how to use the bible agaisnt itself
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-02-2016, 08:43 AM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(18-02-2016 11:15 AM)Leo Wrote:  Aliza is owning or destroying Q BIG TIME. The Q guy is really pathetic. He is making fool of himself big time. I wonder why he don't leave at this point. It's kinda sad actually. SadFacepalm

I wouldn't say she is destroying him as much as he isn't really responding to her in any real way. I think she is just sticking with what she knows which is great since it is her perspective. His responses are not even calling into question what she is saying. Granted, I don't agree with her conclusion, but he isn't even doing much else other than his usual MO which is "you're wrong, I am smarter because I took a greek course in college, Jesus, it is up to you to prove me wrong, yabut...." then preferring to himself in the 3rd person.

"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
[+] 3 users Like The Organic Chemist's post
19-02-2016, 10:20 AM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(19-02-2016 08:43 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  
(18-02-2016 11:15 AM)Leo Wrote:  Aliza is owning or destroying Q BIG TIME. The Q guy is really pathetic. He is making fool of himself big time. I wonder why he don't leave at this point. It's kinda sad actually. SadFacepalm

I wouldn't say she is destroying him as much as he isn't really responding to her in any real way. I think she is just sticking with what she knows which is great since it is her perspective. His responses are not even calling into question what she is saying. Granted, I don't agree with her conclusion, but he isn't even doing much else other than his usual MO which is "you're wrong, I am smarter because I took a greek course in college, Jesus, it is up to you to prove me wrong, yabut...." then preferring to himself in the 3rd person.

Yeah, I don't think he's actually reading much of what I'm posting. I think he's skimming, maybe looking for a few keywords and trying to trip me up with my own words. He's not even trying to counter my arguments, which I take as a clear and obvious concession on his part.

I'm not really writing to him anyway. I'm writing to the forum lurkers who he believes he is helping to better understand Christianity. He said (and he's probably correct) that there are people who come to this forum who are questioning Christianity. Maybe those people deserve to know the other side of the story to help them make educated, informed decisions about their religion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Aliza's post
19-02-2016, 10:30 AM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(19-02-2016 10:20 AM)Aliza Wrote:  Yeah, I don't think he's actually reading much of what I'm posting. I think he's skimming, maybe looking for a few keywords and trying to trip me up with my own words. He's not even trying to counter my arguments, which I take as a clear and obvious concession on his part.

This is typical of discussions with Q. He rarely, if ever, actually advances an argument. He just says "nuh-uh" without justifying it, and expects that this will, somehow, prove that Christianity is correct.

Oh, and he intersperses this pointlessness with insinuations of his own moral and intellectual superiority. Because what's the point of believing if you can't use it to lord over the unwashed heathens?

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Unbeliever's post
19-02-2016, 10:35 AM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(19-02-2016 10:30 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(19-02-2016 10:20 AM)Aliza Wrote:  Yeah, I don't think he's actually reading much of what I'm posting. I think he's skimming, maybe looking for a few keywords and trying to trip me up with my own words. He's not even trying to counter my arguments, which I take as a clear and obvious concession on his part.

This is typical of discussions with Q. He rarely, if ever, actually advances an argument. He just says "nuh-uh" without justifying it, and expects that this will, somehow, prove that Christianity is correct.

Oh, and he intersperses this pointlessness with insinuations of his own moral and intellectual superiority. Because what's the point of believing if you can't use it to lord over the unwashed heathens?

Well then! In the words of the great Leo, I declare:

I win!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Aliza's post
19-02-2016, 11:36 AM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(19-02-2016 10:20 AM)Aliza Wrote:  Yeah, I don't think he's actually reading much of what I'm posting. I think he's skimming, maybe looking for a few keywords and trying to trip me up with my own words. He's not even trying to counter my arguments, which I take as a clear and obvious concession on his part.

I'm not really writing to him anyway. I'm writing to the forum lurkers who he believes he is helping to better understand Christianity. He said (and he's probably correct) that there are people who come to this forum who are questioning Christianity. Maybe those people deserve to know the other side of the story to help them make educated, informed decisions about their religion.

I don't think he ever actually reads anything if he doesn't already agree with it. I applaud you for doing what you are doing. Even I don't see eye-to-eye with you in this department, it is still good to see others' thoughts and opinions.

"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
19-02-2016, 12:37 PM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(17-02-2016 11:53 AM)Aliza Wrote:  
(16-02-2016 10:07 AM)Aliza Wrote:  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.

(17-02-2016 10:24 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  So you do or do not have a source text for the claim?

A source for what claim? It’s well documented on the internet that the late Rebbe had the family tradition that he was from a valid Davidic line. Are you asking if I can physically prove this claim? I cannot, and I don’t really have to. The Rebbe failed to complete the tasks set forth for the messiah, so he was not the messiah.

The New Testament tells us very clearly that Jesus is not Davidic. They’re practically screaming it from the roof tops! Had the NT writers left well enough alone, people probably would have accepted that he was from a valid Davidic line. The NT writers were just trying a little too hard. Wink

1. If Mary had a secret affair with someone from a valid Davidic line, then Jesus is a bastard.
2. If Mary was impregnated by G-d with Davidic DNA, then Jesus is a bastard.
3. If Mary had an affair with a Roman Solider, then Jesus is not Davidic.
4. If Mary got pregnant with either Joseph listed in the NT, then Jesus is not Davidic.

Based on descriptions provided in the New Testament, Mary and Joseph were legally married according to Jewish law. If you’re taking the stance that Jesus has DNA from two Jewish sources (Mary and David’s DNA), then this would render Jesus as a bastard. G-d provided the Jewish people with laws regarding marriage, and the only valid male that could impregnate Mary was Joseph.

(17-02-2016 10:24 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  And couldn't G_d be able to incarnate the Messiah through a virgin with the correct genetics as well? He did make the world in six days and saved the ark and the Jewish people in the Exodus... do you believe the OT God does actual miracles?

Could G-d incarnate the messiah through a virgin? That’s a trickier question, and I’m going to answer it but pay close attention to the language I’m using here.

According to Judaism, G-d is infinite, tells the truth (good and bad) and doesn’t lie or change his mind. The question is not could G-d perform this, but would G-d perform this. And the answer is no. G-d would not impregnate a virgin with the future messiah.

The messiah will come from David’s body; his seed. Impregnating anyone with the messiah is a breach of promise to David because it bypasses David’s body. We believe that G-d doesn’t break his promises.

Jewish miracles –no matter how fantastical- are performed in front of the entire Jewish community. This is because people Jews are skeptical by nature. A miracle performed in front of everyone is the minimum criteria for it being accepted as a miracle by the Jewish people. Mary was impregnated in privacy. Had this been a real Jewish miracle that the Jews would be expected to believe, it would have been handled very differently. Jews do not practice “faith” and do not rely on anyone’s word.

G-d cannot be David’s descendant. This violates G-d’s statement that he is not a man. It also violates the chain of events. The creator is not the creation’s creation. The infinite cannot be added to or subtracted from, so G-d (the infinite) cannot be limited (in any way, shape and/or form) to a human body.

Fair enough. Now tell us from Torah Law where the bastard is worthy of your contempt or my contempt. Of course, since Mary and Joseph were married before the child came, Jesus was not a bastard.

My seed includes a son and a daughter. Mary is David's seed, however, you are making a lot of Messianic ideas from whole cloth--that is--tradition--I want to know what the Tanakh says. Period.

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
19-02-2016, 12:44 PM (This post was last modified: 19-02-2016 02:29 PM by The Organic Chemist.)
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(19-02-2016 12:37 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Fair enough. Now tell us from Torah Law where the bastard is worthy of your contempt or my contempt. Of course, since Mary and Joseph were married before the child came, Jesus was not a bastard.

My seed includes a son and a daughter. Mary is David's seed, however, you are making a lot of Messianic ideas from whole cloth--that is--tradition--I want to know what the Tanakh says. Period.

bastard
[bas-terd]
noun
1.
a person born of unmarried parents; an illegitimate child.
2.
Slang.
a vicious, despicable, or thoroughly disliked person:
Some bastard slashed the tires on my car.
a person, especially a man:
The poor bastard broke his leg.

3. something irregular, inferior, spurious, or unusual.

If Joseph was the father, then you are 100% correct. However, we all know that you would not accept that Joseph was the father, so by definition, Jesus is a bastard. If a woman is married and gets pregnant by a man not her husband, that baby is a bastard. You personally are skating close to definition 2.

"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
19-02-2016, 01:53 PM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(19-02-2016 12:37 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(17-02-2016 11:53 AM)Aliza Wrote:  A source for what claim? It’s well documented on the internet that the late Rebbe had the family tradition that he was from a valid Davidic line. Are you asking if I can physically prove this claim? I cannot, and I don’t really have to. The Rebbe failed to complete the tasks set forth for the messiah, so he was not the messiah.

The New Testament tells us very clearly that Jesus is not Davidic. They’re practically screaming it from the roof tops! Had the NT writers left well enough alone, people probably would have accepted that he was from a valid Davidic line. The NT writers were just trying a little too hard. Wink

1. If Mary had a secret affair with someone from a valid Davidic line, then Jesus is a bastard.
2. If Mary was impregnated by G-d with Davidic DNA, then Jesus is a bastard.
3. If Mary had an affair with a Roman Solider, then Jesus is not Davidic.
4. If Mary got pregnant with either Joseph listed in the NT, then Jesus is not Davidic.

Based on descriptions provided in the New Testament, Mary and Joseph were legally married according to Jewish law. If you’re taking the stance that Jesus has DNA from two Jewish sources (Mary and David’s DNA), then this would render Jesus as a bastard. G-d provided the Jewish people with laws regarding marriage, and the only valid male that could impregnate Mary was Joseph.


Could G-d incarnate the messiah through a virgin? That’s a trickier question, and I’m going to answer it but pay close attention to the language I’m using here.

According to Judaism, G-d is infinite, tells the truth (good and bad) and doesn’t lie or change his mind. The question is not could G-d perform this, but would G-d perform this. And the answer is no. G-d would not impregnate a virgin with the future messiah.

The messiah will come from David’s body; his seed. Impregnating anyone with the messiah is a breach of promise to David because it bypasses David’s body. We believe that G-d doesn’t break his promises.

Jewish miracles –no matter how fantastical- are performed in front of the entire Jewish community. This is because people Jews are skeptical by nature. A miracle performed in front of everyone is the minimum criteria for it being accepted as a miracle by the Jewish people. Mary was impregnated in privacy. Had this been a real Jewish miracle that the Jews would be expected to believe, it would have been handled very differently. Jews do not practice “faith” and do not rely on anyone’s word.

G-d cannot be David’s descendant. This violates G-d’s statement that he is not a man. It also violates the chain of events. The creator is not the creation’s creation. The infinite cannot be added to or subtracted from, so G-d (the infinite) cannot be limited (in any way, shape and/or form) to a human body.

Fair enough. Now tell us from Torah Law where the bastard is worthy of your contempt or my contempt. Of course, since Mary and Joseph were married before the child came, Jesus was not a bastard.

My seed includes a son and a daughter. Mary is David's seed, however, you are making a lot of Messianic ideas from whole cloth--that is--tradition--I want to know what the Tanakh says. Period.

Why did Abraham follow the instruction to kill his son by acting that task upon Issac and not Ishmael? Was it not because he was a "bastard" and not his official son of a more tied marital bond?

"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
19-02-2016, 02:54 PM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(17-02-2016 11:53 AM)Aliza Wrote:  A source for what claim? It’s well documented on the internet that the late Rebbe had the family tradition that he was from a valid Davidic line. Are you asking if I can physically prove this claim? I cannot, and I don’t really have to. The Rebbe failed to complete the tasks set forth for the messiah, so he was not the messiah.

The New Testament tells us very clearly that Jesus is not Davidic. They’re practically screaming it from the roof tops! Had the NT writers left well enough alone, people probably would have accepted that he was from a valid Davidic line. The NT writers were just trying a little too hard. Wink

1. If Mary had a secret affair with someone from a valid Davidic line, then Jesus is a bastard.
2. If Mary was impregnated by G-d with Davidic DNA, then Jesus is a bastard.
3. If Mary had an affair with a Roman Solider, then Jesus is not Davidic.
4. If Mary got pregnant with either Joseph listed in the NT, then Jesus is not Davidic.

Based on descriptions provided in the New Testament, Mary and Joseph were legally married according to Jewish law. If you’re taking the stance that Jesus has DNA from two Jewish sources (Mary and David’s DNA), then this would render Jesus as a bastard. G-d provided the Jewish people with laws regarding marriage, and the only valid male that could impregnate Mary was Joseph.


Could G-d incarnate the messiah through a virgin? That’s a trickier question, and I’m going to answer it but pay close attention to the language I’m using here.

According to Judaism, G-d is infinite, tells the truth (good and bad) and doesn’t lie or change his mind. The question is not could G-d perform this, but would G-d perform this. And the answer is no. G-d would not impregnate a virgin with the future messiah.

The messiah will come from David’s body; his seed. Impregnating anyone with the messiah is a breach of promise to David because it bypasses David’s body. We believe that G-d doesn’t break his promises.

Jewish miracles –no matter how fantastical- are performed in front of the entire Jewish community. This is because people Jews are skeptical by nature. A miracle performed in front of everyone is the minimum criteria for it being accepted as a miracle by the Jewish people. Mary was impregnated in privacy. Had this been a real Jewish miracle that the Jews would be expected to believe, it would have been handled very differently. Jews do not practice “faith” and do not rely on anyone’s word.

G-d cannot be David’s descendant. This violates G-d’s statement that he is not a man. It also violates the chain of events. The creator is not the creation’s creation. The infinite cannot be added to or subtracted from, so G-d (the infinite) cannot be limited (in any way, shape and/or form) to a human body.

(19-02-2016 12:37 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Fair enough. Now tell us from Torah Law where the bastard is worthy of your contempt or my contempt. Of course, since Mary and Joseph were married before the child came, Jesus was not a bastard.

Actually, it doesn’t say anywhere in either the Torah or the Talmud that we should have contempt for a bastard. –And since we’re discussing it, the proper word is “mamzer”. We don’t hold contempt for people because of their birth status. Interesting that that was your default assumption; but no, Judaism operates very differently than Christianity.

Yes, 100% if Jesus was not Joseph’s biological son, but somehow manages to have Y-chromosomes from a Davidic ancestor, then he was absolutely a mamzer. One of the ways to be considered a mamzer is to have a married woman become impregnated by a Jewish man who is not her husband. Remember. This is Jewish law here, not Christian law. Christian rules play no part in this equation.

I find it completely bizarre that Christians believe that G-d would hand down all these laws about family purity, and give us very serious warnings about not sleeping with another man's wife.... and then he'd knock up a young married woman. Could he not anticipate how this action might be misconstrued by the Jewish people?

If Jesus’s birth father was not Jewish, then he is not a mamzer, even though his mother was married to a Jew. –But then he’s also not from the House of David.

How is it that you don’t remember that I've already explained this? Q, if I've said something that doesn't make sense, ask for more details. Express the parts that you do understand, and then ask for clarification on the parts that you don't understand. But at the very least, don't just display that you couldn't even bother to read what I said.

(19-02-2016 12:37 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  My seed includes a son and a daughter. Mary is David's seed, however, you are making a lot of Messianic ideas from whole cloth--that is--tradition--I want to know what the Tanakh says. Period.

You don’t remember this from a previous post either? I explained to you that Mary’s genealogy is not relevant. G-d promised David that the line would be carried down through Solomon. It’s a promise. Promises are serious business in the bible.

Q, if we’re going to have a conversation, it’s important that you read my posts. I already provided you with direct quotes from the Tanakh to answer this question. Scroll through this thread to the start of our dialogue and please read my posts. They’re really an important component in the forum discussion process.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Aliza's post
19-02-2016, 03:37 PM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(19-02-2016 01:53 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(19-02-2016 12:37 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Fair enough. Now tell us from Torah Law where the bastard is worthy of your contempt or my contempt. Of course, since Mary and Joseph were married before the child came, Jesus was not a bastard.

My seed includes a son and a daughter. Mary is David's seed, however, you are making a lot of Messianic ideas from whole cloth--that is--tradition--I want to know what the Tanakh says. Period.

Why did Abraham follow the instruction to kill his son by acting that task upon Issac and not Ishmael? Was it not because he was a "bastard" and not his official son of a more tied marital bond?

Not sure if you're asking me or if you're asking Q, but I'll offer my two cents.

Abraham's marital status with either woman is not subject toTorah law because neither Abraham, Sarah or Hagar were Jewish. Even if they were Jews, both Isaac and Ishmael would still be legitimate because Sarah and Hagar were not already married to someone other than Abraham.

If I recall correctly, Abraham is instructed to take his favorite son. Jews and Christians hold that his favorite was Isaac, while Muslims hold that Ishmael was the one.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Aliza's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: