Open Debate Challenge: Forgiveness w/o the Temple

[themuzicman]

Guys, this is Garviel's thread. Please respect him and his intent, without getting into name-calling, OK? If you want to discuss this under different rules, start another thread.

Michael

[Krusader]

Christian 2 was challenged, and didn't accept, along with everyone else who viewed this thread or the original thread. I didn't hand-pick my contender, they took it upon themselves.





Thanks for the good laugh Crusader.

Laugh all you want, Gav. But listen closely to see who else is laughing.

[Gavriel]

it was just a weakness-offer. Gavriel cannot stand to loose.

Do you realize how insulting this is to all the members of this board?

You are alluding to that Crusader and yourself are master-debaters and I was too worried about loosing I choose to only debate "lesser" candidates from the rest of Tweb.

This is the same comments I received in PM's from sonofyah stating I only debated "weak" Christian's and I was too cowardly to debate someone of his "caliber." Well my challenge went unheard by him and many others.

I command LindaK for stepping up to the plate.

[Gavriel]

Guys, this is Garviel's thread. Please respect him and his intent, without getting into name-calling, OK? If you want to discuss this under different rules, start another thread.

Michael

Thank you.

[sylvius]

[QUOTE=Gavriel]

Do you realize how insulting this is to all the members of this board?

it wasn't meant as an insult.

You are alluding to that Crusader and yourself are master-debaters and I was too worried about loosing I choose to only debate "lesser" candidates from the rest of Tweb.

no.

I was alluding to your debating-style.
you're in for winning, not for truth.
(remember your question in the Trinity-thread, a question that was not a question at all).

This is the same comments I received in PM's from sonofyah stating I only debated "weak" Christian's and I was too cowardly to debate someone of his "caliber." Well my challenge went unheard by him and many others

.
From Sonofyah maybe, not from me.

[Krusader]

[QUOTE=sylvius]

it wasn't meant as an insult.


no.

I was alluding to your debating-style.
you're in for winning, not for truth.
(remember your question in the Trinity-thread, a question that was not a question at all).

.
From Sonofyah maybe, not from me.

I think the real insult was thrown at you and me, Sylvius - we can't stay on topic, blah, blah, blah. But, I don't really know whether or not a debate on forgiveness with Gav can really be genuine. When you exclude from the topic the means of forgiveness (blood atonement), and simply use isolated old testament verses which do not address the payment for sins, then the so-called "debate" is meaningless.

[Gavriel]

I think the real insult was thrown at you and me, Sylvius - we can't stay on topic, blah, blah, blah.

This isn't an insult, it's a verifiable observation.

But, I don't really know whether or not a debate on forgiveness with Gav can really be genuine. When you exclude from the topic the means of forgiveness (blood atonement),

Once again you want to debate everything in every thread. The debate topic is fixed, if you don't like it, I really don't care.

and simply use isolated old testament verses which do not address the payment for sins, then the so-called "debate" is meaningless.

This debate was in response to persons, like yourself, who claim Jews had no way to have their sins forgiven w/o the Temple. Naturally the Tanach would be used, considering it's the sacred text of the Jews, as well as it covers time w/ and w/o the Temple.

BTW these aren't "isolated" verses they are in-context verses, a foreign concept for you apparently.

[Krusader]

This isn't an insult, it's a verifiable observation.



Once again you want to debate everything in every thread. The debate topic is fixed, if you don't like it, I really don't care.



This debate was in response to persons, like yourself, who claim Jews had no way to have their sins forgiven w/o the Temple. Naturally the Tanach would be used, considering it's the sacred text of the Jews, as well as it covers time w/ and w/o the Temple.

BTW these aren't "isolated" verses they are in-context verses, a foreign concept for you apparently.

Actually, Gav, it is true that Jews have no means of having their sins atoned for apart from blood. I'm sorry to have to say this, but it is true, nevertheless.

[Gavriel]

Actually, Gav, it is true that Jews have no means of having their sins atoned for apart from blood. I'm sorry to have to say this, but it is true, nevertheless.

It's really not my problem if you blatantly disregard Scripture that says the direct opposite to what you just said.

[Krusader]

It's really not my problem if you blatantly disregard Scripture that says the direct opposite to what you just said.

I think you need to respond to my latest posting on blood atonement on the other thread. It would appear that "blatantly" disregarding Scripture might be more appropriately applied to those that reject God's Torah (Lev. 17:11).

[Gavriel]

I think you need to respond to my latest posting on blood atonement on the other thread. It would appear that "blatantly" disregarding Scripture might be more appropriately applied to those that reject God's Torah (Lev. 17:11).

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

I said: It's really not my problem if you blatantly disregard Scripture that says the direct opposite to what you just said.

Did you not see my response to your original topic? I conclusively proved their was non-blood atonement in the Torah, yet you glossed right over it to repeat your favorite mantra of blood=atonement.

It's becoming more and more of a waste of time to respond to your posts (what you say) because you don't have the common courteousy to do the same.

[Krusader]

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

I said: It's really not my problem if you blatantly disregard Scripture that says the direct opposite to what you just said.

Did you not see my response to your original topic? I conclusively proved their was non-blood atonement in the Torah, yet you glossed right over it to repeat your favorite mantra of blood=atonement.

It's becoming more and more of a waste of time to respond to your posts (what you say) because you don't have the common courteousy to do the same.

As I said, see my comments on the blood atonement posting. I don't have time to rehash everything for you. Read and respond. Lack of response will prove my point.

[Gavriel]

As I said, see my comments on the blood atonement posting. I don't have time to rehash everything for you. Read and respond. Lack of response will prove my point.

This is the end of my participation in this thread. The thread's intent was to receive a challenger to my debate, which has been accomplished.

I will respond to the issues you raise in your thread about blood atonement, because that is where it belongs, not here.

Thanks!

[Krusader]

This is the end of my participation in this thread. The thread's intent was to receive a challenger to my debate, which has been accomplished.

I will respond to the issues you raise in your thread about blood atonement, because that is where it belongs, not here.

Thanks!

Exactly my point!

Also, what a sham - you consider debating a non-Christian regarding forgiveness apart from Temple rituals a real debate? Get real, Gav.

[Menachem]

Exactly my point!

Also, what a sham - you consider debating a non-Christian regarding forgiveness apart from Temple rituals a real debate? Get real, Gav.

Gee what a surprise more blood atonement garbage and an inability to stay on topic. What a surprise!