Jump to content


Photo

Atheist Becomes Theist


  • Please log in to reply
121 replies to this topic

#41 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 13 February 2005 - 08:04 AM

I see you're a both a child and a moron.

I don't know if you've taken the time to acquaint yourself with the guidelines for this board, but I can tell you now that this kind of language is not considered acceptable from anyone - Christian, atheist or Wiccan.

Please refrain from using it.

I realise that Adanac's comments were inflammatory, but you didn't have to respond in this way.

I would like to think that you're not incapable of expressing yourself rationally and courteously. Please prove me right.

You state your rebuttals without so much as an ounce of proof, and continually ridicule me in the process.


Please note that you did the same.

Well, oh pious one, I'll put my two degrees in theology and 15 years in ministry against whatever you want to toss my way.


That will be fun. :coffee:

It's always the Christians who lambast and yell, "stupid", when they don't have a freakin' CLUE on how to respond.


Actually you've proved that the deists are equally capable.

Let's just take ONE of your absurdities for now—the claim that "God never did that to his children." There was a little thing called THE FLOOD...you may not be aware of it. You see, when water rises above the mountains and people cannot breathe, it's called DROWNING. God created man, therefore his creation is HIS CHILDREN. Drowning. Children. Get it, oh judgmental one?


Yes I get it. But I think you'll find that Adanac was using the term 'children' in the theological sense you must have learned about during your degrees.

I gather your problem with the flood is that God killed people. Is that it?

Now, you can defend this as "scorn and wrath" and so-forth...but then you'll have to defend the fact that GOD HIMSELF thought it was a mistake and REPENTED from his actions.


Your theological studies should surely have taught you somthing about not exegeting the English (especially the KJV, with its archaic language), and also something about anthropomorphism?

It wouldn't be the first time—Moses out-argued your mighty Commander-in-Chief and caused an omnicient deity to "repent of the evil he thought to do to his people." Isn't THAT lovely? A god who knows the future yet repents. Just let me know if you need chapter and verse. I'd rather see if you even know what I'm referring to.


Yes, we've seen them all before, we're well aware of them. As a theology graduate you would also be aware of the principle of anthropomorphism which is operating here, wouldn't you?

God, I'm glad I'm done with a culture like yours—one that festers and breeds disdain, rationalizing all the way to the alter.


You're doing exactly the same. Have you noticed? You've swapped one religion for another, thats all. The fact that your attitude hasn't changed one iota demonstrates that it probably doesn't matter what you believe, you'll still be like this.

Next, I'll point out the OBVIOUS LIES made by Sir God concerning his "chosen people". Perhaps you are just too dense to understand it, but the people OF the day were a bit put off by the Gentiles as well. Paul wrote a few books on the subject...perhaps you've glanced through your Cliff Note Bible and noticed. Ever think that the REASON Paul had to explain the "grafted in" bit is because it was NOT UNDERSTOOD?? New info, perhaps? 750 years of study and they all MISSED what you say is clearly present?  No, too damn simple...that's why I await your "all through the OT" verses, just to see how 'simple' it was.


No, they didn't all miss it. How familiar are you with Jewish exegesis?

Come to that, how familiar are you with Romans? The 'grafted in' passage to which you refer is addressed to the Gentiles, explaining that they are not to feel disdain for the Jews, since they themselves (the Gentiles), have been grafted in to the hope of the Jews. It's speaking to the Gentiles, not the Jews, and the Gentiles didn't have '750 years of study' of the Old Testament:

Romans 11:
13 Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Seeing that I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry,
14 if somehow I could provoke my people to jealousy and save some of them.
15 For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?
16 If the first portion of the dough offered is holy, then the whole batch is holy, and if the root is holy, so too are the branches.

17 Now if some of the branches were broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among them and participated in the richness of the olive root,
18 do not boast over the branches. But if you boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you.
19 Then you will say, “The branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20 Granted! They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but fear!
21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, perhaps he will not spare you.


I'm curious, where did you study theology? And which courses did you take?


It matters little anyway—Constantine's grubby little fingers are all over your precious Septugiant, and the obvious (to all but those burried in dogma) conclusion is that Christ, along with references to the Him and future ministries, were...updated, shall we say? You know...appease the powers that be? Ever read anything on the history of the cannon, or on Hellenization?


Constantine had zero to do with the LXX. Please explain what you mean here. We have textual sources for the text of the Alexandrian LXX, as well as for the editions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, all of whom predate Constantine (Aquila by almost 170 years).

Yes, please do start a discussion on the canon, I'd be most interested.

#42 Dawn

Dawn

    Xi

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,578 posts

Posted 13 February 2005 - 03:04 PM

So, I must not "understand" because I don't agree with you. I have read the bible, and it gives conflicting descriptions of God: from a just and vengeful God to a loving merciful God. Which is it? Did God change suddenly, which isn't possible according to the bible which says that God does not change.

Scitsofreaky - I assume you are not an atheist since you are a deist.

As you probably know - the Bible highly commends "deists" for reasoning within themselves that God exists by virtue of His Creation.

And so the Judge of all the earth will do right when judging those who have never heard the Gospel, but believed in a Creator because of the witness of the Creation.

However, this still leaves two fundamental issues:

1) Man is a sinner. This is not self-destruct: it is conviction (not condemnation - condemnation and conviction are different things).

I reason by virtue of my conscience (ie, I am convicted) that I am a sinner before God.

2) A way of salvation is needed for the sinner to be acceptable to God.

Hey, look - I don't like organised "religions" any more than anyone else does: it's human nature to rebel against God's ordinances and commands.

The thing is: Who is your Saviour? Or don't you need one?

#43 Adanac

Adanac

    Tau

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,874 posts

Posted 13 February 2005 - 04:09 PM

You appear to be more ignorant than skitsofreaky I am afraid my friend.

[...]

You have absolutely no idea whatsover what you are talking about. None. The Bible is full of references to hope for the Gentile. Absolutely full from Genesis to Malachi. Having eyes you see not.

[...]

What on earth are you talking about? You don't know what you are talking about.

[...]

You are just continuing to show your complete ignorance.

[...]

How can I treat with respect someone who is coming onto this web site with an obvious antagonism based on personal opinion and absolute ignorance about the Bible?

Adanac, these comments are offensive, inflammatory, and in breach of our guidelines. Please try to calm it down. Thisis not the way to conduct this discussion.

You're absolutely right Fortigurn. Please forgive me Nutrition Guy, I am ever so sorry.

A dear brother in Christ alerted me to the fact that I've been sounding abrupt and annoyed lately and I think he's right. I think I was taking out my stress on others. Please forgive me.

#44 Adanac

Adanac

    Tau

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,874 posts

Posted 13 February 2005 - 04:24 PM

I see you're a both a child and a moron.

Spiritually you are probably right, especially compared with the wisdom of God.

I'm actually a rational thinking software engineer but that matters little.

You state your rebuttals without so much as an ounce of proof, and continually ridicule me in the process.


I apologize for that. I shouldn't have ridiculed you. And I shouldn't have begun replying to you at midnight when I should have gone to bed instead.

Well, oh pious one, I'll put my two degrees in theology and 15 years in ministry against whatever you want to toss my way.


I'll answer that with Philippians 3:4-8 and that I will toss your way the humility to read the Bible with open mind and a desire to be teachable.

It's always the Christians who lambast and yell, "stupid", when they don't have a freakin' CLUE on how to respond.


I'll have you know that your objections are nothing new and I have every clue how to respond.

Let's just take ONE of your absurdities for now—the claim that "God never did that to his children." There was a little thing called THE FLOOD...you may not be aware of it. You see, when water rises above the mountains and people cannot breathe, it's called DROWNING. God created man, therefore his creation is HIS CHILDREN. Drowning. Children. Get it, oh judgmental one?


He didn't drown his children. He drowned those who had made sin their god.

Now, you can defend this as "scorn and wrath" and so-forth...but then you'll have to defend the fact that GOD HIMSELF thought it was a mistake and REPENTED from his actions.


Fortigurn has amply answered this.

Have fun rationalizing that one away.  Then again, you've rationalized that I haven't a clue about the Bible, while knowing full well my background.


You might know facts about the Bible but it is obvious you haven't grasped the spirit of it. You don't know what it means.

God, I'm glad I'm done with a culture like yours—one that festers and breeds disdain, rationalizing all the way to the alter. However, it's still fun to toy with guys like you who think they know what they're talking about.


Why do you think you know what you're talking about?

For Gentillian issues—I suggest "Biblical Hermenutics" or "Judean History: A Perspective." I doubt you could understand either.


No comment, and on much of your tirade there need be no comment. You obviously have shielded your eyes.

When you have a smaller version of yourself, please tatoo the number to Child Protection Services on his or her forehead. This will serve two purposes:  first, you'll be reminded that immitating God (as commanded) will either (a) have your child HATE your :gagged:, as no one responds to LOVE ME OR DIE MAGGOT!! but other idiots like yourself; or (b) get you tossed in the slammer after stoning him/her (justifiable under the old law) for being rebellious, which will lead to more sinful fun in a jail cell with a guy named Buzz.


I have two daughters and I follow God's teachings in raising them. It is working out wonderfully because I understand the spirit of God's word. You don't, so please stop thinking that you can get away with this sort of uncourteous behaviour. I am sorry for what I said to you but I am sure you will agree that this sort of thing is far worse.

Second, it'd be a hoot to see how many Revelation literalists would think your offspring was the antichrist. They'd figure a way to turn 10 digits into 3. After all, God created light prior to the sun and moon, and then forgot all about the fact that planets ORBIT STARS. If that can be rationalized...yeah, we know. Oops?


I am not a Revelation literalist.

Night, night, simpleton!


That's a compliment. The wisdom of the world is foolisness.

#45 CaptainCutshaw

CaptainCutshaw

    Kappa

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,904 posts

Posted 13 February 2005 - 04:33 PM

:bobby:

This discussion has moved beyond the realms of debate and into character assassination.

If you both want to take a step or two back and continue on a more rational footing then be my guest. Otherwise take a break for a day or two.

If either of you feels the otherside is not playing ball, and the only response you'll be able to muster is one you'll be embarassed about later then report the offending post rather than fighting it yourself.

#46 Adanac

Adanac

    Tau

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,874 posts

Posted 13 February 2005 - 04:50 PM

Was my last post alright?

#47 DJP

DJP

    Lambda

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,011 posts

Posted 13 February 2005 - 05:05 PM

Was my last post alright?

Yes. And frankly I think your other post was not so bad either, given the context. If people claim to "come in peace" as NG claimed, and then start posting the sorts of daft propaganda he did, well, basically that's a time to be reasonably angry. Maybe some of your phrases weren't especially well chosen, but he was making trouble and deserved a smack.

DJP

#48 Adanac

Adanac

    Tau

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,874 posts

Posted 13 February 2005 - 05:11 PM

Thanks DJP. I get the impression he was just looking for an excuse for a tirade. He managed to bait me and I'm none too proud of that but at the same time, what a horrible way to introduce yourself on a forum.

#49 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 14 February 2005 - 11:58 PM

This thread is now unlocked. Participants are reminded to maintain behaviour which is in keeping with forum guidelines.

#50 scitsofreaky_*

scitsofreaky_*

    Theta

  • Non-Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 359 posts

Posted 15 February 2005 - 12:15 AM

Adanac- I too am blowing off steam, and I am sorry. I think one thing we should clear up is what "understanding: means. We both have to realize that understanding is all about perspective. For example: truth is constant, but we each can see truth in different ways, depending on our experineces. So, we look at the Bible different ways: you see it as infallible, so it cannot contain contradictions; whereas I see the bible strictly as a book, so I can look at the same thing as you and see contradictions where you don't. You call it "balanced," I call it "contradiction." And I don't see a way around it, for now.
Ok, on with the discussion...

#51 Adanac

Adanac

    Tau

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,874 posts

Posted 15 February 2005 - 11:10 AM

Adanac- I too am blowing off steam, and I am sorry. I think one thing we should clear up is what "understanding: means. We both have to realize that understanding is all about perspective. For example: truth is constant, but we each can see truth in different ways, depending on our experineces. So, we look at the Bible different ways: you see it as infallible, so it cannot contain contradictions; whereas I see the bible strictly as a book, so I can look at the same thing as you and see contradictions where you don't. You call it "balanced," I call it "contradiction." And I don't see a way around it, for now.
Ok, on with the discussion...

Well for a start it would interesting to see what contradictions you think are in the Bible.

#52 NutritionGuy_*

NutritionGuy_*

    Delta

  • Non-Members
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts

Posted 15 February 2005 - 05:22 PM

Well for a start it would interesting to see what contradictions you think are in the Bible.

May I chime in?

#53 Adanac

Adanac

    Tau

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,874 posts

Posted 15 February 2005 - 05:35 PM

You might want to introduce your misgivings about the genealogies in Matthew and Luke here so we can all debunk your objections together. :D

#54 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 15 February 2005 - 05:36 PM

Well for a start it would interesting to see what contradictions you think are in the Bible.

May I chime in?

I would like you to spend some time on my response to you on the canon first - specifically your claims regarding the LXX (for which you gave no evidence).

I would also like anyone who is thinking of hurling 5 pages of 'contradictions' at us, to first ensure that they check out the standard answers to each and every one of them on the usual Christian apologetic sites.

This will demonstrate intellectual honesty. I will not take questions frmo people who have demonstrated no intellectual honesty.

#55 NutritionGuy_*

NutritionGuy_*

    Delta

  • Non-Members
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts

Posted 15 February 2005 - 05:59 PM

You might want to introduce your misgivings about the genealogies in Matthew and Luke here so we can all debunk your objections together. :D

Sure...it's a lot for one person to handle by any standard. "Debunk" away...the following is an excerpt from A's conversations with me via email, and was written by myself and a fellow ex-theologian:

---

To begin, the reason why most commentators believe this (Joseph/lineage to Mary) is simply due to the impossibility of connecting the dots any other way. There's not one shred of historical data to back this up, nor is there another scripture to be found in the bible so support it. If there is one that we've missed, please let me know.

Second, even if this were the case, you still have the problem Mary and Joseph being generations apart in age. The only explanation given to this is that one genealogy 'skipped over' generations of 'unfaithful Jews' (a very common belief among theologians, but not supported by Jewish scholars.) How can a man of 40+ generations be the same age as a woman of 20, for example?

Third, we have the problem of disconnect within the genealogies themselves. Let's look at Matthew:

V.1 states explicitly that this is "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ." So this, according to Matthew, ties Jesus to Joseph, in turn tying him to king David, presumably because Joseph was a son of David. However, Joseph was not Jesus' father.  Furthermore, this genealogy uses the word "begat" for every successive generation, which further indicates that it is based on a blood connection. This cannot possibly be Jesus' genealogy if Jesus wasn't "begotten" by Joseph.

As well, it makes no sense to say Jesus was Joseph's adopted son to make the connection, since a king's genealogy was always based on a physical connection and since the promise was through David's "seed", that is, through his physical descendants. Read any of the Judean king's genealogies in the OT and you will never find an adopted son inheriting the throne of Judah. It was always a blood relation.

There's another important point to discuss, i.e., that the promise made to David concerning the succession to his throne was to come through his son Solomon, his second with Bathsheba; the first one having died as a result of one of David's sin. In this respect, Matthew follows Solomon's line, but unfortunately Luke doesn't. He has Jesus' genealogy running through Nathan, who was never a king in Judah.

Why does God make the mistake of inspiring Matthew to write a genealogy which is useless? How can an omniscient being do this? It is argued by some that Joseph is used merely to establish a "legal" connection to David, since Jesus was his legally adopted son. What precedent do those who claim this have? Do you or anyone have chapter and verse to back this up? No...so the argument falls. It's speculation based on circular reasoning, pure and simple. This is one of my contentions with the Bible "teaching reason", as it seems to be quite unreasonable.

Now, read v. 12 and notice who is mentioned therein: King Jeconiah. This king was cursed by God  and told in no uncertain terms:

Jeremiah 22:30  Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah."

So, Matthew has Joseph descending from a king who was cursed and told that none of his "seed" (descendants) would prosper sitting on David's throne. This disqualifies Joseph from ever being an heir to the throne of David, let alone his "adopted" son, Jesus. But there's more.

Also (I know this is long, but hey...)

Matthew, supposedly under inspiration of the Holy Ghost, tell us that there are three sets of fourteen generations in this genealogy. This isn't so, because there are some names missing in his genealogy. Matthew deliberately leaves out Kings Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, Jehoiakim and a few more, so his statement that these are all the generations is dead wrong. How could an omniscient being make such a mistake?

Moreoever, one of the names which Matthew omitted was none other than Jehoiakim, the father of Jehoiachin (AKA Coniah, AKA Jeconiah) who, as it happens, was also cursed of God. It is said of him that he would have no one to sit on the throne of David:

Jeremiah 36:30 Therefore thus saith the LORD of Jehoiakim king of Judah; He shall have none to sit upon the throne of David: and his dead body shall be cast out in the day to the heat, and in the night to the frost. 31 And I will punish him and his seed and his servants for their iniquity; and I will bring upon them, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and upon the men of Judah, all the evil that I have pronounced against them; but they hearkened not.

Moreover, his son Jehoiachin is also cursed along with his "seed," i.e., all his male descendants: "for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and r sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah." (Jer 22:30) Thus the curse on Jehoiakim is not just on his sons and servants, but on all his male descendants as well.

Once again, as I've stateed, some biblical fundamentalists argue that some of the names are often dropped in biblical genealogies because of the way some of these people behaved during their lives, being disobedient to God and such. This is mere opinion, i.e., an argument by assertion. If this was really the case, then why was Jeconiah included? He was disobedient and he was cursed by God. Jewish scholars and historians, far more familiar with the topic than their Christian counteparts, would also disagree.

#56 NutritionGuy_*

NutritionGuy_*

    Delta

  • Non-Members
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts

Posted 15 February 2005 - 06:10 PM

Well for a start it would interesting to see what contradictions you think are in the Bible.

May I chime in?

I would like you to spend some time on my response to you on the canon first - specifically your claims regarding the LXX (for which you gave no evidence).

I would also like anyone who is thinking of hurling 5 pages of 'contradictions' at us, to first ensure that they check out the standard answers to each and every one of them on the usual Christian apologetic sites.

This will demonstrate intellectual honesty. I will not take questions frmo people who have demonstrated no intellectual honesty.

I'm sorry, but can you be more specific with your cannon request? I'll be happy to answer it assuming I understand the question.

I'm not asking for the 'usual apologetic' answers...I'm looking for 'your' answers. This is the problem with some Christians and the bible—they rely too much on other sources. I wrote for apologetics papers, so I know the 'typical' arugments presented. Some are very sound; others are far less so, if not downright conjecture.

"Intellectual honesty"—to me, this is answering the questions set forth to you rather than sidestepping them in favor of other people's conclusions. Granted, the learning process includes the beleifs of others—no problem there. However, I believe each man and woman must come to their own conclusions based on their own research. I made this mistake myself for many years, and therefore cannot blame anyone for the same.

Lastly, my refute of the genaology of Matthew (we never covered Luke) is predominantely historical and biblical, and not 'questions'. I'm happy to ask questions, but there are some major holes that need to be patched up first.

After all of this, we'll start with Genesis ch. 1. Why not start from the beginning?

Just one more quick point: it is illogicial to assume a book is tied to a given source or author by merely relying on the book itself. Therefore, I would appreciate "intellectual honesty" when 'debunking', and avoid circular reasoning. You cannot cite scripture to claim the Bible is God's word—you must accept this on reason or on faith, but not on the text itself. If you do so, then you must also accept the Koran as Allah's word, as it makes the same claims of divine origin. Obviously, reason went into your faith to begin with—therefore, let it continue to spring forth.

Jon

P.S. I am finishing my first book, which is due out Feb. 23, some my time is very tight. However I will respond to posts as soon as possible. Just realize I'm not skipping town. : )

And, I apolgize to the forum for my less-than-stellar entrance. I have made apologies to A, which I assume that he has accepted. Still, apologies are warranted to all. However, I will not remove the thesis of my position—that Jehovah is 'not' God, as this is an open debate forum. If this is against the rules, then the rules are silly and I'm happy to part ways with a handshake.

#57 Adanac

Adanac

    Tau

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,874 posts

Posted 15 February 2005 - 06:11 PM

As an opening debunk I would like to point out that the Word of God is not meant to be a science textbook or any piece of literature that conforms to how men think something should be written, not even the Jews.

And do you honestly think that if someone was trying to write a genealogy they would mess it up so bad, as you think it is messed up? Are you open to the suggestion that something is going on in Matthew and Luke which is teaching us an important lesson that you might not understand because you are looking through the glasses of higher criticism?

I also take issue with your statement that the throne had to come through Solomon. That’s not true at all. In 2 Samuel 7/1 Chronicles 17 it speaks of a seed, but doesn’t mention who it comes through. Solomon comes along and the words of the covenant are applied to him with a proviso – “if he is constant to keep my commandments” – which he wasn’t, and eventually the crown was taken away in Zedekiah’s reign. Luke 1 applies the promise to Jesus as the one who’s right it is to rule on David’s throne whether he came through Solomon or not – it doesn’t matter. He was the Son of David and that’s all that matters. The fact that the line changed from being through Solomon to being through Nathan may be hinted at in Ezekiel 21 where it says “abase him that is high (the Solomon line) and exalt him that is low (the Nathan line)”. Whatever, but the thing is that God has every right to trace the line through a different son of David if he so chooses.

Again I submit to you that you are not making an attempt to grasp the spirit of the Bible – you are just seeing things that conflict with your idea of how things should be written.

#58 Adanac

Adanac

    Tau

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,874 posts

Posted 15 February 2005 - 06:13 PM

And, I apolgize to the forum for my less-than-stellar entrance. I have made apologies to A, which I assume that he has accepted.

Yes, sorry. Apology accepted.

#59 NutritionGuy_*

NutritionGuy_*

    Delta

  • Non-Members
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts

Posted 15 February 2005 - 06:22 PM

More on the myth of Mary:

23 And himself was Jesus about years old thirty beginning
     to be being as was supposed son of Joseph of Heli
24 of Matthat of Levi of Melchi of Jaanai of Joseph
25 of Mattathiah of Amos of Nahum of Esli of Naggai

Notice that Luke starts his genealogy by stating that Jesus began his ministry when he was beginning to be thirty and was believed, or supposed, to have been the son of Joseph, of Heli... yada yada yada. This clearly established the genealogy as being through Joseph, since Luke tells us that Jesus was thought to be the son of Joseph, who was the son of Heli and so on. In other words, this genealogy is based on Joseph, despite the ploys of fundamentalists.

I can post the Greek text iteself if it helps.

#60 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 15 February 2005 - 06:24 PM

I'm sorry, but can you be more specific with your cannon request? I'll be happy to answer it assuming I understand the question.

Right here:

Next, I'll point out the OBVIOUS LIES made by Sir God concerning his "chosen people". Perhaps you are just too dense to understand it, but the people OF the day were a bit put off by the Gentiles as well. Paul wrote a few books on the subject...perhaps you've glanced through your Cliff Note Bible and noticed. Ever think that the REASON Paul had to explain the "grafted in" bit is because it was NOT UNDERSTOOD?? New info, perhaps? 750 years of study and they all MISSED what you say is clearly present?  No, too damn simple...that's why I await your "all through the OT" verses, just to see how 'simple' it was.


No, they didn't all miss it. How familiar are you with Jewish exegesis?

Come to that, how familiar are you with Romans? The 'grafted in' passage to which you refer is addressed to the Gentiles, explaining that they are not to feel disdain for the Jews, since they themselves (the Gentiles), have been grafted in to the hope of the Jews. It's speaking to the Gentiles, not the Jews, and the Gentiles didn't have '750 years of study' of the Old Testament:

Romans 11:
13 Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Seeing that I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry,
14 if somehow I could provoke my people to jealousy and save some of them.
15 For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?
16 If the first portion of the dough offered is holy, then the whole batch is holy, and if the root is holy, so too are the branches.

17 Now if some of the branches were broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among them and participated in the richness of the olive root,
18 do not boast over the branches. But if you boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you.
19 Then you will say, “The branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20 Granted! They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but fear!
21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, perhaps he will not spare you.


I'm curious, where did you study theology? And which courses did you take?

It matters little anyway—Constantine's grubby little fingers are all over your precious Septugiant, and the obvious (to all but those burried in dogma) conclusion is that Christ, along with references to the Him and future ministries, were...updated, shall we say? You know...appease the powers that be? Ever read anything on the history of the cannon, or on Hellenization?


Constantine had zero to do with the LXX. Please explain what you mean here. We have textual sources for the text of the Alexandrian LXX, as well as for the editions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, all of whom predate Constantine (Aquila by almost 170 years).

Yes, please do start a discussion on the canon, I'd be most interested.


:coffee:

I'm not asking for the 'usual apologetic' answers...I'm looking for 'your' answers. This is the problem with some Christians and the bible—they rely too much on other sources. I wrote for apologetics papers, so I know the 'typical' arugments presented. Some are very sound; others are far less so, if not downright conjecture.


The same answers are often reached by different people independently. Such is usually the case with Christians and the Bible. If I see evidence that you have studied apologetic answers and found them wanting, it will demonstrate to me:

  • Intellectual rigour


  • Intellectual honesty


  • A genuine spirit of enquiry

You can ask us if we disagree with the answers you have read previously, and you can explain to us why you find those answers insufficent.

"Intellectual honesty"—to me, this is answering the questions set forth to you rather than sidestepping them in favor of other people's conclusions.


I agree. I've answered dozens of these questions on this form, using my own research. But I do get tired of it. I especially get tired of it when I know that the person asking the question has done absolutely no work whatver to investigate answers for themselves. That's where you have to start - answering the question yourself, rather than sidestepping in favor of other people's conclusions.

If you genuinely can't find the answers, and if you genuinely find other people's conclusions inadequate, then you can come here.

Granted, the learning process includes the beleifs of others—no problem there. However, I believe each man and woman must come to their own conclusions based on their own research. I made this mistake myself for many years, and therefore cannot blame anyone for the same.


This is why I want you to do some work yourself.

Lastly, my refute of the genaology of Matthew (we never covered Luke) is predominantely historical and biblical, and not 'questions'. I'm happy to ask questions, but there are some major holes that need to be patched up first.


My reply remains the same.

After all of this, we'll start with Genesis ch. 1. Why not start from the beginning?


Sure, why not?

Just one more quick point:  it is illogicial to assume a book is tied to a given source or author by merely relying on the book itself. Therefore, I would appreciate "intellectual honesty" when 'debunking', and avoid circular reasoning. You cannot cite scripture to claim the Bible is God's word—you must accept this on reason or on faith, but not on the text itself. If you do so, then you must also accept the Koran as Allah's word, as it makes the same claims of divine origin. Obviously, reason went into your faith to begin with—therefore, let it continue to spring forth.


You'll find we avoid these pitfalls. We're not idiots. Ask our resident Skeptic.

P.S.  I am finishing my first book, which is due out Feb. 23, some my time is very tight. However I will respond to posts as soon as possible. Just realize I'm not skipping town. : )


No problem.

And, I apolgize to the forum for my less-than-stellar entrance. I have made apologies to A, which I assume that he has accepted. Still, apologies are warranted to all.


Thank you.

However, I will not remove the thesis of my position—that Jehovah is 'not' God, as this is an open debate forum. If this is against the rules, then the rules are silly and I'm happy to part ways with a handshake.


No one is going to ask you to remove that thesis. We have plenty of people here who have made the same challenge. This is certainly not against the rules.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users