how to use the bible agaisnt itself
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-02-2016, 04:57 PM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself



#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
14-02-2016, 08:59 PM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
Read it. There are so many good counters to commonly held ideas within the first 40 chapters of that sucker. How anybody believes that God respects our autonomy after reading the Bible is beyond me.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Atothetheist's post
14-02-2016, 09:23 PM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
How to use a Bible against itself? Light one on fire and throw it into a pile of other Bibles.

"The danger of religious faith is that it allows otherwise normal human beings to reap the fruits of madness and consider them holy." - Sam Harris
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like philosopher's post
15-02-2016, 08:52 AM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(25-01-2016 02:13 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(20-01-2016 05:09 AM)Aliza Wrote:  I can help you with some of this. The focus of my studies is disproving the so-called messiahship of Jesus by showing disqualifying text from the Hebrew bible (old testament). Once that guy is out of the way, the credibility of the NT's statements about worshipping him under threat of eternal damnation start to lose some of their punch.

Edit: I'm trying to find a list of failed prophecies and contradictions between Jesus and the predicted view of the messiah as found in the "OT". There's a lot of information out there, I'm just having difficulty finding anything that's packaged up nice and neat for you for you to browse through.

I see. And the Jewish Messiah is/will be whom?

I’m so sorry, Q. I was reviewing this thread and I just noticed this question. Next time PM me if I miss something. Smile

The Jewish expectations for our messiah are the same today as they were +2,000 years ago.

The messiah will be a normal, human, Jewish male from the House of David. He’ll be the biological product of a normal human Jewish mother and a normal, human Jewish father who himself is from a valid line in the House of David. The messiah will be capable of reasoning and effectively negotiating with everyone, and he will uphold Jewish law.

In the Messiah’s era, we will see:
1. A gathering of the Jews back to Israel. (Which implies that the Jews had to first be in diaspora)
2. The rebuilding of Jerusalem. –This will occur on Earth in the physical world. This is not a spiritual representation of heaven. If there is no Temple, then there is no messiah. They go hand-in-hand.
3. Ezekiel’s Temple (the third temple) will be built.
4. World peace will be achieved.
5. All weapons will be turned into farming equipment.
6. All people will recognize that there is a G-d.

These things have either not occurred or have not occurred to completion. We can therefore surmise that the Jewish messiah has not been revealed.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Aliza's post
16-02-2016, 08:44 AM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(12-02-2016 12:34 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(12-02-2016 11:26 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  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?

I have a Catholic Bible at home. It certainly does separate the apocrypha and also adds commentary as to the dubious/debated origin of 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
16-02-2016, 08:46 AM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(12-02-2016 12:13 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(12-02-2016 11:26 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  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?

No, but I can recognize when you make an ad populum argument. Why mine isn't an ad populum argument--a few popes and bishops decided what is apocryphal for millions of people--but thousands of times when people took the Bible as literal and formed their doctrines and canons, they saw right through the apocrypha. I'll give you one example: The Bible says thousands of times "This is the word of the Lord" and the apocrypha has no such statements, rather it has statements like, "Hear now the wise sayings of my grandfather."

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
16-02-2016, 08:48 AM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(15-02-2016 08:52 AM)Aliza Wrote:  
(25-01-2016 02:13 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I see. And the Jewish Messiah is/will be whom?

I’m so sorry, Q. I was reviewing this thread and I just noticed this question. Next time PM me if I miss something. Smile

The Jewish expectations for our messiah are the same today as they were +2,000 years ago.

The messiah will be a normal, human, Jewish male from the House of David. He’ll be the biological product of a normal human Jewish mother and a normal, human Jewish father who himself is from a valid line in the House of David. The messiah will be capable of reasoning and effectively negotiating with everyone, and he will uphold Jewish law.

In the Messiah’s era, we will see:
1. A gathering of the Jews back to Israel. (Which implies that the Jews had to first be in diaspora)
2. The rebuilding of Jerusalem. –This will occur on Earth in the physical world. This is not a spiritual representation of heaven. If there is no Temple, then there is no messiah. They go hand-in-hand.
3. Ezekiel’s Temple (the third temple) will be built.
4. World peace will be achieved.
5. All weapons will be turned into farming equipment.
6. All people will recognize that there is a G-d.

These things have either not occurred or have not occurred to completion. We can therefore surmise that the Jewish messiah has not been revealed.

All six of your numbered points are cited in both testaments, yes. Please cite your source that the Messiah will be the child of two human parents. Thank 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
16-02-2016, 08:59 AM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(16-02-2016 08:44 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(12-02-2016 12:34 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  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?

I have a Catholic Bible at home. It certainly does separate the apocrypha and also adds commentary as to the dubious/debated origin of the apocrypha.

Which Catholic Bible would that be? I have two versions of the original Douay-Rheims, two versions of the Challoner revision of same, The Knox translation, the Confraternity of Christian doctrine version from the 1950s, The RSV and NRSV Catholic Editions, several editions of the New American Bible, and several editions of both the original Jerusalem Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible, and maybe a few others that I'm forgetting. I also have an Eastern Orthodox Bible. Kindly point me to one of these that separates the Apocrypha as you claim, and I'll go home tonight and check. I could be wrong, but I don't recall seeing such separation in any of my Bibles.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2016, 10:00 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.

Excuse my ignorance, Aliza, but I'm curious to know if Jews are still waiting for the real Messiah to come. And, if so, will there be irrefutable evidence that that Messiah has a direct blood lineage from David?

"Why hast thou forsaken me, o deity whose existence I doubt..." - Dr. Sheldon Cooper
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2016, 10:07 AM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(16-02-2016 10:00 AM)mgoering Wrote:  
(11-02-2016 04:33 PM)Aliza Wrote:  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?


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.

Excuse my ignorance, Aliza, but I'm curious to know if Jews are still waiting for the real Messiah to come. And, if so, will there be irrefutable evidence that that Messiah has a direct blood lineage from David?

Yes, we're still waiting on the messiah.

There are people today who know if they're from the House of David. The late Lubavitcher Rebbe was known to be from this house. For those who do not know, their DNA can be compared against those who do know. This is also how we identify Kohains. Those who have the tradition in their families of being Davidic, Levite, or Kohain also have a genetic link that displays a connection in the y-chromosome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: