how to use the bible agaisnt itself
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-02-2016, 12:13 PM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(12-02-2016 11:26 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(11-02-2016 03:58 PM)cjlr Wrote:  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.

You can't count sects, you have to count people. Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are pretty big sects. The Catholics, in particular, are much bigger than any of the thousands of Protestant sects. What he meant is that a majority of people who call themselves Christians recognize a canon larger than 66 books. That should have been obvious even to you. Or are you just being disingenuous again?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2016, 12:34 PM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(12-02-2016 11:26 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(11-02-2016 03:58 PM)cjlr Wrote:  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.

We have been through this once already. By far the largest single denomination of Christians is Roman Catholicism, and they absolutely do not "post the apocrypha in a separate Bible section", nor do they express any doubts about those books. The original King James Bible did that, and some Protestant Bibles still do, but no Catholic Bible does. Those books are included in the Old Testament along with all the other Old Testament books. They are not separated, segregated, or distinguished in any way. They are simply part of the Old Testament. What part of that don't you understand?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Grasshopper's post
14-02-2016, 11:18 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’ve got the main idea right.

The messiah doesn’t need to win a war, though it’s possible that a war will be involved. There are two messiahs; Messiah, son of Joseph, and Messiah, son of David. Messiah ben Joseph will be a very loved public figure who will be killed (probably in battle) and his death will serve as a wakeup call for the Jewish people.

Messiah ben David (the messiah) will usher in peace, but that peace doesn’t necessarily have to come in the form of war, and there is no concept of the Jews needing to be led into “glory”. Also, the messiah need not personally and deliberately accomplish these tasks. They tasks can be fulfilled through a very natural and gradual progression of events.

Ezekiel’s temple must be built. Years after Jesus was said to die, the temple was destroyed. We Jews view this event as a clear and obvious indicator (a little message from G-d) that Jesus was a false messiah.

I’m unaware of any prophecy that states that the messiah must father a son. –A prophecy like this might exist, but I’m not aware of it. It would be possible that the Messiah simply chooses another member from the House of David to succeed him.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2016, 12:07 PM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(14-02-2016 11:18 AM)Aliza 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’ve got the main idea right.

The messiah doesn’t need to win a war, though it’s possible that a war will be involved. There are two messiahs; Messiah, son of Joseph, and Messiah, son of David. Messiah ben Joseph will be a very loved public figure who will be killed (probably in battle) and his death will serve as a wakeup call for the Jewish people.

Messiah ben David (the messiah) will usher in peace, but that peace doesn’t necessarily have to come in the form of war, and there is no concept of the Jews needing to be led into “glory”. Also, the messiah need not personally and deliberately accomplish these tasks. They tasks can be fulfilled through a very natural and gradual progression of events.

Ezekiel’s temple must be built. Years after Jesus was said to die, the temple was destroyed. We Jews view this event as a clear and obvious indicator (a little message from G-d) that Jesus was a false messiah.

I’m unaware of any prophecy that states that the messiah must father a son. –A prophecy like this might exist, but I’m not aware of it. It would be possible that the Messiah simply chooses another member from the House of David to succeed him.

I got the part about a having a son from a wikipedia article, which means it might be complete bullshit. Thanks for the info. All in all, it seems this idea of Jesus being the Messiah is idiotic.

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
14-02-2016, 12:11 PM (This post was last modified: 14-02-2016 12:20 PM by GirlyMan.)
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?

Bob, on the other hand, has done all of those things.

(14-02-2016 11:18 AM)Aliza Wrote:  There are two messiahs; Messiah, son of Joseph, and Messiah, son of David. Messiah ben Joseph will be a very loved public figure who will be killed (probably in battle) and his death will serve as a wakeup call for the Jewish people. Messiah ben David (the messiah) will usher in peace, but that peace doesn’t necessarily have to come in the form of war, and there is no concept of the Jews needing to be led into “glory”. Also, the messiah need not personally and deliberately accomplish these tasks. They tasks can be fulfilled through a very natural and gradual progression of events.

Still not seeing anything that disqualifies Bob. Drinking Beverage

[Image: bob2_1.jpg]

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
14-02-2016, 12:36 PM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
The only task the messiah must acomplish is winning the last person to posts wins thread. I already done that. So I'm the messiah.Yes

Religion is bullshit. The winner of the last person to post wins thread.Yes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Leo's post
14-02-2016, 01:46 PM (This post was last modified: 14-02-2016 02:36 PM by Aliza.)
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(12-02-2016 11:32 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  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.

TL/DR- The person that Isaiah is calling “Prince of Peace” is already known to Isaiah. That’s why Isaiah said that he was born, and not that he will be born at some time in the future. This is a story about the past, not a prophecy about the future.

Man of Peace
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.

This passage clearly identifies that the kingdom will be passed down through Solomon. Peace in Israel will only be guaranteed through Solomon’s days, but the kingship will still pass down through Solomon.... forever.

Prince of Peace
So wait. Let’s stop and take a look at the other “prophecy” that you’re referencing here. For those of you unfamiliar with the text, this comes from Isaiah 9:5-6.
You say that Isaiah titles the messiah as the “Prince of Peace”, but this simply isn’t true. Isaiah is clearly calling King Hezakiah the Prince of Peace. This can be confirmed by stepping back a few chapters to the beginning of the story. You can see that the events that Isaiah describes are about a particular ruler who did specific things. –Things that King Hezekiah did.

Also, the “prophecy” that you’re referring to is written in the past tense. This is a telling of a past event, not a prophecy about a future event. Isaiah is talking about a man who was born and who was called Prince of Peace. He’s talking about the salvation (physical rescue from a real enemy, not spiritual rescue from hell) during the reign of King Hezekiah.

This passage is not about the messiah and it's not even a prophecy.

EVERYWHERE else in the bible, the Hebrew words used in this particular passage are translated as past tense events by the Christians. It’s only in this one spot where they translate the words are future tense, because they want to try to make this verse line up with their ideas about Jesus.

(12-02-2016 11:32 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  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.

You’re welcome to provide me with any scripture that you think disqualifies Solomon as the being the valid heir to the Kingdom. I’ll help you translate it correctly Big Grin.

The Jews didn’t control the land during the Roman occupation. Rulers appointed during this era were just puppet kings or governors without any actual authority. They were most certainly not recognized as valid kings within Judaism.

The kingship line goes through the House of David. This is understood within Judaism. When we’ve merited the land, and we have a king, that king must be from the House of David. –The line is eternal, but the Jewish people will not always have control of the land. You should try reading what the people who wrote the book have to say about this stuff. We’ve got an unbroken chain of communication going back to Isaiah himself.

This was the understanding of how it worked even when Jesus was said to have lived. There was a reason that the Christians tried so hard to write Jesus into the House of David. The Christians knew that by definition, the Jewish Messiah had to be from the House of David. –Even though the House of David hadn’t ruled the land for some 700 years by the time Jesus was claimed to have hit the scene, being from the house of David was understood by all to be a critical attribute for the messiahship.

(12-02-2016 11:32 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  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?

TL/DL - Adopted children (or any child who is raised by a parent or parents who are not their biological parents) are also loved. It’s just that the only way to pass down your DNA is through fucking. Joseph didn’t have sex with Mary so Joseph is not Jesus’s biological father.

Why would you toss your children out on their ears? Where in the bible does it say to reject your children just because they don’t share your blood? I’m unfamiliar with that passage. I have no idea why you would jump to such an extreme conclusion.

Adoption is considered to be a mitzvah, and ensuring that all children get the care they need is an obligation that the entire the Jewish community must fulfill. There are very serious mitzvahs in Jewish law about caring for children and it drills down to describing how sensitive one must be to adoptees –or step children, or orphans, or whatever.

(12-02-2016 11:32 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  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 sure that Joseph loved all of his children. But intercourse is how DNA is passed down from parents to children. According to the NT, Mary and Joseph hadn’t yet slept together.

Perhaps those Christian schools of yours need to start teaching human sexuality Wink
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Aliza's post
14-02-2016, 01:47 PM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(14-02-2016 12:11 PM)GirlyMan 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?

Bob, on the other hand, has done all of those things.

(14-02-2016 11:18 AM)Aliza Wrote:  There are two messiahs; Messiah, son of Joseph, and Messiah, son of David. Messiah ben Joseph will be a very loved public figure who will be killed (probably in battle) and his death will serve as a wakeup call for the Jewish people. Messiah ben David (the messiah) will usher in peace, but that peace doesn’t necessarily have to come in the form of war, and there is no concept of the Jews needing to be led into “glory”. Also, the messiah need not personally and deliberately accomplish these tasks. They tasks can be fulfilled through a very natural and gradual progression of events.

Still not seeing anything that disqualifies Bob. Drinking Beverage

[Image: bob2_1.jpg]

I believe in you, B-b. Hug
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2016, 04:08 PM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(12-02-2016 11:22 AM)The Q Continuum 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.

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.

Ahhhh, and has it has been pointed out to you on several occasions, it is up to you to provide said evidebce to support tour claim. I see you are just going to act like you actually answered it. What an incredible towering powerhouse of intellect you are.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes The Organic Chemist's post
14-02-2016, 04:14 PM (This post was last modified: 14-02-2016 04:19 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(14-02-2016 01:47 PM)Aliza Wrote:  
(14-02-2016 12:11 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Bob, on the other hand, has done all of those things.


Still not seeing anything that disqualifies Bob. Drinking Beverage

[Image: bob2_1.jpg]

I believe in you, B-b. Hug

You are the B-b A-iza.




There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: