how to use the bible agaisnt itself
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-02-2016, 02:22 PM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(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:  
(03-02-2016 02:44 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  ...And? How many thousands of posts here describe the atheist's rejection of the 66 books of the Bible by posting the first contradiction they've seen online--not having bothered to investigate further by posing questions to the "contradiction"? I looked at the first one and tested the assumptions via questioning the hypothesis.

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.

"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
11-02-2016, 03:27 PM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(11-02-2016 01:04 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(10-02-2016 11:01 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Really according to who? So it's really really hard to trust jesus? like so hard you have to drop your possessions or a comparison to threading a needle through a camel's eye?

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?

"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
11-02-2016, 03:47 PM
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?

Well, to be fair, there are other places where Jesus says it's pretty easy. He has the same problem as the rest of the Bible -- by cherry-picking passages, you can make him seem to support just about anything.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-02-2016, 03:58 PM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(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.
(03-02-2016 02:44 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  ...And? How many thousands of posts here describe the atheist's rejection of the 66 books of the Bible by posting the first contradiction they've seen online--not having bothered to investigate further by posing questions to the "contradiction"? I looked at the first one and tested the assumptions via questioning the hypothesis.
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.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-02-2016, 04:33 PM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(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.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Aliza's post
11-02-2016, 04:55 PM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
Try to move a mountain with it. Go ahead. Give it a try.

Don't let those gnomes and their illusions get you down. They're just gnomes and illusions.

--Jake the Dog, Adventure Time

Alouette, je te plumerai.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-02-2016, 06:26 PM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(11-02-2016 01:10 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(11-02-2016 08:35 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  If this is true, we can conclude that your apo-logetics are false.

Big Grin

An apologia is a strong defense against... false doctrine. Apo = false. Logia you realize is a stem of "logic". Logic against falsehoods, and thanks for strengthening my position in this discussion.

You need to provide a reputable citation for your claim that 'apo' means false. Because it doesn't, you just made it up.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-02-2016, 06:53 PM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(11-02-2016 06:26 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(11-02-2016 01:10 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  An apologia is a strong defense against... false doctrine. Apo = false. Logia you realize is a stem of "logic". Logic against falsehoods, and thanks for strengthening my position in this discussion.

You need to provide a reputable citation for your claim that 'apo' means false. Because it doesn't, you just made it up.

Apologetic in 3.......2.......1.........

"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
11-02-2016, 09:20 PM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(11-02-2016 06:53 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  
(11-02-2016 06:26 PM)Chas Wrote:  You need to provide a reputable citation for your claim that 'apo' means false. Because it doesn't, you just made it up.

Apologetic in 3.......2.......1.........

He's been shown he is wrong and he fucking doubles down. What a clown. Facepalm

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-02-2016, 09:45 PM
Star RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(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.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: