how to use the bible agaisnt itself
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-02-2016, 01:30 AM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(11-02-2016 09:45 PM)Grassy Knoll Wrote:  
(17-01-2016 07:21 PM)purpledaisies Wrote:  I've been trying to find a link or something that points out verses that can be used in debate. I'd like to find things that I can use that the bible says this. Thank so much

Here's a simple app (android) made by a guy I know:
The Bible Versinator
Handy to have on you for examples of what I think you are asking for.
Its not coming up in the app store Sad
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2016, 01:30 AM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(11-02-2016 09:45 PM)Grassy Knoll Wrote:  
(17-01-2016 07:21 PM)purpledaisies Wrote:  I've been trying to find a link or something that points out verses that can be used in debate. I'd like to find things that I can use that the bible says this. Thank so much

Here's a simple app (android) made by a guy I know:
The Bible Versinator
Handy to have on you for examples of what I think you are asking for.
Its not coming up in the app store Sad
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2016, 08:58 AM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(12-02-2016 01:30 AM)purpledaisies Wrote:  
(11-02-2016 09:45 PM)Grassy Knoll Wrote:  Here's a simple app (android) made by a guy I know:
The Bible Versinator
Handy to have on you for examples of what I think you are asking for.
Its not coming up in the app store Sad

Hmmm... might be bad linkage?

It should also come up in a Google search
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2016, 11:20 AM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(11-02-2016 01:17 PM)epronovost Wrote:  @The Q Continuum and/or Aliza

I might be mistaken there but wasn't the Messiah supposed to defeat ennemy armies, lead his people to glory, rebuild the temple to its former glory and forge an Empire/Kingdom that would last forever, father at least one legitimate son and husher an era of peace? Since Jesus never did a single one of those things doesn't it prevent him from being the Messiah?

You aren't mistaken. The question is whether you have read the Bible's passages, including Christ's own words, as to how and when He would first save the world on the cross and then return later to usher in the Millennium (after Armageddon).

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2016, 11:22 AM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(11-02-2016 02:22 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  
(11-02-2016 01:09 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I like questions and The Q frequently answers questions here. Please remind me of a question you feel I missed and I will address it. Thanks.

This. I believe I have asked you this on several occasions and it is also pertinent to other posts. I am not trying to beat a dead horse here, if you are right, I would like to see what you saw.

(04-02-2016 06:34 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  I am fairly certian that number is 0. But seeing as you made the claim, please provide ONE POST, just one post where someone does this (and I mean the ENTIRE bible, not just the particular claim). You claim there are thousands, please supply one. Good luck.

Ah, I've already replied. As I wrote, if you don't see the many posts where people go "The Bible is a crock, just look at this contradiction for example," I will again recommend an oculist to treat you.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2016, 11:24 AM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(11-02-2016 03:27 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(11-02-2016 01:04 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  It is simple, and easy, to trust Christ for salvation, unless there is root of bitterness within and/or stubborn sin.

Well Jesus said it was much harder to get into heaven than you are proclaiming it is. Why at all would any point would someone take your word for it over Jesus's? You seem pretty deluded but not to a point of saying you consider yourself a prophet. Again you're proclaiming the path is different than the paths jesus's quotes says, so who is this the way according to?

Did Jesus say it was hard for everyone to get into Heaven? I know you'll discover a you read the Bible it IS hard for the following people to get to Heaven:

* the wealthy who trust in their wealth

* the prideful who trust in themselves above wise counsel

* those who scorn God many times in their lives

By contrast, it is easy to get to Heaven if you overcome the above. Jesus also said this, "Whoever trusts me has eternal life and will never perish."

Do you and I trust Jesus or trust our wealth or intellect?

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2016, 11:26 AM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(11-02-2016 03:58 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(11-02-2016 02:22 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  This. I believe I have asked you this on several occasions and it is also pertinent to other posts. I am not trying to beat a dead horse here, if you are right, I would like to see what you saw.
I am fairly certian that number is 0. But seeing as you made the claim, please provide ONE POST, just one post where someone does this (and I mean the ENTIRE bible, not just the particular claim). You claim there are thousands, please supply one. Good luck.

And here I would have just stuck to pointing out that only a minority of Christians accept a 66 book canon...

Nah, yours is even better. I look forward to the response you will never get.

I suppose you could count Catholics and call non-apocrypha people a minority. Yet among the 14,000 sects of Christianity only two or three accept the apocrypha, which is surely a tiny minority! Yet even these groups usually post the apocrypha in a separate Bible section, and most often today with liner notes expressing the doubts regarding the apocrypha.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2016, 11:29 AM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(12-02-2016 11:24 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(11-02-2016 03:27 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Well Jesus said it was much harder to get into heaven than you are proclaiming it is. Why at all would any point would someone take your word for it over Jesus's? You seem pretty deluded but not to a point of saying you consider yourself a prophet. Again you're proclaiming the path is different than the paths jesus's quotes says, so who is this the way according to?

Did Jesus say it was hard for everyone to get into Heaven? I know you'll discover a you read the Bible it IS hard for the following people to get to Heaven:

* the wealthy who trust in their wealth

* the prideful who trust in themselves above wise counsel

* those who scorn God many times in their lives

By contrast, it is easy to get to Heaven if you overcome the above. Jesus also said this, "Whoever trusts me has eternal life and will never perish."

Do you and I trust Jesus or trust our wealth or intellect?

You're trusting your intellect to trust that what bible curators who proclaim that quote in the book of john was what Jesus said... how is that different to your apologetics?

You aren't "trusting jesus" you're trusting what you've been told jesus said and meant by exact phrases and points.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like ClydeLee's post
12-02-2016, 11:32 AM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(11-02-2016 04:33 PM)Aliza Wrote:  
(11-02-2016 01:08 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Thank you for your thoughtful comments. A few thoughts?

There is no prophecy that the Messiah must come through Solomon. Solomon himself was told by God he would have a forever kingdom if we were righteous and he was not. The prophecies are a son of David would be Messiah. Jesus's popular titles in the NT include Son of (descendant of) David. People call Him this when asking for healings and kingly dispensations.

TL/DR - The language in defining David as being the line that will produce the messiah is the same as the language used to also define Solomon. Interpretation should be consistent with both patriarchs. Solomon (not Nathan) will be the only son to carry forward the messianic line.

1 Chronicles 22
9 Behold, a son shall be born to thee, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies round about: for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quietness unto Israel in his days. 10 He shall build a house for my name; and he shall be my son, and I will be his father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel forever.


It says here in 1 Chronicles that the kingdom will be with Solomon. Not with Nathan. But maybe you think that the text leaves room for interpretation. Perhaps you think the text means that Solomon’s “presence” is still ruling over Israel to this day. What is says, and what it means is the same for Solomon as it is for David and Jesse. The messianic line goes from Jesse to David and Solomon. No other offspring are a part of this club, and both Jesse and David DID have other sons. The bible doesn't mention them because they were excluded from the messiahship. No kings were ever from any line other than Jesse through David and finally through Solomon. THIS IS THE GENEALOGICAL LINE THAT COUNTS.

Christians and Jews both agree that the messiah must come from the House of David. Much emphasis is placed in the NT attempting to "prove" that Jesus was Davidic, so it's clear that Christians acknowledge this requirement. As we see below in 2 Samuel, the exact same language is used to define David as holding the eternal, exclusive rights to the throne. Both of our religions take this to mean that David’s line is eternal, not David himself.

2 Samuel 7
12 When your days are finished and you shall lie with your forefathers, then I will raise up your seed that shall proceed from your body after you, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.
(This is referring to a specific, single son.) 14 I will be to him a father, and he shall be to Me a son; so that when he goes astray I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the sons of Adam. 15 But My mercy shall not depart from him as I withdrew it from Saul, whom I removed from before you. (It’s going to be eternal. It will not be taken away.) 16 And your house and your kingdom shall be confirmed forever before you; your throne shall be established forever."

David’s line is forever. The specific son will be from David’s seed; his physical, literal offspring. Both of our religions agree that this means that David’s line will produce kings, so why should the wording, when applied to Solomon be interpreted differently?

(11-02-2016 01:08 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I'm aware of the Jewish laws and traditions regarding mother-son and father-son succession. As I've shared with dozens of Jewish people, Bible succession, regardless of tradition or modern practice, is based on the father's tribe/position. Jesus was adopted as Joseph's son.

TL/DR - Jesus isn't Joseph's son, not that it matters if he was because Joseph's line is disqualified anyway. He isn't of the House of David. Adoption isn't a factor in this equation, and you cannot retroactively change Jewish law to suit your purposes.

There is no mother-son succession that I’m aware of. Can you please provide me with a Jewish-sourced example of this if you believe that Mothers and sons share a successive link that might apply to the case of Jesus and Mary?

We all agree that Jesus was adopted by Joseph. It’s just that this doesn’t help your case at all. He doesn’t get to be from the house of David just because of that. He might inherit goods and money if his family decides to do that, but he doesn’t magically become House of David.

If a family of one race adopts a child of another race, that child retains the race they were born with. No amount of love, caring and wishing on the part of the adoptive family will ever change this.

When a child is adopted into a Jewish family, that child requires a proper conversion. Even if the child is adopted from birth, they’re not Jewish without a conversion. For the purposes of Jewish law, the adoptive child is not considered to be the parent’s child. Documents identify the child as being the son or daughter of Israel, and not the son or daughter of Yitzak and Elisheva (for example). The law in the Talmud is crystal clear on this and leaves no loophole which would help your case about Jesus.

An example: A mamzer (bastard) is the product of an illegal relationship. When a married woman gets pregnant from one guy while married to another man, the offspring is considered to be a mamzer. That child may be adopted by the wife’s husband, but he is still a mamzer. Nothing takes that away.

The house or legal recognition of a house does not transfer to an adoptive child. Nothing changes that. Not ever.

Thank you for sharing. I'm familiar with the above line of reasoning. However, I've also noticed that if we think Shalom-man as Solomon we have that this unique, singular man from David will be titled, "Man of Peace". Then we have Isaiah's wonderful title for Messiah, "the Prince of Peace", which many Christmas hymn singers know.

Further, since you have omitted the prophecies and judgments placed upon Solomon's direct and kingly descendants, you must explain how it is that the forever kingdom went into exile and how it is that when returned to the land in great numbers--in the time of Jesus--the kings who sat on the throne were usurpers and not Solomonic/Davidic. The answer, of course, is Jesus Christ.

I'm not wanting to argue with you what is appropriate (and what is common practice) regarding blessing an adopted child that is older than your birth children. Such is common practice among the pagan Gentiles, to honor the eldest children, let alone the Chosen People. Put another way, if you adopt a child, then have birth children, will you toss the eldest child out on his ear?

Of course, Jesus isn't technically an adopted child of Joseph. He's JOSEPH'S STEPSON. But if you post that Jewish people are cruel to their stepsons... I will be upset.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2016, 11:56 AM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(12-02-2016 11:20 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(11-02-2016 01:17 PM)epronovost Wrote:  @The Q Continuum and/or Aliza

I might be mistaken there but wasn't the Messiah supposed to defeat ennemy armies, lead his people to glory, rebuild the temple to its former glory and forge an Empire/Kingdom that would last forever, father at least one legitimate son and husher an era of peace? Since Jesus never did a single one of those things doesn't it prevent him from being the Messiah?

You aren't mistaken. The question is whether you have read the Bible's passages, including Christ's own words, as to how and when He would first save the world on the cross and then return later to usher in the Millennium (after Armageddon).

So he isn't the Messiah yet since he hasn't accomplish those thing (yet). He said he would, but that's just good intention. You have to deliver the goods to be the Messiah and not just a few, all of them. To even consider Jesus to be the Messiah you have to believe he will return from the dead and do all those things. The problem is that he hasn't and since no one ever returned from the dead (especially not after your body has crumbled into dust) you might as well believe that Moses is going to return from the dead and make a second attempt. Since dead people should be disqualified who is still alive and descandant of king David through the line of Solomon?.

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes epronovost's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: