do you cant understand them.
~TW~
-
Holmes at the Reichenbach falls might have direct relevance to the supposed resurrection of Jesus. I don't know if it has any particular relevance to determining who Isaiah was referring to when he spoke of "The Suffering Servant". The nation of Israel certainly existed (to whom Isaiah is indeed referring) and most of it was led into captivity in Babylon, events which have particular relevance to this particular OT book, whether you think it was written by one scribe or three.
Of course, Isaiah believes he is speaking for his 'God' here, and I know that upsets you. But I don't why every question on these matters has to be reduced to "there's no proof that God exists" (even though I certainly agree with the latter).
No matter what anyone thinks or believes, why should there any more relevence/importance afforded to the supposed thoughts of Isaiah than Holms, unless of course it can be established that Holms was a real person living at the time and place the writer of the story says he was; nothing particually deep about that, or likely.
Assuming the above, why is it any more important to discuss the thoughts of Isaiah, or any other supposed religious figure than, purely as an example, Holmes, unless of course some of the verifiable stuff is found and since that is so unlikely to happen, why should I, as you suggest by the tone of your post, be expected to take this sort of discussion more seriously.
(No spell check on my tablet, so the spelling is the best you're likely to get from this direction).
ippy
-
Unlike Thrud, I agree with you and Ad-O that the text in question might well have a future application. Firstly because, as you say, Hebrew does not have the same tense-system as English, and in any case, I see no problem using a past tense 'metaphorically' to refer to a future situation. I further see no problem in considering the text in question to refer to the ongoing tribulations of the Jewish people throughout the ages.
The question is why, when 'Israel' has been used to represent the Jewish people as God's Servant throughout the book of Isaiah, when we get to chapters 52-53, we should suddenly start considering the 'Servant' to refer to Jesus uniquely.
Cue something about Jesus taking over the task that the Jewish people were supposed to have performed, but failed in.....
Greetings,
Apologies if someone has mentioned this already, but in the Aramaic Targum (a translation/paraphrase of the OT written before the time of Christ) written because by this time the Jews of Palestine were Aramaic-speakers and therefore struggled with Hebrew texts, it has for Isaiah 52:13, "52:13. Behold my servant Messiah shall prosper; he shall be high, and increase, and be exceeding strong:" Have a butcher's at http://jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/v02-n05/isaiah53
-
Doesn't alter the fact that Isaiah 53 has fuck all to do with Jesus..
Maybe you could apply it to a christ - if you could be arsed!!
-
Doesn't alter the fact that Isaiah 53 has fuck all to do with Jesus..
Maybe you could apply it to a christ - if you could be arsed!!
Nah! just making a comment and no back up evidence does not cut the mustard. Either prove it of shut up!
-
And verse 3 definitively says that Israel is the Servant.
If this is the case, then how do verses 5 and 6 fit the picture?
-
Doesn't alter the fact that Isaiah 53 has fuck all to do with Jesus..
Maybe you could apply it to a christ - if you could be arsed!!
Well, some influential Jews thought it referred to the Messiah so it depends on whether Jesus was/is the Messiah then. At least we can see that the idea of applying Isaiah 52/53 was not some invention of the Christians.
-
Doesn't alter the fact that Isaiah 53 has fuck all to do with Jesus..
Maybe you could apply it to a christ - if you could be arsed!!
So Thrud taking into account the comments of Spud and Alien and following those comments to a logical conclusion,you are wrong.
~TW~
-
So Thrud taking into account the comments of Spud and Alien and following those comments to a logical conclusion,you are wrong.
~TW~
That's that sorted then.
-
The major stumbling points for the messianic claims are for a start Isaiah 53 is not a prophetic text. It recalls a PAST event. I.e. before he lived, 8 centuries before Jesus was conceived.
There is absolutely nothing futuristic about this suffering servant he portrays. Not one "will be" always a "was".
It takes a special sort of idiot to transport a was into an is, but they are legion on this board!!
-
The major stumbling points for the messianic claims are for a start Isaiah 53 is not a prophetic text. It recalls a PAST event. I.e. before he lived, 8 centuries before Jesus was conceived.
There is absolutely nothing futuristic about this suffering servant he portrays. Not one "will be" always a "was".
It takes a special sort of idiot to transport a was into an is, but they are legion on this board!!
You believe it already happened.
Show us in the bible how it recalls a past event.
Truth has no basic requirements...
The truth about the Messiah was written by the Prophets, as Christ also referred to Isaiah then it was not by any stretch of the imagination a 'was' book was it?
Isaiah 7:14 born of a virgin/maiden.
Micah Born in Bethlehem.
King James Bible
But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
You try and accuse me of being possessed rather a little stupid in the event you believe in nothing.
You know that you are just annoyed (stop smirking) because I told you to put up or shut up.
You have not put up anything but flesh answers. You have no proof. I have shown that the Messiah being born of a virgin/maiden was actually written in Isaiah and so we know that your opinion has no evidence to support it.
I am not here to try and be clever or have a fight about rights and wrongs.
Jesus Christ, if the Messiah has shown through OT and the understanding of the disciples that he fulfilled the criteria of Moses and Deuteronomy 18:15-21.
It is a well known messianic truth that the Messiah was to bring Gods final words on the truth. Hence before Christ there were the different teachings and beliefs held by Pharisee and Sadducee.
What you omit from your knowledge is the fact the Samaritans and all Messiah believers knew the final truth would come from the Messiah.
So Christ himself would have shown that the truths of the Prophets included his death.
His resurrection and his final truth that all men can be saved from their sins by faith in him.
A faith which bring life in all it's fullness and truth. You cannot go beyond that which you believe because in truth it holds no value for you. You do not seek to learn. You seek to try and tear down. You live as you are a victim of life.
Sowing what you expect and do receive. Not life is it, mere existence which is wearisome and tiresome.
I have a belief, a belief which even when times difficult does not change because truth is not about circumstance.
What your heart is full of, will show in your posts..
-
Isaiah 51:11
Those the Lord has rescued will return.
They will enter Zion with singing;
everlasting joy will crown their heads.
Gladness and joy will overtake them,
and sorrow and sighing will flee away.
This applies to the return from exile in Babylon of the Jews, but their joy was not everlasting. So did God's promise fail or did that event point to something bigger? The prophets Zechariah and Malachi, writing after the restoration of the Jews, predicted the coming of Christ and salvation for the whole earth. This might be why Mark opens by quoting Isaiah 40:3 - to indicate that Israel and, as he later reveals, the world, was still in exile, awaiting God's salvation.
-
The major stumbling points for the messianic claims are for a start Isaiah 53 is not a prophetic text. It recalls a PAST event. I.e. before he lived, 8 centuries before Jesus was conceived.
There is absolutely nothing futuristic about this suffering servant he portrays. Not one "will be" always a "was".
It takes a special sort of idiot to transport a was into an is, but they are legion on this board!!
Except that the passage begins at 52:13.
Why do you think it is idiotic to see the whole passage as in the past when the Jews themselves saw it as in the future?
-
Greetings,
Apologies if someone has mentioned this already, but in the Aramaic Targum (a translation/paraphrase of the OT written before the time of Christ) written because by this time the Jews of Palestine were Aramaic-speakers and therefore struggled with Hebrew texts, it has for Isaiah 52:13, "52:13. Behold my servant Messiah shall prosper; he shall be high, and increase, and be exceeding strong:" Have a butcher's at http://jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/v02-n05/isaiah53
Hello Alan -cuanto tiempo....?
However, as I'm sure you know, this word 'Messiah' has a very wide range of reference in Hebrew and Aramaic. There are two 'Messiahs' mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls - the Priestly and the Warrior. More pertinent here is the reference to King Cyrus, who was responsible for the liberation of the Jews from their Babylonian exile. Isaiah would appear to be quite free in his use of the term 'Messiah':
Thus says the LORD to his Messiah, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have grasped,
to subdue nations before him
and ungird the loins of kings,
to open doors before him
that gates may not be closed
Isaiah 45
Now that certainly does not refer to Christ (which also means 'anointed' of course).
It is possible that the instance you cite may refer to an individual with a specific, important role for Israel (it may even refer to Jesus :) ), but the fact that it is used in your quote in association with "Servant", I'd suggest that is just the nation of Israel being personified here, just as throughout Isaiah.
-
Isaiah 51:11
Those the Lord has rescued will return.
They will enter Zion with singing;
everlasting joy will crown their heads.
Gladness and joy will overtake them,
and sorrow and sighing will flee away.
This applies to the return from exile in Babylon of the Jews, but their joy was not everlasting. So did God's promise fail or did that event point to something bigger? The prophets Zechariah and Malachi, writing after the restoration of the Jews, predicted the coming of Christ and salvation for the whole earth. This might be why Mark opens by quoting Isaiah 40:3 - to indicate that Israel and, as he later reveals, the world, was still in exile, awaiting God's salvation.
That's a beautiful text (and it's often been set to beautiful music). Yes, 'God's' promises did fail - and there's nothing new about that in Old Testament prophecies. One that comes to mind is the way that wonders are prophesied and expected of King Josiah, but who strangely met his death from a hostile arrow when he was relatively young.
Nonetheless, for many Jews the above text still expresses an aspiration for a better world. Such aspirations are not the exclusive property of the religious - just consider the final chorus to 'Hellas' by the atheist Shelley.
-
If this is the case, then how do verses 5 and 6 fit the picture?
Maybe refers to a special 'remnant' of Israel. I dunno - it doesn't seem like a text to be logically dissected all the time. It does seem to be some kind of restatement of the old promise to Abraham that 'through his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed' i.e. the Jews were considered to have some special role in world history. That's not a cue for you to go quoting the irrelevant semantics of St Paul, btw.
-
Hello Alan -cuanto tiempo....?
More pertinent here is the reference to King Cyrus, who was responsible for the liberation of the Jews from their Babylonian exile.
And if we take the book of Isaiah as genuine, we see that Cyrus is named years before he existed:
"Therefore I told you these things long ago;
before they happened I announced them to you
so that you could not say,
'My images brought them about;
my wooden image and metal god ordained them.' " (Isaiah 48:5, NIV)
Israel the Servant was delivered from Babylon for the purpose of turning from idols to the living God.
-
Maybe refers to a special 'remnant' of Israel. I dunno - it doesn't seem like a text to be logically dissected all the time. It does seem to be some kind of restatement of the old promise to Abraham that 'through his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed' i.e. the Jews were considered to have some special role in world history.
Perhaps the special 'remnant' represents in Yahweh's mind everything that Israel was supposed to be. This becomes a type for the literal individual who does fulfill Israel's mission (which had been to proclaim the living God) by being innocent of all sin. It's interesting that Matthew quotes Hosea 11:1, which refers to the nation of Israel as God's "son" and which Mt sees as a type of His literal Son. Matthew's quote from Isaiah 42:1-4 in ch. 12 also looks like fulfillment of prophecy in the typological sense.
This would make sense of the Servant in Isaiah 49:3 being called 'Israel' but actually referring to an individual representative of Israel.
-
The Bible can and is interpreted to suit the thought process of those doing the interpreting. It was written so long ago so we can't know for sure how much credence the documents making up that book actually have. Of course many people, including some on this forum, make wild speculations stating them as fact!
-
The Bible can and is interpreted to suit the thought process of those doing the interpreting. It was written so long ago so we can't know for sure how much credence the documents making up that book actually have. Of course many people, including some on this forum, make wild speculations stating them as fact!
Floo are you looking in a mirror as you write.
~TW~
-
Floo are you looking in a mirror as you write.
~TW~
Of course, you do know that Isaiah also got his prophecies wrong?
Don't you?
-
Of course, you do know that Isaiah also got his prophecies wrong?
Don't you?
So why not ask the question and display the prophecy's you seem to make hard work of every thing do you have trouble getting dressed in the morning. ;D
~TW~
-
So why not ask the question and display the prophecy's you seem to make hard work of every thing do you have trouble getting dressed in the morning. ;D
~TW~
Are you only allowed to dress after your nurse has let you out of your room? ;D
-
What makes you think he leaves the room?
-
Hello Alan -cuanto tiempo....?
What ho! I'm spending most of my time these days on an atheist Facebook love-in site. I got banned from one (I'll put that on my CV) and am now on one where they are not quite so weird.
However, as I'm sure you know, this word 'Messiah' has a very wide range of reference in Hebrew and Aramaic. There are two 'Messiahs' mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls - the Priestly and the Warrior. More pertinent here is the reference to King Cyrus, who was responsible for the liberation of the Jews from their Babylonian exile. Isaiah would appear to be quite free in his use of the term 'Messiah':
Isaiah 45
Now that certainly does not refer to Christ (which also means 'anointed' of course).
Agreed. Words in any language get used in different ways in different situations. The context can make big differences to the meanings of words.
It is possible that the instance you cite may refer to an individual with a specific, important role for Israel (it may even refer to Jesus :) ), but the fact that it is used in your quote in association with "Servant", I'd suggest that is just the nation of Israel being personified here, just as throughout Isaiah.
Fair enough, but Jesus certainly was a servant, so it seems, to me at least, quite reasonable to apply Isaiah 52:13 -53:end to him.
-
And if we take the book of Isaiah as genuine, we see that Cyrus is named years before he existed:
By "genuine", do you mean "Written by just one person who was inerrantly inspired by God"?
Well, of course, most objective critics have convincingly argued that it was written by certainly two, and perhaps three distinct individuals. Isaiah of Jerusalem - chaps. 1-40 (pre-exilic), 2nd Isaiah - chaps. 40 onwards (post-exilic), and the final chapters written by 3rd Isaiah.
Now if you know of an event that has happened in the past (the Cyrus episode) and claim much later to the hoi-polloi that this was prophesied, that could be construed as lying (with the best of intentions, no doubt).
-
The Bible can and is interpreted to suit the thought process of those doing the interpreting. It was written so long ago so we can't know for sure how much credence the documents making up that book actually have. Of course many people, including some on this forum, make wild speculations stating them as fact!
That doesn't mean that scholars shouldn't attempt objective research on these writings (something they've been doing for over 200 years now, more and more since the Church released scholars from the stranglehold of having to treat these writings as untouchable divine writ).
The attempted objective research is always influenced by individual confirmation bias - that's one of the misfortunes of being human. That doesn't mean nothing can be gained, or that everything the 'Higher Criticism' has revealed is moonshine. Any more than the deciphering of the Rosetta Stone's hieroglyphics was moonshine.
There is speculation in both camps, both the religious and non-religious (though not all of those pioneering scholars were non-religious). I of course think a non-religious approach is more revealing.
I'm not sure what the alternatives would be: "The fundies and the evangelicals think the Bible is the inerrant word of God - well it isn't, yah boo sucks". And then what?
-
Of course, you do know that Isaiah also got his prophecies wrong?
Don't you?
Looks like you have hit the fan.
~TW~
-
The Bible can and is interpreted to suit the thought process of those doing the interpreting.
You have to laugh... hence the reason Floo, is always talking twaddle.
Seems millions of people who believe Jesus is the Son of God.
Luke 1 are getting it wrong and interpreting it to suit themselves.
Do you think the Angel got it wrong? Can it be misinterpreted that Jesus is to be called the Son of God or that he died to save the world (people) John 3:16 not the planet after all God controls it all, doesn't he?
The more a person reads the bible the more you see how Floo lives in her own world and has never studied the bible.
How many people speak in ignorance. Even a small child who attends Sunday School knows more than Floo.
It any wonder she can only produce small posts with just empty beliefs which are wrong?
It was written so long ago so we can't know for sure how much credence the documents making up that book actually have. Of course many people, including some on this forum, make wild speculations stating them as fact!
Jesus said:-
“If you love me, you will keep my commandments. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, 17 even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you. 18 “I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. 19 Yet a little while and the world will see me no more, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. 20 In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you. 21 Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him.”
According to Christ we can know what the bible is teaching and we can know both Christ and God personally.
Until you have tried to do as he has said then you will keep writing utter rubbish and all which is illogical for a person who has never walked the way Christ set for us all to know the Father and himself.
The only persons who widely speculates and gets it wrong is you Floo along with the other atheists...
-
Of course, you do know that Isaiah also got his prophecies wrong?
Don't you?
What a silly Billy...
Isaiah getting his prophecies wrong... I believe every word you write shows you are wrong.
It shows you are ignorant and here like Bluehillside to try and pull down something you know nothing about.
If Isaiah got his Prophecies wrong then why do people believe in Jesus Christ.
Lie down before your empty head causes you to fall down.
-
Are you only allowed to dress after your nurse has let you out of your room? ;D
ST,
We do not know anything about having a nurse let us out of our bedroom at home or being in attendance at our home.
It appears you do, and are speaking from personal experience.
I guess it is true about atheists...~" What they don't know, they make up."~
How apt that you should write something which proves the point.
How apt it shows that in your lack of ability to find the truth you create such false suggestions.
Well I suppose sarcasm the lowest form of wit and in this case false truth for the atheist.
-
What makes you think he leaves the room?
Then someone compounds this when having mentioned attacking and being rude to others as not acceptable throws stones with a person being rude to another.
Way to go, Brownie, displaying your true colours at last.
-
Then someone compounds this when having mentioned attacking and being rude to others as not acceptable throws stones with a person being rude to another.
Way to go, Brownie, displaying your true colours at last.
Why have you started being so b*tchy to poor Brownie, when her posts directed at you, especially on the prayer thread, have been supportive?
The rest of us, apart from your clone TW, expect you to b*tch at us, as that is normal behaviour for you, but leave Brownie out of it.
-
Why have you started being so b*tchy to poor Brownie, when her posts directed at you, especially on the prayer thread, have been supportive?
The rest of us, apart from your clone TW, expect you to b*tch at us, as that is normal behaviour for you, but leave Brownie out of it.
Floo----- Khatru seems to have escaped the compound could you remind him he has a question outstanding. :)
Dr ~TW~
-
Why have you started being so b*tchy to poor Brownie, when her posts directed at you, especially on the prayer thread, have been supportive?
The rest of us, apart from your clone TW, expect you to b*tch at us, as that is normal behaviour for you, but leave Brownie out of it.
Thank you floo but I take no notice, I was merely jesting anyway about TW but I don't care what anyone on forums thinks of me.
I don't really understand TW, I wonder if anyone else does.
-
Thank you floo but I take no notice, I was merely jesting anyway about TW but I don't care what anyone on forums thinks of me.
I don't really understand TW, I wonder if anyone else does.
Think TW is either a WUM, or has very serious problems for which he needs medical help.
-
Or maybe we just don't understand what he is trying to convey floo :D. Anyway it doesn't matter. I'm sorry Sass thinks I was being unpleasant but that's life. You were kind though and I appreciate it.
-
Or maybe we just don't understand what he is trying to convey floo :D. Anyway it doesn't matter. I'm sorry Sass thinks I was being unpleasant but that's life. You were kind though and I appreciate it.
Can I tell you what I am conveying when starting a new topic make sure you get it right,and it is honest ----not dishonest like the majority I am watching.
Dr ~TW~
-
I will do my best to understand TW, thank you.
-
I will do my best to understand TW, thank you.
Good ---I must close the surgery for a while have a search party looking for khatru ;)
Back soon Dr~TW~
-
;D
-
Brownie, you're like a breath of fresh air on this forum.
God Bless you, sister....
edited 'cos my laptop's playing up.... and not typing words!
..... or is it them gremlins again ???
-
By "genuine", do you mean "Written by just one person who was inerrantly inspired by God"?
Well, of course, most objective critics have convincingly argued that it was written by certainly two, and perhaps three distinct individuals. Isaiah of Jerusalem - chaps. 1-40 (pre-exilic), 2nd Isaiah - chaps. 40 onwards (post-exilic), and the final chapters written by 3rd Isaiah.
Now if you know of an event that has happened in the past (the Cyrus episode) and claim much later to the hoi-polloi that this was prophesied, that could be construed as lying (with the best of intentions, no doubt).
The book itself, however, claims to be predicitve prophecy. The Jews accept it as such (as far as I'm aware) and they didn't return to idol worship after their restoration to Israel. If as you suggest, a post-exilic author was writing with the aim of stopping the Jews worshipping idols, would he really make the false claim that God had announced beforehand who was going to send them back from Babylon (ie Cyrus), AND say something like, "I'm telling you in advance so that you won't be able to say that your idols did this"? It doesn't make sense.
-
Floo----- Khatru seems to have escaped the compound could you remind him he has a question outstanding. :)
Dr ~TW~
~TW~
We do not know anything about having escaped from a compound.
It appears you do, and are speaking from personal experience.
I guess it is true about Christians...~" What they don't know, they make up."~
How apt that you should write something which proves the point.
How apt it shows that in your lack of ability to find the truth you create such false suggestions.
Well I suppose sarcasm the lowest form of wit and in this case false truth for the Christian.
(you can thank Sassy for the script and sentiment)!!!
-
~TW~
We do not know anything about having escaped from a compound.
It appears you do, and are speaking from personal experience.
I guess it is true about Christians...~" What they don't know, they make up."~
How apt that you should write something which proves the point.
How apt it shows that in your lack of ability to find the truth you create such false suggestions.
Well I suppose sarcasm the lowest form of wit and in this case false truth for the Christian.
(you can thank Sassy for the script and sentiment)!!!
toe does khatru need you to defend him is he in such dire straights ,-------dearme.
Dr ~TW~
-
The book itself, however, claims to be predicitve prophecy. The Jews accept it as such (as far as I'm aware) and they didn't return to idol worship after their restoration to Israel. If as you suggest, a post-exilic author was writing with the aim of stopping the Jews worshipping idols, would he really make the false claim that God had announced beforehand who was going to send them back from Babylon (ie Cyrus), AND say something like, "I'm telling you in advance so that you won't be able to say that your idols did this"? It doesn't make sense.
Whatever its claims, it doesn't make them factual.
-
Whatever its claims, it doesn't make them factual.
So why dont you read the book ---find the prophecy s and sort out the ones which are not factual,instead of writing about something you are clueless about.We Christians do not mind criticism so long as it is honest and yours is not.
~TW~
-
So why dont you read the book ---find the prophecy s and sort out the ones which are not factual,instead of writing about something you are clueless about.We Christians do not mind criticism so long as it is honest and yours is not.
~TW~
I have read that book many times so know what I am talking about, do you?
Are you really a Christian? I know some very decent ones who wouldn't give you the time of day, if they read your unpleasant posts.
You do mind criticism you go off on one as soon as you are challenged. Take a leaf out of Alan Burns book, I don't see it his way, but he is a decent guy and a good Christian, you aren't fit to lick his boots.
-
I have read that book many times so know what I am talking about, do you?
Are you really a Christian? I know some very decent ones who wouldn't give you the time of day, if they read your unpleasant posts.
You do mind criticism you go off on one as soon as you are challenged. Take a leaf out of Alan Burns book, I don't see it his way, but he is a decent guy and a good Christian, you aren't fit to lick his boots.
So your jesus is a decent guy you say you have read the book,yet your Jesus this ok guy says he is going to have blood and death everywhere in his time.This ok guy says that, have you read it.
Have you read it this ok guy says he is going to get you or do you pass by that bit.
~TW~
-
So your jesus is a decent guy you say you have read the book,yet your Jesus this ok guy says he is going to have blood and death everywhere in his time.This ok guy says that, have you read it.
Have you read it this ok guy says he is going to get you or do you pass by that bit.
~TW~
How do you know anything that Jesus said?
Did Jesus write a document that your have, or do you have some recording of a speach he gave?
Or do you simply just believe what others wrote about him?
-
Some people Floo are so stupid they think 2000 years ago people were deaf and could not write down what they heard and what they were told to write.
~TW~
-
Some people Floo are so stupid they think 2000 years ago people were deaf and could not write down what they heard and what they were told to write.
~TW~
Just because they wrote it, it does not make it true.
Do you believe EVERYTHING you see written down?
-
So floo they made up these lies and then said hey lets die for this crap.
~TW~
-
So floo they made up these lies and then said hey lets die for this crap.
~TW~
Someone would have to really believe they were going to die for the right reason.
People make mistakes though. Just because someone is prepared to die for something, does not make that something TRUE.
It simply means, they believe it to be true.
There is a big difference (flat Earth)
-
So floo they made up these lies and then said hey lets die for this crap.
~TW~
That early Christians were prepared to die for their cause may say something about them but it doesn't validate their cause, since if that were so then the causes of current day suicide bombers would be equally valid - wouldn't they?
-
That early Christians were prepared to die for their cause may say something about them but it doesn't validate their cause, since if that were so then the causes of current day suicide bombers would be equally valid - wouldn't they?
Well said.
Just because people really believe something to be true enough to die for their belief doesn't necessarily mean it is true.
The suicide bombers really and truly believe they will end up in paradise if they die for their very nasty version of Islam. Like the rest of us, I bet TW thinks they are deluded. So by the same token surely it is reasonable for non believers to question the veracity of the basis of Christianity as there is no evidence to support it.
-
That early Christians were prepared to die for their cause may say something about them but it doesn't validate their cause, since if that were so then the causes of current day suicide bombers would be equally valid - wouldn't they?
No very very wrong and shows a warped thinking a suicide bomber kills himself,these people were murdered.
~TW~
-
No very very wrong and shows a warped thinking a suicide bomber kills himself,these people were murdered.
~TW~
They are still prepared to die for a belief though.
Do you agree that being prepared to die for a belief says nothing as to whether that belief is true?
-
No very very wrong and shows a warped thinking a suicide bomber kills himself,these people were murdered.
~TW~
But in support of a cause, so not so different from someone who is prepared to be killed for a cause - the point being that some accept being killed, or kill themselves, doesn't justify their cause.
-
No very very wrong and shows a warped thinking a suicide bomber kills himself,these people were murdered.
~TW~
But he was prepared to die for what he thought was true.
You do not agree that what he thought was true, and that's all we are saying about your beliefs.
We just don't think they are true, no matter how strongly you believe them.
To convince me (and I suspect many others) you need reason, evidence and logic. No amount of shouting and saying you really really believe it, or how many others have believed it over time, carries any weight.
They could all be wrong, just like the people that thought the Earth was flat, or the Sun was burning.
-
They are still prepared to die for a belief though.
Do you agree that being prepared to die for a belief says nothing as to whether that belief is true?
So are JW's but these people were murdered,a difference.
~TW~
-
No very very wrong and shows a warped thinking a suicide bomber kills himself,these people were murdered.
~TW~
Some Christian extremists are very warped too, what about Christians who have killed medics who have performed abortions? Then there are the anti-gay bigots whose nastiness knows no bounds. There was one so called 'Christian' who used to post on this forum before they were banned, who took a pride in his anti-gay bigotry, and stated that he would turn a blind eye if a gay was beaten up!
-
So are JW's but these people were murdered,a difference.
~TW~
You still have not answered the question.
Do you agree that being prepared to die for a belief (either by killing yourself or someone killing you) says nothing as to whether that belief is true?
-
Some Christian extremists are very warped too, what about Christians who have killed medics who have performed abortions? Then there are the anti-gay bigots whose nastiness knows no bounds. There was one so called 'Christian' who used to post on this forum before they were banned, who took a pride in his anti-gay bigotry, and stated that he would turn a blind eye if a gay was beaten up!
Do you have any names or is this you doing what you do best making things up as you go along.
~TW~
-
Do you have any names or is this you doing what you do best making things up as you go along.
~TW~
I don't know if Floo has any names.
I do though.
Paul Jennings Hill.
Eric Robert Rudolph.
James Kopp.
Scott Roeder.
Michael F. Griffin.
John Salvi.
Shelley Shannon.
Peter James Knight.
Let me guess: you're now going to claim that you haven't been provided with any names, as that seems to be your standard operating procedure.
-
Do you have any names or is this you doing what you do best making things up as you go along.
~TW~
Do you accept, that being prepared to die or kill for some belief, does not mean that belief is true?
This is a Yes or No question.
-
I don't know if Floo has any names.
I do though.
Paul Jennings Hill.
Eric Robert Rudolph.
James Kopp.
Scott Roeder.
Michael F. Griffin.
John Salvi.
Shelley Shannon.
Peter James Knight.
Let me guess: you're now going to claim that you haven't been provided with any names, as that seems to be your standard operating procedure.
Good I will google them and see what comes up.
~TW~
-
Good I will google them and see what comes up.
~TW~
You missed this question:-
Do you accept, that being prepared to die or kill for some belief, does not mean that belief is true?
This is a Yes or No question.
-
Good I will google them and see what comes up.
~TW~
Excellent. Be sure to let us know how you get on.
-
Shaker having taken time to google each person on this list which originated in the first instance from a mentioned by floo of Christian extremists and did not supply any names{not Surprised}.
I have looked at this list which you claim are christians and I reject your claim.
~TW~
-
Shaker having taken time to google each person on this list
In eight minutes?
which originated in the first instance from a mentioned by floo of Christian extremists and did not supply any names{not Surprised}.
I have looked at this list which you claim are christians and I reject your claim.
Why's that then?
Paul Jennings Hill was an ordained minister. Are you seriously trying to claim that he wasn't a Christian?
-
In eight minutes?Why's that then?
Paul Jennings Hill was an ordained minister. Are you seriously trying to claim that he wasn't a Christian?
I am glad you mentioned him he seems to be the nearest on your list,you forget to mention he was thrown out of his church and the Army of God really leaves at lot to be desired.
But at least we are talking :)
~TW~
-
I looked up some of the names, Shaker. I certainly wouldn't consider anyone to be a Christian who was prepared to take someone else's life for an ethic. Even Paul Jennings Hill. Just because someone is ordained, doesn't make them a Christian. We only have to look back in history to see that. A dog collar does not a Christian make.
(I would make one exception, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who was prepared to take Hitler's life in order to spare many others.)
-
I looked up some of the names, Shaker. I certainly wouldn't consider anyone to be a Christian who was prepared to take someone else's life for an ethic. Even Paul Jennings Hill. Just because someone is ordained, doesn't make them a Christian. We only have to look back in history to see that. A dog collar does not a Christian make.
(I would make one exception, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who was prepared to take Hitler's life in order to spare many others.)
I just had to log back on to say at last some common sense well done brownie.
~TW~
-
It depends on the definition of 'Christian', which is as long as a piece of string. Some people who claim to be Christians are highly unpleasant and you wouldn't trust them any further than you could throw them, if that far, Others are very moderate in their beliefs and are decent people. I know, and have known, both sorts of Christians.
-
I certainly wouldn't consider anyone to be a Christian who was prepared to take someone else's life for an ethic.
Why not? I mean, I know you consider it wrong (so do I) but who gets to choose who is a Christian, why, and by what criteria? There are clearly those who would disagree with you.
-
I looked up some of the names, Shaker. I certainly wouldn't consider anyone to be a Christian who was prepared to take someone else's life for an ethic. Even Paul Jennings Hill. Just because someone is ordained, doesn't make them a Christian. We only have to look back in history to see that. A dog collar does not a Christian make.
And a kilt, sporran and plate of haggis does not a Scotsman make ;)
(I would make one exception, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who was prepared to take Hitler's life in order to spare many others.)
With respect, that strikes me as playing fast and loose with your definition - Bonhoeffer is in because he did, or would have done, something you approve of, but the others are out.
-
(I would make one exception, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who was prepared to take Hitler's life in order to spare many others.)
This strikes me as odd.
Clearly as I don't believe in a tri-Omni God then I think bumping him off would have been a sensible approach.
However, if I did believe in the tri-Omni God why would I? I mean if it had been God's will that Hitler had been bumped off then he would have been. Wouldn't he? A world in which a holocaust happened must be more optimal than one in which God would have prevented it.
-
This strikes me as odd.
Clearly as I don't believe in a tri-Omni God then I think bumping him off would have been a sensible approach.
However, if I did believe in the tri-Omni God why would I? I mean if it had been God's will that Hitler had been bumped off then he would have been. Wouldn't he? A world in which a holocaust happened must be more optimal than one in which God would have prevented it.
I am sure many people would have been very happy to bump off Hitler as you put it.But finding the opportunity may have been difficult.
~TW~
-
I am sure many people would have been very happy to bump off Hitler as you put it.But finding the opportunity may have been difficult.
~TW~
Ah but eventually human ingenuity would could up with a way of bumping it off, if necessary.
-
I am sure many people would have been very happy to bump off Hitler as you put it.But finding the opportunity may have been difficult.
~TW~
It nearly happened in 1944 (the Stauffenberg bomb). It was only by sheer random chance that Hitler escaped with minor burns.
-
It nearly happened in 1944 (the Stauffenberg bomb). It was only by sheer random chance that Hitler escaped with minor burns.
Not interested Shaker Leave Hitler to the Lord.
~TW~
-
You're welcome ::)
-
This strikes me as odd.
Clearly as I don't believe in a tri-Omni God then I think bumping him off would have been a sensible approach.
However, if I did believe in the tri-Omni God why would I? I mean if it had been God's will that Hitler had been bumped off then he would have been. Wouldn't he? A world in which a holocaust happened must be more optimal than one in which God would have prevented it.
No, many (most?) Christisns believe that people are God's instruments. Whether they believe they are directed by God or simply following the moral teachings of Jesus, few Christians just sit back and let stuff happen. Otherwise there would be no Christian humanitarianism for starters.
So many Christians would argue that Hitler's success in creating the Holocaust arose from the failure of people to act.
-
No, many (most?) Christisns believe that people are God's instruments. Whether they believe they are directed by God or simply following the moral teachings of Jesus, few Christians just sit back and let stuff happen. Otherwise there would be no Christian humanitarianism for starters.
So many Christians would argue that Hitler's success in creating the Holocaust arose from the failure of people to act.
I get that. But, for me the problem comes in believing this all to have been set in motion by a perfect tri-Omni God? It's the only world that could exist surely.
-
Looks like you have hit the fan.
~TW~
Strange you mentioned fan as Christians in hot countries tend to mutter at the ceiling fan, while those in cooler climes will mutter at the ceiling light.
I've got a bit of catching up to do but I have enjoyed you obsessing over my absence.
Now then, Isaiah getting it wrong.....
Check out Isaiah 7 and read how the god of the Bible told Isaiah to prophesise that the attack against Ahaz in Judah by Ephraim, Israel and Syria would be a failure.
Isaiah 7....
3 Then said the Lord unto Isaiah, Go forth now to meet Ahaz, thou, and Shearjashub thy son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool in the highway of the fuller's field;
4 And say unto him, Take heed, and be quiet; fear not, neither be fainthearted for the two tails of these smoking firebrands, for the fierce anger of Rezin with Syria, and of the son of Remaliah.
5 Because Syria, Ephraim, and the son of Remaliah, have taken evil counsel against thee, saying,
6 Let us go up against Judah, and vex it, and let us make a breach therein for us, and set a king in the midst of it, even the son of Tabeal:
7 Thus saith the Lord God, It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass.
Well? Did this come to pass? Did the attack fail as Isaiah had prophesised?
Well, the attack succeeded, which shows that Isaiah got it wrong and his prophecy failed.....
Ahaz was twenty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem: but he did not that which was right in the sight of the Lord, like David his father.
2 Chronicles 28:1
5 Wherefore the Lord his God delivered him into the hand of the king of Syria; and they smote him, and carried away a great multitude of them captives, and brought them to Damascus. And he was also delivered into the hand of the king of Israel, who smote him with a great slaughter.
6 For Pekah the son of Remaliah slew in Judah an hundred and twenty thousand in one day, which were all valiant men; because they had forsaken the Lord God of their fathers.
7 And Zichri, a mighty man of Ephraim, slew Maaseiah the king's son, and Azrikam the governor of the house, and Elkanah that was next to the king.
8 And the children of Israel carried away captive of their brethren two hundred thousand, women, sons, and daughters, and took also away much spoil from them, and brought the spoil to Samaria.
2 Chronicles 28:5-8
This failed prophecy is part of the "proof" believers cite that Jesus virgin birth was prophesised.
-
Strange you mentioned fan as Christians in hot countries tend to mutter at the ceiling fan, while those in cooler climes will mutter at the ceiling light.
I've got a bit of catching up to do but I have enjoyed you obsessing over my absence.
Now then, Isaiah getting it wrong.....
Check out Isaiah 7 and read how the god of the Bible told Isaiah to prophesise that the attack against Ahaz in Judah by Ephraim, Israel and Syria would be a failure.
Isaiah 7....
Well? Did this come to pass? Did the attack fail as Isaiah had prophesised?
Well, the attack succeeded, which shows that Isaiah got it wrong and his prophecy failed.....
2 Chronicles 28:1
2 Chronicles 28:5-8
This failed prophecy is part of the "proof" believers cite that Jesus virgin birth was prophesised.
In order that you do not get your knickers in a twist this post is to let you know I have seen it and will answer in due course.
If only the rest of you could reply in such an honest fashion if only.
~TW~
-
Strange you mentioned fan as Christians in hot countries tend to mutter at the ceiling fan, while those in cooler climes will mutter at the ceiling light.
I've got a bit of catching up to do but I have enjoyed you obsessing over my absence.
Now then, Isaiah getting it wrong.....
Check out Isaiah 7 and read how the god of the Bible told Isaiah to prophesise that the attack against Ahaz in Judah by Ephraim, Israel and Syria would be a failure.
Isaiah 7....
Well? Did this come to pass? Did the attack fail as Isaiah had prophesised?
Well, the attack succeeded, which shows that Isaiah got it wrong and his prophecy failed.....
2 Chronicles 28:1
2 Chronicles 28:5-8
This failed prophecy is part of the "proof" believers cite that Jesus virgin birth was prophesised.
Taking a serious look at this I confess I can make no sense of it at all,you need to link me to where you first found this,or you need to rewrite it out.I am perfectly willing to answer your point when you explain it better.Back to you.
~TW~
Ps have found where you got this from so leave it with me.
-
Strange you mentioned fan as Christians in hot countries tend to mutter at the ceiling fan, while those in cooler climes will mutter at the ceiling light.
I've got a bit of catching up to do but I have enjoyed you obsessing over my absence.
Now then, Isaiah getting it wrong.....
Check out Isaiah 7 and read how the god of the Bible told Isaiah to prophesise that the attack against Ahaz in Judah by Ephraim, Israel and Syria would be a failure.
Isaiah 7....
Well? Did this come to pass? Did the attack fail as Isaiah had prophesised?
Well, the attack succeeded, which shows that Isaiah got it wrong and his prophecy failed.....
2 Chronicles 28:1
2 Chronicles 28:5-8
This failed prophecy is part of the "proof" believers cite that Jesus virgin birth was prophesised.
Gill's commentary says,
"these two separately came up against Judah, and greatly distressed and afflicted the kingdom, slew many, and carried others captive, 2 Kings 15:37 but afterwards, in the third (w) or fourth (x) year of Ahaz, as it is said, they joined together to besiege Jerusalem, which this refers to, 2 Kings 16:5,"
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/gill/isaiah/7.htm
-
From: ~TW~ on 14-05-2016, 08:56:03
I am sure many people would have been very happy to bump off Hitler as you put it.But finding the opportunity may have been difficult.
~TW~
Fom: Shaker on 14-05-2016
It nearly happened in 1944 (the Stauffenberg bomb). It was only by sheer random chance that Hitler escaped with minor burns.
Not interested Shaker Leave Hitler to the Lord.
~TW~
Is it not possible that sheer random chance equals the Lord's intervention?
-
In Psalm 139
13 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.
14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.
Every persons days are in a book before they begin.
Hitler was not just brought down or executed so that his beliefs could be continued by someone else.
God not only defeated his armies and his plans he completely destroyed Hitler. Destroyed him in such a way he would never
rise again. It is a message to all who would dominate the world and society with evil and lies.
In the end God has the final say to mans plans.
Hitler was responsible for his own evil.
-
Hitler was executed?
-
In Psalm 139
13 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.
14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.
Every persons days are in a book before they begin.
Hitler was not just brought down or executed so that his beliefs could be continued by someone else.
God not only defeated his armies and his plans he completely destroyed Hitler. Destroyed him in such a way he would never
rise again. It is a message to all who would dominate the world and society with evil and lies.
In the end God has the final say to mans plans.
Hitler was responsible for his own evil.
You tell us it isn't the doctors and surgeons who cure people of life threatening diseases, it's God. When a paramedic pulls someone out of an accident and gives them heart massage to save their life, it's Goddidit.
But when Hitler ordered 7 million murders, there's no Goddidit involved! It was all Hitler's fault, only he was responsible for his evil.
Weird!
-
Hitler was executed?
As it says Hitler was not just brought down or executed
He shot himself in a bunker.
Why? Because he was utterly defeated with no where to run.
So Hitler not just brought down or executed. He was driven and his plans completely destroyed till he had to take his own life.
To bring him down or just execute him would have made him a martyr to some. His cause would never have ran full circle and his evil would never have been fully realised. However, it run it's course and it brought about his own destruction and disgrace in failure.
A permanent reminder and warning to anyone who believes they can actually get away with such evil that they cannot.
-
In Psalm 139
13 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.
14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.
Every persons days are in a book before they begin.
Hitler was not just brought down or executed so that his beliefs could be continued by someone else.
God not only defeated his armies and his plans he completely destroyed Hitler. Destroyed him in such a way he would never
rise again. It is a message to all who would dominate the world and society with evil and lies.
In the end God has the final say to mans plans.
Hitler was responsible for his own evil.
As usual assertions without evidence!
-
As it says He shot himself in a bunker.
Why? Because he was utterly defeated with no where to run.
So Hitler not just brought down or executed. He was driven and his plans completely destroyed till he had to take his own life.
To bring him down or just execute him would have made him a martyr to some. His cause would never have ran full circle and his evil would never have been fully realised. However, it run it's course and it brought about his own destruction and disgrace in failure.
A permanent reminder and warning to anyone who believes they can actually get away with such evil that they cannot.
Hitler committed suicide, nothing to do with any deity.
-
You tell us it isn't the doctors and surgeons who cure people of life threatening diseases, it's God.
God made the way for surgery known and possible. In Genesis 2 :21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
God performed the first surgery and gave the idea man could be put to sleep and not feel the pain.
As he created doctors and gave the first idea for healing medicines through the bible. He gets my vote.
Opps forgot he created mans body and the men who operate.
When a paramedic pulls someone out of an accident and gives them heart massage to save their life, it's Goddidit.
God created a heart that could massaged. Mouth to mouth resusitation came from the bible too.
It was these verses that made the person who thought of mouth to mouth resusitation think of the possibility.
34 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.
35 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, and the child opened his eyes.
But when Hitler ordered 7 million murders, there's no Goddidit involved! It was all Hitler's fault, only he was responsible for his evil.
Weird!
What you compare murder to saving life?
Grow up and don't make yourself look so stupid.
-
Hitler committed suicide, nothing to do with any deity.
Read two posts before yours...
-
God made the way for surgery known and possible. In Genesis 2 :21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
God performed the first surgery and gave the idea man could be put to sleep and not feel the pain.
As he created doctors and gave the first idea for healing medicines through the bible. He gets my vote.
Opps forgot he created mans body and the men who operate.
God created a heart that could massaged. Mouth to mouth resusitation came from the bible too.
It was these verses that made the person who thought of mouth to mouth resusitation think of the possibility.
34 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.
35 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, and the child opened his eyes.
What you compare murder to saving life?
Grow up and don't make yourself look so stupid.
It is you who needs to grow up and stop making daft assertions without the evidence to back them up!
-
God made the way for surgery known and possible. In Genesis 2 :21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
God performed the first surgery and gave the idea man could be put to sleep and not feel the pain.
As he created doctors and gave the first idea for healing medicines through the bible. He gets my vote.
Opps forgot he created mans body and the men who operate.
God created a heart that could massaged. Mouth to mouth resusitation came from the bible too.
It was these verses that made the person who thought of mouth to mouth resusitation think of the possibility.
34 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.
35 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, and the child opened his eyes.
What you compare murder to saving life?
Grow up and don't make yourself look so stupid.
I doubt if there's time for me to grow up like you, Sassy - and that's one thing I do thank the lord for!
-
As it says He shot himself in a bunker.
Why? Because he was utterly defeated with no where to run.
So Hitler not just brought down or executed. He was driven and his plans completely destroyed till he had to take his own life.
To bring him down or just execute him would have made him a martyr to some. His cause would never have ran full circle and his evil would never have been fully realised. However, it run it's course and it brought about his own destruction and disgrace in failure.
A permanent reminder and warning to anyone who believes they can actually get away with such evil that they cannot.
Mussoloni was executed. Was that because he wasn't as bad as Adolf?
-
And a kilt, sporran and plate of haggis does not a Scotsman make ;)
With respect, that strikes me as playing fast and loose with your definition - Bonhoeffer is in because he did, or would have done, something you approve of, but the others are out.
Wouldn't like to have been in Bonhoeffer's shoes when he made his decision, though. Many 'Christians' in history have seemed to have been very happy about 'smiting', quite convinced they were on the side of the right. I imagine Herr B agonised, and he paid a high price for his decision, though he might well have got it in the neck in any case.
-
Hitler was defeated by the efforts of humans. I don't see where God came into it but am sure you can explain.
-
Gill's commentary says,
"these two separately came up against Judah, and greatly distressed and afflicted the kingdom, slew many, and carried others captive, 2 Kings 15:37 but afterwards, in the third (w) or fourth (x) year of Ahaz, as it is said, they joined together to besiege Jerusalem, which this refers to, 2 Kings 16:5,"
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/gill/isaiah/7.htm
2 Kings tells us that Ahaz was besieged but not overcome because the attack would fail.
However and in clear contradiction, 2 Chronicles Chapter 28 tells us that the attack succeeded and that Ahaz was indeed overcome and delivered into the hands of his enemies.
So there you have it..... the Bible itself tells us that Isaiah's earlier prophecy was wrong.
-
No, many (most?) Christisns believe that people are God's instruments. Whether they believe they are directed by God or simply following the moral teachings of Jesus, few Christians just sit back and let stuff happen. Otherwise there would be no Christian humanitarianism for starters.
So many Christians would argue that Hitler's success in creating the Holocaust arose from the failure of people to act.
Yes, it shows the abject failure of using Christianity as a moral compass.
I don't have the demographics to hand but it's probably safe to say that levels of Christianity in 1930s Germany were pretty high.
Hitler, the Christian German clergy and the overwhelmingly Christian German people collectively embodied the failure of Christianity as a moral system - again. Believers will say what they want, but there was nothing between millions of Jews and genocide.
Well, nothing except the ethics, morality, decency and compassion of a Christian nation, or to put it another way.....nothing at all.
-
God made the way for surgery known and possible. In Genesis 2 :21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
God performed the first surgery and gave the idea man could be put to sleep and not feel the pain.
As he created doctors and gave the first idea for healing medicines through the bible. He gets my vote.
Opps forgot he created mans body and the men who operate.
God created a heart that could massaged. Mouth to mouth resusitation came from the bible too.
It was these verses that made the person who thought of mouth to mouth resusitation think of the possibility.
34 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.
35 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, and the child opened his eyes.
What you compare murder to saving life?
Grow up and don't make yourself look so stupid.
Typical fundamental Christian
Always seeking to detract from humanity's successes and credit them to their baby-killing deity.
Strange how they never do this when something bad happens.
-
God made the way for surgery known and possible. In Genesis 2 :21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
God performed the first surgery and gave the idea man could be put to sleep and not feel the pain.
22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
Was that the first cloning job?
-
I doubt if there's time for me to grow up like you, Sassy - and that's one thing I do thank the lord for!
Ignorance is your choice HENCE why would you thank someone you don't believe in?
It is always about choice. You choose not to believe. Whilst I choose to believe and know why I believe.
-
2 Kings tells us that Ahaz was besieged but not overcome because the attack would fail.
However and in clear contradiction, 2 Chronicles Chapter 28 tells us that the attack succeeded and that Ahaz was indeed overcome and delivered into the hands of his enemies.
So there you have it..... the Bible itself tells us that Isaiah's earlier prophecy was wrong.
Yes, Israel and Syria did technically conquer Judah, but they never succeeded in enjoying the spoils of war (they returned all the plunder and captives because of a guilty conscience) or replacing Ahaz with another king (they could not overpower the capital, Jerusalem). Insofar as Isaiah's prophecy was focused on the 'ruin' of Ahaz (Isaiah 7:5) not occurring, it came true. See http://www.tektonics.org/TK-IS.html
-
Ignorance is your choice HENCE why would you thank someone you don't believe in?
It is always about choice. You choose not to believe. Whilst I choose to believe and know why I believe.
NO NO NO NO NO
You have been told this is a mistake many times, so stop repeating it.
You CANNOT CHOOSE what you believe.
-
Yes, it shows the abject failure of using Christianity as a moral compass.
I don't have the demographics to hand but it's probably safe to say that levels of Christianity in 1930s Germany were pretty high.
Hitler, the Christian German clergy and the overwhelmingly Christian German people collectively embodied the failure of Christianity as a moral system - again. Believers will say what they want, but there was nothing between millions of Jews and genocide.
Well, nothing except the ethics, morality, decency and compassion of a Christian nation, or to put it another way.....nothing at all.
Though I agree that Christianity failed Germany when it was taken over by Nazism, I think Germany's failure epitomises a European failure in a sense of moral direction. I don't think we should be too complacent. This was the country that produced Beethoven, Kant, Schopenhauer, Brahms and Goethe, none of whom were Christian (and Mozart was only tentatively so - Free-Masonry meant much more to him). Here we have a land so rich in its manifestations of 'culture', irrespective of its Christian heritage, and it still descended into barbarism.
-
NO NO NO NO NO
You have been told this is a mistake many times, so stop repeating it.
You CANNOT CHOOSE what you believe.
You do choose what you believe. Adam and Eve the perfect example that you can always choose what you believe.
Because choice comes from having something to choose. Choose life or death.
Adam and Eve chose to listen to the Serpent and not God. They had a choice and so do you. You choose disbelief.
The reason it is a clear choice is you never did what Christ told you to do in order to know if he spoke the truth.
You chose not to do what he told you. So everything is and always will be a choice.
Sometimes you can change the outcome of choice. You may have been rude to a person or treated them appallingly and yet you can choose to apologise and try and make it right with them.
It is all about your personal preference. But some people forget that choice exists for the other person too.
When you apologise they might just tell you where to stick it.
So never be shocked that choice is a reality. People are in prison because of wrong choices.
-
Though I agree that Christianity failed Germany when it was taken over by Nazism, I think Germany's failure epitomises a European failure in a sense of moral direction. I don't think we should be too complacent. This was the country that produced Beethoven, Kant, Schopenhauer, Brahms and Goethe, none of whom were Christian (and Mozart was only tentatively so - Free-Masonry meant much more to him). Here we have a land so rich in its manifestations of 'culture', irrespective of its Christian heritage, and it still descended into barbarism.
I agree, it's just that Christians descibe their ju-ju as morally superior to everything else. ALso, the percentage of Christians in the German population would have far exceeded the number of Goetheians, Nietzscheans, etc.
-
Yes, Israel and Syria did technically conquer Judah, but they never succeeded in enjoying the spoils of war (they returned all the plunder and captives because of a guilty conscience) or replacing Ahaz with another king (they could not overpower the capital, Jerusalem). Insofar as Isaiah's prophecy was focused on the 'ruin' of Ahaz (Isaiah 7:5) not occurring, it came true. See http://www.tektonics.org/TK-IS.html
Whoops! Nearly missed this.
OK, if that's the interpretation of "overcome" then so be it.
Like most of these "prophecies" it seems to be a vague generality sometimes reliant on semantics.
-
I was just reading Issy 53 again, looking for where it claimed this suffering servant was a messiah, still couldn't find it.
Where in this passage does it say the servant was the messiah?
-
It doesn't say so precisely, Ricky. The passage has long been interpreted that way. I googled and came up with several sites, including one Jewish one, that give more details (I'm reluctant to post any links, people can look it up for themselves).
You may well see a different interpretation.
-
It doesn't say so precisely, Ricky. The passage has long been interpreted that way. I googled and came up with several sites, including one Jewish one, that give more details (I'm reluctant to post any links, people can look it up for themselves).
You may well see a different interpretation.
I've just read these chapters again, Isaiah 52 and 53. It is wonderful reading. Here, it seems to me, Almighty God talks in the past tense concerning the release of Jews from Egyptian oppression then scoots to the future...our time, now, and uses Jesus as our saviour from our past...as we should follow Jesus now. It's wonderful reading and displays one thing above any other which is that Almighty God has always been preparing for the time when all who want his salvation will be led out of evil oppression and receive it...using similar methods that the Jews were led out of their captivity...using spiritual intelligence rather than man's fleshly knowledge which can't see much further than greed, war and carnal thinking.
-
Whaaaat?
Sparky, welcome back. I think!
Brownie.. You would be VERY hard pressed to find any messiah references in Issy 53 because they are none, not one, zilch, nada.
11-12 gives you the biggest clue as to who the suffering servent was/is, and it ain't no messiah "figure".
-
Whaaaat?
Sparky, welcome back. I think!
Brownie.. You would be VERY hard pressed to find any messiah references in Issy 53 because they are none, not one, zilch, nada.
11-12 gives you the biggest clue as to who the suffering servent was/is, and it ain't no messiah "figure".
Thanks for your greeting Ricky...even if guarded...I would advise anyone to be little guarded in this day and age.
I personally see Jesus in those chapters of Isaiah. Almighty God talks about a person carrying the burden of all transgression and this is Jesus...the recognised Messiah for all time. Any other who might carry a similar role will do it with Jesus as his spiritual leader so it will all come back to Jesus just as everything connected to Jesus' accurate teaching all comes back to Almighty God. The pattern of oppression always carries similar techniques and the pattern of repair, resurrection, and the lifting out of oppression carries similar counter-techniques and whether past, present, or future, Jesus, our Messiah, has stamped his authority upon them.
-
I too see Jesus in those passages.
-
The Bible can be interpreted any way you want it to be, imo. If Jesus was the promised Messiah it is strange so few Jews regarded him as such, it doesn't appear his own family did either!
-
I too see Jesus in those passages.
Agreed.
One of many theophanies in the Old Testament.
-
Thanks for your greeting Ricky...even if guarded...I would advise anyone to be little guarded in this day and age.
I personally see Jesus in those chapters of Isaiah. Almighty God talks about a person carrying the burden of all transgression and this is Jesus...the recognised Messiah for all time. Any other who might carry a similar role will do it with Jesus as his spiritual leader so it will all come back to Jesus just as everything connected to Jesus' accurate teaching all comes back to Almighty God. The pattern of oppression always carries similar techniques and the pattern of repair, resurrection, and the lifting out of oppression carries similar counter-techniques and whether past, present, or future, Jesus, our Messiah, has stamped his authority upon them.
Ignore Ricky Spanish, he is just jealous because he cannot fathom the truth about Christ or the beliefs of those messianic Jews who do believe Isaiah 53 relates to Christ.
-
Ignore Ricky Spanish, he is just jealous because he cannot fathom the truth about Christ or the beliefs of those messianic Jews who do believe Isaiah 53 relates to Christ.
Judging by some of the garbage you spout, that is a pot and kettle statement! ::)
-
Not only that, floo, many Messianic Jews espouse the Trinity - which probably makes them heretics in Sas's view.......
-
Not only that, floo, many Messianic Jews espouse the Trinity - which probably makes them heretics in Sas's view.......
Everyone, Christian or non believer, who doesn't see it in the way Sass does, is a heretic!
The time to worry is if Sass agrees with you! ;D
-
Not only that, floo, many Messianic Jews espouse the Trinity - which probably makes them heretics in Sas's view.......
What a load of bunkum... Show me where Christ or the Apostles taught that you are saved by believing in the trinity or even just God.
You see the fact you espouse such heretic teachings show you how far you have fallen from the truth.
God in three persons NOT GOD IS THREE PERSONS.
Why do you think the first commandment states? Why can a person be forgiven blasphemy against God and Christ BUT NOT THE HOLY SPIRIT? So often you ignore the truth that is taught in ACTS 10 about belief in who Christ is.
Christ says :-Matthew 7:21-23King James Version (KJV)
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
You break the first commandment if you love Christ more than God and you show you do not love Christ.
King James Bible
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Even the Apostles preached Christ crucified and risen. How can you worship Christ as God? When Christ clearly tells you.
King James Bible
And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Jesus made the true God known to us. Because Jesus had the nature of God.
He did what God wanted him to do to reveal God to us.
So make all the quips you want but the grace of God is not given to those who believe Christ is God.
Rather true grace is for those who know that eternal life is knowing the ONLY TRUE GOD and Jesus Christ whom the ONLY TRUE GOD SENT.
I know like so many you cannot answer and you are more feared of mans judgement than Gods. Whilst I fear God more than man and truth is given from God. NOT FROM MAN.
-
Hmmmm; Bunkum, Sass? Well, in your eyes, possibly. Not in the eyes of my friend - an elder in the Jirk in Glasgow - and a Messanic Jew. Or, for that matter, in the eyes of a few Anglicans who are also Messianic Jews, confessing Christ as their Lord an Saviour, and God Incarnate - as per normal mainstream Christian doctrine.
-
What a load of bunkum... Show me where Christ or the Apostles taught that you are saved by believing in the trinity or even just God.
You see the fact you espouse such heretic teachings show you how far you have fallen from the truth.
God in three persons NOT GOD IS THREE PERSONS.
Why do you think the first commandment states? Why can a person be forgiven blasphemy against God and Christ BUT NOT THE HOLY SPIRIT? So often you ignore the truth that is taught in ACTS 10 about belief in who Christ is.
Christ says :-Matthew 7:21-23King James Version (KJV)
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
You break the first commandment if you love Christ more than God and you show you do not love Christ.
King James Bible
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Even the Apostles preached Christ crucified and risen. How can you worship Christ as God? When Christ clearly tells you.
King James Bible
And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Jesus made the true God known to us. Because Jesus had the nature of God.
He did what God wanted him to do to reveal God to us.
So make all the quips you want but the grace of God is not given to those who believe Christ is God.
Rather true grace is for those who know that eternal life is knowing the ONLY TRUE GOD and Jesus Christ whom the ONLY TRUE GOD SENT.
I know like so many you cannot answer and you are more feared of mans judgement than Gods. Whilst I fear God more than man and truth is given from God. NOT FROM MAN.
When you said, 'what a load of bunkum', I think you must have been referring to your post!
-
Sass, we've been through this. Every mainstream Christian denomination - from Orthodox through RCC, Anglican through Presbyterian, Methodist to independent evangelical confesses the Triune God. So: they - we -are all wrong, and you are right?
-
Sass, we've been through this. Every mainstream Christian denomination - from Orthodox through RCC, Anglican through Presbyterian, Methodist to independent evangelical confesses the Triune God. So: they - we -are all wrong, and you are right?
As I said a few posts ago, if Sass was in agreement with you that is the time to worry. ;D
-
Sass, we've been through this. Every mainstream Christian denomination - from Orthodox through RCC, Anglican through Presbyterian, Methodist to independent evangelical confesses the Triune God. So: they - we -are all wrong, and you are right?
Sass is never, ever, ever wrong. I'm surprised that you haven't twigged that yet? ::)
-
The Bible can be interpreted any way you want it to be, imo. If Jesus was the promised Messiah it is strange so few Jews regarded him as such, it doesn't appear his own family did either!
Floo, you've made this claim so many times over the years, and been corrected so many times. Why continue with your deliberate falsehood?
To remind both you and others of the correction that has been made so often, we know for certain that his mother believed that he was the Messiah, and that his brother James also believed this (after all, he became a leading light in the very church that sprung up in Jerusalem after the departure of his brother). We have no idea of Joseph's oipinions, other than the fact that he accepted the message he was given prior to Jesus' birth in Matthew 1: 23b; we also have no idea how many brothers and sisters Jesus had, so can't judge at that level. May I suggest that 2 definites out of 3 possibles is a fairly good proportion.
-
(According to the Bible) I am pretty sure Joseph did believe in Jesus as the Messiah because, as you say, he accepted what he was told in a vision and considered raising Jesus to be a sacred charge.
Jesus's cousin, John-the-Baptist, J-the-B's mother, Elizabeth and father, Zechariah certainly did.
-
(According to the Bible) I am pretty sure Joseph did believe in Jesus as the Messiah because, as you say, he accepted what he was told in a vision and considered raising Jesus to be a sacred charge.
Jesus's cousin, John-the-Baptist, J-the-B's mother, Elizabeth and father, Zechariah certainly did.
According to the Bible, I doubt it, but we will have to agree to differ!
-
Thanks for your greeting Ricky...even if guarded...I would advise anyone to be little guarded in this day and age.
I personally see Jesus in those chapters of Isaiah. Almighty God talks about a person carrying the burden of all transgression and this is Jesus...the recognised Messiah for all time. Any other who might carry a similar role will do it with Jesus as his spiritual leader so it will all come back to Jesus just as everything connected to Jesus' accurate teaching all comes back to Almighty God. The pattern of oppression always carries similar techniques and the pattern of repair, resurrection, and the lifting out of oppression carries similar counter-techniques and whether past, present, or future, Jesus, our Messiah, has stamped his authority upon them.
Hi Nick,
I'm not sure Ricky will be happy with just saying that one sees Jesus in Isaiah 53. I think he's saying that the Christian interpretation of the passage is wrong, because in Isaiah 42 onward the Servant is the nation of Israel.
Isaiah 49:5 makes it clear that the Servant is not all Israel, but the righteous remnant, who will restore the nation to a right relationship with God.
The way in which Jesus fulfills this is by being completely righteous, untainted by sin. So whereas the righteous remnant of Israel did cause many Gentiles to follow Yahweh after the exile, that is a foreshadowing of Jesus, who was without sin and became the one sacrifice that all the animal sacrifices had pointed to.
-
Hmmmm; Bunkum, Sass? Well, in your eyes, possibly. Not in the eyes of my friend - an elder in the Jirk in Glasgow - and a Messanic Jew. Or, for that matter, in the eyes of a few Anglicans who are also Messianic Jews, confessing Christ as their Lord an Saviour, and God Incarnate - as per normal mainstream Christian doctrine.
Is it really so important whether or not Christians believe in the Trinity
-
Is it really so important whether or not Christians believe in the Trinity
Is it really so important or not if Christians believe in ......
-
According to the Bible, I doubt it, but we will have to agree to differ!
Chapter(s) and verse(s), please, Floo.
-
What a load of bunkum... Show me where Christ or the Apostles taught that you are saved by believing in the trinity or even just God.
Not sure that anyone, Christian or otherwise, has suggested that one is saved by 'believing in the trinity', Sass. One is saved by the shed blood of Christ, and his resurrection from death confirms that. However, the Trinity is an important aspect of one's appreciation of the Godhead. In fact, the concept of the Trinity had existed in Judaism since many centuries before Christ's lifetime.
-
Is it really so important whether or not Christians believe in the Trinity
Yes. Because Christians can only accept One God, worship One God - and the Triune nature of God is the only definition of God which really works in the end. If we accept only One god, then the idea of the atonement makes sense (theologically - sorry, atheists) Were Christ only a man, albeit a man imbibed with God's very nature, it would not. I'll be the first to own up that trying to make the doctrine of the Trinity simple is like trying to convince a Jehova Witness that Stornoway black pudding is a culinary essential, however, here's a reasonably jargon free site which helps - a bit. http://coldcasechristianity.com/2014/what-does-christianity-say-about-the-nature-of-god/
-
I too see Jesus in those passages.
In what way?
Every mention of this servant is in the past tense, as in in the writers past.
Was this passage written after "Jesus" death??
12 states: "12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors, and he bare the sin of many and made intercession for the transgressors.
It is also littered with past tense verbs, as is the whole passage: was, bare, shall, made, etc.
Nothing futuristic about the servant mentioned in this "reading" and I'm still waiting for someone to point out where a messiah is stated in this passage!!
-
Yes. Because Christians can only accept One God, worship One God - and the Triune nature of God is the only definition of God which really works in the end. If we accept only One god, then the idea of the atonement makes sense (theologically - sorry, atheists) Were Christ only a man, albeit a man imbibed with God's very nature, it would not. I'll be the first to own up that trying to make the doctrine of the Trinity simple is like trying to convince a Jehova Witness that Stornoway black pudding is a culinary essential, however, here's a reasonably jargon free site which helps - a bit. http://coldcasechristianity.com/2014/what-does-christianity-say-about-the-nature-of-god/
Sass is not alone in revering Jesus as the Son of God, but not God. There are Christian groups (other than JWs and LDS), who hold to the same, as well as individual Christians who have come to that conclusion.
I believe in the Trinity but do not consider that salvation is conditional upon that belief.
It's obviously important to you, Anchorman. To me, it is an issue on which Christians can disagree.
-
Hmmmm; Bunkum, Sass? Well, in your eyes, possibly. Not in the eyes of my friend - an elder in the Jirk in Glasgow - and a Messanic Jew. Or, for that matter, in the eyes of a few Anglicans who are also Messianic Jews, confessing Christ as their Lord an Saviour, and God Incarnate - as per normal mainstream Christian doctrine.
The evidence is all in the OT and assumption is the mother of all wrong results.
You see God clearly says that he would raise up a Prophet like Moses not become born as a man himself. As Moses was a god unto humans sent by God given the beliefs of Egyptians, we see that Christ showed by his divine NATURE not being God but showing and revealing the nature of the true God, that he made God known to us as Moses made God known to the King of Egypt who wrongly thought he was a god.
If we follow the Gospels and we follow the teachings of the disciples especially John we see God making it clear that Christ was FULLY human and his nature alone was divine.
In fact it is clear that we are to KNOW Christ had come in the flesh because even then people wrongly started to believe Christ to be God, rather than be the Son of God because he did as his Father would do. A clear message from Christ when he spoke to the descendants of Abraham when they said Abraham is our Father. Christ said. " If Abraham was your Father you would do as he did." Which is why Christ does everything as the Father did.
My knowledge of the Trinity was God in three persons that the Holy Spirit and Christ did the will of God and the Holy Spirit enabled each person to do the will of God and live according to Gods truth. The first thing we learn is there is one God. We can see from Peter and from Christ that there was no difference in the belief that Christ spoke according to the words given him by the Holy Spirit and that God was with Christ having sent him.
If you check history you will see Christ came to us as Moses was sent to the Egyptians to save Gods people. You make a big deal about calling Christ, God. But eternal life is as Christ has clearly taught. Eternal life is knowing the only true God and Jesus Christ whom he sent.
The very first thing which the Angel makes clear to Mary is this:
31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus.
32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
He is not given Gods throne but the throne of David. The throne of his Father David. Can David be Gods Father? He is to be called the Son of God. A clear testimony that God is not and never had given Christ his own title or his own throne. As David was a King of Humans so Christ is Gods king for eternity over humans.
Paul says something very significant.
KJV And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
Look at all the different bibles and it clearly shows that Christ will put himself back under God. Because whilst we are to obey Christ we are to do as he says.
Christ clearly tells everyone. "If you love me, you will obey my commandments."
1st Commandment is to love the LORD your God with all your heart etc.
So unless you love God more than you love yourself and Christ, you cannot love God or Christ.
So it is in knowing God and Christ that eternal life is what it is.
John 17:3
“And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.”
John says:-
1 John 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
You see even then people taught God has come in the flesh. But Peter and the disciples never taught that.
Acts 10:38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
Peter definitely said Jesus anointed with the Holy Ghost and given power. That God was with him. Even the evil spirits knew Christ to be the Son of God.
Luke 4:41King James Version (KJV)
41 And devils also came out of many, crying out, and saying, Thou art Christ the Son of God. And he rebuking them suffered them not to speak: for they knew that he was Christ.
We love God more than Christ because we know the truth that God so loved the world...
Christ came to make God our Father known to us, to bring us to God.
If Christ was God himself how did he get around the veil in the Temple because Man cannot look upon God whilst dead in his sinful nature and live. Christ is the mediator between man and God. So we can disagree but the words of the disciples and Christ in the NT, and the words of God and the Prophets in the OT show Jesus is to be known as the Son of God. That even the devil and evil Spirits knew and called Christ the Son of God.
Matthew 4:10
Then Jesus said to him, "Go, Satan! For it is written, 'YOU SHALL WORSHIP THE LORD YOUR GOD, AND SERVE HIM ONLY.'"
God cannot be tested or tempted and why would Satan, if he thought Christ was God actually ask him to worship, him. Christ the Son of God serving and worshipping the LORD God only.
The truth is we all have to give an account and the account we give is based on the truth we know and the God we love and serve. Without Christ, would we have been able to know who God is? Christ lived by every word which proceeded from the mouth of God and we are no different we too must follow his example not worship Christ as God but Worship God giving God thanks for his Son and remaining faithful to the truth set out from the beginning time.
No matter what you may feel the word does not change the truth that Jesus is the Son of God. And Satan could not and would not ask GOD himself to worship him.
You note all the things that Satan uses in his testing of Christ then think of the words God tells us...
Psalm 24:1. (KJV)
24 The earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein.
As God already owns everything the earth, the fullness and the world and everything in it. How could Satan offer God his own to worship him? Satan was offering Christ, who was fully human and the Son of GOD. God already owned what Satan was offering Christ.
Therein lies biggest deception of Satan thinking he could actually offer any person anything that belongs to God. Christ is the Son of God and he lived by every word of God knowing the truth that Satan could offer him NOTHING.
-
Sass, we've been through this. Every mainstream Christian denomination - from Orthodox through RCC, Anglican through Presbyterian, Methodist to independent evangelical confesses the Triune God. So: they - we -are all wrong, and you are right?
Look at the post before this...
How many Jews believe Christ is not the Messiah? Millions?
So now who are right? Is Christ and the truth decided by the number of believers or the word of God? Are the RCC right in the worship of Mary and Saints?
Everyone had to give an account of themselves not the individual denomintations they follow. You know and I know that God says man has to live by every word that comes from his mouth not mans.
But let us remind ourselves of what God teaches us in those words.
King James Bible
For whom the LORD loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.
Why would so few find the entrance and enter in the correct gate?
We cannot follow mans teachings we must follow Christ and worship God alone.
-
Look at the post before this...
How many Jews believe Christ is not the Messiah? Millions?
So now who are right? Is Christ and the truth decided by the number of believers or the word of God? Are the RCC right in the worship of Mary and Saints?
Everyone had to give an account of themselves not the individual denomintations they follow. You know and I know that God says man has to live by every word that comes from his mouth not mans.
But let us remind ourselves of what God teaches us in those words.
King James Bible
For whom the LORD loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.
Why would so few find the entrance and enter in the correct gate?
We cannot follow mans teachings we must follow Christ and worship God alone.
I wonder if you will be waved into heaven, or if the door is shut in your face? You certainly don't do the faith you espouse any favours!
-
Sass..... Worship God alone! Yep. Thanks for confirming the deity of Christ. And, since there is but One God - for the Christians - thanks also for confirming Christ as part of the Godhead - the triune nature of God. Even the KJV, to which you seem to cling like a limpet, confirms on at least eight occasions, that Christ was, is and shall be worshipped - a prerogative that the Jews rightly reserved to God alone. Cheers, Sass - and thanks.
-
Is there a sect/cult of christians known as Johnanists?
-
Is there a sect/cult of christians known as Johnanists?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannite_Church
-
Hmmm - Interesting read NS... Seems like we might have a Johannine in our midsts!!
-
Sass..... Worship God alone! Yep. Thanks for confirming the deity of Christ. And, since there is but One God - for the Christians - thanks also for confirming Christ as part of the Godhead - the triune nature of God. Even the KJV, to which you seem to cling like a limpet, confirms on at least eight occasions, that Christ was, is and shall be worshipped - a prerogative that the Jews rightly reserved to God alone. Cheers, Sass - and thanks.
Sassy has not in any way confirmed the deity of Christ, Anchorman, unless you and I are reading different posts.
What she has quoted affirm Sassy's belief that Jesus is son of God but not God. You are obviously interpreting them differently.
You sound quite triumphant in your post but that is misplaced; there is nothing inherently wrong with what Sassy believes, she has obviously researched and prayed about the issue and her conclusion is merely different to yours.
If any of us is in error about the issue, so be it. Our God is not petty enough to condemn us for it.
I looked up Johannites and found them quite fascinating! An inclusive group, something for everyone.
Good for them. Not my scene, but can see the attraction - for some (all my above comments are addressed to believers in God, anyone else will consider them irrelevant).
Johannites do affirm the Trinity. Can't think of any poster here who would be that interested.
-
Sassy has not in any way confirmed the deity of Christ, Anchorman, unless you and I are reading different posts.
What she has quoted affirm Sassy's belief that Jesus is son of God but not God. You are obviously interpreting them differently.
You sound quite triumphant in your post but that is misplaced; there is nothing inherently wrong with what Sassy believes, she has obviously researched and prayed about the issue and her conclusion is merely different to yours.
If any of us is in error about the issue, so be it. Our God is not petty enough to condemn us for it.
I looked up Johannites and found them quite fascinating! An inclusive group, something for everyone.
Good for them. Not my scene, but can see the attraction - for some (all my above comments are addressed to believers in God, anyone else will consider them irrelevant).
Johannites do affirm the Trinity. Can't think of any poster here who would be that interested.
I'm not sure that Sassy believes it. I think that she knows it for a FACT!
-
I too see Jesus in those passages.
Where do you see "Jesus" in the passages?
Point them out to me, so I can see them too.
Every mention of this servant is in the past tense, as in in the writers past.
Was this passage written after "Jesus" death??
12 states: "12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors, and he bare the sin of many and made intercession for the transgressors.
It is also littered with past tense verbs, as is the whole passage: was, bare, shall, made, etc.
Nothing futuristic about the servant mentioned in this "reading" and I'm still waiting for someone to point out where a messiah is stated in this passage!!
-
Ricky Spanish,
What do you make of Isaiah 49:5? The Servant is distinct from the nation of Israel in this verse.
-
I believe in the Trinity but do not consider that salvation is conditional upon that belief.
It's obviously important to you, Anchorman. To me, it is an issue on which Christians can disagree.
But if Jesus isn't God, any idea that salvation of the type that is referred to across the Old Testament is impossible through Jesus because he is no less a flawed and damaged being than the animals the Jews sacrificed throughout the OT.
-
Where do you see "Jesus" in the passages?
Point them out to me, so I can see them too.
Every mention of this servant is in the past tense, as in in the writers past.
Except for the tenses in the first part of verse 12, Ricky. Those are both future tenses. It is a fairly common practice in many languages to use the past tense when explaining the means by which something in the future will occur.
Incidentally, most Jews regard the passage under discussion to be looking forward to the Messiah they were waiting for. However, Isaiah (the book) dates to before the period in which Israel and Judah became vassal nations of the Babylonian/Persian/Ptolemaic/Seleucid Empires from the early-6th century to the late-3rd century BC. As a result, it doesn't look for a Messiah along the lines of the politico-militaristic Messiah that had become the norm by the time Jesus was born.
-
But if Jesus isn't God, any idea that salvation of the type that is referred to across the Old Testament is impossible through Jesus because he is no less a flawed and damaged being than the animals the Jews sacrificed throughout the OT.
It works perfectly well for people like Sassy. Is she not a Christian?
-
It works perfectly well for people like Sassy. Is she not a Christian?
I don't know Sassy other than from here. It isn't for me to judge; her maker will be doing that in time.
-
I don't know Sassy other than from here. It isn't for me to judge; her maker will be doing that in time.
But you have however said that any idea of salvation for her through Jesus is impossible though!
-
But if Jesus isn't God, any idea that salvation of the type that is referred to across the Old Testament is impossible through Jesus because he is no less a flawed and damaged being than the animals the Jews sacrificed throughout the OT.
[/quote
Wot Hope said.
-
There is a catechism, it's precise name has gone from my head, (Heidelberg?) which points out that whoever is to atone for mankind's sin must be both 100℅ sinless, and must be fully human. But only God himself is without sin. So only someone who is fully God and fully man can save us.
-
Why could God not have created a sinless human being for his son, Spud?
-
Problem there, Brownie, is that it conflicts with Scripture... "All have sinned and fallen short of God's glory" The "All" referes to humanity. Were Jesus only human he would have fallen into that category....and the whole horror of Calvary would have been for nothing. That, as Scripture puts it "The full nature of God was in Him" - in other words, all the attributes, qualities and personhood of God in human form was in Him, makes the sacrifice on Calvary relevant.
-
There is a catechism, it's precise name has gone from my head, (Heidelberg?) which points out that whoever is to atone for mankind's sin must be both 100℅ sinless, and must be fully human. But only God himself is without sin. So only someone who is fully God and fully man can save us.
That is a joke if the accounts of it actions had an credibility! :o
-
There is a catechism, it's precise name has gone from my head, (Heidelberg?) which points out that whoever is to atone for mankind's sin must be both 100℅ sinless, and must be fully human. But only God himself is without sin. So only someone who is fully God and fully man can save us.
WRONG, the angels with God are without sin.King James Bible
For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
Angels can sin but if they do sin they too will be judged, those with God do not sin. But God cannot sin and there lies the truth of what you think you know. Whilst Angels and Christ can sin the true God cannot sin.
The first passages of the NT tell us in the synoptic gospels that Christ is tested and tempted by Satan.
4 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.
2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.
3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.
4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
No one can tempt or test God because he is without sin and cannot be tested, tempted or sin.
It is clear that Christ was fully human and that he could be tested, tempted and if he chose could sin.
If, we correctly trust God and let him through the Holy Spirit reveal his word we can see the truth being taught.
King James Bible
Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
-
Yeh right! ::)
-
Sassy,
I misquoted the Heidelberg Catechism. Instead of saying that only God himself is without sin (which is incorrect, because some angels are without sin, which opens the possibility that an angel might redeem a human), I should have said that, to quote the Catechism, "no mere creature [which would include angels] can sustain the burden of God’s eternal wrath against sin, and redeem others therefrom."
It goes on to say,
15. What manner of mediator and redeemer then must we seek?
One who is a true and sinless man, and yet more powerful than all creatures, that is, one who is at the same time true God.
LORD’S DAY 6
16. Why must He be a true and sinless man?
Because the justice of God requires, that the same human nature which has sinned should make satisfaction for sin; but no man, being himself a sinner, could satisfy for others.
17. Why must He be at the same time true God?
That by the power of His Godhead He might bear in His manhood the burden of God’s wrath and so obtain for and restore to us righteousness and life.
-
Sassy,
I should have said that, to quote the Catechism, "no mere creature [which would include angels] can sustain the burden of God’s eternal wrath against sin, and redeem others therefrom."
It goes on to say,
This is an extremely unpleasant image of God (though not without scriptural support in some places). In accordance with my view that you can work out a myriad of doctrines from the Bible if you're daft enough to think it has a consistent message, I will cherry-pick a couple of scriptures to show that no other being at all is required to redeem anyone.
Since we're talking Isaiah, here's Isaiah chapter 1:
"Come, let us reason together: though your sins be scarlet, they shall be white as snow"
and this from Micah 7:
" Who is a God like thee, pardoning iniquity
and passing over transgression
for the remnant of his inheritance?
He does not retain his anger for ever
because he delights in steadfast love.
[19] He will again have compassion upon us,
he will tread our iniquities under foot.
Thou wilt cast all our sins
into the depths of the sea."
Bugger all about vicarious atonement there.
-
Hi Dicky,
I can see how it does paint a horrible image of God but I've always seen it as a picture of an awesome God; it doesn't say God will exercise his prerogative to pour out his wrath.
Thinking about sin, we all have different ideas about what constitutes sin. We know the BIG ones but the endless small ones?
It's quite wonderful, for Christians, to have a Heavenly Father who is so powerful that he could metaphorically snap his fingers to do anything but will not harm us.
We'll have many occasions in this life to squirm, be reprimanded, to try and make up, and feel rotten about our mistakes, which is punishment enough. As a result, there are times when we make a positive effort to be stronger in some areas which can't be bad.
(Some of this is being discussed on a thread started by Sassy today, which atm seems to be coming along well.)
-
But you have however said that any idea of salvation for her through Jesus is impossible though!
No I have said that Jesus' offer of salvation only makes sense in the context of the Trinity. I haven't made any judgement on any given person.
-
That is a joke if the accounts of it actions had an credibility! :o
Or perhaps it is a flawed understanding of reality that enables you to say such things? You have yet to provide us with any honest examples of the actions you so detest. I suppose you will suggest his love of humanity, his wish to protect his own, his mercifulness, ... .
-
...I will cherry-pick a couple of scriptures to show that no other being at all is required to redeem anyone.
Contexts please, Dicky.
-
Contexts please, Dicky.
No I have said that Jesus' offer of salvation only makes sense in the context of the Trinity. I haven't made any judgement on any given person.
No you definitely haven't, Hope, not on anyone.
-
Or perhaps it is a flawed understanding of reality that enables you to say such things? You have yet to provide us with any honest examples of the actions you so detest. I suppose you will suggest his love of humanity, his wish to protect his own, his mercifulness, ... .
Your understanding of the concept of the term 'love' appears to be flawed. God has NO love humanity if the mythical flood story had been true, it shows hate not love.
-
Sassy,
I misquoted the Heidelberg Catechism. Instead of saying that only God himself is without sin (which is incorrect, because some angels are without sin, which opens the possibility that an angel might redeem a human), I should have said that, to quote the Catechism, "no mere creature [which would include angels] can sustain the burden of God’s eternal wrath against sin, and redeem others therefrom."
It goes on to say,
Spud,
An angel cannot redeem a human. The fact is a human had to die for humans. The first sacrifices were animals.
But the veil could not be removed for the sacrifice was not the death of a human. Like one man caused all to die it has to be one man who gives life back to all.
The difference between, Christ, Angels and God, is that God cannot sin. Both Angels and Humans can sin.
You see even when fallen Angels cannot die they await the judgement even now.
But man did die and a man had to die to save us and bring us back to God. Jesus was in fact a second Adam.
Made and created solely by the word of God.He was not conceived in sin. Like Adam, Jesus was spoken into being. The word made flesh as Adam too, was the word made flesh.
-
Hi Dicky,
I can see how it does paint a horrible image of God but I've always seen it as a picture of an awesome God; it doesn't say God will exercise his prerogative to pour out his wrath.
Thinking about sin, we all have different ideas about what constitutes sin. We know the BIG ones but the endless small ones?
It's quite wonderful, for Christians, to have a Heavenly Father who is so powerful that he could metaphorically snap his fingers to do anything but will not harm us.
God or no God, we all know our life on earth is precarious, and that it might end in an instant for any one of us. We are harmed - day after day, sometimes through completely avoidable negligent actions, sometimes just through the quirks of fate. It is very difficult to see the hand of God in anyones' lives, and the arguments for an interventionist God have often been aired on here, with little success. Yes, maybe he could 'snap his fingers metaphorically' - and sometimes one wishes he would - to prevent harm, not to cause it. However Alan B assures us that it we pray hard enough, we may be rewarded with finding a lost contact lens.
Yes, it is evident that believers have different ideas about what constitutes sin, and it is clear that there are many ideas about what the Biblical writers thought sin was. The earlier OT prophets thought that following the Law of the Covenant would mean automatic reward in this life. The Hebrews eventually came to think that even if they did not keep the law they might buy off God with the appropriate sacrifices. However, it is hinted in Jeremiah, and explicit in Isaiah and Micah that all this animal sacrificing is completely futile, and all that is required is "to do justly and to love mercy". And of course, poor old Job, "a righteous man" really got it in the neck.
The peculiar slant that St Paul gave to "sin" - alluded to in the quote I was commenting on - has given rise to most bizarre doctrine that most Christians seem to think is central to their faith. St Paul, of course, made particular reference to the life of Abraham (he seemed happy to dismiss just about everything else about Judaism), and was drawn to that gruesome episode known as the "Binding of Isaac" which so gets up Floo's nose :). However, the real point of the story is that Isaac did not die, and apart from one instance (Jephtha), this seems to have been the end of child sacrifice for the Jews - whereas the peoples around them went on sacrificing children for hundreds of years. Good old St Paul, though - the Jews having rejected child sacrifice for expiation of "sin" - he brings back the concept of human sacrifice in the form of Jesus. Except that Jesus is supposed to be both human and divine. And he adds to his bizarre atonement scenario the idea that you have to accept Jesus' sacrifice to "have your sins forgiven".
We'll have many occasions in this life to squirm, be reprimanded, to try and make up, and feel rotten about our mistakes, which is punishment enough. As a result, there are times when we make a positive effort to be stronger in some areas which can't be bad.
Yup, and it's up to us to make reparation, if we realise that we've really behaved in a vile manner, not to put it all on Jesus. That of course may be difficult for murderers who come to realise the full measure of their crimes. Still, I don't see Jesus as a patent remedy for guilty consciences.
-
Dicky, thanks for the two interesting posts.
-
Your understanding of the concept of the term 'love' appears to be flawed. God has NO love humanity if the mythical flood story had been true, it shows hate not love.
Note your argument against your own argument. Your inclusion of the term 'mythical' is the case in point. As I have said before, the Flood story comes in a portion of Genesis which an increasing number of scholars date to the early 5th century BC (give or take a decade or 3). It's use of language differs from the rest of the material and sets out a theological comparison of the Jew's own God and the Babylonian gods that many would have come into contact with during the exile. The language is often symbolic and in no way attempting to record history.
-
Note your argument against your own argument. Your inclusion of the term 'mythical' is the case in point. As I have said before, the Flood story comes in a portion of Genesis which an increasing number of scholars date to the early 5th century BC (give or take a decade or 3). It's use of language differs from the rest of the material and sets out a theological comparison of the Jew's own God and the Babylonian gods that many would have come into contact with during the exile. The language is often symbolic and in no way attempting to record history.
Floo says if it 'had been true'. See when you talk about context maybe you shouldn't just ignore it.
-
The peculiar slant that St Paul gave to "sin" - alluded to in the quote I was commenting on - has given rise to most bizarre doctrine that most Christians seem to think is central to their faith. St Paul, of course, made particular reference to the life of Abraham (he seemed happy to dismiss just about everything else about Judaism), and was drawn to that gruesome episode known as the "Binding of Isaac" which so gets up Floo's nose :). However, the real point of the story is that Isaac did not die, and apart from one instance (Jephtha), this seems to have been the end of child sacrifice for the Jews - whereas the peoples around them went on sacrificing children for hundreds of years. Good old St Paul, though - the Jews having rejected child sacrifice for expiation of "sin" - he brings back the concept of human sacrifice in the form of Jesus. Except that Jesus is supposed to be both human and divine. And he adds to his bizarre atonement scenario the idea that you have to accept Jesus' sacrifice to "have your sins forgiven".
I do find this concentration on St Paul both bizarre and humorous; after all, he arrived on the scene several years after the original disciples, who taught much the same as he did - and probably kick-started his understanding if only via the teaching of people whohad heard the disciples teach and preach. If you notice, neither Paul nor the disciples associate the crucifixion with human sacrifice; it was associated with the regular sacrifice of animals that 'worked' for sins committed, but not for sins 'to be committed' - hence their having to be repeated regularly. His once for all time sacrifice superceded the annual sacrifices that the Jews (and other religious beliefs) held to be vital.
Yup, and it's up to us to make reparation, if we realise that we've really behaved in a vile manner, not to put it all on Jesus. That of course may be difficult for murderers who come to realise the full measure of their crimes. Still, I don't see Jesus as a patent remedy for guilty consciences.
And at no point in the NT is there anything that says otherwise, Dicky. After all, if we sin/do something wrong, we have an impact on our relationship with our fellow humans and on that with our Creator God. It is that second relational aspect that the crucifixion and resurrection is all about.
-
Floo says if it 'had been true'. See when you talk about context maybe you shouldn't just ignore it.
Oh, I saw that phrase, all right. I was simply pointing out that the combination of 'if ... had been true' and 'myth' is not a particularly strong foundation for an argument.
-
Oh, I saw that phrase, all right. I was simply pointing out that the combination of 'if ... had been true' and 'myth' is not a particularly strong foundation for an argument.
so you saw the phrase and ignored the context, doesn't look like context has any meaning for you
-
Note your argument against your own argument. Your inclusion of the term 'mythical' is the case in point. As I have said before, the Flood story comes in a portion of Genesis which an increasing number of scholars date to the early 5th century BC (give or take a decade or 3). It's use of language differs from the rest of the material and sets out a theological comparison of the Jew's own God and the Babylonian gods that many would have come into contact with during the exile. The language is often symbolic and in no way attempting to record history.
Very convenient to suggest something is symbolic, when if it was factual it would paint god in a very poor light.
-
Oh, I saw that phrase, all right. I was simply pointing out that the combination of 'if ... had been true' and 'myth' is not a particularly strong foundation for an argument.
It is, though, a strong foundation if what is being argued is that something isn't literally true.
-
God or no God, we all know our life on earth is precarious, and that it might end in an instant for any one of us. We are harmed - day after day, sometimes through completely avoidable negligent actions, sometimes just through the quirks of fate. It is very difficult to see the hand of God in anyones' lives, and the arguments for an interventionist God have often been aired on here, with little success. Yes, maybe he could 'snap his fingers metaphorically' - and sometimes one wishes he would - to prevent harm, not to cause it. However Alan B assures us that it we pray hard enough, we may be rewarded with finding a lost contact lens.
Yes, it is evident that believers have different ideas about what constitutes sin, and it is clear that there are many ideas about what the Biblical writers thought sin was. The earlier OT prophets thought that following the Law of the Covenant would mean automatic reward in this life. The Hebrews eventually came to think that even if they did not keep the law they might buy off God with the appropriate sacrifices. However, it is hinted in Jeremiah, and explicit in Isaiah and Micah that all this animal sacrificing is completely futile, and all that is required is "to do justly and to love mercy". And of course, poor old Job, "a righteous man" really got it in the neck.
The peculiar slant that St Paul gave to "sin" - alluded to in the quote I was commenting on - has given rise to most bizarre doctrine that most Christians seem to think is central to their faith. St Paul, of course, made particular reference to the life of Abraham (he seemed happy to dismiss just about everything else about Judaism), and was drawn to that gruesome episode known as the "Binding of Isaac" which so gets up Floo's nose :). However, the real point of the story is that Isaac did not die, and apart from one instance (Jephtha), this seems to have been the end of child sacrifice for the Jews - whereas the peoples around them went on sacrificing children for hundreds of years. Good old St Paul, though - the Jews having rejected child sacrifice for expiation of "sin" - he brings back the concept of human sacrifice in the form of Jesus. Except that Jesus is supposed to be both human and divine. And he adds to his bizarre atonement scenario the idea that you have to accept Jesus' sacrifice to "have your sins forgiven".
Yup, and it's up to us to make reparation, if we realise that we've really behaved in a vile manner, not to put it all on Jesus. That of course may be difficult for murderers who come to realise the full measure of their crimes. Still, I don't see Jesus as a patent remedy for guilty consciences.
Perhaps the best illustration of why something has to die to atone for sin is where God clothed Adam and Eve with skins, for which animals had to be killed. But shame about outward nakedness reflects inner guilt, which we are unable to perfectly cover ourselves.
The reason why Isaac didn't die is that he wasn't sinless. He couldn't have atoned for Abraham's or anyone else's sins because he had his own.
Jesus had no sins of his own, that's why he could die for everyone else.
Your reference to Micah 6 assumes that we can make perfect reparation. You'd need to show that someone could finish his life perfectly at peace with everyone and not having any wrongs left un-righted. Micah's words leave the reader feeling that they are unable to 'do justly' etc.
-
Perhaps the best illustration of why something has to die to atone for sin is where God clothed Adam and Eve with skins, for which animals had to be killed. But shame about outward nakedness reflects inner guilt, which we are unable to perfectly cover ourselves.
The reason why Isaac didn't die is that he wasn't sinless. He couldn't have atoned for Abraham's or anyone else's sins because he had his own.
Jesus had no sins of his own, that's why he could die for everyone else.
Your reference to Micah 6 assumes that we can make perfect reparation. You'd need to show that someone could finish his life perfectly at peace with everyone and not having any wrongs left un-righted. Micah's words leave the reader feeling that they are unable to 'do justly' etc.
All that is fanciful nonsense, imo
-
so you saw the phrase and ignored the context, doesn't look like context has any meaning for you
Sorry, I not only noticed the context but also took it into consideration. That is why I questioned the juxtaposition.
-
To me this is like the days of Noah, when I swore that the waters of Noah would never again cover the earth. So now I have sworn not to be angry with you, never to rebuke you again.
Isaiah 54:9
-
I do find this concentration on St Paul both bizarre and humorous; after all, he arrived on the scene several years after the original disciples, who taught much the same as he did - and probably kick-started his understanding if only via the teaching of people whohad heard the disciples teach and preach. If you notice, neither Paul nor the disciples associate the crucifixion with human sacrifice; it was associated with the regular sacrifice of animals that 'worked' for sins committed, but not for sins 'to be committed' - hence their having to be repeated regularly. His once for all time sacrifice superceded the annual sacrifices that the Jews (and other religious beliefs) held to be vital.
I suppose it's nice to find a few things in life which are amusing, but I'm surprised to find you so blithely dismissing the misgivings which many scholars have had about Paul - ever since they started looking at the Bible at all objectively. As for the other disciples "kick-starting" his understanding: you've obviously forgotten what Paul wrote in Galations 1 & 2.
"15] But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace,
[16] was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with flesh and blood,
[17] nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned to Damascus.
[18]
Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days.
[19] But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother.
[20] (In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!)
[21] Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cili'cia.
[22] And I was still not known by sight to the churches of Christ in Judea;
[23] they only heard it said, "He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy."
[24] And they glorified God because of me.
Gal.2
[1]Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me."
Galations 1 & 2.
