how to use the bible agaisnt itself
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-02-2016, 03:48 PM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(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.

Girly comes from the seed of William Wallace. I am The Messiah come to save the ignorant from themselves. Thus saith the B-b.




#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
20-02-2016, 12:33 AM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(19-02-2016 03:37 PM)Aliza Wrote:  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.

Correct me here if I'm wrong but I seem to recall that the Koran does not specifically name which one it was.

"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
23-02-2016, 09:43 AM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(19-02-2016 02:54 PM)Aliza 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.

(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.

1. You don't find it "completely bizarre" what Christians believe, you merely disagree with the Christian understanding that a virgin birth was promised in the Tanakh. As you wrote, "It’s a promise. Promises are serious business in the bible."

2. You have God's promise that the line would be carried forever through David's seed, but you do not have in the Tanakh any verse that the promise had to come through Solomon. Solomon was met by God and God gave Solomon conditional promises, yes, but Solomon broke his end of the deal. Do you have a verse that David was told Solomon's line would have the throne or is this an assumption of yours or a quotation from an extra-biblical source.

3. You question whether I'm reading your posts correctly than say it's bizarre that God would knock up a married woman. You haven't read the gospels. Mary was unwed but betrothed. Joseph sought a get but Ha Shem told Joseph to step forward. They were married but did not consummate the marriage until Y'shua was born.

Thanks.

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
23-02-2016, 10:05 AM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(23-02-2016 09:43 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(19-02-2016 02:54 PM)Aliza Wrote:  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.


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.

1. You don't find it "completely bizarre" what Christians believe, you merely disagree with the Christian understanding that a virgin birth was promised in the Tanakh. As you wrote, "It’s a promise. Promises are serious business in the bible."

2. You have God's promise that the line would be carried forever through David's seed, but you do not have in the Tanakh any verse that the promise had to come through Solomon. Solomon was met by God and God gave Solomon conditional promises, yes, but Solomon broke his end of the deal. Do you have a verse that David was told Solomon's line would have the throne or is this an assumption of yours or a quotation from an extra-biblical source.

3. You question whether I'm reading your posts correctly than say it's bizarre that God would knock up a married woman. You haven't read the gospels. Mary was unwed but betrothed. Joseph sought a get but Ha Shem told Joseph to step forward. They were married but did not consummate the marriage until Y'shua was born.

Thanks.

1. The word is "young woman" not "virgin". And the prophecy was fulfilled in the time of King Ahaz. Isaiah is speaking to King Ahaz about an already pregnant woman who is known to them. The timing of the child is to serve as an indication for the King. This is not about the messiah, and the messianic era isn't even mentioned in this passage.

2. Yes, it does say that Solomon will carry the throne, and that G-d's favor will never be pulled from him as it was with Saul.

3. You've obviously never read anything about Judaism. Mary was married to Joseph. They were in their engagement period, which by Jewish law (the law that they were held to) they were legally married by all rights and privileges.

Mary and Joseph were in fact Jewish, not American, or European. Their lives were dictated by Jewish law. We have that law! It's still in existence. You can study it and learn what Jews actually did in this era.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Aliza's post
23-02-2016, 10:23 AM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(23-02-2016 09:43 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(19-02-2016 02:54 PM)Aliza Wrote:  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.


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.

1. You don't find it "completely bizarre" what Christians believe, you merely disagree with the Christian understanding that a virgin birth was promised in the Tanakh. As you wrote, "It’s a promise. Promises are serious business in the bible."

2. You have God's promise that the line would be carried forever through David's seed, but you do not have in the Tanakh any verse that the promise had to come through Solomon. Solomon was met by God and God gave Solomon conditional promises, yes, but Solomon broke his end of the deal. Do you have a verse that David was told Solomon's line would have the throne or is this an assumption of yours or a quotation from an extra-biblical source.

3. You question whether I'm reading your posts correctly than say it's bizarre that God would knock up a married woman. You haven't read the gospels. Mary was unwed but betrothed. Joseph sought a get but Ha Shem told Joseph to step forward. They were married but did not consummate the marriage until Y'shua was born.

Thanks.

Wow, we're getting into deep philosophical arguments about the minute details of competing myths. This reminds me of a scene from an episode of the Big Bang Theory. If your'e a BBT fan it will probably be funnier and make more sense to you.




"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
[+] 4 users Like mgoering's post
23-02-2016, 03:28 PM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(23-02-2016 10:23 AM)mgoering Wrote:  
(23-02-2016 09:43 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  1. You don't find it "completely bizarre" what Christians believe, you merely disagree with the Christian understanding that a virgin birth was promised in the Tanakh. As you wrote, "It’s a promise. Promises are serious business in the bible."

2. You have God's promise that the line would be carried forever through David's seed, but you do not have in the Tanakh any verse that the promise had to come through Solomon. Solomon was met by God and God gave Solomon conditional promises, yes, but Solomon broke his end of the deal. Do you have a verse that David was told Solomon's line would have the throne or is this an assumption of yours or a quotation from an extra-biblical source.

3. You question whether I'm reading your posts correctly than say it's bizarre that God would knock up a married woman. You haven't read the gospels. Mary was unwed but betrothed. Joseph sought a get but Ha Shem told Joseph to step forward. They were married but did not consummate the marriage until Y'shua was born.

Thanks.

Wow, we're getting into deep philosophical arguments about the minute details of competing myths. This reminds me of a scene from an episode of the Big Bang Theory. If your'e a BBT fan it will probably be funnier and make more sense to you.




Tongue Yeah, but the title of the thread is "how to use the bible against itself." That does call for breaking it down and finding the inconsistencies.

.... Oh, and by the way, Han shot first. if you can't see that, then you're an idiot. Lucas changed the script to be more PC. The original footage clearly displays that Han fired his weapon first. If you want to overwrite the real story and believe that Greedo fired the first shot, then you're really just lying to yourself and I can't help you with that.

HAN SHOT FIRST, DAMMIT!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Aliza's post
23-02-2016, 06:54 PM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(23-02-2016 03:28 PM)Aliza Wrote:  
(23-02-2016 10:23 AM)mgoering Wrote:  Wow, we're getting into deep philosophical arguments about the minute details of competing myths. This reminds me of a scene from an episode of the Big Bang Theory. If your'e a BBT fan it will probably be funnier and make more sense to you.




Tongue Yeah, but the title of the thread is "how to use the bible against itself." That does call for breaking it down and finding the inconsistencies.

.... Oh, and by the way, Han shot first. if you can't see that, then you're an idiot. Lucas changed the script to be more PC. The original footage clearly displays that Han fired his weapon first. If you want to overwrite the real story and believe that Greedo fired the first shot, then you're really just lying to yourself and I can't help you with that.

HAN SHOT FIRST, DAMMIT!

If George Lucas could make such a major change that sort of changes the character in a story, just imagine what a scribe could do (intentionally or not) in hundreds of years with a text that had no originals in existence. Bear in mind that even with a video, my children would not know that Han shot first and this info would likely be lost after a few generations. Imagine the different denominations of Jedi if this story was 2000 years old? Something to think about.

"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
23-02-2016, 07:11 PM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(23-02-2016 06:54 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  
(23-02-2016 03:28 PM)Aliza Wrote:  Tongue Yeah, but the title of the thread is "how to use the bible against itself." That does call for breaking it down and finding the inconsistencies.

.... Oh, and by the way, Han shot first. if you can't see that, then you're an idiot. Lucas changed the script to be more PC. The original footage clearly displays that Han fired his weapon first. If you want to overwrite the real story and believe that Greedo fired the first shot, then you're really just lying to yourself and I can't help you with that.

HAN SHOT FIRST, DAMMIT!

If George Lucas could make such a major change that sort of changes the character in a story, just imagine what a scribe could do (intentionally or not) in hundreds of years with a text that had no originals in existence. Bear in mind that even with a video, my children would not know that Han shot first and this info would likely be lost after a few generations. Imagine the different denominations of Jedi if this story was 2000 years old? Something to think about.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I cannot prove the authenticity of the Hebrew Bible. I would never claim otherwise. Nor do I have to.

What is happening is that two parties are using the exact same source text; letter for letter, it's the exact same. But when it conveniences the Christians, they make alterations in the translation and pull scripture out of context to weave in their Jesus character.

And that would be fine if the evangelical, proselytizing Christians were minding their own business and being productive and cooperative members of society. -But that's not what's happening. So I don't mind pointing out the inconsistencies and validating my reasoning. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Aliza's post
24-02-2016, 02:48 PM (This post was last modified: 25-02-2016 10:12 AM by The Q Continuum.)
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(23-02-2016 10:05 AM)Aliza Wrote:  
(23-02-2016 09:43 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  1. You don't find it "completely bizarre" what Christians believe, you merely disagree with the Christian understanding that a virgin birth was promised in the Tanakh. As you wrote, "It’s a promise. Promises are serious business in the bible."

2. You have God's promise that the line would be carried forever through David's seed, but you do not have in the Tanakh any verse that the promise had to come through Solomon. Solomon was met by God and God gave Solomon conditional promises, yes, but Solomon broke his end of the deal. Do you have a verse that David was told Solomon's line would have the throne or is this an assumption of yours or a quotation from an extra-biblical source.

3. You question whether I'm reading your posts correctly than say it's bizarre that God would knock up a married woman. You haven't read the gospels. Mary was unwed but betrothed. Joseph sought a get but Ha Shem told Joseph to step forward. They were married but did not consummate the marriage until Y'shua was born.

Thanks.

1. The word is "young woman" not "virgin". And the prophecy was fulfilled in the time of King Ahaz. Isaiah is speaking to King Ahaz about an already pregnant woman who is known to them. The timing of the child is to serve as an indication for the King. This is not about the messiah, and the messianic era isn't even mentioned in this passage.

2. Yes, it does say that Solomon will carry the throne, and that G-d's favor will never be pulled from him as it was with Saul.

3. You've obviously never read anything about Judaism. Mary was married to Joseph. They were in their engagement period, which by Jewish law (the law that they were held to) they were legally married by all rights and privileges.

Mary and Joseph were in fact Jewish, not American, or European. Their lives were dictated by Jewish law. We have that law! It's still in existence. You can study it and learn what Jews actually did in this era.

I appreciate your strong zeal for Judaism. I'm here to learn from and discuss with atheists, so please take my remarks in the kind spirit in which I intend them:

1. I've debated the meaning of "almah" elsewhere. It is a miracle sign, not a big deal for God who led the Exodus or brought Abraham and Sarah a child in their old age. On a personal note, I know that Jewish people abhor saying the word is used in Isaiah for "virgin" because their are Christian implications, however, it would have been more appropriate for you to have written "not virgin in this usage". You should know that the Hebrew word may be used as young woman or virgin.

2. The Tanakh says God's favor is with David, not like it was from Saul, I remember that. Do you have a chapter and verse I can look up re: Solomon and favor, and Solomon and "carrying the throne"? And if you do not, are you open to the truth claims of the Tanakh regarding its divine nature? Do you believe the Tanakh is the Word of G_d or...?

3. Miriam and Yoseph would have had a blessing ceremony over wine, yes, then Yoseph would have gone traditionally to his father's house to build a house for his bride, and when the father deemed it ready, would have brought his bride home, yes. This ceremony of betrothal is a beautiful picture of what Y'shua did in the Last Supper--it too was an engagement. And yes, woe to him or her if the bride was not a virgin at wedding time! Yes. I already wrote that Yoseph was wanting to quietly have a get rather than make Miriam ashamed. Yes. If you slow down a bit and read what I write, you will understand all.

Thanks.

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
25-02-2016, 08:58 PM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(24-02-2016 02:48 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  1. I've debated the meaning of "almah" elsewhere. It is a miracle sign, not a big deal for God who led the Exodus or brought Abraham and Sarah a child in their old age. On a personal note, I know that Jewish people abhor saying the word is used in Isaiah for "virgin" because their are Christian implications, however, it would have been more appropriate for you to have written "not virgin in this usage". You should know that the Hebrew word may be used as young woman or virgin.

Jewish people do not abhor this because of the Christian implications. We abhor this because it’s wrong and we believe that changing the bible to suit your purposes is both theologically, morally, and intellectually dishonest.

Let me try this parallel: All people enrolled in a class are students. All people leading a class are teachers. Teachers can be students, and students can be teachers, but not all students are teachers and not all teachers are students.

Likewise, all people who are young and female are young women. All women who have not had sexual intercourse are virgins. Virgins can be young, and young woman can be virgins. But not all virgins are young and not all young women are virgins.

When you call someone “miss” or “ma’am,” as you might in a store or at a restaurant, you’re not making a definitive statement about her sexual or marital status. You’re acknowledging her gender and making an approximation of her age.

…Or do you ask every woman you meet whether she’s had sex or not so you know how to address her? Q, how would you address me? Am I a miss or a ma’am?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Aliza's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: