Split From January 2007 Screwballs - Burden of Proof [Archive]

ApologiaPhoenix

January 16th 2007, 09:33 PM

Would it be the Christian, Egyptian, or Hindu trinity that you have in mind? Either way, they all violate:

Exodus 34:1;
Deuteronomy 6:4, 4:35;
Isaiah 45:35-7, 45:21;
Daniel 3:29;
1 Kings 8:60;
Etc, etc, etc.

Only if you're entirely clueless on what the Trinity teaches.

It doesn't matter how many pseudo-technical terms (like 'triune') you invent to make the trinity look credible or even intelligent, you cannot override the eternal truth that three beings are not a singular being and one being is not three beings. It's a paradox; a mystery. Any christian who claims that they are not 'clueless' concerning the so-called mystery of the trinity is obviously superior to 2,000 years of church theologians and light years ahead of Jesus Christ's own (being part of the trinity) understanding of the trinity.

Sorry. You're the clueless one. First off, we do not see there are three beings AND one being. Would you please show me what idiot says something like that? (Other than the clueless ones who rant against it.)

Also, there is no "part" of the Trinity. God is not divided. You really should read up on what people have said about the Trinity throughout the years. JPH can school you on that one though. I'll show you your philosophical view of it is highly incorrect though.

As for 'Thomas Morris', I couldn't care less about who in hades he is or what his theories entailed ---- I doubt Jesus, St Paul or any of the Early Church Fathers had the luxury of Thomas Morris' theories to help them to explain the trinity, so I don't feel at too much of a loss in not knowing about him. I prefer primary sources. In the end, our only source for the Christian trinity is from the New Testament itself, and to suggest that one needs to study the works of some modern character called 'Thomas Morris' in order to appreciate or understand a core tenet of the Christian faith would be plain ridiculous.

In other words, you don't care about the truth. Look. I could care less about who said it. I'm more interested in the personal theory that explains the incarnation. Unfortunately for you, you've just shown you're not interested.

Hey. Do we throw out the Talmud? That was years after Moses and surely we don't need anything else beyond Moses. How about the rabbis that wrote in the Middle Ages? Let's throw them out. Sorry. The Jews believed in commentaries and deeper understanding of what was revealed. Too bad you don't.

lilpixieofterror

January 16th 2007, 11:34 PM

You clearly didn't bother to read my question.

Yes I did and there's a reason why it's stupid. For starters, why do you think the law specificly says a man who is hung on a tree is cursed by God? Why do you think the prophets talked about the messiah and gave specific conditions? If you actually understood Christianity theology, you would not ask such stupid questions...

The first paragraph alone contained hypothetical questions and they were not meant to be ANSWERED. The actual POINT of the thread, and the question to which I was inviting answers, was in the last two paragraphs which I put as bold writing.

The point of the thread was a false assumption about Christianity. Jesus had to die on the cross and the prophets set up how he would die and how he'd rise again. Isaiah says he'll be peirced for our sins... for example. Why do you think all of this was written?

BTW, I am not an atheist. I believe in the God of Moses. If you believe in Jesus is God then you merely believe in a man and you are no better than the atheists.

I do love how you had to tack that insult on the end to make yourself feel superior. You don't understand anything about Christianity, you use cut and paste arguments from some lame atheist web site that ignores the rest of the Bible. You are often ignorant about your own religion (example, the talking donkey argument you used a few months ago). I don't worship a dead man on a cross, I worship the risen Lord, who was peirced for the sins of the cross and who died and rose again. If you were not so ignorant about Christianity and your own religion... I might start to have some respect for you.

Crystal

PS how many hours did it take you to think of your insult? Funny you call me a terrorist when I spent 10 months last year over seas fighting the war on terrorism.

Sevivon1913

January 17th 2007, 04:13 AM

Sorry. You're the clueless one. First off, we do not see there are three beings AND one being. Would you please show me what idiot says something like that? (Other than the clueless ones who rant against it.)

Also, there is no "part" of the Trinity. God is not divided. You really should read up on what people have said about the Trinity throughout the years. JPH can school you on that one though. I'll show you your philosophical view of it is highly incorrect though.

The Athanasian Creed:

3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;

4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.

5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.

6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.

10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.

11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.

12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.

24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.

25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.

26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.

27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

Albeit, on the one hand, this creed does acknowledge that there are not three persons, but one God. However, at the same time, it states that there are three persons. Is it any wonder the Christian idea of the trinity is a mystery, when the Christian theologians are so self-contradictory, and when the trinity itself is self-contradictory? Perhaps you'd like to explain the exact way in which there ARE three, and AREN'T three?

Hey. Do we throw out the Talmud? That was years after Moses and surely we don't need anything else beyond Moses. How about the rabbis that wrote in the Middle Ages? Let's throw them out. Sorry. The Jews believed in commentaries and deeper understanding of what was revealed. Too bad you don't.

The Talmud is merely a codification (and further commentary) of oral law/tradition that did indeed come from the very mouth of Moses to his successors, to be passed on from generation to generation. I refuse to put the Talmud's explanation of Torah (written by the direct successors of Moses) on an equal footing as some random Christian guy's explanation of the Trinity.

Sevivon1913

January 17th 2007, 04:34 AM

Yes I did and there's a reason why it's stupid. For starters, why do you think the law specificly says a man who is hung on a tree is cursed by God? Why do you think the prophets talked about the messiah and gave specific conditions? If you actually understood Christianity theology, you would not ask such stupid questions...

The question was not specific to crucifixion as the means of execution, but on whether actual execution (i.e. the being "killed" part or simply the "dying" part) was the prerequisite for his death to be termed a "sacrifice", in the absence of his death and execution being within Torah guidelines for a valid sacrifice

The point of the thread was a false assumption about Christianity. Jesus had to die on the cross and the prophets set up how he would die and how he'd rise again. Isaiah says he'll be peirced for our sins... for example. Why do you think all of this was written?

There is no reference to a messiah dying - let alone on a cross - in the Tanakh. The verse you refer to in Isaiah says he (Israel) will be wounded "BECAUSE OF" our* transgressions, not "FOR" our* transgressions.You seem to be ignorant of the fact that Jews do not accept the Christian mistranslations of the Tanakh --- if we did, we'd be Christian, wouldn't we?

* Our = The gentile Kings are the speakers, up until a later vrse when it switches to God.

I do love how you had to tack that insult on the end to make yourself feel superior. You don't understand anything about Christianity, you use cut and paste arguments from some lame atheist web site that ignores the rest of the Bible. You are often ignorant about your own religion (example, the talking donkey argument you used a few months ago). I don't worship a dead man on a cross, I worship the risen Lord, who was peirced for the sins of the cross and who died and rose again. If you were not so ignorant about Christianity and your own religion... I might start to have some respect for you.

Crystal

I don't feel superior to anyone and do not cut and paste anything unless I reference it. The talking donkey is a mythological motif. The joke is on the people who consider it to be a historic event. Your risen Lord....well, I have no problem with that.

PS how many hours did it take you to think of your insult? Funny you call me a terrorist when I spent 10 months last year over seas fighting the war of terrorism.

I knew that.

member11491

January 17th 2007, 05:59 AM

I nominate pladecalvo, for his member11491-like rant:

I actually had to read that quote twice to make sure it wasn't me. Looks like my zombie argument is either spreading or more people are independently reading Mark and asking "hey, what's up with zombies rising from the dead and walking around".

Hey Sevivon, you mentioned the talking donkey part of the bible is not-historical (an obvious fact to most intelligent humans except these Jerry Springer rejects).

What about "2 Kings 2:24"? Local cult leader JP "the hutt" holding claims the children torn up by the bear weren't children at all, but youths ranging from 14-35 or something like that. In your interpretation of the bible was that a historical event, or more mythological motifs?

Also, you might want to drive home the point concerning the egyptian trinity a bit more. The christian trinity ceases to be a mystery once you merely see a picture of the egyptian trinity. It immediately is apparent where the christians stole the idea from.

Stay Cool!

Sevivon1913

January 17th 2007, 06:58 AM

Hey Sevivon, you mentioned the talking donkey part of the bible is not-historical (an obvious fact to most intelligent humans except these Jerry Springer rejects).

What about "2 Kings 2:24"? Local cult leader JP "the hutt" holding claims the children torn up by the bear weren't children at all, but youths ranging from 14-35 or something like that. In your interpretation of the bible was that a historical event, or more mythological motifs?

I only meant that the Torah is a semi-mythological, and I'd say it has about the same historicity as Homer's Iliad (i.e. very distantly based on a core truth). As for 2 Kings, whoever wrote that has no such excuse - they were obviously part of a very fundamentalist society steeped in superstition, and I think it's possible that one can socially engineer a society of schitzophrenics. For example, the USA has a society which is equally fundamentalist (it's off the spectrum among industrial nations for that) and society has instilled in peoples minds certain superstitious ideas --- almost half of all Americans believe the future can be interpreted according to biblical prophecy; three-quarters of the American population beleive in a literal devil; only 10 percent of the American population believed in Darwinian evolution, with half of the total population believing in a divine-designed evolution and the other forty or so percent beleiving the world is only five thousand years old. Go figure!

Modern scholarship assumes that the Tanakh (old testament) was amalgamated from various oral/folk mythology and traditions - some of them extremely ancient - during the Hellenistic period. Biblical archaeology has mostly disproven most of the Biblical accounts. The Tanakh has only a minor similarity to the real historical narrative. It's not even certain whether Israel (as a country/state/power) even existed, but if it did it wasn't as grand and important as the Biblical account suggests. So yeah, I'd say that 2 Kings is mostly invented nonsense, with a few minor references to reality (which, ironically, christians like to claim prove the rest of the nonsense).

Also, you might want to drive home the point concerning the egyptian trinity a bit more. The christian trinity ceases to be a mystery once you merely see a picture of the egyptian trinity. It immediately is apparent where the christians stole the idea from.

Stay Cool!

You forget.....in a dastardly devious deed of "diabolical mimicry" the devil travelled back in time and taught the trinity to the Egyptians and Hindus to deceive future christians (or so the Early Church Fathers tell us) Case solved! :rasberry:

lilpixieofterror

January 17th 2007, 10:07 AM

The question was not specific to crucifixion as the means of execution, but on whether actual execution (i.e. the being "killed" part or simply the "dying" part) was the prerequisite for his death to be termed a "sacrifice", in the absence of his death and execution being within Torah guidelines for a valid sacrifice.

Still going on about things you don't understand eh? I guess it's time to shut your mouth yet again. :teeth:

There is no reference to a messiah dying - let alone on a cross - in the Tanakh.

Yep, do what you are best at. Close your eyes and plug your ears. Know of any other excution techniques where somebody is hung from a tree and is peirced by doing it? Dont think the OT says the messiah is not going to die, than explain why we find in Isaiah the messiah being rejected by his own people, standing quiet before his trial, being peirced for our sins, or the suffering servant? Why do we find in the law a man who is hung from a tree is cursed by God? Doesn't this make you wonder what is going on?

The verse you refer to in Isaiah says he (Israel) will be wounded "BECAUSE OF" our* transgressions, not "FOR" our* transgressions.

That translation comes from the middle ages, being most likely a result of Christians pointing to this verse as support for the messiah. Don't believe me? Go ask your Rabbi what 1st centery Jews thought of this passage. :wink: Bet if he's being honest or knows what he's talking about. He'll admit they translated it to the messiah.

You seem to be ignorant of the fact that Jews do not accept the Christian mistranslations of the Tanakh --- if we did, we'd be Christian, wouldn't we?

I know exactly what is going on and the history behind it. Christians used it as evidence that the Messiah was Jesus. Jews could either accept this as being true or change their intrepation so that they don't have to admit the suffering servant is Jesus. Care to tell me the 1st centery Jewish translation of that passage along with what rabbi and year it was changed. :ahem:

* Our = The gentile Kings are the speakers, up until a later vrse when it switches to God.

Really? Prove it than... it seems that the Dead Sea scroll copy of Isaiah 51 and 53 is the exact same as modren ones. How much research have you done into this field? Ever question your Rabbi about this? I have questioned a Rabbi and his answer was cicular... funny the lengths people go to to deny what is true.

I don't feel superior to anyone and do not cut and paste anything unless I reference it.

Please... I've heard your arguments several times before, nothing knew...

The talking donkey is a mythological motif. The joke is on the people who consider it to be a historic event.

Funny that many Orthdox Rabbi's do... I find it rather funny... a beast of burden tells a prophet that he's wrong. Seems to show that God does have a sense of humor. :smile: It is good you are ditching your own religion and finally showing us your true self. :wink:

Your risen Lord....well, I have no problem with that.

That's good, now if we can clear you of the nonsense you always post, you'd be set. :thumb:

I knew that.

That's good, now pay attention next time and use more creative insults...

As for bumbler...

I actually had to read that quote twice to make sure it wasn't me. Looks like my zombie argument is either spreading or more people are independently reading Mark and asking "hey, what's up with zombies rising from the dead and walking around".

I say it's more proof that stupidity spreads. Despite the fact that even if I was an atheist, I cound find natural explinations. Plus, you've been corrected several times what a zombie is and contuine to use that term just for the emotional effect... yet you claim that you are so much smarter than everyone else... can you say... :duh:?

Hey Sevivon, you mentioned the talking donkey part of the bible is not-historical (an obvious fact to most intelligent humans except these Jerry Springer rejects).

Translaiton: Anyone who agrees with me is smart and anyone who disagrees is stupid. :duh: I don't expect you to get the point of the story (a prophet being corrected by a beast of burden and thus being coincidered a fool). Anyway, might want to go back to something your level, such as Baby's First ABC Book. :thumb:

What about "2 Kings 2:24"? Local cult leader JP "the hutt" holding claims the children torn up by the bear weren't children at all, but youths ranging from 14-35 or something like that. In your interpretation of the bible was that a historical event, or more mythological motifs?

:duh: Somebody does not own a Strong Numbers Bible do they? Why don't you go use these strange things called 'commentaries' and 'refrence guides' than come back and try this again. Care to give the Strong Number refrence, the translituratured word, plus the defination?

Also, you might want to drive home the point concerning the egyptian trinity a bit more. The christian trinity ceases to be a mystery once you merely see a picture of the egyptian trinity. It immediately is apparent where the christians stole the idea from.

So just because one religion has something that looks simular (but has huge differences, such as in the Egyptian trinity, you have THREE seperate gods, in Christianity you have one God, 3 essences, but I'm sure you'll ignore that because it destroy's your argument) that therefore means the ideas were stolen? Isn't it funny that morden Egyptlogist don't agree with your wacked theories? BTW, when are you going to answer our questions in the other threads? :ahem:

Stay Cool!

Stay stupid! :bow:

Crystal

Sevivon1913

January 17th 2007, 11:29 AM

Know of any other excution techniques where somebody is hung from a tree and is peirced by doing it? Dont think the OT says the messiah is not going to die, then explain why we find in Isaiah the messiah being rejected by his own people, standing quiet before his trial, being peirced for our sins, or the suffering servant? Why do we find in the law a man who is hung from a tree is cursed by God? Doesn't this make you wonder what is going on?

I don't know where you're getting this link between the King-Messiah and execution/peircing on a tree. The Tanakh says that a person who is hanged on a tree is CURSED (that rules out anyone who is hung on a tree as being the King-Messiah). Isaiah says nothing of the King-Messiah being rejected by his own people. The reference to a "trial" is simply non-existent. The verse in question (Isaiah 53:7), when correctly translated, says "like a lamb to the slaughter he would be brought, and like a ewe that is mute before her shearers, and he would not open his mouth." I don't see "trial" there. Speaking of trials...

"The wicked lie in wait for the righteous, seeking their very lives; but the LORD will not leave them in their power or let them be condemned when brought to trial." - Psalm 37:32-33 (Jesus was left in the power of the wicked, and they did indeed condemn him when brought to trial)

That translation comes from the middle ages, being most likely a result of Christians pointing to this verse as support for the messiah. Don't believe me? Go ask your Rabbi what 1st centery Jews thought of this passage. :wink: Bet if he's being honest or knows what he's talking about. He'll admit they translated it to the messiah.

What translations, exactly, were made prior to the middle ages? I think you'll find that Hebrew has been the only language which the Tanakh has been preserved in. The "Septuagent" was a forgery by the Church -- the original only covered the 5 books of Moses and even that translation was only a legend. Why don't I just consult the New Testament to see what Jews thought of this passage? If this passage fitted the life and death of Jesus Christ perfectly, then no doubt the entire nation of Israel would have converted to Christianity --- they didn't! They hadn't the benefit of some Medieval "Jewish conspiracy" to cover up the truth........they had the original Hebrew text (which Jews still have), they had Jesus Christ living among them, and they rejected that he was the messiah and they rejected his claims to being God -- go figure. That said, I've not seen any evidence that the Hebrew text has been altered at ANY time. Translations have mistranslated it into different languages, but the original Hebrew still survives.

There is an unbroken apostolic link between Moses and the present day Rabbis (all over the world as far as Mumbai, with the same Hebrew text, I might add --- do you think the millions of Sephardic Jews in the Islamic lands, or as far away as Orthodox Russia, China and India would have been able to meet up with the European Jews to agree to a new rendering of Isaiah 53? Because all these distant Jewish societies, many isolated for thousands of years, all have precise same rendering of Isaiah 53).

I know exactly what is going on and the history behind it. Christians used it as evidence that the Messiah was Jesus. Jews could either accept this as being true or change their intrepation so that they don't have to admit the suffering servant is Jesus. Care to tell me the 1st centery Jewish translation of that passage along with what rabbi and year it was changed. :ahem:

Christians used the Latin Vulgate, which was itself a translation of the Greek Septuagent mistranslation of the Hebrew scriptures. Of course they were able to use their own version of Isaiah 53 to prove Jesus was the messiah. If I only had the Septuagint version, I'd probably beleive it too. But the fact remains that the Septuagint/vulgate are not consistent with the original Hebrew text. Only a very marginal number of people beleived that Isaiah 53 referred to the messiah in the 1st Century -- they were probably Jewish converts to Christianity. Any others represent the Jewish population about as much as Left-handed, Pink-haired, three-eyed Raelians represent planet Earth's population. Such people are irrelivent and even if the majority beleived Isaiah 53 referred to the Messiah it still wouldn't be relevent. The fact remains that the Hebrew Text which existed in the 1st Century is exactly the same (with minor differences, but on totally irrelivent points, and certainly not to be found in Isaiah 53) as our modern day Hebrew text.

The change from Isaiah 53 as refering to Israel to being about the messiah came about with the Septuagint and the Christian era. It was changed by Christians, as evidenced by the fact that the alteration only occured in the Christian translations and not in the actual original Hebrew texts. Hebrew texts are not "translations".

Really? Prove it than... it seems that the Dead Sea scroll copy of Isaiah 51 and 53 is the exact same as modren ones. How much research have you done into this field? Ever question your Rabbi about this? I have questioned a Rabbi and his answer was cicular... funny the lengths people go to to deny what is true.

The Dead Sea Scrolls were written by a marginal little group of schizophrenic weirdos. Who cares what they believed?

If you can prove that pre-Christian era Hebrew texts (and even the Dead Sea Scrolls fail at this) wrote according to later Christian translations, I will readily become a Christian. Good luck. :ahem:

ApologiaPhoenix

January 17th 2007, 11:35 AM

The Athanasian Creed:

3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;

4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.

5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.

6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.

10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.

11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.

12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.

24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.

25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.

26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.

27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

Albeit, on the one hand, this creed does acknowledge that there are not three persons, but one God. However, at the same time, it states that there are three persons. Is it any wonder the Christian idea of the trinity is a mystery, when the Christian theologians are so self-contradictory, and when the trinity itself is self-contradictory? Perhaps you'd like to explain the exact way in which there ARE three, and AREN'T three?

Simple Sev. Three persons. One God. Not three persons and one person or three gods or one god. You've simply done a category fallacy. If you had a clue about anything the ECF said, you wouldn't make such ignorant statements.

The Talmud is merely a codification (and further commentary) of oral law/tradition that did indeed come from the very mouth of Moses to his successors, to be passed on from generation to generation. I refuse to put the Talmud's explanation of Torah (written by the direct successors of Moses) on an equal footing as some random Christian guy's explanation of the Trinity.

Evidence it came straight from Moses?

ApologiaPhoenix

January 17th 2007, 11:39 AM

I actually had to read that quote twice to make sure it wasn't me. Looks like my zombie argument is either spreading or more people are independently reading Mark and asking "hey, what's up with zombies rising from the dead and walking around".

O master of your argument. The mass resurrection is in the account of Matthew and not Mark. It's bad enough you don't know our arguments. Now you don't even know your own.

Hey Sevivon, you mentioned the talking donkey part of the bible is not-historical (an obvious fact to most intelligent humans except these Jerry Springer rejects).

Hey. If you can speak, why not a donkey? It's called a miracle. Ever answer my question on them coward?

What about "2 Kings 2:24"? Local cult leader JP "the hutt" holding claims the children torn up by the bear weren't children at all, but youths ranging from 14-35 or something like that. In your interpretation of the bible was that a historical event, or more mythological motifs?

Yeah. The same word is used to describe soldiers in the army also.....

Also, you might want to drive home the point concerning the egyptian trinity a bit more. The christian trinity ceases to be a mystery once you merely see a picture of the egyptian trinity. It immediately is apparent where the christians stole the idea from.

Stay Cool!

Wow. You wanna show your ignorance of the Trinity as well? MIght as well since you've done it on so many other areas!

Sevivon1913

January 17th 2007, 12:13 PM

Simple Sev. Three persons. One God. Not three persons and one person or three gods or one god. You've simply done a category fallacy. If you had a clue about anything the ECF said, you wouldn't make such ignorant statements.

One person + one person + one person = 3 persons.

I didn't say there were three gods. There are three distinct (but mysteriously not seperate) persons who equally constitute one God. The problem is that there are still three persons in that equation.

I don't dispute that the trinity does indeed constitute one God. However, the Torah makes it clear that God is not just "one God", but that God is ONE (i.e. not three persons). The Torah teaches an absolute singularity, not a composite unity (as the trinity is). Therein lies our disagreement.

Evidence it came straight from Moses?

Evidence it didn't?

I don't see any reason to challenge the existence of Moses. Belief in his existence has never done anybody any harm, so I'd say it's best to leave that one alone. However, the story of the Exodus has been transmitted from generation to generation, every year, in the Jewish community. At some point, it either had to have been invented by every Jew alive in a single generation, or to actually have genuinely happened. You decide (personally, I find the notion of a national Jewish "lie" to be intolerable).

ApologiaPhoenix

January 17th 2007, 12:18 PM

One person + one person + one person = 3 persons.

I didn't say there were three gods. There are three distinct (but mysteriously not seperate) persons who equally constitute one God. The problem is that there are still three persons in that equation.

I don't dispute that the trinity does indeed constitute one God. However, the Torah makes it clear that God is not just "one God", but that God is ONE (i.e. not three persons). The Torah teaches an absolute singularity, not a composite unity (as the trinity is). Therein lies our disagreement.

God is one? One what? As long as we say God is one God, there is no disagreement. Thanks for showing your cluelessness again.

Evidence it didn't?

I don't see any reason to challenge the existence of Moses. Belief in his existence has never done anybody any harm, so I'd say it's best to leave that one alone. However, the story of the Exodus has been transmitted from generation to generation, every year, in the Jewish community. At some point, it either had to have been invented by every Jew alive in a single generation, or to actually have genuinely happened. You decide (personally, I find the notion of a national Jewish "lie" to be intolerable).

You made the claim. You back it.

Sevivon1913

January 17th 2007, 12:25 PM

God is one? One what? As long as we say God is one God, there is no disagreement. Thanks for showing your cluelessness again.

One whole. God is not a divided being, he has no partners, wife, children. He has no split personalities. He is ONE. There is no division.

BTW, I never claimed that Moses existed. I said that the Torah was inspired by God. That doesn't necessitate that the stories therein actually happened outside of the realm of mythology.

ApologiaPhoenix

January 17th 2007, 12:33 PM

One whole. God is not a divided being, he has no partners, wife, children. He has no split personalities. He is ONE. There is no division.

Yeah. Christians agree. God doesn't have MPD. (A trait of one person) God is not divided either.

BTW, I never claimed that Moses existed. I said that the Torah was inspired by God. That doesn't necessitate that the stories therein actually happened outside of the realm of mythology.

So the talmud came straight from the lips of MOses who never existed. Wow. Someone really wants platinum.

Sevivon1913

January 17th 2007, 01:55 PM

Yeah. Christians agree. God doesn't have MPD. (A trait of one person) God is not divided either.

Then why exactly are three persons distinguished in the trinity? I mean, are you saying "here's God, and here are 3 of the ways in which he has manifested himself to us."? And please don't give me a sarcastic answer, because I genuinely am interested.

So the talmud came straight from the lips of MOses who never existed. Wow. Someone really wants platinum.

I don't recall saying that Moses never existed. I said that the Torah was inspired by God, and that the Torah is a semi-mythological text, which contains moral wisdom and laws. You don't think about what people say in enough depth. To the point: there is no evidence that Moses existed other than the testimony of the Jewish people. However, I see no reason why he'd have been invented. On the other hand, he is a good literary device for a mythological motif.

Sparko

January 17th 2007, 02:02 PM

BTW, I never claimed that Moses existed. I said that the Torah was inspired by God. That doesn't necessitate that the stories therein actually happened outside of the realm of mythology.

sheesh Sev. Now you claim Moses might not have existed and that the torah was just a bunch of myth, and in the other thread we were discussing, you claimed that the history of the conquering of the promised land was all myth too, and the Hebrews really didn't go around slaughtering whole cities, right down to the women and children.

But just a few months ago, you made this claim:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1686358&postcount=53
Moses (the man with the opposable thumb) was a real historical figure who spoke with God and wrote the Torah. The first chapters of Genesis (including the story of Adam and Eve) are, as I said, loosely based on real history, but told in a poetic, spiritual way to convey deeply primordial spiritual truths (the spiritual truths, and the events on which the stories were based, are entirely true). The rest of the Torah is totally historically reliable (i.e. the flood, the patriarchs, father abraham, sodom and ghemora, jacob/israel in egypt, the exodus, moses, the ten plagues, travels through the desert, revelation at sinai).

You are impossible to debate anything with because you just change your stance from one post to the next. As soon as someone calls you on one of your idiotic claims, you just blithely ignore it and claim somethign else contradictory to your first statement. Is your brain that muddled, or are you just a troll?

ApologiaPhoenix

January 17th 2007, 02:02 PM

Then why exactly are three persons distinguished in the trinity? I mean, are you saying "here's God, and here are 3 of the ways in which he has manifested himself to us."? And please don't give me a sarcastic answer, because I genuinely am interested.

That's modalism. Not Trinitarianism.

I don't recall saying that Moses never existed. I said that the Torah was inspired by God, and that the Torah is a semi-mythological text, which contains moral wisdom and laws. You don't think about what people say in enough depth. To the point: there is no evidence that Moses existed other than the testimony of the Jewish people. However, I see no reason why he'd have been invented. On the other hand, he is a good literary device for a mythological motif.

Oh. So you have no evidence that he existed other than testimony 1,500 years later and no evidence that these writings came from him other than 1,500 years later.

Yet, ECF that wrote within 300 years of Christ are rejected because they're too late....

ApologiaPhoenix

January 17th 2007, 02:16 PM

From Merriam-Webster's online dictionary:

Zombie:
the body of a dead person given the semblance of life, but mute and will-less, by a supernatural force, usually for some evil purpose.

Now, let's see what the bible says. First 1) dead person given semblance of life
NASB: (http://nasb.biblebrowser.com/pbchapters/matthew/27.htm) The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; (NASB ©1995 (http://www.lockman.org/))
GWT: (http://gwt.biblebrowser.com/pbchapters/matthew/27.htm) The tombs were opened, and the bodies of many holy people who had died came back to life. (GOD'S WORD® (http://www.godsword.org/))
KJV: (http://kjv.biblebrowser.com/pbchapters/matthew/27.htm) And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
ASV: (http://asv.biblebrowser.com/pbchapters/matthew/27.htm) and the tombs were opened; and many bodies of the saints that had fallen asleep were raised;
BBE: (http://bbe.biblebrowser.com/pbchapters/matthew/27.htm) And the resting-places of the dead came open; and the bodies of a number of sleeping saints came to life;
DBY: (http://darby.biblebrowser.com/pbchapters/matthew/27.htm) and the tombs were opened; and many bodies of the saints fallen asleep arose,

So what's the common theme here? The BODIES of the saints arose. A dead person given semblance of life could not be a more perfect description of dead, decaying bodies rising from the dead. Notice the passage does not say the bodies were flawless or were undecayed. Dead, decaying, reanimated BODIES are described here (sort of like JP the hutt's body).

Now let's look at the rest of the definition of zombie and of the passage.

the body of a dead person given the semblance of life, but mute and will-less, by a supernatural force, usually for some evil purpose.

NASB: (http://nasb.biblebrowser.com/pbchapters/matthew/27.htm) and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many. (NASB ©1995 (http://www.lockman.org/))
GWT: (http://gwt.biblebrowser.com/pbchapters/matthew/27.htm) They came out of the tombs after he had come back to life, and they went into the holy city where they appeared to many people. (GOD'S WORD® (http://www.godsword.org/))
KJV: (http://kjv.biblebrowser.com/pbchapters/matthew/27.htm) And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
ASV: (http://asv.biblebrowser.com/pbchapters/matthew/27.htm) and coming forth out of the tombs after his resurrection they entered into the holy city and appeared unto many.
BBE: (http://bbe.biblebrowser.com/pbchapters/matthew/27.htm) And coming out of their resting-places, after he had come again from the dead, they went into the holy town and were seen by a number of people.
DBY: (http://darby.biblebrowser.com/pbchapters/matthew/27.htm) and going out of the tombs after his arising, entered into the holy city and appeared unto many.

Notice they didn't TALK? This is what we call "mute". The passage doesn't indicate if these zombies had free will or not, but since it was just a reanimated body I'll have to assume they didn't. Since they all rose up right after "JC" supposedly died this qualifies as a supernatural force.

Finally, were they risen for an evil purpose? I'll leave that upto you.

So to summarize:

1) dead person given semblance of life? check
2) mute? check
3) will-less? check
4) risen by a supernatural force? check
5) evil purpose? (not necessary according to the definition anyway) check

Looks like you people have some zombies on your hands.

Stay cool!

Any indication that they were muteless? They didn't talk because it wasn't recorded that they spoke? Wow. Makes ya wonder if Jesus ever had to go to the restroom. That's not recorded either.

Secondly, this account is still in Matthew. It's not in Mark like you said earlier. Could you at least learn to not embarrass yourself on your own arguments?

Thirdly, could you please give me the evidence for about the umpteenth time that a miracle cannot happen?

Sevivon1913

January 17th 2007, 02:17 PM

sheesh Sev. Now you claim Moses might not have existed and that the torah was just a bunch of myth, and in the other thread we were discussing, you claimed that the history of the conquering of the promised land was all myth too, and the Hebrews really didn't go around slaughtering whole cities, right down to the women and children.

But just a few months ago, you made this claim:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1686358&postcount=53
Moses (the man with the opposable thumb) was a real historical figure who spoke with God and wrote the Torah. The first chapters of Genesis (including the story of Adam and Eve) are, as I said, loosely based on real history, but told in a poetic, spiritual way to convey deeply primordial spiritual truths (the spiritual truths, and the events on which the stories were based, are entirely true). The rest of the Torah is totally historically reliable (i.e. the flood, the patriarchs, father abraham, sodom and ghemora, jacob/israel in egypt, the exodus, moses, the ten plagues, travels through the desert, revelation at sinai).

You are impossible to debate anything with because you just change your stance from one post to the next. As soon as someone calls you on one of your idiotic claims, you just blithely ignore it and claim somethign else contradictory to your first statement. Is your brain that muddled, or are you just a troll?

I don't see the contradiction in my posts. I quite clearly qualified my October 16th post with the words: "LOOSELY based on real history." Also, Moses was indeed a real historical figure. However, I am simply being honest in that the only evidence for it is the testimony of the Jewish people. But I wouldn't underestimate that! If the Jewish people - thanks to generationally transmitted confirmation - say that Moses existed, then he DID. That said, the early part of the Torah is total unadultered 100 % fiction. The rest of the Torah is VERY loosely based on real history. I mean VERY.

Meta Knight

January 17th 2007, 02:21 PM

I thought I already had....
Nah, you did one for yourself. Now I'm asking you to do one for me. :rasberry:

member11491

January 17th 2007, 02:22 PM

Any indication that they were muteless?

What is "muteless"?

They didn't talk because it wasn't recorded that they spoke? Wow. Makes ya wonder if Jesus ever had to go to the restroom. That's not recorded either.

More stupidity.

Secondly, this account is still in Matthew. It's not in Mark like you said earlier. Could you at least learn to not embarrass yourself on your own arguments?

Wow, I mistyped. Great argument.

Thirdly, could you please give me the evidence for about the umpteenth time that a miracle cannot happen?

How about you give me some evidence that miracles DO happen? I'd say the burden of proof is on people who believe zombies rose from their graves.

Since you have ZERO arguments about my actual post, it's clear you concede the point that Mark does indeed describe zombies.

I expect apologies from each of you.

Stay cool!

Sevivon1913

January 17th 2007, 02:23 PM

That's modalism. Not Trinitarianism.

Then how do you explain the connection between the three persons? Infact, what ARE they?

Oh. So you have no evidence that he existed other than testimony 1,500 years later and no evidence that these writings came from him other than 1,500 years later.

Yet, ECF that wrote within 300 years of Christ are rejected because they're too late....

I wouldn't exactly call the unanimous testimony of the Jewish people "no evidence"! If anything, it's the best evidence one could possibly hope for because it cannot be falsified. That testimony did not come 1,500 years later, either. The testimony goes straight back from current day Jews to the Jews who were present at Sinai. Judaism began as a completely oral tradition and it later codified it into the Tanakh. Does being oral make it less true?

300 years? Well, that assumes that you know when Jesus actually existed. I suspect that he lived 150-100 BCE.

jpholding

January 17th 2007, 02:24 PM

I expect apologies from each of you.

We're very sorry you're so incorrigibly stupid.

ApologiaPhoenix

January 17th 2007, 02:25 PM

What is "muteless"?

It's what you said in the post.

More stupidity.

It's called argument from silence and it's generally an incredibly weak argument.

Wow, I mistyped. Great argument.

Sure seems to work when you use it on Crystal. I guess we're supposed to look the other way for you. Right?

How about you give me some evidence that miracles DO happen? I'd say the burden of proof is on people who believe zombies rose from their graves.

Since you have ZERO arguments about my actual post, it's clear you concede the point that Mark does indeed describe zombies.

I expect apologies from each of you.

Stay cool!

Again, it's still Matthew. Get your books right.

Secondly, no. You are the one saying that this cannot happen. It is up to you to give the reasons for believing such. I am merely honoring the Democracy of the Dead where those before us stated that they believed that miracles could be possible. WHat new evidence did you discover that showed otherwise?

ApologiaPhoenix

January 17th 2007, 02:28 PM

Then how do you explain the connection between the three persons? Infact, what ARE they?

They're persons. Look up what the word meant in the context in which it was coined to describe the persons of the Trinity.

I wouldn't exactly call the unanymous testimony of the Jewish people "no evidence"! If anything, it's the best evidence one could possibly hope for because it cannot be falsified. That testimony did not come 1,500 years later, either. The testimony goes straight back from current day Jews to the Jews who were present at Sinai. Judaism began as a completely oral tradition and it later codified it into the Tanakh. Does being oral make it less true?

Do you want me to thrash you on JEPD theory also? I'm dating the Exodus around 1,446 B.C. The Talmud came around the time of Christ. I also wouldn't say the testimony is unanimous. I can say I've met several Jews who say YHWH doesn't even exist. (I've also met several who say Jesus is the messiah.)

300 years? Well, that assumes that you know when Jesus actually existed. I suspect that he lived 150-100 BCE.

Excuse me. I have to go and laugh hysterically now. THis is someone who calls himself a historian remember everyone.

Thanks. I'll be laughing for a week now.

Meta Knight

January 17th 2007, 02:30 PM

What is "muteless"?

I think you know what he means.

More stupidity.

Oh, fabulous answer. The best I've ever heard. You said that because it didn't mention that they spoke, they didn't. He's saying that it doesn't have to mention something for it to have happened.

Wow, I mistyped. Great argument.

After having no response to Crystal other than calling her grease monkey and picking on her spelling, I'd say it's sufficient. :rasberry:

How about you give me some evidence that miracles DO happen?

Hey, stupid, we have 2 eyewitnesses and one account made up entirely of eyewitness testimony testifying to these miracles. Also, we have the entire OT which is packed with instances of miraculous happenings. I'd say that's evidence.

I'd say the burden of proof is on people who believe zombies rose from their graves.

And you know they had no will and couldn't talk how?

Since you have ZERO arguments about my actual post, it's clear you concede the point that Mark does indeed describe zombies.

And again you say Mark. Even after conceding that you messed up and the account was in Matthew.

I expect apologies from each of you.

I'm sorry that operation went wrong and all your grey matter was destroyed.

Stay cool!

As Crystal says:

Stay stupid!

aikidoka

January 17th 2007, 02:35 PM

Sparko

January 17th 2007, 02:38 PM

I don't see the contradiction in my posts. I quite clearly qualified my October 16th post with the words: "LOOSELY based on real history." Also, Moses was indeed a real historical figure. However, I am simply being honest in that the only evidence for it is the testimony of the Jewish people. But I wouldn't underestimate that! If the Jewish people - thanks to generationally transmitted confirmation - say that Moses existed, then he DID. That said, the early part of the Torah is total unadultered 100 % fiction. The rest of the Torah is VERY loosely based on real history. I mean VERY.

You said the EARLIER parts of the torah (genesis) was LOOSELY based on history, but you said:

The rest of the Torah is totally historically reliable (i.e. the flood, the patriarchs, father abraham, sodom and ghemora, jacob/israel in egypt, the exodus, moses, the ten plagues, travels through the desert, revelation at sinai).

See the contradiction now?

You are a loon.

Sevivon1913

January 17th 2007, 02:47 PM

You said the EARLIER parts of the torah (genesis) was LOOSELY based on history, but you said:

The rest of the Torah is totally historically reliable (i.e. the flood, the patriarchs, father abraham, sodom and ghemora, jacob/israel in egypt, the exodus, moses, the ten plagues, travels through the desert, revelation at sinai).

See the contradiction now?

You are a spoon.

Of course there's a contradiction :bawl: -- I changed my mind after I noticed the INFANTICIDE in the Book of Numbers :teeth:

ApologiaPhoenix

January 17th 2007, 02:52 PM

Of course there's a contradiction :bawl: -- I changed my mind after I noticed the INFANTICIDE in the Book of Numbers :teeth:

You've been dealt with on the Trinity. I can gladly deal with you in JEPD. Do you want to get trounced in the "infanticide" charge? (By the way, would that include Moses and the slaying of the firstborn?)

Sparko

January 17th 2007, 02:53 PM

Of course there's a contradiction :bawl: -- I changed my mind after I noticed the INFANTICIDE in the Book of Numbers :teeth:

so in the space of one page, you have said that moses does exist, might not exist, does exist, that the early torah is loosely based on history and then 100% fiction and the later torah is totally historically reliable and then loosely based on history?

And then you claim there is no contradiction, but later say of course there's a contradiction.

Sevivon... in all seriousness... are you insane? Cuz if you are, I am sorry to have been mocking you, you need help.

Stop inventing God in your head and trying to fit the bible to that version of God. It won't work. Your invented God is not the real one.

RumTumTugger

January 17th 2007, 03:09 PM

From Merriam-Webster's online dictionary:

Zombie:
the body of a dead person given the semblance of life, but mute and will-less, by a supernatural force, usually for some evil purpose.

Now, let's see what the bible says. First 1) dead person given semblance of life
NASB: (http://nasb.biblebrowser.com/pbchapters/matthew/27.htm) The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; (NASB ©1995 (http://www.lockman.org/))
GWT: (http://gwt.biblebrowser.com/pbchapters/matthew/27.htm) The tombs were opened, and the bodies of many holy people who had died came back to life. (GOD'S WORD® (http://www.godsword.org/))
KJV: (http://kjv.biblebrowser.com/pbchapters/matthew/27.htm) And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
ASV: (http://asv.biblebrowser.com/pbchapters/matthew/27.htm) and the tombs were opened; and many bodies of the saints that had fallen asleep were raised;
BBE: (http://bbe.biblebrowser.com/pbchapters/matthew/27.htm) And the resting-places of the dead came open; and the bodies of a number of sleeping saints came to life;
DBY: (http://darby.biblebrowser.com/pbchapters/matthew/27.htm) and the tombs were opened; and many bodies of the saints fallen asleep arose,

So what's the common theme here? The BODIES of the saints arose. A dead person given semblance of life could not be a more perfect description of dead, decaying bodies rising from the dead. Notice the passage does not say the bodies were flawless or were undecayed. Dead, decaying, reanimated BODIES are described here (sort of like JP the hutt's body).

Now let's look at the rest of the definition of zombie and of the passage.

the body of a dead person given the semblance of life, but mute and will-less, by a supernatural force, usually for some evil purpose.

NASB: (http://nasb.biblebrowser.com/pbchapters/matthew/27.htm) and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many. (NASB ©1995 (http://www.lockman.org/))
GWT: (http://gwt.biblebrowser.com/pbchapters/matthew/27.htm) They came out of the tombs after he had come back to life, and they went into the holy city where they appeared to many people. (GOD'S WORD® (http://www.godsword.org/))
KJV: (http://kjv.biblebrowser.com/pbchapters/matthew/27.htm) And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
ASV: (http://asv.biblebrowser.com/pbchapters/matthew/27.htm) and coming forth out of the tombs after his resurrection they entered into the holy city and appeared unto many.
BBE: (http://bbe.biblebrowser.com/pbchapters/matthew/27.htm) And coming out of their resting-places, after he had come again from the dead, they went into the holy town and were seen by a number of people.
DBY: (http://darby.biblebrowser.com/pbchapters/matthew/27.htm) and going out of the tombs after his arising, entered into the holy city and appeared unto many.

Notice they didn't TALK? This is what we call "mute". The passage doesn't indicate if these zombies had free will or not, but since it was just a reanimated body I'll have to assume they didn't. Since they all rose up right after "JC" supposedly died this qualifies as a supernatural force.

Finally, were they risen for an evil purpose? I'll leave that upto you.

So to summarize:

1) dead person given semblance of life? check
2) mute? check
3) will-less? check
4) risen by a supernatural force? check
5) evil purpose? (not necessary according to the definition anyway) check

Looks like you people have some zombies on your hands.

Stay cool!

And your proof that it was only a semblance that they were mute, will-less, and made for an evil purpose is?

Goonerman

January 17th 2007, 03:10 PM

Sevivon1913

January 17th 2007, 03:11 PM

so in the space of one page, you have said that moses does exist, might not exist, does exist, that the early torah is loosely based on history and then 100% fiction and the later torah is totally historically reliable and then loosely based on history? And then you claim there is no contradiction, but later say of course there's a contradiction.

Let me clear it up: I don't know whether Moses existed or not. There's no evidence that he did, except for the testimony of the Jewish people which is not entirely "no evidence". As a "historian", I cannot confirm the existence of Moses.

Sevivon... in all seriousness... are you insane? Cuz if you are, I am sorry to have been mocking you, you need help.

:lmbo: I'm 100 % psychologically healthy :thumb:

Stop inventing God in your head and trying to fit the bible to that version of God. It won't work. Your invented God is not the real one.

So we should accept the God of the Bible, which came out of some schizophrenic's head, rather than the Gods in our own heads ---- why? :ahem: Didn't Jesus say that the Kingdom of God is within? He didn't say it was in any "New Testament"

ApologiaPhoenix

January 17th 2007, 03:14 PM

So we should accept the God of the Bible, which came out of some schizophrenic's head, rather than the Gods in our own heads ---- why? :ahem: Didn't Jesus say that the Kingdom of God is within? He didn't say it was in any "New Testament"

Wow. This Bible includes the Torah just so you know.

Sev. We do have an excellent psychology section on TWeb. You might want to check it out.....

The gods in our own heads? What the heck is that supposed to mean? That God has no objective reality?

Alright. Let's see how you contradict this in your next post.

Sevivon1913

January 17th 2007, 03:15 PM

Sevivon, what is this garbage concerning 150-100 BC all about? Not another Jesus=Teacher of Righteousness conspiracy theory? Pontius Pilatus=Pompeius Pilatus, I supposed, as well? (I read this in a truly silly book called 'Jesus Identified' way back in 1988.) Well, would Jesus who mixed with sinners, a glutton and a wine-bibber, of the Tribe of Judah, whom the Talmud says 'was close to the kingship', and preached to the public and healed the (often ritually unclean) sick, be tolerated by the stern ascetic Teacher of Righteousness, who was a deposed Hasmonean?

Unless you think that Josephus, Tacitus, the Rabbis whose memories of Jesus are found in the Talmud, were all thickety thick who couldn't even tell the difference between 2nd and 1st century BCE history and 1st century CE history?!

This does confirm that maybe you are daft.

Yeshu HaNotzri lived over a century before the Common Era, according to the Talmud. I'd rather trust the Talmud than the Gospels. Josephus, Tacitus have been edited and interpolated by the Church.

Perhaps I'm being too generous. The fact is, outside of the Talmud, there's no independent evidence (which couldn't be tampered with by the Church) that "Jesus" existed.

RumTumTugger

January 17th 2007, 03:18 PM

How about you give me some evidence that miracles DO happen? I'd say the burden of proof is on people who believe zombies rose from their graves.

Since you have ZERO arguments about my actual post, it's clear you concede the point that Mark does indeed describe zombies.

I expect apologies from each of you.

Stay cool!

Nope the burden of the proof is on you, since you are the one that keeps saying they were zombies not us.

Oh and Member you keep saying Mark even when Phoenix corrects you and says the scene is in Matthew. What version of the bible are you reading the Readers Digest condensed version?

Sevivon1913

January 17th 2007, 03:19 PM

Wow. This Bible includes the Torah just so you know.

Sev. We do have an excellent psychology section on TWeb. You might want to check it out.....

The gods in our own heads? What the heck is that supposed to mean? That God has no objective reality?

Alright. Let's see how you contradict this in your next post.

No, that means that "God" (atleast as the Judaeo-Christian - pardon the cliche - tradition sees it) is an invention of the mind -- it doesn't exist. Sure, God exists, but he/she transcends all our primitive theologies. "Gods in our own heads" merely refers to our abstract beliefs about God.

BTW, If I wanted lessons in Psychology, I'd see my father who happens to be an expert in the field. :tongue:

ApologiaPhoenix

January 17th 2007, 03:20 PM

No, that means that "God" (atleast as the Judaeo-Christian - pardon the cliche - tradition sees it) is an invention of the mind -- it doesn't exist. Sure, God exists, but he/she transcends all our primitive theologies. "Gods in our own heads" merely refers to our abstract beliefs about God.

Ah. So you know enough theology about God to know that God transcends our theology.

Lovely self-contradiction. You might as well say you know Kant's unknowables.

Sparko

January 17th 2007, 03:23 PM

No, that means that "God" (atleast as the Judaeo-Christian - pardon the cliche - tradition sees it) is an invention of the mind -- it doesn't exist. Sure, God exists, but he/she transcends all our primitive theologies. "Gods in our own heads" merely refers to our abstract beliefs about God.

BTW, If I wanted lessons in Psychology, I'd see my father who happens to be an expert in the field. :tongue:

so how do you know what the Real(tm) God is like? What makes your version any more real than mine? How do you KNOW that he/she transcends all our primative theologies? Who told you? God?

Sevivon1913

January 17th 2007, 03:28 PM

so how do you know what the Real(tm) God is like? What makes your version any more real than mine? How do you KNOW that he/she transcends all our primative theologies? Who told you? God?
Nobody knows what God is really like - that was the POINT. I don't know, you don't know, the pope doesn't know, Isaiah didn't know, Jesus didn't know, Muhammad didn't know.............the entire history of theology is one of human beings chauvenistically crafting God into their own particular image. Isaiah was a moral man, so he painted a moral God. Muhammad was a thug, so he painted a degenerate God. The Greeks and Romans did this in a less subtle way, of course, by painting the gods literally in their own images. Dionysus, a wild god, was invented by wild revolutionaries. The list goes on.

Sparko

January 17th 2007, 03:29 PM

Yeshu HaNotzri lived over a century before the Common Era, according to the Talmud. I'd rather trust the Talmud than the Gospels. Josephus, Tacitus have been edited and interpolated by the Church.

Perhaps I'm being too generous. The fact is, outside of the Talmud, there's no independent evidence (which couldn't be tampered with by the Church) that "Jesus" existed.

So if Jesus didnt exist until 150AD or later, then how is it we have manuscripts that date to the first century? The gospels were written before Jesus existed?

:clueless:

Again, you just toss out stuff you make up, expecting it to be somehow "true" and handwave away any evidence that you don't agree with.

Dang! you are sure making it easy for JP's screwball thread.

Sevivon1913

January 17th 2007, 03:30 PM

So if Jesus didnt exist until 150AD or later, then how is it we have manuscripts that date to the first century? The gospels were written before Jesus existed?

:clueless:

Again, you just toss out stuff you make up, expecting it to be somehow "true" and handwave away any evidence that you don't agree with.

Dang! you are sure making it easy for JP's screwball thread.
I said 100-150 'BC', not 'AD'

ApologiaPhoenix

January 17th 2007, 03:31 PM

Nobody knows what God is really like - that was the POINT. I don't know, you don't know, the pope doesn't know, Isaiah didn't know, Jesus didn't know, Muhammad didn't know.............the entire history of theology is one of human beings chauvenistically crafting God into their own particular image. Isaiah was a moral man, so he painted a moral God. Muhammad was a thug, so he painted a degenerate God. The Greeks and Romans did this in a less subtle way, of course, by painting the gods literally in their own images. Dionysus, a wild god, was invented by wild revolutionaries. The list goes on.

Of course, to know X doesn't know, you have to know that they are wrong which would mean that you'd have to know something of what God is like.

By the way, if you don't know what God is like, then you can't know that GOd is not triune and cannot be triune. Who is to say your anti-Trinitarianism is not you just making God in your own image?

Sparko

January 17th 2007, 03:32 PM

Nobody knows what God is really like - that was the POINT. I don't know, you don't know, the pope doesn't know, Isaiah didn't know, Jesus didn't know, Muhammad didn't know.............the entire history of theology is one of human beings chauvenistically crafting God into their own particular image. Isaiah was a moral man, so he painted a moral God. Muhammad was a thug, so he painted a degenerate God. The Greeks and Romans did this in a less subtle way, of course, by painting the gods literally in their own images. Dionysus, a wild god, was invented by wild revolutionaries. The list goes on.

But how do you KNOW that nobody knows what God is like? Do you know everything that everyone has ever experienced? Did God TELL you that nobody knows what he is really like? Are you God?

You can't just claim nobody knows something unless you have some special knowlege that nobody else has. Do you?

Sparko

January 17th 2007, 03:33 PM

I said 100-150 'BC', not 'AD'

ah. sorry. I misread you.

Sevivon1913

January 17th 2007, 03:38 PM

Of course, to know X doesn't know, you have to know that they are wrong which would mean that you'd have to know something of what God is like.

By the way, if you don't know what God is like, then you can't know that GOd is not triune and cannot be triune. Who is to say your anti-Trinitarianism is not you just making God in your own image?

Triune is a human invention that cannot even be properly realized in the abstract realm of thought. Something cannot be 3 yet 1. If God is anything, he must be true. God is not a false mathematical formula.

ApologiaPhoenix

January 17th 2007, 03:40 PM

Triune is a human invention that cannot even be properly realized in the abstract realm of thought. Something cannot be 3 yet 1. If God is anything, he must be true. God is not a false mathematical formula.

Three persons. One God. You're confusing apples and oranges. 3X. 1Y. It is not 3X and 1X or 3Y and 1Y.

And by the way, you are aware there are some Eastern ideas that do say that God could be personal and impersonal both. Right?

Sevivon1913

January 17th 2007, 03:41 PM

But how do you KNOW that nobody knows what God is like? Do you know everything that everyone has ever experienced? Did God TELL you that nobody knows what he is really like? Are you God?

You can't just claim nobody knows something unless you have some special knowlege that nobody else has. Do you?

I don't think God would select any less than the entire population to reveal him/herself to us. That said, how many people do YOU know to whom God has revealed him/herself? And if so, did he/she actually reveal anything theological about him/herself which couldn't be misunderstood by the person?

Sevivon1913

January 17th 2007, 03:46 PM

Actually, at least one word used in the OT to say "one" God is also used elsewhere to refer to a composite unity.
References, please :teeth: ?

Teallaura

January 17th 2007, 03:55 PM

:sigh: JP, would you like us to split the thread so the argument with Sev can go on elsewhere?

jpholding

January 17th 2007, 03:58 PM

:sigh: JP, would you like us to split the thread so the argument with Sev can go on elsewhere?

You may. It does make it easier to cull the nominations later. Of course the items I culled from Sev should remain.

member11491

January 17th 2007, 04:04 PM

Nope the burden of the proof is on you, since you are the one that keeps saying they were zombies not us.

Oh and Member you keep saying Mark even when Phoenix corrects you and says the scene is in Matthew. What version of the bible are you reading the Readers Digest condensed version?

Hey Rum Drinker,

Sorry but the burden of proof is on you guys who believe the living dead rose from their tombs. My argument that they meet the definition of zombies was already made and apparently no one can dispute it.

ApologiaPhoenix

January 17th 2007, 04:06 PM

Hey Rum Drinker,

Sorry but the burden of proof is on you guys who believe the living dead rose from their tombs. My argument that they meet the definition of zombies was already made and apparently no one can dispute it.

No coward. You've made the claim that these stories aren't true because miracles can't happen. It's up to you to back that claim that miracles can't happen which I've been asking you to do practically ad infinitum.

Until you provide that, we are under no obligation to play your silly game.

Sevivon1913

January 17th 2007, 04:09 PM

No coward. You've made the claim that these stories aren't true because miracles can't happen. It's up to you to back that claim that miracles can't happen which I've been asking you to do practically ad infinitum.

Until you provide that, we are under no obligation to play your silly game.

Miracles can't happen because they're not possible within the laws of physics. If they were, they'd no longer be miracles. Duh!

The ball is clearly in the court of those who claim miracles have a historic precedent.

ApologiaPhoenix

January 17th 2007, 04:10 PM

Miracles can't happen because they're not possible within the laws of physics. If they were, they'd no longer be miracles. Duh!

The ball is clearly in the court of those who claim miracles have a historic precedent.

And this assumes that there can be no exception to the laws of physics. You're essentially begging the question. The burden of proof is on the one who says that there are no exceptions to the laws of physics. The coward has made the claim. He must back it.

Of course, you wouldn't know about backing claims would you Sev?

Goonerman

January 17th 2007, 04:16 PM

Already refuted, Member- you ignored my post in the First Bay Step thread.

Sev- The Talmud sets Jesus in 150BC?! Now that would mean that the rabbi in AD 80 whose reminiscence of Jesus quoting Amos during a debate they had 50 years earlier would not have been able to have done so! :ahem:

And precisely is your evidence for Tacitus being interpolated- referring to Christianity as a mischief and shameful, etc. hardly fits. As for Josephus, passage number 1 exists in its original form in the Arabic, and passage 2 has no interpolation into the Greek text at all. Plus, even the adulterated version has Josephus describing Jesus' works as 'surprising'.

It's all too easy for you say that the Christians doctored this and doctored that, even though the manuscript evidence tells a different story.

Oh well. I'll stick to proper scholarship, including responsible scholarship, with Geza Vermes, whom I respectfully disagree with on some points, or Pinchas Lapide, while you stick to screwball remarks arising from member's genuine stupidity and obstinacy and sev's complacent arrogance! :thumb:

RumTumTugger

January 17th 2007, 04:20 PM

Hey Rum Drinker,

Sorry but the burden of proof is on you guys who believe the living dead rose from their tombs. My argument that they meet the definition of zombies was already made and apparently no one can dispute it.

No, bumbler you made an assertion from silence and are the one trying to prove a negative that miracles can't happen. the burden of proof is on you.

btw bumbler I like your style but you know nothing about where my actual nickname came from do you. hense your mistake in the attempt at an insulting name change. be afraid be very afraid :grin:

for those who know where I get my nickname remember what they say about cats.

ApologiaPhoenix

January 17th 2007, 04:26 PM

The initial assertion was that miracles can happen. Why would anyone deny that miracles happen, unless someone had claimed they do happen? Obviously, until some moron invented the concept of "miracle", nobody felt a need to challenge it.

First off, this is begging the question as it claims that miracles are an invented claim which is what it is up to the skeptic to prove.

Secondly, this is the point. It has been the history of mankind to believe in miracles. All of a sudden, you and the coward are showing up saying "Miracles can't happen." Since you are the one rising up in opposition, it is up to you to provide the evidence that led you to see that beilef in miracles are false.

Teallaura

January 17th 2007, 04:31 PM

The initial assertion was that miracles can happen. Why would anyone deny that miracles happen, unless someone had claimed they do happen? Obviously, until some moron invented the concept of "miracle", nobody felt a need to challenge it.The intial assertion in this debate was yours and Member's that they do not happen (based entirely in naturalism, by the way). The burden is on you. Hint: You need to demonstrate that naturalism is true - then your case is made. Until you do that your assertion is nothing but an assertion - no support at all.

You don't get to shift the burden by talking about 'somebody' not actually involved in the specific debate here regardless of what they may or may not have said. The burden is determined in the context of the given debate. It remains with you because you made the initial assertion.

Sevivon1913

January 17th 2007, 04:45 PM

First off, this is begging the question as it claims that miracles are an invented claim which is what it is up to the skeptic to prove.

Secondly, this is the point. It has been the history of mankind to believe in miracles. All of a sudden, you and the coward are showing up saying "Miracles can't happen." Since you are the one rising up in opposition, it is up to you to provide the evidence that led you to see that beilef in miracles are false.
It's also been the overwhelming fact of the majority of past (and present) humans that they were indoctrinated.

I've never seen a miracle. Have you?

ApologiaPhoenix

January 17th 2007, 04:50 PM

It's also been the overwhelming fact of the majority of past (and present) humans that they were indoctrinated.

I've never seen a miracle. Have you?

Not taking the question. The burden of proof is still on you. You're also still begging the question assuming that miracles are believed because people are indoctrinated.

member11491

January 17th 2007, 04:51 PM

It's what you said in the post.

I said mute and will-less, not mute-less.

It's called argument from silence and it's generally an incredibly weak argument.

My point is according to the bible, these "risen saints" meet the definition of zombies. Stop trying to squirm your way out.

Sure seems to work when you use it on Crystal. I guess we're supposed to look the other way for you. Right?

What I had mentioned with lilangel was her consistent misspelling of common words. Usually she spells them phonetically allowing me to read how she thinks the words are properly spelled. Once she claimed she was dyslexic, I stopped mentioning it altogether.

Again, it's still Matthew. Get your books right.

again, my bad.

Secondly, no. You are the one saying that this cannot happen. It is up to you to give the reasons for believing such. I am merely honoring the Democracy of the Dead where those before us stated that they believed that miracles could be possible. WHat new evidence did you discover that showed otherwise?

Of course people have believed in miracles. They do to this very day. That doesn't make them true. I bet you doubt miracles attributed to Buddha or Mohammad or Krishna or Imhotep. What about the dead who believed in that?

More nonsense from the peanut brain gallery.

Stay cool!

ApologiaPhoenix

January 17th 2007, 04:53 PM

My point is according to the bible, these "risen saints" meet the definition of zombies. Stop trying to squirm your way out.

I could care less what terminology you use. Your presupposition on miracles still stands out.

Of course people have believed in miracles. They do to this very day. That doesn't make them true. I bet you doubt miracles attributed to Buddha or Mohammad or Krishna or Imhotep. What about the dead who believed in that?

More nonsense from the peanut brain gallery.

Stay cool!

Yes. Now are you going to answer the question of the peanut brain gallery or run and hide again. I've asked you several times to give me the evidence that miracles cannot occur. Can you give it?

member11491

January 17th 2007, 05:01 PM

No coward. You've made the claim that these stories aren't true because miracles can't happen. It's up to you to back that claim that miracles can't happen which I've been asking you to do practically ad infinitum.

Until you provide that, we are under no obligation to play your silly game.

Awww.. how cute. I need to prove zombies DIDN'T rise from their graves, otherwise you are going to take your toys and go home. What a cry baby. Sorry I'm not playing your game. If you insist zombies rose up and started walking around 2000 years ago it's up to YOU to provide evidence for such a wild, delusional claim.

Show me some evidence and I'll evaluate it. Otherwise you're just another delusional madman.

Stay cool!

ApologiaPhoenix

January 17th 2007, 05:02 PM

Awww.. how cute. I need to prove zombies DIDN'T rise from their graves, otherwise you are going to take your toys and go home. What a cry baby. Sorry I'm not playing your game. If you insist zombies rose up and started walking around 2000 years ago it's up to YOU to provide evidence for such a wild, delusional claim.

Show me some evidence and I'll evaluate it. Otherwise you're just another delusional madman.

Stay cool!

Hey coward. You made the claim these stories aren't true because they contain miracles. It's up to you to back the claim that miracles cannot claim. You don't come here and say "Miracles can't happen." "How do you know?" "You prove that they can." No. You made the claim. You back it.

Sevivon1913

January 17th 2007, 05:04 PM

Not taking the question. The burden of proof is still on you. You're also still begging the question assuming that miracles are believed because people are indoctrinated.
The lack of evidence of miracles is perfectly acceptable evidence for their non-existence, pending further evidence to the contrary. And don't apply some abstract, irrelevent pseudo-philosophical nonsense about "burdens of proof" to suggest that no evidence isn't proof of non-existence. That's true. However, it is dishonest to assume the existence of a phenomena without first confirming it with evidence. We should ALWAYS assume something is non-existent until we gain evidence to the contrary. You take abstract principles too far, divorcing them from REAL life.

It would be like placing the burden of proof on someone who claims that non-existent particles don't exist. It would end up as mere semantics, with no practical methodology.

IOW - you can't prove that "something which didn't happen" didn't happen. It's up to the people who beleive in that "something which didn't happen" to prove that it DID happen. You can't prove a negative, as you know perfectly well. Nice try, though, but I've been educated in falsification theory and it's uselessness.

member11491

January 17th 2007, 05:04 PM

I could care less what terminology you use. Your presupposition on miracles still stands out.

Ok, so we'll agree on zombie.

[quote]
Yes. Now are you going to answer the question of the peanut brain gallery or run and hide again. I've asked you several times to give me the evidence that miracles cannot occur. Can you give it?

Instead of that, how about proof zombies rose up like Matthew said they did. Do you have any? What's that? None? Nothing at all?

Poor little guy, you don't even have the other "gospel authors" to back you up.

Now go cry in the corner, little man.

Stay Cool!

ApologiaPhoenix

January 17th 2007, 05:09 PM

[QUOTE=ApologiaPhoenix]I could care less what terminology you use. Your presupposition on miracles still stands out.

Ok, so we'll agree on zombie.

Instead of that, how about proof zombies rose up like Matthew said they did. Do you have any? What's that? None? Nothing at all?

Poor little guy, you don't even have the other "gospel authors" to back you up.

Now go cry in the corner, little man.

Stay Cool!

Yo Coward.

You still bear the burden of proof. You're claiming that miracles can't happen. The account doesn't concern me now. I'm more interested in your presupposition that miracles can't happen. Are you going to back that or are you going to keep shifting or admit you made a claim of faith that miracles can't happen that you cannot back.

ApologiaPhoenix

January 17th 2007, 05:10 PM

The lack of evidence of miracles is perfectly acceptable evidence for their non-existence, pending further evidence to the contrary. And don't apply some abstract, irrelevent pseudo-philosophical nonsense about "burdens of proof" to suggest that no evidence isn't proof of non-existence. That's true. However, it is dishonest to assume the existence of a phenomena without first confirming it with evidence. We should ALWAYS assume something is non-existent until we gain evidence to the contrary. You take abstract principles too far, divorcing them from REAL life.

It would be like placing the burden of proof on someone who claims that non-existent particles don't exist. It would end up as mere semantics, with no practical methodology.

IOW - you can't prove that "something which didn't happen" didn't happen

No. You're making the claim that a miracle cannot happen while the ancients wuold have no problem believing so. What have you learned that they did not know that shows miracles cannot happen?

And we should always assume something is non-existent? How come. That's modernity's claim. It's not mine.

Goonerman

January 17th 2007, 05:12 PM

The very laws of physics themselves are supernatural in origin. The creation of the entire Universe is a miracle. Given that we need an uncaused cause who is God Himself, a 'miracle' should be a cinch.

I've seen a miracle. The transformation of a drunken man when I was 11. He used to shout and bawl and swear all the time, and I found him scary. But then he stopped doing that, he was behaving normally and speaking normally, and talking to people. I asked my Mum how he had changed so much. She told me to go and ask him. So she and I went to him, and I asked him how he had changed. He told me, smiling widely, and full of joy, that he had become a Christian. Jesus had saved and healed him. He told me that an evangelist had shown him part of the Bible and shared the Gospel with him. As a result he had given his life to Jesus and he had been transformed, and no longer was on the bottle. And he gave me a friendly warning not to take alcohol and be ensnared by it. Mum told me when we got into the house, that his wife and daughter had been killed in a car crash, and he had become so devastated that he turned to drink. His sister, a friend of Mum's had been praying for him for years. Now those prayers had been answered. Given the terrible state he was in, I was amazed that he could be rational enough to hear the message given to him. Awed, I said to Mum, "So miracles still happen after all!" I had seen something very profound happen, and I knew it.

jpholding

January 17th 2007, 05:16 PM

I give up! You better open the lid to that box for me.

Just did. You popped out with a spring under your behind. :hehe:

sylvius

January 17th 2007, 05:18 PM

I've never seen a miracle. Have you?

yes me

Sevivon = Dreidel

with letters "nun gimel Hey shin"

standing for "nes gadol hayah sham"

= great miracle was there.

"nes" = miracle,

written "nun-samech".

numerical value 110

110 = 37 + 73.

37 is numerical value of "lahav'= flame

73 is numerical value of "chochmah" = wisdom.

the numbers 73 and 73 are hidden in Genesis 1:1.

for the numerical vlaue of Genesis 1:1 (the sum of values of the 28 letters with which Genesis 1:1 is written) is 2701 which is 37 x 73.

that is a miracle.

another miracle of written word:

numerical value of "ets hachayim" (tree of life) is 233;

numerical value of "ets hadaat tov vara" (tree of knowledge of good and evil) is 932.

932 = 4 x 233.

the blind don't see it.

Sevivon1913

January 17th 2007, 05:29 PM

No. You're making the claim that a miracle cannot happen while the ancients wuold have no problem believing so. What have you learned that they did not know that shows miracles cannot happen?

And we should always assume something is non-existent? How come. That's modernity's claim. It's not mine.
Thanks to the Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution, we have learned a heck of alot more. An average European is, by far, the superior of any Ancient "genius". You underestimate the revolution that has taken place in advancing how much an individual person can now learn compared to the ancient period, both in terms of resources available and time and length of life to learn it all.

Europeans have also learnt - something Americans can't comprehend - from the two world wars (and holocaust) and the total scale of the destruction and human misery. Soldiers went into those great wars as religious men who beleived in miracles, and came out as disillusioned atheists. Women and children suffered as well. That's the main reason why America is so fundamentalist today, while Europe is so secular. No miracles happened at Auschwitz. If they were to occur anywhere, it would have been there.

Sevivon1913

January 17th 2007, 05:31 PM

yes me

Sevivon = Dreidel

with letters "nun gimel Hey shin"

standing for "nes gadol hayah sham"

= great miracle was there.

"nes" = miracle,

written "nun-samech".

numerical value 110

110 = 37 + 73.

37 is numerical value of "lahav'= flame

73 is numerical value of "chochmah" = wisdom.

the numbers 73 and 73 are hidden in Genesis 1:1.

for the numerical vlaue of Genesis 1:1 (the sum of values of the 28 letters with which Genesis 1:1 is written) is 2701 which is 37 x 73.

that is a miracle.

:huh:

ApologiaPhoenix

January 17th 2007, 06:09 PM

Thanks to the Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution, we have learned a heck of alot more. An average European is, by far, the superior of any Ancient "genius". You underestimate the revolution that has taken place in advancing how much an individual person can now learn compared to the ancient period, both in terms of resources available and time and length of life to learn it all.

Europeans have also learnt - something Americans can't comprehend - from the two world wars (and holocaust) and the total scale of the destruction and human misery. Soldiers went into those great wars as religious men who beleived in miracles, and came out as disillusioned atheists. Women and children suffered as well. That's the main reason why America is so fundamentalist today, while Europe is so secular. No miracles happened at Auschwitz. If they were to occur anywhere, it would have been there.

Ah yes, the endarkenment. Now could you please tell me what happened during this *coughs* great period that revealed miracles cannot happen? What did we learn that showed us that miracles are impossible?

And you bring up the holocaust. Since miracles didn't happen then they cannot happen? Nonsense. There are several Jewish wars in the OT that no miracles took place in. There was no miracle when the Babylonians or Romans surrounded Jerusalem, yet did this destroy faith in miracles? Not at all.

So please tell me, what was this great discovery made during the endarkenment?

member11491

January 17th 2007, 06:29 PM

Ah yes, the endarkenment. Now could you please tell me what happened during this *coughs* great period that revealed miracles cannot happen? What did we learn that showed us that miracles are impossible?

This is pretty pathetic when the only argument you have is "prove it didn't happen". The same defense could be use to argue the "weekly world news" is true.

You really need help.

Stay cool!

ApologiaPhoenix

January 17th 2007, 06:31 PM

This is pretty pathetic when the only argument you have is "prove it didn't happen". The same defense could be use to argue the "weekly world news" is true.

You really need help.

Stay cool!

Actually, no. Your desparation is showing as I've been asking you this one question from the beginning.

Your question presupposes a naturalisitc worldview. If not that, a deistic worldview. Now then, if you are coming from naturalism, which I believe you are, then please give me the reason I should accept the presumption of naturalism.

member11491

January 17th 2007, 06:33 PM

Actually, no. Your desparation is showing as I've been asking you this one question from the beginning.

Your question presupposes a naturalisitc worldview. If not that, a deistic worldview. Now then, if you are coming from naturalism, which I believe you are, then please give me the reason I should accept the presumption of naturalism.

How about simply showing me some evidence for the specific claims of the bible, such as zombies rising from their graves and walking around instead of making sweeping generalizations. You cannot, so you simply try to pull out a different argument where you feel more comfortable.

Pathetic.

Stay Cool!

ApologiaPhoenix

January 17th 2007, 06:35 PM

How about simply showing me some evidence for the specific claims of the bible, such as zombies rising from their graves and walking around instead of making sweeping generalizations. You cannot, so you simply try to pull out a different argument where you feel more comfortable.

Pathetic.

Stay Cool!

Um. No. I'm not trying any different tactic. I'm using the same one I've used from the beginning. You've argued the Bible isn't true because it contains miracles and miracles do not happen. THerefore, you are the one who must show why miracles cannot happen.

member11491

January 17th 2007, 06:46 PM

Um. No. I'm not trying any different tactic. I'm using the same one I've used from the beginning. You've argued the Bible isn't true because it contains miracles and miracles do not happen. THerefore, you are the one who must show why miracles cannot happen.

Apologia, you are only hurting your case at this point. We get it, you have no argument whatsoever and are forced into simply repeating "prove miracles don't exist". You won't even go back into the specifics of the bible at this point.

I can imagine you in the nuthouse in a straightjacket in the fetal position at this point, tears streaming down your face repeating over and over miracles can happen.

You're completely beaten, you might as well stop.

Stay cool!

ApologiaPhoenix

January 17th 2007, 06:51 PM

Apologia, you are only hurting your case at this point. We get it, you have no argument whatsoever and are forced into simply repeating "prove miracles don't exist". You won't even go back into the specifics of the bible at this point.

I can imagine you in the nuthouse in a straightjacket in the fetal position at this point, tears streaming down your face repeating over and over miracles can happen.

You're completely beaten, you might as well stop.

Stay cool!

Sorry Member. I'm not at all. You made the opening claim that we shouldn't accept the Bible because it contains miracles. Well, I need your evidence miracles can't happen. It's improper to shift the burden of proof to your opponent.

Your argument goes like this.

Premise: Miracle accounts are those which are not true accounts.
Premise: The Bible contains miracle accounts.
Conclusion: Therefore, the accounts of the Bible are not true accounts.

It's your claim. You, therefore, have taken the burden of proof. If I had come here claiming the burden of proof, I would have taken it. I didn't. You did. You back it coward.

Until you do, I don't have enough faith to accept your presupposition on why I should not accept Scripture.

jpholding

January 17th 2007, 07:19 PM

:huh:

Aw c'mon Sev. That was super screwy, and right up your alley. :thumb:

jpholding

January 17th 2007, 07:27 PM

Apologia, you are only hurting your case at this point. We get it, you have no argument whatsoever and are forced into simply repeating "prove miracles don't exist". You won't even go back into the specifics of the bible at this point.

I can see this is someone who thinks "Alvin Plantinga" is one of three chipmunks. :rofl:

AP's points are so far above your addled little pinpoint brain that you don't even see how badly you're being stomped. He's probing your worldview for consistency and trying to get an epistemology out of you, while you're making a scarf out of your bellybutton lint.

I can imagine you in the nuthouse in a straightjacket in the fetal position at this point, tears streaming down your face repeating over and over miracles can happen.

We can already see you being slapped by Mr Roarke and laughed at by Tattoo. :hehe:

Y'know, dumbler, I can see you're set to win the Platinum for TWeb vet next year on top of your rookie award this year. Never seen anyone ignore so many arguments and make so many contrived excuses in such a short time.

But why not share your brilliance with those in the need? What's say you write up your best case for the Christ myth, and we'll send it to 3 prominent non-Christian historians of the Roman era and see what they think? We'll even pick some that are fat, or bald, or have some other physical imperfection, so that you can have at least one argument against them. :lmbo:

lilpixieofterror

January 17th 2007, 07:28 PM

I don't know where you're getting this link between the King-Messiah and execution/peircing on a tree.

Go read it for youself and come back and tell me. :teeth:

The Tanakh says that a person who is hanged on a tree is CURSED (that rules out anyone who is hung on a tree as being the King-Messiah).

Ummm, I'm asking you to think little one. Why do you think the Tanakh says a person who is hanged on a tree is cursed? Wouldn't being taken as a sarface for the sins of the world be a curse? :ahem:

Isaiah says nothing of the King-Messiah being rejected by his own people. The reference to a "trial" is simply non-existent.

Hummm... that's funny I found it does... :ahem:

The verse in question (Isaiah 53:7), when correctly translated, says "like a lamb to the slaughter he would be brought, and like a ewe that is mute before her shearers, and he would not open his mouth." I don't see "trial" there. Speaking of trials...

Hummm, does symbolism ring a bell to you? Why do you think Christians call Jesus "Lamb of God". Why do you think Revelation says he looks like a lamb that has been slaughtered? Jesus was arrested and stood quiet before those who brought him to trial. He was beatten and lead to the site of his own death. This does not sound like being brought to the slaughter to you? :ahem:

"The wicked lie in wait for the righteous, seeking their very lives; but the LORD will not leave them in their power or let them be condemned when brought to trial." - Psalm 37:32-33 (Jesus was left in the power of the wicked, and they did indeed condemn him when brought to trial)

Got to love out of context verses. :hug: Now care to give an in depth analysis of these two verses and use this strange thing called a 'commentary' you know that thing you never use. :lol:

What translations, exactly, were made prior to the middle ages?

Let's see... the latan for starters. The Dead Sea Scrolls date to the 1st centery even by non-Christian scholars and were preserved by a Jewish group that had no link to Christians. Yet the verses we find in the dead sea scrolls match our morden day English translations... I'm guessing you're going to say they were changed now even though the group who had them and hid them had no axe to grind for Jesus. :ahem:

I think you'll find that Hebrew has been the only language which the Tanakh has been preserved in. The "Septuagent" was a forgery by the Church -- the original only covered the 5 books of Moses and even that translation was only a legend.

Ok, prove it. I want you to find an historian who says the Septuagent is a forgery even though even though English Jewish Bibles I've seen seem to match the Christian OT translations. Have you actually read a Christian OT and tried to find these so called errors that you seem to think Christians added in even though English Jewish translations of the Tanakh have no huge differences than the Christian one. :wink:

Why don't I just consult the New Testament to see what Jews thought of this passage? If this passage fitted the life and death of Jesus Christ perfectly, then no doubt the entire nation of Israel would have converted to Christianity --- they didn't!

Guess you've never read of Messiah Jews or Jews for Jesus eh (also, many early Christians were Jews, go figure)? :ahem: Anyway, go ask your Rabbi or read some old Jewish commentaries and see if I'm mistaken or wrong. What is the 1st centry Jewish intrepation of those parts of Isaiah such as the suffering servant? What Rabbi changed the intrepation and when? Why are you doing everything you can to avoid answering me?

They hadn't the benefit of some Medieval "Jewish conspiracy" to cover up the truth........they had the original Hebrew text (which Jews still have), they had Jesus Christ living among them, and they rejected that he was the messiah and they rejected his claims to being God -- go figure.

Funny that despite the fact that the Dead Sea Scrolls sink you theory once and for all. Plus despite the fact you don't want to tell us what Rabbi changed the Jewish intrepations of Isaiah and when this happened (if you go do some research, you'll find Jews untill 1,000 years ago coincidered those verses to be talking about the messiah, why you don't want to answer my questions, I don't know :shrug:). The answers I got from Rabbi's on why Jesus was not the messiah were rather cicular. Go ask your Rabbi if anything I said was wrong, you'll find that I'm not making up anything or lying. :wink:

That said, I've not seen any evidence that the Hebrew text has been altered at ANY time. Translations have mistranslated it into different languages, but the original Hebrew still survives.

:duh: I never said they were altered moron, I said the intrepation was changed. Do you lack basic reading skills by chance?

There is an unbroken apostolic link between Moses and the present day Rabbis blah blah blah...

Not untill 1,000 years ago like I said, don't believe me. Prove me wrong.

Christians used the Latin Vulgate, which was itself a translation of the Greek Septuagent mistranslation of the Hebrew scriptures.

Funny that reading an English Jewish Bible and an English Christian OT show no realy differences, but the one you like to make. Just so you know, the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek 300 years before Christianity existed and thus nobody than had an axe to grind for Jesus doing it. The conclusion seems to be you just want to put your fingers in your ear while saying, "LALALALA I can't hear you!" While living in the delusion that Christians somehow changed it or I'm making anything up.

Of course they were able to use their own version of Isaiah 53 to prove Jesus was the messiah. If I only had the Septuagint version, I'd probably beleive it too.

Still don't understand that the Greek Septuagint plus the Dead Sea Scrolls prove you wrong (neither one of these groups had any axe to grind for Jesus, thus destroy your entire theory). Keep living in your delusion though, it's alot eaiser than answering me...

But the fact remains that the Septuagint/vulgate are not consistent with the original Hebrew text.

Prove it. Go grab and English Christian OT and compair them to your English Jewish translation and find any huge differences between the two. Next go find the Jews for Jesus or some Messiah Jews and question them upon what you are saying and why they became Christians.

Only a very marginal number of people beleived that Isaiah 53 referred to the messiah in the 1st Century -- they were probably Jewish converts to Christianity.

Again, you are dead wrong. Go ask your Rabbi what Rabbi changed the Jewish intrepation of that passage and when. I know the answer, why don't you?

Any others represent the Jewish population about as much as Left-handed... The fact remains that the Hebrew Text which existed in the 1st Century is exactly the same (with minor differences, but on totally irrelivent points, and certainly not to be found in Isaiah 53) as our modern day Hebrew text.

Paying attention is very hard for you to do isn't it? I said the intrepation changed, not the wording. Is paying attention too hard for you to do?

The change from Isaiah 53 as refering to Israel to being about the messiah came about with the Septuagint and the Christian era.

Ummm no, try again. Now go question your Rabbi and ask him what Rabbi and when the intreptation was changed. So far you have mis reped and tried to change my argument so that it's eaiser for you to refute, the rest I have covered already, so I'm not going to cover it again.

The Dead Sea Scrolls were written by a marginal little group of schizophrenic weirdos. Who cares what they believed?

Oh yeah, what a refution to world renounded scholership! :bow: Got a real answer now or are you going to keep sticking your fingers in your ears while saying, "LALALALA I can't hear you!"

If you can prove that pre-Christian era Hebrew texts (and even the Dead Sea Scrolls fail at this) wrote according to later Christian translations, I will readily become a Christian. Good luck. :ahem:

Done so a while ago... it appears that you just simply write off all the evidence (such as saying those who preserved the Dead Sea Scrolls were weirdo's like that really is an answer or ignoring that the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek BEFORE Christians even existed). When you have a real answer or can actually understand an argument, we'll try again.

Crystal

Sevivon1913

January 17th 2007, 10:45 PM

Why do you think the Tanakh says a person who is hanged on a tree is cursed? Wouldn't being taken as a sacrifice for the sins of the world be a curse?

Jesus wasn't hanged on a tree, he was crucified on a cross.

"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree." - Galatians 3:13

Wow, and If I look up Deut 21:23 in any Christian translation, lo and behold I find: "anyone who is hung on a tree is under God's curse"

Except for one small problem -- it's a grotesque mistranslation used to interpolate a prophecy about Jesus into the Torah.

Correct Jewish translation (with totally different meaning):

"But you shall not leave his body on the pole overnight. Rather, you shall bury him on that [same] day, for a hanging [human corpse] is a blasphemy of God, and you shall not defile your land, which the Lord, your God, is giving you as an inheritance." - Deut. 21:23 (here there is no "curse" on the hanged corpse, but an act of blasphemy by whoever hangs it there)

Hummm, does symbolism ring a bell to you? Why do you think Christians call Jesus "Lamb of God". Why do you think Revelation says he looks like a lamb that has been slaughtered? Jesus was arrested and stood quiet before those who brought him to trial. He was beatten and lead to the site of his own death. This does not sound like being brought to the slaughter to you?

Of course it does. But so too does the long history of violent persecution against Jews. Cattle trucks enroute to Auschwitz is not the lamb being brought to the slaughter to you? Besides, Jesus WANTED to be found guilty and martyred so who is he to complain?

Got to love out of context verses. :hug: Now care to give an in depth analysis of these two verses and use this strange thing called a 'commentary' you know that thing you never use. :lol:

I don't use Christian commentaries. I find that I'm more than capable of making comments for myself :teeth:

Let's see... the latin for starters. The Dead Sea Scrolls date to the 1st centery even by non-Christian scholars and were preserved by a Jewish group that had no link to Christians. Yet the verses we find in the dead sea scrolls match our morden day English translations... I'm guessing you're going to say they were changed now even though the group who had them and hid them had no axe to grind for Jesus. :ahem:

The Dead Sea Scrolls translate Isaiah 53 the exact same way as all Hebrew texts. The only difference exists in the translation of it into English, where they simply copy and paste from the KJV. Typical deception, really, that they should twist the Dead Sea Scrolls, which prove the validity of the original Hebrew text, to try to prove their own perverted translations!

Ok, prove it. I want you to find an historian who says the Septuagent is a forgery even though even though English Jewish Bibles I've seen seem to match the Christian OT translations. Have you actually read a Christian OT and tried to find these so called errors that you seem to think Christians added in even though English Jewish translations of the Tanakh have no huge differences than the Christian one. :wink:

There are so many of them........Just take Isaiah 53 as an example:

http://messiahtruth.com/isai53b.html - this site has the Christian (KJV) and the Jewish translation (Artscroll Tanakh) compared in two columns - it's easier to see the differences like that, rather than me typing them out here seperately.

Guess you've never read of Messiah Jews or Jews for Jesus eh (also, many early Christians were Jews, go figure)? :ahem: Anyway, go ask your Rabbi or read some old Jewish commentaries and see if I'm mistaken or wrong. What is the 1st centry Jewish intrepation of those parts of Isaiah such as the suffering servant? What Rabbi changed the intrepation and when? Why are you doing everything you can to avoid answering me?

I'm not aware of any "messiah jews" or "jews for judaism" in the UK. Interpretations are of no importance to me. Only the pure, unadultered text is what really matters. However, the idea that first centry jews believed Isaiah 53 was about the messiah is a twisting of reality. Of course a minor group - maybe half a dozen people - believed it (just as some believed in Jesus), but the overwhelming majority did not. There simply was no sudden alteration in "Jewish" interpretation.

Besides, even those Jews who did believe Isaiah 53 referred to the messiah...........you forget: they beleived that the JEWISH understanding (i.e. based on the original HEBREW text and not on christian mistranslations) was the messiah. The original has no mention of dying for sins....it says "wounded BECAUSE OF our (gentile kings) rebellious sins". Therefore the proper, Hebrew Isaiah 53 contains no supernatural descriptions of the suffering servant. Your case is therefore irrelevent.

Funny that despite the fact that the Dead Sea Scrolls sink you theory once and for all. Plus despite the fact you don't want to tell us what Rabbi changed the Jewish intrepations of Isaiah and when this happened (if you go do some research, you'll find Jews untill 1,000 years ago coincidered those verses to be talking about the messiah, why you don't want to answer my questions, I don't know :shrug:). The answers I got from Rabbi's on why Jesus was not the messiah were rather cicular. Go ask your Rabbi if anything I said was wrong, you'll find that I'm not making up anything or lying. :wink:

I know which Rabbi you are defaming. See my above answer : Jewish belief in the Isaiah 53 as reference to the messiah (if hypothetically true) does not involve a supernatural saviour who dies for our sins. It has a suffering servant who is wounded by the gentiles and who is eventually vindicated by God and world peace ensues.

Funny that reading an English Jewish Bible and an English Christian OT show no realy differences, but the one you like to make. Just so you know, the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek 300 years before Christianity existed and thus nobody than had an axe to grind for Jesus doing it. The conclusion seems to be you just want to put your fingers in your ear while saying, "LALALALA I can't hear you!" While living in the delusion that Christians somehow changed it or I'm making anything up.

Compare Jewish and Christian translations of Isaiah 7:14, Psalm 22, Iaiah 53, Isaiah 9:6, Hosea 11:1, Jeremiah 31, Micah 5:1 (listed as 5:2 in Christian translations), Psalm 2:12, Psalm 110, Zechariah 12:10 & 13:1-6.

Don't just compare the Jewish to the Christian translation of those verses, but compare the GOSPEL/PAULINE translation of the particular passages found in the New Testament. Sometimes the NT writer mistranslates it in an even worse way than the Christian translator of the Tanakh.

BTW, avoid the JPS translations. I have a suspicion that the JPS are closet-Christians pretending to be Jews. They mainly just copy the KJV and pretend they used the Hebrew (something the NRSV did, too). The Rosenberg (available on chabad.org) and Artscroll Tanakh translations are the best.

Still don't understand that the Greek Septuagint plus the Dead Sea Scrolls prove you wrong (neither one of these groups had any axe to grind for Jesus, thus destroy your entire theory). Keep living in your delusion though, it's alot eaiser than answering me...

1) The septuagint is a 4th Century (CE) forgery. There are no pre-4th Century manuscripts of the septuagint, and the idea that this is merely a copy of an earlier, inter-testimental translation, is pure conjecture (by Christians). The fact is that the original septuagint was merely a myth (there's no evidence it was ever written) and it only contained he 5 books of Moses, not the prophets or the writings (which are conveniently to be found in the 4th Century "septuagint").
2) The Dead Sea Scrolls, in their original hebrew, confirm the Hebrew text which Jews today follow (and which Christians sneakily call the "masoretic" text to suggest a distinction between original Hebrew and later Hebrew texts ---- wherein there IS no REAL distinction. They're the SAME TEXT!).

Done so a while ago... it appears that you just simply write off all the evidence (such as saying those who preserved the Dead Sea Scrolls were weirdo's like that really is an answer or ignoring that the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek BEFORE Christians even existed). When you have a real answer or can actually understand an argument, we'll try again.

Crystal

Yeah well I checked the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls. It's no different to the ordinary Hebrew for the Isaiah 52-53 prophecy. The only difference, again, is in the TRANSLATION into english. For some bizarre reason, they translate it exactly the same as the KJV.....which is odd, given that the KJV is based on the vulgate, which is based on the septuagint, all of which contain words alien to Hebrew language. Are Christians just in some kind of sub-conscious habit of mistranslating things in such blatantly unsuble ways? It's beyond a joke. There's no way you can honestly translate Isaiah 53:5 as saying "wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities".......

The correct translation is: "pained because of our rebellious sins and crushed because of our iniquities" (the preposition used is MI-, which literally means "from")

Yet, using the exact same Hebrew words, the English translators of the Dead sea scrolls (no blame is on the original authors) manage to mistranslate it in coincidentally the exact same twisted way as every other Christian translator has done in the last 1600 years. How convenient, yet the Hebrew remains the same!

lilpixieofterror

January 18th 2007, 12:34 AM

norwegen

January 18th 2007, 12:44 AM

From Merriam-Webster's online dictionary:

Zombie:
the body of a dead person given the semblance of life, but mute and will-less, by a supernatural force, usually for some evil purpose.

Now, let's see what the bible says. First 1) dead person given semblance of life
NASB: The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; (NASB ©1995)
GWT: The tombs were opened, and the bodies of many holy people who had died came back to life. (GOD'S WORD®)
KJV: And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
ASV: and the tombs were opened; and many bodies of the saints that had fallen asleep were raised;
BBE: And the resting-places of the dead came open; and the bodies of a number of sleeping saints came to life;
DBY: and the tombs were opened; and many bodies of the saints fallen asleep arose,

So what's the common theme here? The BODIES of the saints arose. A dead person given semblance of life could not be a more perfect description of dead, decaying bodies rising from the dead. Notice the passage does not say the bodies were flawless or were undecayed. Dead, decaying, reanimated BODIES are described here (sort of like JP the hutt's body).

Now let's look at the rest of the definition of zombie and of the passage.

the body of a dead person given the semblance of life, but mute and will-less, by a supernatural force, usually for some evil purpose.

NASB: and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many. (NASB ©1995)
GWT: They came out of the tombs after he had come back to life, and they went into the holy city where they appeared to many people. (GOD'S WORD®)
KJV: And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
ASV: and coming forth out of the tombs after his resurrection they entered into the holy city and appeared unto many.
BBE: And coming out of their resting-places, after he had come again from the dead, they went into the holy town and were seen by a number of people.
DBY: and going out of the tombs after his arising, entered into the holy city and appeared unto many.

Notice they didn't TALK? This is what we call "mute". The passage doesn't indicate if these zombies had free will or not, but since it was just a reanimated body I'll have to assume they didn't. Since they all rose up right after "JC" supposedly died this qualifies as a supernatural force.

Finally, were they risen for an evil purpose? I'll leave that upto you.

So to summarize:

1) dead person given semblance of life? check
2) mute? check
3) will-less? check
4) risen by a supernatural force? check
5) evil purpose? (not necessary according to the definition anyway) check

Looks like you people have some zombies on your hands.

Stay cool!I thought this was kind of observant, actually. Creative. Somewhat bold, even. Christians don't really consider God a force, but I enjoyed reading this post nonetheless.

Sevivon1913

January 18th 2007, 05:14 AM

Sev, you do know that the NIV does correctly translates Isaiah 53:5 almost word by word by what you said right? Good job showing the KJV as not being the most accurate translation. Now going to get to work on the NIV and the rest of the morden translations now?

Crystal

PS do you even own an NIV translation?

I am NOT a liar:

"But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed." - Isaiah 53:5 (NIV)

"But he was pained because of our transgressions, crushed because of our iniquities; the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his wound we were healed." - Isaiah 53:5 (Rosenberg)

And NO - I don't own a copy of ANY Christian translation except the NRSV (the rest having been discarded into the trash -but I don't need them anyway, because I've memorized the "proof" texts). I do, however, have an internet connection as well as a library which has an huge theology section. I have checked Isaiah 53 (and every single so-called messianic prophecy) with every major Christian version out there. Even the NRSV, which is the most recent and acclaimed, contains the exact same errors as the KJV.

sylvius

January 18th 2007, 06:28 AM

Why do you think Christians call Jesus "Lamb of God".

because they are idol-worshippers,

worshippers of the beast

Revelation 13:15-17,
It was then permitted to breathe life into the beast's image, so that the beast's image could speak and (could) have anyone who did not worship it put to death. It forced all the people, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to be given a stamped image on their right hands or their foreheads, so that no one could buy or sell except one who had the stamped image of the beast's name or the number that stood for its name.

also a lamb is a beast
(the writer of Revelation works on that).

Sevivon1913

January 18th 2007, 08:11 AM

because they are idol-worshippers,

worshippers of the beast

Revelation 13:15-17,
It was then permitted to breathe life into the beast's image, so that the beast's image could speak and (could) have anyone who did not worship it put to death. It forced all the people, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to be given a stamped image on their right hands or their foreheads, so that no one could buy or sell except one who had the stamped image of the beast's name or the number that stood for its name.

also a lamb is a beast
(the writer of Revelation works on that).

I thought you believed in Jesus as a god, Sylvius, or am I misreading you? You certainly have a very interesting understanding of the New Testament. Are you just a Jew who follows Kabbalah and who beleives the New Testament is a Kabbalistic text (and not based on real history....but is gnostic/symbols) ?

LilAngel - the Christians later calling Jesus the "lamb of God" doesn't automatically mean that all references to a lamb of God in the Tanakh are about Jesus. The connection is irrelivent and works one-way only. :tongue:

sylvius

January 18th 2007, 08:51 AM

I thought you believed in Jesus as a god, Sylvius, or am I misreading you? You certainly have a very interesting understanding of the New Testament. Are you just a Jew who follows Kabbalah and who beleives the New Testament is a Kabbalistic text (and not based on real history....but is gnostic/symbols) ?

Jesus the one God who knows the letter "HEY" (in "hashishi")

John 7: 15

The Jews were amazed and said, "How does he know the letters without being learned?"
Jesus answered them and said, "My teaching is not mine but comes from the one who sent me."

Sevivon1913

January 18th 2007, 10:20 AM

Jesus the one God who knows the letter "HEY" (in "hashishi")

John 7: 15

The Jews were amazed and said, "How does he know the letters without being learned?"
Jesus answered them and said, "My teaching is not mine but comes from the one who sent me."

Then you are an idol worshipper too :tongue:

If a man (Jesus) is not an idol, I'm not sure what is....... Besides, what exactly makes Sparko's beliefs idolatory, but not yours? :huh:

sylvius

January 18th 2007, 10:53 AM

Then you are an idol worshipper too :tongue:

If a man (Jesus) is not an idol, I'm not sure what is....... Besides, what exactly makes Sparko's beliefs idolatory, but not yours? :huh:

he is a door, not an idol.

a little opening to escape through.

He is in me; I got him in me.

As I am in him.

I was the one to tell him about the number 666, the beast, hidden in Genesis 1:31.

He got that from me.

That's why he kept talkinbg about the narrow door, etc.

i.e. the little opening in the letter "hey" that distinguishes it from the letter "chet", making the difference between "chometz" , leavened (bread), and "matzah" , unleavened.

This world is "chometz" , puffed up, about to explode.

jpholding

January 18th 2007, 12:27 PM

I say we leave Sev and sylvius alone here and wait until one of them drives the other crazy before we come back.

Teallaura

January 18th 2007, 03:03 PM

I say we leave Sev and sylvius alone here and wait until one of them drives the other crazy before we come back.Wait? Um, how exactly could you tell when one crazy drove the other crazy crazy? :huh:

jpholding

January 18th 2007, 03:09 PM

Well, then let's wait until one of their heads explodes.

Sir-Think-A-Lot

January 18th 2007, 03:49 PM

Sorry but the burden of proof is on you guys who believe the living dead rose from their tombs. My argument that they meet the definition of zombies was already made and apparently no one can dispute it.

So can I take your refusal to answer my accusation that pladecalvo is your sock puppet as proof that he is?

OU812

January 18th 2007, 05:42 PM

Plus despite the fact you don't want to tell us what Rabbi changed the Jewish intrepations of Isaiah and when this happened (if you go do some research, you'll find Jews untill 1,000 years ago coincidered those verses to be talking about the messiah,

Actually, this is wrong, LAOT. There was no Rabbi who "changed" Jewish interpretations of Isaiah 53 (or Isaiah 7:14, for that matter...) 1,000 years ago or whatnot. That's something being spread by those behind the "Jack Chick" tracks and other like-minded organizations.

If anything, the "Rabbi" who "changed" the interpretation was Jesus , or rather his life, death, and resurrection as reflected upon by his disciples 2000 years ago..........until that time, Isaiah 53 was interpreted by MANY Jews at the time as not refering to a single person , but rather refering to the Nation of Israel as a whole , or Israel 'personified'.

Teallaura

January 18th 2007, 07:26 PM

Actually, this is wrong, LAOT. There was no Rabbi who "changed" Jewish interpretations of Isaiah 53 (or Isaiah 7:14, for that matter...) 1,000 years ago or whatnot. That's something being spread by those behind the "Jack Chick" tracks and other like-minded organizations.

If anything, the "Rabbi" who "changed" the interpretation was Jesus , or rather his life, death, and resurrection as reflected upon by his disciples 2000 years ago..........until that time, Isaiah 53 was interpreted by MANY Jews at the time as not refering to a single person , but rather refering to the Nation of Israel as a whole , or Israel 'personified'.She's refuting that point, not supporting it. It's his assertion, not hers.

:no:

lilpixieofterror

January 18th 2007, 08:31 PM

I am NOT a liar

Never called you a liar buddy, but more along the lines of paranoid. Do you really think Christian go around and change the Bible just for the hell of it? The differences you showed below are really stupid and downright absured. Care to tell us the difference between peirced for our transgressions and pained because of our transgressions? I doubt it... I'm currently looking at a Hebrew to English dictionary along with a morden English dictionary and guess what. It appears to me you are totally paranoid and spending far to much time looking for conspiracy theories.

And NO - I don't own a copy of ANY Christian translation except the NRSV (the rest having been discarded into the trash -but I don't need them anyway, because I've memorized the "proof" texts).

:lol: Yep, younger than me yet somehow you think you are smarter than every Christian who has ever lived. You are as bad as the crazy KJVest who think the KJV Bible is inspired by God. It seems to me you are making issues out of word uses (like they really differ that much). :hehe:

I do, however, have an internet connection as well as a library which has an huge theology section. I have checked Isaiah 53 (and every single so-called messianic prophecy) with every major Christian version out there. Even the NRSV, which is the most recent and acclaimed, contains the exact same errors as the KJV.

:lol: Sorry, you found the used two different words that really do not have very many differences. Care to tell us why you think the NRSV is somehow the perfect translation like KJVist think the KJV is perfect and even go as far as to say it's inspired by God? I regularly read about 5 different translations myself and found some of them explain things better than others. When you are done making issues were none exist, try again.

LilAngel - the Christians later calling Jesus the "lamb of God" doesn't automatically mean that all references to a lamb of God in the Tanakh are about Jesus. The connection is irrelivent and works one-way only.

Are you just stupid or do you really try to be this ignorant? Please state anywhere where I said all refrence to Lamb of God in the Tanakh are about Jesus. :duh:

Crystal

OU812

January 18th 2007, 11:20 PM

She's refuting that point, not supporting it. It's his assertion, not hers.

:no:

It is NOT 'his' - Sevivon's - assertion that a certain Rabbi 'changed' the - 'the' - interpretation of Isaiah 53 some 1,000 years ago. It IS her asssertion which I refuted. Note:

Plus despite the fact you don't want to tell us what Rabbi changed the Jewish intrepations of Isaiah and when this happened (if you go do some research, you'll find Jews untill 1,000 years ago coincidered those verses to be talking about the messiah, why you don't want to answer my questions, I don't know :shrug:). The answers I got from Rabbi's on why Jesus was not the messiah were rather cicular. Go ask your Rabbi if anything I said was wrong, you'll find that I'm not making up anything or lying. :wink:

:yes:

Sevivon193's point is that the Jews NEVER changed the (single) interpretation of Isa 53 (that of refering a people or nation suffering for their sins and those of the Gentiles).........LAOT's point is that the Jews 'changed' the (single) interpretation of Isa 53 some 1,000 yrs ago (Medieval times iow, not the era of Jesus and the Apostles.....), which prior to the 'change', was 'always' interpreted to be talking about the Messiah.

Teallaura

January 18th 2007, 11:31 PM

It is NOT 'his' - Sevivon's - assertion that a certain Rabbi 'changed' the - 'the' - interpretation of Isaiah 53 some 1,000 years ago. It IS her asssertion which I refuted. Note:

:yes:Good grief - sarcasm an issue for you? He was the one making the reinterpretation claims...

:no:

And get a life - anybody that uptight about this needs to get out more.

OU812

January 18th 2007, 11:38 PM

Good grief - sarcasm an issue for you? He was the one making the reinterpretation claims...

......about the Christians; her claim was that the Jews/Rabbi's reinterpreted Isa 53 during Medieval times.

:no:

And get a life - anybody that uptight about this needs to get out more.

It was a legitimate criticism....don't dissemble.

lilpixieofterror

January 19th 2007, 12:54 AM

Sevivon193's point is that the Jews NEVER changed the (single) interpretation of Isa 53 (that of refering a people or nation suffering for their sins and those of the Gentiles).........LAOT's point is that the Jews 'changed' the (single) interpretation of Isa 53 some 1,000 yrs ago (Medieval times iow, not the era of Jesus and the Apostles.....), which prior to the 'change', was 'always' interpreted to be talking about the Messiah.

And sev and yourself are wrong, don't believe me. Go ask a Rabbi and research it for yourself and see if I'm lying.

Crystal

lilpixieofterror

January 19th 2007, 12:56 AM

Sevivon1913

January 19th 2007, 06:33 AM

It is NOT 'his' - Sevivon's - assertion that a certain Rabbi 'changed' the - 'the' - interpretation of Isaiah 53 some 1,000 years ago. It IS her asssertion which I refuted. Note:

Sevivon193's point is that the Jews NEVER changed the (single) interpretation of Isa 53 (that of refering a people or nation suffering for their sins and those of the Gentiles).........LAOT's point is that the Jews 'changed' the (single) interpretation of Isa 53 some 1,000 yrs ago (Medieval times iow, not the era of Jesus and the Apostles.....), which prior to the 'change', was 'always' interpreted to be talking about the Messiah.

Thanks for pointing out that bizarre defamation against me! :wink:

Yeah, I wasn't even dealing with "interpretations", as Tellaura and lilangelofterror are. I am merely using the original Hebrew text and it makes no difference to me either way whether Isaiah 53 was looked at as a prophecy about the messiah himself.

It's not as though a consistent Jewish view on Isaiah 53 as "Israel" is much of a problem for the belief in Jesus as messiah, anyway. But it is a good thing for honesty. If I was a Christian, I wouldn't be able to sleep at night if my beliefs depended on dishonest twisting of history and scripture ---- but I don't beleive that people who do that are being honest with themselves (about being Christian). But ultimately I don't think that Christianity does depend on Isaiah 53 or any other messianic prophecy to validate Jesus. I mean, look at it this way: do Orthodox Jews believe that the REAL messiah will fulfill Isaiah 53? NOPE, therefore Isaiah 53 is not a prerequisite for the true messiah.

Sevivon1913

January 19th 2007, 07:16 AM

Never called you a liar buddy, but more along the lines of paranoid. Do you really think Christian go around and change the Bible just for the hell of it? The differences you showed below are really stupid and downright absured. Care to tell us the difference between peirced for our transgressions and pained because of our transgressions? I doubt it... I'm currently looking at a Hebrew to English dictionary along with a morden English dictionary and guess what. It appears to me you are totally paranoid and spending far to much time looking for conspiracy theories.

Yes, I do think Christians go around changing the Bible: but to substantiate their beliefs, rather than for the hell of it.

"pierced" is simply not the correct translation (the original text does NOT say "pierced"!), and seems to be translated that way to elude to the peircing of Christ on the cross. I'd say that's pretty dishonest. Why else would they translate it as pierced, in the absence of that being the correct translation? Go figure.

"pierced FOR our transgressions" means that the suffering servant was afflicted - as a sacrifice, presumably - for the express purpose of our sins (a vicarious sacrifice).

Very important point: the big difference, forgetting the theology for a moment, is that the former is simply not an accurate translation -- the text does not say "FOR".

"wounded BECAUSE OF our transgressions", on the other hand, does not elicit any nonsense about a vicarious sacrifice. It simply acknowledges that the suffering servant was wounded as an act of transgression.

Now, I don't care if you don't see a difference. The fact is that the Christian translation is simply FALSE. That alone is a sufficient margin of difference. The question is: why, in the absence of it being an accurate translation, does the Christian translation *coincidentally* happen to affirm Christian theology (about a vicarious sacrifice)? Go figure.

How does your Hebrew dictionary translate "mimitzrayim"

"they had asked from Egypt articles of silver"

Next, how does it translate "mi-"

and then what Hebrew word does your so-called dictionary use for "for" ?

Compare to Isaiah 53:5. Does it say "FOR" or "FROM (because of)"?

"mi-p'sha'einu" = pained from (because of) our transgressions
"mei-avonoteinu" = crushed from (because of) our iniquities

"MI-" = FROM

:lol: Yep, younger than me yet somehow you think you are smarter than every Christian who has ever lived. You are as bad as the crazy KJVest who think the KJV Bible is inspired by God. It seems to me you are making issues out of word uses (like they really differ that much). :hehe:

I know extraordinarily intelligent people who are atheist, Catholic, Jewish, etc --- but intelligence doesn't seem to have much bearing on common sense, nor does it indicate that the person is "correct". When it comes down to it, how does a person's IQ alter the correct Hebrew meaning of Isaiah 53:5 (and that's not even touching the REST of the chapter)?

BTW, what makes you think you're older than me?

:lol: Sorry, you found the used two different words that really do not have very many differences. Care to tell us why you think the NRSV is somehow the perfect translation like KJVist think the KJV is perfect and even go as far as to say it's inspired by God? I regularly read about 5 different translations myself and found some of them explain things better than others. When you are done making issues were none exist, try again.

"do not have very many differences"? Oh no, the implications of the SINGLE word difference in translation ONLY alters the very theological worldview in the mind of the reader (atleast in someone who actually believes in the Tanakh). Don't underestimate the theological implications of changing a single word or even a syllable in sacred scripture.

By the way, I am not dealing with different translations here. This is not an issue between translations. It's an issue between the ORIGINAL TEXT and the translation languag --- this is no trivial matter.

Also, if you think I'm being paranoid about the church altering the translation of Isaiah 53:5, then perhaps YOU'RE the one being paranoid. Afterall, the entire Jewish people - for the last 2,000 years - have believed this.

Are you just stupid or do you really try to be this ignorant? Please state anywhere where I said all refrence to Lamb of God in the Tanakh are about Jesus. :duh:

Crystal

:sigh:

lilpixieofterror

January 19th 2007, 11:33 AM

Yes, I do think Christians go around changing the Bible: but to substantiate their beliefs, rather than for the hell of it.

Wow, true paranoia... do you wear a tin foil hat too? :hehe:

"pierced" is simply not the correct translation (the original text does NOT say "pierced"!), and seems to be translated that way to elude to the peircing of Christ on the cross. I'd say that's pretty dishonest. Why else would they translate it as pierced, in the absence of that being the correct translation? Go figure.

Than tell us what the orgional word means and why peirced is incorrect. So far you are simply acting like KJVist by basicly stating that Christians are wrong and your translation is right. Please give the hebrew word and tell us why there is a problem...

"pierced FOR our transgressions" means that the suffering servant was afflicted - as a sacrifice, presumably - for the express purpose of our sins (a vicarious sacrifice).

Yeah, he did suffer. You don't think being hung on a cross would cause pain? :ahem: I'm still waiting for a real difference being being peirced and being pained...

Very important point: the big difference, forgetting the theology for a moment, is that the former is simply not an accurate translation -- the text does not say "FOR".

So there is only one way to translate Hebrew to English and no other way? Please what is the difference between the two? Expect what you want to make of it.. By chance are you an NRSVist who sees that translation as the perfect word of God?

"wounded BECAUSE OF our transgressions", on the other hand, does not elicit any nonsense about a vicarious sacrifice. It simply acknowledges that the suffering servant was wounded as an act of transgression.

Wow... so being beatten and cruficed does not count as being wounded beause of your transgressions? :ahem: I'm still waiting for a real meaningful difference and it seems that it still is not comming. BTW have you found out yet that the OT was translated 300 years before Christians existed and thus the people who wrote it had no axe to grind for Jesus. :sigh:

Now, I don't care if you don't see a difference.

Because there is no meaningful difference. Last I checked... being peirced would indeed count as being wounded. :shurg: Is there a real meaningful difference here? Not really... expect your paranoia...

The fact is that the Christian translation is simply FALSE.

Yep, and the NRSV is the perfect translation from God. :ahem: I guess you are not aware of the problems translating Greek/Hebrew into English. There are words and phrases in Hebrew/Greek that don't exist in English and vise versa. That's why morden translations often times use different ways of saying the same thing. Why you think it is false simpy because one says wounded and the other says periced (last I checked, being flogged and cruficed would indeed count for both)... I'm not sure... done being paranoid yet? :ahem:

That alone is a sufficient margin of difference. The question is: why, in the absence of it being an accurate translation, does the Christian translation *coincidentally* happen to affirm Christian theology (about a vicarious sacrifice)? Go figure.

I'm still waiting for the meaningful difference between wounded and peirced. I'm also waiting for a reason why the NRSV is a perfect translation as is thus without error... Are you sure you're not a KJVist who has simply picked a different translation?

Blah blah blah

That's cool that you are finding a whole bunch of words that hold no meaning in this discussion. Is this your way of playing "Look at this hand while I try to slip the blind fold on?" Sorry, not falling for it. :wink:

I know extraordinarily intelligent people who are atheist, Catholic, Jewish, etc --- but intelligence doesn't seem to have much bearing on common sense, nor does it indicate that the person is "correct".

Kind of like yourself eh? BTW have you found out when the OT was translated in Greek, what Rabbi changed the intreptation of Isaiah 53 and when, and the real difference between 'wounded' and 'peirced'? :shrug:

When it comes down to it, how does a person's IQ alter the correct Hebrew meaning of Isaiah 53:5 (and that's not even touching the REST of the chapter)?

:lol: I'm sorry... but there is no real meaningful difference expect your paranoia. Last I checked, being flogged and cruficed would indeed count as being 'wounded' so the huge difference is what again? :shrug: Have you gone and asked Messiah Jews or the Jews for Jesus yet about these 'translation errors' they are far better equiped than I would be to tell you... You seem to want to ignore that no English translation is perfect and I'll be the first to admit that in the 17th centery, the KJV was an accurate translation, but the NIV, NASV, NCV, and others are far more accurate due to the fact they use newer research and older documents than the KJV did. Now can you give me a real difference now?

BTW, what makes you think you're older than me?

From what I've seen other saying, you're about 20 years old... I'm 22... so if that is accurate I'm older... :ahem: The rest of your post is simply repeating your paranoia... so I'll snip it.

Crystal

Sevivon1913

January 19th 2007, 11:54 AM

OU812

January 19th 2007, 03:00 PM

Really? Prove me wrong than, I dare you. :tongue:

Prove yourself right....:idea:

lilpixieofterror

January 20th 2007, 02:24 AM

Still waits for Sev to show a real meaningful difference... as for OU...

Prove yourself right....:idea:

Are you trying to avoid not having egg on your face? If you do not believe me... go ask your rabbi and look it up yourself. I will assure you that I'm not wrong nor mistaken...

Crystal

sylvius

January 20th 2007, 05:58 AM

CORRECTION: The KJV does not say "pierced", but agrees with the Hebrew "wounded". It's actually the NIV which is saying "pierced". The NRSV, which is the best *Christian* translation out there (but still repeats the same "FOR" instead of "FROM" deception), also confirms that it says "wounded". And I never claimed the NRSV was a good translation: it's simply the better of several hundred evils. The NIV's credibility isn't even worth toilet paper - Case closed!

"chalal" - to pierce or to wound, both correct.

but there are more connotations to this:

intensive-form "chilleil" = to desecrate, violate, profane, vulgarize.

"chilleil et hashabbat" = to desecrate (break) the sabbat.

"chol" = profane, common, workadays.

the point of course is that Christians mistakenly think Isaiah wrote about Jesus being crucified in a for him still far away future.

John 19:34 might be written after Isaiah 53:5,
but one soldier thrust his lance into his side, and immediately blood and water flowed out.
since it is explained with (v.37):
"They will look upon him whom they have pierced."
which is after Zachariah 12:10, וְהִבִּיטוּ אֵלַי אֵת אֲשֶׁר-דָּקָרוּ, "v'hibbitu elav et asher dakaru".
but here is used "dakar", to bore, pierce, stab, slay, prick -
quite something else than "chalal".

Note:
"chalal" is a term from Jewish mystiscism; "the hollow space".
when God drew back the primordial light there was left "chalal", hollow dark space, in which he is gradually returning.

"chol" is also the name of the famous bird Phoenix; the bird who refused to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge offered to him by Eve.
By consequence the Phoenix doesn't die but rejuvenates every millennium.

"MI-" = FROM

compare Psalms 118,22-23,
מֵאֵת יְהוָה הָיְתָה זֹּאת, "mei-et haShem hayetah zot"."stone rejected by the builders has become to head of corner, from HaShem this has been which is wondrous in our eyes"

I think it is about the same.

Sevivon1913

January 20th 2007, 08:27 AM

Still waits for Sev to show a real meaningful difference... as for OU...

Are you trying to avoid not having egg on your face? If you do not believe me... go ask your rabbi and look it up yourself. I will assure you that I'm not wrong nor mistaken...

Crystal
The difference is quite clearly that wounded FOR their sins is a vicarious punishment (presumably by being pierced, for the NIV writer) : a clear reference to the crucifixion. Wounded BECAUSE of their sins has no such cannotation, but indites "them" (the gentiles) as sinning when they are wounding Israel.

If you can't see the difference, I suggest you learn ENGLISH (nevermind Hebrew). But then, you ARE from a degenerate backward society (and a particularly stupid and fundamentalist Wahabi-like sub-'culture' of it) that wouldn't know the English language if their lives depended on it.

Hint: there is no such thing, in the ENGLISH language, of multiple words meaning the EXACT same thing. There are subtle, but usually OBVIOUS, differences. A correct education in English would tell you that, but you learn a backward "American English" dialect which is both a totally arrogant concept and completely laughable ---- "America" (another idiotic cliche, seeing as nobody calls BRAZILIANS "American") is a joke.

lilpixieofterror

January 20th 2007, 04:24 PM

The difference is quite clearly that wounded FOR their sins is a vicarious punishment (presumably by being pierced, for the NIV writer) : a clear reference to the crucifixion. Wounded BECAUSE of their sins has no such cannotation, but indites "them" (the gentiles) as sinning when they are wounding Israel.

Need that to hold your intreptation of the passage up eh? Now I get why you are trying to attack different word useages. Now, tell me why I should accept your intreptation as correct.

If you can't see the difference, I suggest you learn ENGLISH (nevermind Hebrew).

There's a real difference between British and American English now? I understood every word I heard from the RAF airmen when I was over seas... most of them like the american accent... done insulting yet?

But then, you ARE from a degenerate backward society (and a particularly stupid and fundamentalist Wahabi-like sub-'culture' of it) that wouldn't know the English language if their lives depended on it.

Ever been to the US or know a thing about our culture?

Hint: there is no such thing, in the ENGLISH language, of multiple words meaning the EXACT same thing.

:duh: Really? Do you own a dictionary or thesurus by chance? Many words in our lanuage do mean the same or almost the exact same thing. Like hot and warm for an example.

There are subtle, but usually OBVIOUS, differences. A correct education in English would tell you that, but you learn a backward "American English" dialect which is both a totally arrogant concept and completely laughable ---- "America" (another idiotic cliche, seeing as nobody calls BRAZILIANS "American") is a joke.

Got to love total arrogance and smug superiority... Now when you can make a point without having to insult and go into something as stupid as British vs American dialect (which in the real world, there is very little differences) come back and try yet again.

Crystal

Sevivon1913

January 20th 2007, 04:59 PM

Need that to hold your intreptation of the passage up eh? Now I get why you are trying to attack different word useages. Now, tell me why I should accept your intreptation as correct.

I don't understand? In your understanding of Isaiah 53:5, do both "because of" and "for" that they both mean a vicarious punishment, or neither of them? You don't see a difference, but you didn't say (or I didn't see) what meaning they both shared.

There's a real difference between British and American English now? I understood every word I heard from the RAF airmen when I was over seas... most of them like the american accent... done insulting yet? Ever been to the US or know a thing about our culture?

Sorry, I was in abit of a mood :eek: when I wrote that. I like American culture really. I don't watch any British TV, for example, but exclusively American -- and try to avoid books written by British intellectuals, because they're: a) too marxist b) don't write properly - they think that writing in superficially long and over-complex sentences is a sign of intelligence, when it's merely a sign of how stupid they are (for instance, Noam chomsky is the world's most renowned intellect and his books are easy for me to read, wheras if I read a book by some schmuck from Oxford University, then their sentences invariably make no sense. But that doesn't mean Americans are any smarter - it's just that the writing style is better (the intellectuals here have intentionally done this, to alienate the mass population from participating in intellectual discussion). Anyway (pet grudge!), :lol:....

:duh: Really? Do you own a dictionary or thesurus by chance? Many words in our lanuage do mean the same or almost the exact same thing. Like hot and warm for an example.

Hot = high temperature
Warm = moderately high temperature

:Got to love total arrogance and smug superiority... Now when you can make a point without having to insult and go into something as stupid as British vs American dialect (which in the real world, there is very little differences) come back and try yet again.

Crystal

Hmm OK. But are you saying BOTH readings of Isaiah 53:5 ("for" Vs "from") involve the suffering servant being wounded/pierced/whatever as a result of the people, or on behalf of them? If the latter is the case, then how does being wounded "FROM" their sins give any indication of a vicarious wounding?

OU812

January 20th 2007, 05:39 PM

Are you trying to avoid not having egg on your face? If you do not believe me... go ask your rabbi and look it up yourself. I will assure you that I'm not wrong nor mistaken...

Crystal

Actually, Crystal, since you were the one making the claim that Medieval Rabbis had changed the meaning of Isa 53, then YOU are the one who should do a back-check on your sources and make sure that you're not repeating things promoted by people or organizations without the relevant credentials.

OfficialPro

January 21st 2007, 01:38 AM

The difference is quite clearly that wounded FOR their sins is a vicarious punishment (presumably by being pierced, for the NIV writer) : a clear reference to the crucifixion. Wounded BECAUSE of their sins has no such cannotation, but indites "them" (the gentiles) as sinning when they are wounding Israel.

If you can't see the difference, I suggest you learn ENGLISH (nevermind Hebrew). But then, you ARE from a degenerate backward society (and a particularly stupid and fundamentalist Wahabi-like sub-'culture' of it) that wouldn't know the English language if their lives depended on it.

Hint: there is no such thing, in the ENGLISH language, of multiple words meaning the EXACT same thing. There are subtle, but usually OBVIOUS, differences. A correct education in English would tell you that, but you learn a backward "American English" dialect which is both a totally arrogant concept and completely laughable ---- "America" (another idiotic cliche, seeing as nobody calls BRAZILIANS "American") is a joke.

Now wait just a darn minute here. You're saying that the "more correct" translation of a particular phrase of the Bible obliterates the concept of vicarious atonement?

I don't think so. In fact I think your reasoning is a tad spurious, given your focus on only one part of a passage, ignoring the rest and the context therein to support your argument.

The NIV does have problems, this is a fact. It has some very vexing mistranslations. But this whole thing about "because of" doesn't exclude vicarious atonement, because let's face it, he WAS wounded BECAUSE of our sin (because it wouldn't be happening if we didn't sin! At all! Period!). While the particular part of the verse may not in that instance, later on in the verse it becomes abundantly clear: by his stripes we are healed (KJV). How can his "stripes" (wounds) heal us, if there's no vicarious atonement intent?

Given the context of the ENTIRE passage, your objections to the usage of "FOR" don't mean all that much in the big picture.

lilpixieofterror

January 21st 2007, 03:52 AM

Actually, Crystal, since you were the one making the claim that Medieval Rabbis had changed the meaning of Isa 53, then YOU are the one who should do a back-check on your sources and make sure that you're not repeating things promoted by people or organizations without the relevant credentials.

I've been there and done that, have you? :blush: Now if you think I'm lying or not being truthful, go ask your Rabbi... prove me wrong, I dare you.

Crystal

lilpixieofterror

January 21st 2007, 04:20 AM

I don't understand? In your understanding of Isaiah 53:5, do both "because of" and "for" that they both mean a vicarious punishment, or neither of them? You don't see a difference, but you didn't say (or I didn't see) what meaning they both shared.

No, I don't get your problem. I haven't said the NIV, KJV, ect is a perfect translation, they are not... but I don't go around making up conspiracy theories just because for whatever reason or another you like to see one. Besides, got a difference between 'because of' and 'for'?

Sorry, I was in abit of a mood :eek: when I wrote that.

Well, you're forgiven...

Hot = high temperature
Warm = moderately high temperature

I've used hot and warm to mean both and so have other people. Words can have several meanings or more than one meaning, that's the challange with translating Greek/Hebrew to English. Words can often times have duel meanings or the English word may have a more common meaning making people misunderstand them.

Hmm OK. But are you saying BOTH readings of Isaiah 53:5 ("for" Vs "from") involve the suffering servant being wounded/pierced/whatever as a result of the people, or on behalf of them?

I'm saying there really is not any real difference. Both are indeed a type of wound and it is very well possible that:

1. The Hebrew word may have duel meanings.
2. English does not have a word that quite matches the descreption we find in Hebrew.
3. No one is 100% sure what the orgional word means.

There maybe more possibilities, but I doubt that there is any kind of huge conspiracy, since I'm really do not see a huge difference between the phrasing or word useage.

If the latter is the case, then how does being wounded "FROM" their sins give any indication of a vicarious wounding?

Wounded is simply less descriptive... For example, "I got hurt today." Not very specific right, but we can say I was wounded. Now when I say, "I got cut today." That's more specific, but did I still get wounded? Yes, wounded is perfectly valid in both situations. The Hebrew word I'm finding that is translated wounded or periced is Chalal which has a wide range of meanings... It can mean sexual impurity, immorality, to dishonnor somebody, wound, peirce, or slain. The word is used several times thoughout the Bible and is translated to several different words... Why you choose to make an issue out of this... (when it really isn't an error) I don't know... :shrug:

Crystal

Sevivon1913

January 21st 2007, 07:55 AM

No, I don't get your problem. I haven't said the NIV, KJV, ect is a perfect translation, they are not... but I don't go around making up conspiracy theories just because for whatever reason or another you like to see one. Besides, got a difference between 'because of' and 'for'?

Well, you're forgiven...

I've used hot and warm to mean both and so have other people. Words can have several meanings or more than one meaning, that's the challange with translating Greek/Hebrew to English. Words can often times have duel meanings or the English word may have a more common meaning making people misunderstand them.

I'm saying there really is not any real difference. Both are indeed a type of wound and it is very well possible that:

1. The Hebrew word may have duel meanings.
2. English does not have a word that quite matches the descreption we find in Hebrew.
3. No one is 100% sure what the orgional word means.

There maybe more possibilities, but I doubt that there is any kind of huge conspiracy, since I'm really do not see a huge difference between the phrasing or word useage.

Wounded is simply less descriptive... For example, "I got hurt today." Not very specific right, but we can say I was wounded. Now when I say, "I got cut today." That's more specific, but did I still get wounded? Yes, wounded is perfectly valid in both situations. The Hebrew word I'm finding that is translated wounded or periced is Chalal which has a wide range of meanings... It can mean sexual impurity, immorality, to dishonnor somebody, wound, peirce, or slain. The word is used several times thoughout the Bible and is translated to several different words... Why you choose to make an issue out of this... (when it really isn't an error) I don't know... :shrug:

Crystal
You see no difference betweein:

The messiah dying FOR our sins (a claim unique to Jesus)

and

The messiah dying because we sinfully kill him? (a claim that, though it could refer to Jesus, doesn't EXCLUSIVELY identify him)

sylvius

January 21st 2007, 08:44 AM

You see no difference betweein:

The messiah dying FOR our sins (a claim unique to Jesus)

and

The messiah dying because we sinfully kill him? (a claim that, though it could refer to Jesus, doesn't EXCLUSIVELY identify him)

the problem with Christians is that they already have been saved, no matter how Isaiah 53 has to be understood; or what Genesis is about; or even NT.

"we've been saved saved saved by the bood of the lamb",
even what that means is of no importance.

"we've been saved" --

and you are not, Sevi.

you are in bare need of salvation.

come on why hesitate any longer?

join the club!

Sevivon1913

January 21st 2007, 08:55 AM

the problem with Christians is that they already have been saved, no matter how Isaiah 53 has to be understood; or what Genesis is about; or even NT.

"we've been saved saved saved by the bood of the lamb",
even what that means is of no importance.

"we've been saved" --

and you are not, Sevi.

you are in bare need of salvation.

come on why hesitate any longer?

join the club!
Are you being sarcastic or serious :huh: ?

sylvius

January 21st 2007, 09:04 AM

Are you being sarcastic or serious :huh: ?

both

Sevivon1913

January 21st 2007, 09:20 AM

both
There's nothing to be saved from. Hell isn't real

:flaming: :flaming: :flaming: :b_evil: :bawl: :b_evil: :flaming: :flaming: :flaming:

it's a pagan lie to frighten us :baby: into giving money to the priests :bow: and do everything they tell us to :aye:

OfficialPro

January 21st 2007, 11:22 PM

There's nothing to be saved from. Hell isn't real

:flaming: :flaming: :flaming: :b_evil: :bawl: :b_evil: :flaming: :flaming: :flaming:

it's a pagan lie to frighten us :baby: into giving money to the priests :bow: and do everything they tell us to :aye:

If there is no "hell" (or afterworld afterdeath punishment) then what does God do with people who have been incorrigibly and wantonly bad? :eh: Let 'em into "heaven" anyway and just wipe the slate clean? Is God goona let someone into his presence that totally freaking hates him? Or have you gone the way of the JW's and figure God does "annihilation" of the unrepentantly wicked?

OfficialPro

January 21st 2007, 11:26 PM

You see no difference betweein:

The messiah dying FOR our sins (a claim unique to Jesus)

and

The messiah dying because we sinfully kill him? (a claim that, though it could refer to Jesus, doesn't EXCLUSIVELY identify him)

There is NO difference when later on in the passage it says "By his stripes we are healed." *coughcoughindicationofvicariousnesscoughcough*

Sevivon1913

January 22nd 2007, 10:43 AM

If there is no "hell" (or afterworld afterdeath punishment) then what does God do with people who have been incorrigibly and wantonly bad? :eh: Let 'em into "heaven" anyway and just wipe the slate clean? Is God goona let someone into his presence that totally freaking hates him? Or have you gone the way of the JW's and figure God does "annihilation" of the unrepentantly wicked?

True "evil" people (and there are very few) die and they don't ascend to paradise; normal people who aren't overly good or overly bad will be purified in purgatory and then ascend to paradise; the holy like Moses ascend directly to paradise.

Why would someone who is particularly "evil" (in your words) be tortured for ever and ever? What purpose or lesson would that teach to them, and how would God, or justice, benefit? It's just a matter of pointless suffering. There's no mention of this "hell" in the Hebrew scriptures; so any claim that its necessary for "justice" or "legality" is null. Why would God only choose to reveal it to pagans and not to Israel?

Sevivon1913

January 22nd 2007, 10:47 AM

There is NO difference when later on in the passage it says "By his stripes we are healed." *coughcoughindicationofvicariousnesscoughcough*
"[we thought] through their wounds we would be healed."

CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT: the whole preceding verses are about the gentile King's false PERCEPTIONS in their treatment of Jews. This is written in Hebrew, with Hebrew literary style; not English.

lilpixieofterror

January 26th 2007, 11:19 PM

"[we thought] through their wounds we would be healed."

CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT: the whole preceding verses are about the gentile King's false PERCEPTIONS in their treatment of Jews. This is written in Hebrew, with Hebrew literary style; not English.

Have you ever read JPH's series upon what you are talking about. :wink: This is known as a duel prophesy. In fact, the NT is full of links to the OT, the more I read it, the more I see the links. BTW, I already told you that the Hebrew word, can mean both wounded and peirced. The only conspiracy is the one you created in your little head. :ahem:

Crystal

OfficialPro

January 27th 2007, 04:02 AM

True "evil" people (and there are very few) die and they don't ascend to paradise; normal people who aren't overly good or overly bad will be purified in purgatory and then ascend to paradise; the holy like Moses ascend directly to paradise.

Why would someone who is particularly "evil" (in your words) be tortured for ever and ever? What purpose or lesson would that teach to them, and how would God, or justice, benefit? It's just a matter of pointless suffering. There's no mention of this "hell" in the Hebrew scriptures; so any claim that its necessary for "justice" or "legality" is null. Why would God only choose to reveal it to pagans and not to Israel?

Where cometh this idea of "Purgatory"? It is entirely unscriptural, IIRC.

This isn't merely about 'punishment'--never mind 'how evil' a person is, if a person just hates God and is hostile and doesn't want jack to do with him, is God goona let him anywhere near Heaven? This is consequences of actions here.

You see, this isn't about HOW evil a person is. The only thing in play here is whether the person is repentant of their wickedness and accepts God or not. If they are not repentant and do not accept God, then they're screwed. There are theories that "Hell" isn't really firey (after all, what kind of damage can fire do to disembodied spirits? But maybe that doesn't matter....), but that it's rather a total separation from God. And such a state will be lawless and totally miserable. Fire or no fire, it will be nasty. Active torment by outside forces may be unnecessary, as the residents would theoretically be able to do it to each other. Maybe. It's as if God is saying "You didn't want slag to do with me, fine. Here, have your own little world without me. Have fun. NOT."

But seriously, regardless of whether you think the evil are punished eternally or not, you do of course recognize that you can't keep the wicked with the good in the same place, right? After they die? So any place the wicked are kept where the good aren't, would be "hell" by any definition.

If a person is stubborn enough my guess is it would never be possible for them to be purified.

What do you mean reveal it only to pagans? How did Jesus know what "Hell" was? He was Jewish.

C'mon, why else would he say "Anyone who says "You Fool" shall be in danger of Hell Fire."

OfficialPro

January 27th 2007, 04:08 AM

Sevivon1913

January 27th 2007, 10:55 AM

Where cometh this idea of "Purgatory"? It is entirely unscriptural, IIRC.

This isn't merely about 'punishment'--never mind 'how evil' a person is, if a person just hates God and is hostile and doesn't want jack to do with him, is God goona let him anywhere near Heaven? This is consequences of actions here.

It's in the Talmud; it's also, as you know, in the PROPER Christian canon (but which, for theological reasons, your protestant forefather excluded it).

No, it isn't about punishment; It's about the healing and purification of our sins. God doesn't get any satisfaction from punishment, but from repentance. Not a single human being "just hates God" - this is based on some grotesque understanding of the human psychology. We each have good and evil within us, and NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON is "all good" or "all evil".

God will forgive them, so long as they are sincere. He certainly won't put them into a pagan "eternal torment" which is the most vile; vicious repulsive concept in the Christian religion.

You see, this isn't about HOW evil a person is. The only thing in play here is whether the person is repentant of their wickedness and accepts God or not. If they are not repentant and do not accept God, then they're screwed. There are theories that "Hell" isn't really firey (after all, what kind of damage can fire do to disembodied spirits? But maybe that doesn't matter....), but that it's rather a total separation from God. And such a state will be lawless and totally miserable. Fire or no fire, it will be nasty. Active torment by outside forces may be unnecessary, as the residents would theoretically be able to do it to each other. Maybe. It's as if God is saying "You didn't want slag to do with me, fine. Here, have your own little world without me. Have fun. NOT."

Repentence is fine. But your concept of repentence is really quite profoundly unjust. Let's say an einsatzgruppen murder 150 Jewish atheists who happened to be good people. Then, the 150 Jews wind up in hell because they didn't beleive in God (this is YOUR view). Now, the einsatzgruppen thugs have a (sincere) change of conscience and beg Jesus for forgiveness ---- boom, they skip hell and go to heaven. Is that what you call JUSTICE? It''s what I call idiocy.

A more realistic scenario is that the Jews go to purgatory to be cleansed (afterall, atheism isn't a really evil. It's just a sincere position of belief: it's not an active rebellion against God). On the other hand, the Nazi scumbags will NEVER ressurect; they will become dust. They will perish --- but they won't be tormented for eternity, they will simply cease to exist.

Your concept of "law" and "lawlessness" is irrelevent to the afterlife. If we exist as one with God; such is not possible. Your theories are based on one assumption: that once we die, the soul is in a fixed state as it had been during life. This, I must say, is a totally Graeco-Roman absurdity (who had people walking without eyes, or stil carrying the wounds of battle for all eternity in limbo as phantoms). Only the truelly wicked do not ressurect. Those with some inclination to do good (though they may at times fail) will invariably end up in paradise.

But seriously, regardless of whether you think the evil are punished eternally or not, you do of course recognize that you can't keep the wicked with the good in the same place, right? After they die? So any place the wicked are kept where the good aren't, would be "hell" by any definition.

If a person is stubborn enough my guess is it would never be possible for them to be purified.

What do you mean reveal it only to pagans? How did Jesus know what "Hell" was? He was Jewish.

C'mon, why else would he say "Anyone who says "You Fool" shall be in danger of Hell Fire."

The problem is WHO is wicked. You seem to think that one sincere repentence to a pagan idol is going to forgive them of all their sins and make them artficially righteous enough to enter paradise. This is absurd. Purgatory, as you call it, will only be open to those with an inclination to good. The TRUE wicked will never ressurect; no matter on whose name they call.

Again, you assume that EVERYONE who rejects your faith is "wicked". You're talking about GOOD people as "wicked" simply because they don't beleive in Jesus. On the other hand; a paedophile, murderer, thief, etc can all become artificially "righteous" an go to paradise. Some justice you have!

As I said we all have a good and bad polarity, with different people at varying degrees either side. You assume that souls cannot change; I reject that initial assumption.

Jesus never believed in your version of hell; he was speaking of She'ol / Hades (the underworld) in which ALL souls go. Just ask Theonomy :wink:

OK - you're a fool :rasberry: - do I go to hell now? (oh wait! I'm going there ANYWAY :lmbo: no matter what because I can't beleive in something that's not true. How convenient!)

Sevivon1913

January 27th 2007, 10:59 AM

THEIR wounds? Where'd this plural stuff come from?
That was based on the traditional - and PRE-Christian - Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 53 of the Suffering Servant as ISRAEL.

As for anyone (aka LilAngelofTerror)who claims that the Jewish understanding was different before Jesus came along..............

"This missionary allegation is refuted even by a Christian source. In Contra Celsum, written in 248 C.E. (some 800 years before Rashi), the Church Father Origen records that Jews contemporary with him interpreted this passage as referring to the entire nation of Israel. He wrote:

I remember that once in a discussion with some whom the Jews regard as learned I used these prophecies [Isaiah 52:13-53:8]. At this the Jew said that these prophecies referred to the whole people as though of a single individual, since they were scattered in the dispersion and smitten, that as a result of the scattering of the Jews among the other nations many might become proselytes. In this way he explained the text: "Thy form shall be inglorious among men"; and "those to whom he was not proclaimed shall see him"; "being a man in calamity." (Origen, Contra Celsum, trans. Henry Chadwick, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Book 1.55, 1965, p. 50)".

sylvius

January 27th 2007, 11:19 AM

C'mon, why else would he say "Anyone who says "You Fool" shall be in danger of Hell Fire."

it says

"geena" = gehennah, not hell.

"geena tou puros"== purgatory fire.

OfficialPro

January 29th 2007, 01:47 AM

It's in the Talmud; it's also, as you know, in the PROPER Christian canon (but which, for theological reasons, your protestant forefather excluded it).

Just because it's in the Talmud doesn't mean God came up with the idea.

No, it isn't about punishment; It's about the healing and purification of our sins. God doesn't get any satisfaction from punishment, but from repentance. Not a single human being "just hates God" - this is based on some grotesque understanding of the human psychology. We each have good and evil within us, and NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON is "all good" or "all evil".

While it is true that each person has "some" good and "some" evil in them, how can you be sure that there aren't any people that are so antagonistic towards god that "healing" and "purification" are totally not an option?

God will forgive them, so long as they are sincere. He certainly won't put them into a pagan "eternal torment" which is the most vile; vicious repulsive concept in the Christian religion.

Do you even KNOW why "Hell" was constructed? It was not meant for humans originally! It was created to punish Satan and the other fallen angels.

Since we know HOW to circumvent eternal torment, what's the problem?

Repentence is fine. But your concept of repentence is really quite profoundly unjust. Let's say an einsatzgruppen murder 150 Jewish atheists who happened to be good people. Then, the 150 Jews wind up in hell because they didn't beleive in God (this is YOUR view). Now, the einsatzgruppen thugs have a (sincere) change of conscience and beg Jesus for forgiveness ---- boom, they skip hell and go to heaven. Is that what you call JUSTICE? It''s what I call idiocy.

ROFLMAO! You just don't get it do you? You're focusing on things that miss the big picture. Why do "good people" go to hell? Because ONE SIN damns them. No human being can be perfect. People that die and go to hell would go there no matter how they died, so stop pretending that that matters somehow.

The only thing that matters is accepting the fact that a person is a sinner and that no amount of 'works righteousness' can fix it.

A more realistic scenario is that the Jews go to purgatory to be cleansed (afterall, atheism isn't a really evil. It's just a sincere position of belief: it's not an active rebellion against God). On the other hand, the Nazi scumbags will NEVER ressurect; they will become dust. They will perish --- but they won't be tormented for eternity, they will simply cease to exist.

Nice idea, but it's a total fairy tale.

Oh so you share the Jehovah's witnesses' thing on "annihilation" eh?

But think about it. Annihilation doesn't solve your moral dilemma. In comparison, the annihilation idea has people getting off easy. Some people welcome the idea of extinguishment of existence. No more suffering etc.

But apparently souls are indestructible.

Your concept of "law" and "lawlessness" is irrelevent to the afterlife. If we exist as one with God; such is not possible. Your theories are based on one assumption: that once we die, the soul is in a fixed state as it had been during life. This, I must say, is a totally Graeco-Roman absurdity (who had people walking without eyes, or stil carrying the wounds of battle for all eternity in limbo as phantoms). Only the truelly wicked do not ressurect. Those with some inclination to do good (though they may at times fail) will invariably end up in paradise.

No, I think no such thing. Torment would be mostly verbal abuse, I'm thinking--until the Resurrection at least. EVERYONE will be resurrected and JUDGED. But mostly people will be tormented by the fact that they really screwed it up in life and will "weep and gnash teeth" and make themselves feel bad about themselves for all eternity.

The problem is WHO is wicked. You seem to think that one sincere repentence to a pagan idol is going to forgive them of all their sins and make them artficially righteous enough to enter paradise. This is absurd. Purgatory, as you call it, will only be open to those with an inclination to good. The TRUE wicked will never ressurect; no matter on whose name they call.

There is no purgatory. It's a figment of someone's fervent imagination. If there is Purgatory why is it not in the Torah?

It's not artificial righteousness. It's much-needed HELP. The only way our sins could be totally and fully forgiven is Christ taking the punishment that WE deserve.

And what's this BS about "True wicked"--isn't that a bit of a fudge there on your part? After all, didn't you just say earlier that EVERYONE has SOME good and some evil in them?

Again, you assume that EVERYONE who rejects your faith is "wicked". You're talking about GOOD people as "wicked" simply because they don't beleive in Jesus. On the other hand; a paedophile, murderer, thief, etc can all become artificially "righteous" an go to paradise. Some justice you have!

And how exactly are you deriving YOUR idea of "justice"? From whence cometh your inspiration from-on-high? What is "good"? If people don't do maybe nearly as many bad things as "bad" people but do not repent of those things, they are not "good"!

Your problem is you're using HUMAN standards of good and bad. God doesn't make distinctions that way.

As I said we all have a good and bad polarity, with different people at varying degrees either side. You assume that souls cannot change; I reject that initial assumption.

HUH? What are you talking about? Of course I believe souls can change. Just not without outside help.

Jesus never believed in your version of hell; he was speaking of She'ol / Hades (the underworld) in which ALL souls go. Just ask Theonomy :wink:

Then why did he tell a parable where the Rich man was in a place of terrible burning torment after death?

OK - you're a fool :rasberry: - do I go to hell now? (oh wait! I'm going there ANYWAY :lmbo: no matter what because I can't beleive in something that's not true. How convenient!)

ROFL! You haven't been reading enough JP Holding stuff have you? You calling me a "fool" in English isn't goona send you to hell.

How do you know that blahblahblah is not true?