You also need to contrast this with what Acts 15 says, and ask yourself if both can be true.
As Prof Barrie Wilson explains here:
Taking Paul at his Word, Prof.Barrie A. Wilson
www.barriewilson.com/pdf/Taking-Paul-at-His-Word.pdf
A salient quote from the above is the following:
"Paul emphasizes, time and time again, that he did not receive his message from any
human being (Galatians 1:1 and 1:12). Nor was he taught it (Galatians 1:12), for
example, by earlier members of the Jesus Move
ment. Rather he contends that his source
of information was experiential, that is, direct contact with the mystical Christ. In
particular, he stresses that he did not re
ceive instruction or validation from the
Jerusalem leadership. He explicitly affirms that after his remarkable experience, he did
not go up to Jerusalem to confer with James, Peter and others who were there (Galatians
1:16). In other words, he is denying the linkage between his movement and the Jesus Movement"
-
Ricky Spanish,
What do you make of Isaiah 49:5? The Servant is distinct from the nation of Israel in this verse.
Sorry, missed this Spudders.
Have you actually read 1-4?
"1 Listen to me, you islands;
hear this, you distant nations:
Before I was born the Lord called me;
from my mother’s womb he has spoken my name.
2 He made my mouth like a sharpened sword,
in the shadow of his hand he hid me;
he made me into a polished arrow
and concealed me in his quiver.
3 He said to me, “You are my servant,
Israel, in whom I will display my splendor.”
4 But I said, “I have labored in vain;
I have spent my strength for nothing at all.
Yet what is due me is in the Lord’s hand,
and my reward is with my God.”
Again, in case you can't see it: PAST TENSE. as in events that happened before the writer was born.
Why is that fact so difficult for you lot to understand?
-
Ricky,
Sorry, missed this Spudders.
Have you actually read 1-4?
"1 Listen to me, you islands;
hear this, you distant nations:
Before I was born the Lord called me;
from my mother’s womb he has spoken my name.
2 He made my mouth like a sharpened sword,
in the shadow of his hand he hid me;
he made me into a polished arrow
and concealed me in his quiver.
3 He said to me, “You are my servant,
Israel, in whom I will display my splendor.”
4 But I said, “I have labored in vain;
I have spent my strength for nothing at all.
Yet what is due me is in the Lord’s hand,
and my reward is with my God.”
Again, in case you can't see it: PAST TENSE. as in events that happened before the writer was born.
Why is that fact so difficult for you lot to understand?
Copy that. Shall we put verses 5-6 down too?
5 And now the Lord says—
he who formed me in the womb to be his servant
to bring Jacob back to him
and gather Israel to himself,
for I am honored in the eyes of the Lord
and my God has been my strength—
6 he says:
“It is too small a thing for you to be my servant
to restore the tribes of Jacob
and bring back those of Israel I have kept.
I will also make you a light for the Gentiles,
that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth.”
To me this looks as though it is Isaiah speaking. That would agree with your point about the past tense, and my point about it speaking about an individual.
-
You have to remember that the underlying problem is sin and its consequences, death (according to the Bible). The servant ultimately rises from the dead. If this means that Israel died when the Babylonians took them into captivity, and then came back to life when Cyrus released them, then can it also be a picture of literal death being overcome, a person rising from the dead, which is how Jesus fulfilled it?
-
You have to remember that the underlying problem is sin and its consequences, death (according to the Bible). The servant ultimately rises from the dead. If this means that Israel died when the Babylonians took them into captivity, and then came back to life when Cyrus released them, then can it also be a picture of literal death being overcome, a person rising from the dead, which is how Jesus fulfilled it?
None of that makes the slightest bit of sense at all.
-
Again, in case you can't see it: PAST TENSE. as in events that happened before the writer was born.
Why is that fact so difficult for you lot to understand?
Does the use of the past tense always refer to events prior to writing, Ricky? Might be worth checking your grammar books.
Take this example. "By the end of this week, we will have had 5 days of sub-zero temperatures."
-
You have to remember that the underlying problem is sin and its consequences, death (according to the Bible). The servant ultimately rises from the dead. If this means that Israel died when the Babylonians took them into captivity, and then came back to life when Cyrus released them, then can it also be a picture of literal death being overcome, a person rising from the dead, which is how Jesus fulfilled it?
Your post give the impression as though you're referring to actual historic events, why's that?
ippy
-
Sorry, missed this Spudders.
Have you actually read 1-4?
"1 Listen to me, you islands;
hear this, you distant nations:
Before I was born the Lord called me;
from my mother’s womb he has spoken my name.
2 He made my mouth like a sharpened sword,
in the shadow of his hand he hid me;
he made me into a polished arrow
and concealed me in his quiver.
3 He said to me, “You are my servant,
Israel, in whom I will display my splendor.”
4 But I said, “I have labored in vain;
I have spent my strength for nothing at all.
Yet what is due me is in the Lord’s hand,
and my reward is with my God.”
Again, in case you can't see it: PAST TENSE. as in events that happened before the writer was born.
Why is that fact so difficult for you lot to understand?
Hear O Israel, the LORD thy God is one God. Past tense or present tense?
You see the WORD of God the teachings of the Prophets has not been a past tense for any Generation.
6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
If man is to live by every word of God, then it cannot be a past tense can it? Rather the fulfillment of Gods words does not make them null and void because they are for every generation. From Abraham to Christ and from Christ to present day.
Your argument about Gods words fails on so many levels. But thinking something a past tense for the time it was written is shown by the very word itself, that Gods words are to be lived by, in every generation. As fulfilled they dominate with truth rather than disappear and become null and void.
So your argument when compared to the content and truth of God word is a failed concept when you live by the word.
-
The Biblical god is a failure, is it exists!
-
Massive, MASSIVE misunderstandings of what the Jewish bible teaches, ergo what Joshua/Jesus was trying to influence his followers to understand according to his interpretation of the book going on here.
It wasn't created for Christians, but still, Christians always attempt to misappropriate it!!
-
The first mention of the servant is in Isaiah 41:8. Here, the servant is Israel, the descendants of Abraham.
The second mention is in 42:1,
"Here is my servant, whom I uphold,
my chosen one in whom I delight;"
In verse 6-7 God says,
"I, the Lord, have called you in righteousness;
I will take hold of your hand.
I will keep you and will make you
to be a covenant for the people
and a light for the Gentiles,
to open eyes that are blind,
to free captives from prison
and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness."
The "people" mentioned here are Israel (cf 49:6). But the Gentiles, God says, are also blind, in prison and sitting in darkness.
So not only is Israel in exile in Babylon, but the world is in spiritual exile.
-
Massive, MASSIVE misunderstandings of what the Jewish bible teaches, ergo what Joshua/Jesus was trying to influence his followers to understand according to his interpretation of the book going on here.
It wasn't created for Christians, but still, Christians always attempt to misappropriate it!!
Either prove your point by addressing the issues presented in the posts by Christians or admit that you are just making the above up to try and vex Christians because you, personally have no understanding of what the bible says.
You see, Christians as believers have more chance of knowing the scriptures as the first Jewish believers did than you an atheist.
Just a little point which required you to be reminded about.
-
The first mention of the servant is in Isaiah 41:8. Here, the servant is Israel, the descendants of Abraham.
The second mention is in 42:1,
"Here is my servant, whom I uphold,
my chosen one in whom I delight;"
In verse 6-7 God says,
"I, the Lord, have called you in righteousness;
I will take hold of your hand.
I will keep you and will make you
to be a covenant for the people
and a light for the Gentiles,
to open eyes that are blind,
to free captives from prison
and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness."
The people mentioned here are not Israel, which is in exile, but the Gentiles, who, God says, are blind, in prison and sitting in darkness.
So not only is Israel in exile in Babylon, but the world is in exile.
He is winding you up. Knowing Christ and God the Father it should not be required of you to answer his wind up.
-
Either prove your point by addressing the issues presented in the posts by Christians or admit that you are just making the above up to try and vex Christians because you, personally have no understanding of what the bible says.
You see, Christians as believers have more chance of knowing the scriptures as the first Jewish believers did than you an atheist.
Just a little point which required you to be reminded about.
That is really amusing! ;D
-
He is winding you up.
You may be right there.
Knowing Christ and God the Father it should not be required of you to answer his wind up.
I am interested to know if Isaiah's prophecies can be legitimately interpreted as Messianic. Unfortunately, Ricky doesn't engage much.
-
You may be right there.I am interested to know if Isaiah's prophecies can be legitimately interpreted as Messianic. Unfortunately, Ricky doesn't engage much.
Ricky, looks for proof the bible is wrong. He has yet to reach the end of his road and realise it is a dead end. He takes what he finds/thinks he knows to be right and tests it. Unfortunately, you were the one caught up with this issue. The fact is he has no evidence and so tests the theories of what he finds against the knowledge of others.
One day he might search for truth in the obeying of the word and find it.
-
Ricky, looks for proof the bible is wrong. He has yet to reach the end of his road and realise it is a dead end. He takes what he finds/thinks he knows to be right and tests it. Unfortunately, you were the one caught up with this issue. The fact is he has no evidence and so tests the theories of what he finds against the knowledge of others.
One day he might search for truth in the obeying of the word and find it.
You haven't any proof the Bible is right!
-
Does the use of the past tense always refer to events prior to writing, Ricky? Might be worth checking your grammar books.
Take this example. "By the end of this week, we will have had 5 days of sub-zero temperatures."
Not saying that Ricky has produced a 100% watertight argument, but your example is what is known as the future perfect tense, not the past tense (or at least it was when I was at school and university).
-
Does the use of the past tense always refer to events prior to writing, Ricky? Might be worth checking your grammar books.
Take this example. "By the end of this week, we will have had 5 days of sub-zero temperatures."
Please tell me which grammar book you have been using.
That will warn anyone reading this to not buy it.
Now throw your copy in the bin.
The FUTURE PERFECT TENSE indicates that an action will have been completed (finished or "perfected") at some point in the future. This tense is formed with "will" plus "have" plus the past participle of the verb (which can be either regular or irregular in form): "I will have spent all my money by this time next year. I will have run successfully in three marathons if I can finish this one."
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/GRAMMAr/tenses/future_perfect.htm
The future perfect is a verb form or construction used to describe an event that is expected or planned to happen before a time of reference in the future, such as will have finished in the English sentence "I will have finished by tomorrow." It is a grammatical combination of the future tense, or other marking of future time, and the perfect, a grammatical aspect that views an event as prior and completed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_perfect
-
I've been looking at this quite extensively, in particular using Keil and Delitschz's commentary. In their notes on Isaiah 42:1, they say,
Now the "servant of Jehovah" is always Israel. But since Israel might be regarded either according to the character of the overwhelming majority of its members (the mass), who had forgotten their calling, or according to the character of those living members who had remained true to their calling, and constituted the kernel, or as concentrated in that one Person who is the essence of Israel in the fullest truth and highest potency, statements of the most opposite kind could be made with respect to this one homonymous subject. In Isaiah 41:8. the "servant of Jehovah" is caressed and comforted, inasmuch as there the true Israel, which deserved and needed consolation, is addressed, without regard to the mass who had forgotten their calling. In Isaiah 42:1. that One person is referred to, who is, as it were, the centre of this inner circle of Israel, and the head upon the body of Israel. And in the passage before us, the idea is carried from this its highest point back again to its lowest basis; and the servant of Jehovah is blamed and reproved for the harsh contrast between its actual conduct and its divine calling, between the reality and the idea. As we proceed, we shall meet again with the "servant of Jehovah" in the same systole and diastole. The expression covers two concentric circles, and their one centre. The inner circle of the "Israel according to the Spirit" forms the connecting link between Israel in its widest sense, and Israel in a personal sense. Here indeed Israel is severely blamed as incapable, and unworthy of fulfilling its sacred calling; but the expression "whom I send" nevertheless affirms that it will fulfil it - namely, in the person of the servant of Jehovah, and in all those members of the "servant of Jehovah" in a national sense, who long for deliverance from the ban and bonds of the present state of punishment (see Isaiah 29:18). For it is really the mission of Israel to be the medium of salvation and blessing to the nations; and this is fulfilled by the servant of Jehovah, who proceeds from Israel, and takes his place at the head of Israel. And as the history of the fulfilment shows, when the foundation for the accomplishment of this mission had been laid by the servant of Jehovah in person, it was carried on by the servant of Jehovah in a national sense; for the Lord became "a covenant of the people" through His own preaching and that of His apostles. But "a light of the Gentiles" He became purely and simply through the apostles, who represented the true and believing Israel.
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/kad/isaiah/42.htm
So to sum this up, the term, the Servant of Jehovah, can be used by the author to denote either
1. The whole nation of Israel, which had forgotten its calling
2. The faithful members of the nation, who'd remained true to their calling
3. The one individual representative of Israel who would fulfill Israel's mission to the world, and under whom Israel would continue in that mission.
The quote below expands on point 3:
In the first part of the book of Isaiah, the anticipation of a new king who will help God’s people respond faithfully to Him gradually comes to the foreground (9:2-7, 11:1-16). Israel’s past kings had miserably failed. So the people longed for a new intervention by God. God had raised David to establish the nation. Now the people yearned for a righteous and just king like David (11:3-5) who would teach them how to be God’s people (note Psalm 72).
http://www.crivoice.org/isa53.html
Clearly the coming king mentioned in the passages quoted here is in the mind of Isaiah as he writes the passages known as the 'Servant Songs'.
This may also be why Matthew begins with a genealogy that shows Jesus to be an Israelite by descent, qualifying him for the role as 'the Servant who is the true Israel'.