- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote You are still working off a false assumption.
correct me then. Those who wrote the Bible did not believe that it was in any way disrespectful to write God's name. Evidence of this is the thousands of times they did it.
You believe it is more respectful to not write his name….just in case, I guess.
What I'm saying is that those who wrote the Hebrew scriptures–I'm on their side.
I'm saying that it is a superstitious tradition that has lead us to this idea, an idea that doesn't match up with what the prophets believed.Perhaps you could correct my false assumption. What is it you believe and why do you believe this.
Quote If Brittany spears and her mom go to the mall, the headlines read: “Brittany spears goes to the mall.”
Sure, maybe some of the papers might read:
“Brittany and mom go to mall.”But most, would focus on what is considered more important. [[Not that any of that is important in the least.]]
And it's not a contradiction in the least if one paper says:
“Brittany goes to the mall” and another says
“Brittany and mom go to the mall.”Obviously, they both went, but one only included what it thought was most important.
People do this all the time. Yet, here, you WANT it to be a contradiction. It isn't. If the one paper said “only Brittany” or “Brittany by herself” or “brittany alone” etc. Then, it would contradict the other statements.
In normal life common sense, this wouldn't be a contradiction. We don't go around saying things like: “John, henry, frank and that's it went to the party.”
If we know these people, we might say: “John and frank went to the party.”
This doesn't mean frank couldn't have gone. It means the person writing has more attachment to or thinks John and frank are more worth mentioning, more relavent.I know you understand what I'm saying.
Yet, you continue to claim this is a contradiction. It is not.
Are these examples of contradictions? If so, how does the statement:
“Brittany went to the mall” contradict “brittany and her mom went to the mall”
?
How?
Please explain.
What exactly contradicts what here?
I know, I messed up by originally telling you what actually happened: That they both went to the mall. I shouldn't have done that. I should have only given you those two statements.
But anyway, in your mind, do these two statments contradict each other?
Quote So you've just admitted that he violated one of these and was wicked. Interesting to say the least. No, what I admitted is that people who are cut off are often people who are cut off in death. (It just so happens that this is usually for bad reasons.)
Jesus was tried as a criminal, guilty of three charges, all of which were false.
Anyway, “cut off” does often refer to being cut off in death.Quote (david @ Nov. 02 2007,20:32) Quote The book of Job was a lesson in depending on G-d. G-d allows His children to be tested and tried so that they will turn to Him. As you can see Job did just that. Right, and in the first or second chapter (can't remember) we have “Satan” speaking to God.
What do you make of this?
This is what I make of it: 'satan' means 'adversary'. In this case the one that came before G-d was an 'adversary' of Job. The word 'satan' was used many times in the TanakhNum 22:22 And God's anger was kindled because he went: and the angel of the LORD stood in the way for an adversary {'satan'} against him. Now he was riding upon his ass, and his two servants were with him.
1Ki 11:14 And the LORD stirred up an adversary {'satan'}unto Solomon, Hadad the Edomite: he was of the king's seed in Edom.
1Ki 11:23 And God stirred him up another adversary {'satan'}, Rezon the son of Eliadah, which fled from his lord Hadadezer king of Zobah:
Psa 109:6 Set thou a wicked man over him: and let Satan {most modern bibles say 'accuser'} stand at his right hand.
Quote (david @ Nov. 02 2007,20:36) Quote Deu 30:15 See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil; The choices are: good–life
or evil–death.Those are the two choices.
And rightly, Jehovah brought evil or calamity upon Adam for his disobedience. Hence, in the Scriptures, Jehovah is referred to as the Creator of evil or calamity. (Isa 45:7)
His enforcing of the penalty for sin, namely, death, has proved to be an evil, or a calamity, for mankind.
But you make it seem like God is going around doing evil things, doing badness.
That hardly makes sense. There are many other Hebrew scriptures which say the opposite. A God of righteousness and justice, etc…
But this does not erase the fact that G-d was the one who created evil. It is part of our free will. Without evil there is no free will, no choice.Quote (david @ Nov. 02 2007,20:29) Quote You have to assume much to make up for the obvious contradictions. Here's a story:
1. John went into the house.
2. John drove away.Look at that crazy story. It is filled with contradictions. How could John drive away if he's in the house?
Well, I guess the writer could have left that part out.
Obvoiosly, there is no contradiction here. I correctly assume that he left the house in between doing #1 and doing #2.
You can call this making a bunch of assumptions to correct the “contradiction” of him driving away while he's in the house, but this is all very ridiculous.
common sense tells us that this isn't a contradiction. You are trying to make it one.
Right, Mark lists more people. Matthew doesn't list them all. A contradiction? Nope. Just one person including more information.
Quote I didn't jumble a thing. I am not the one who had to insert assertions and assumptions. I just worked with the written account and inserted or rearranged nothing.
TELL ME ABOUT IT. In our little analogy you didn't assume that he left the house and therefore you saw a contradiction.
I on the other hand filled in the obvious blanks. Not every detail of this event is covered. it would take pages to do that. We don't need to know every detail. We are told all we need to know. That is not good enough for you. You want to be told that he left the house, or it hurts your head. But to the rest, it is obvious he left the house. To the writer it is obvious he left the house. To common sense, it is obvious. To you, it is contradiction.david.
You filled in the apologetic blanks that make the story work. Yet you have no logical right to, only the need to believe.Creating something and allowing something to happen are different.
A mother gives birth to a baby. That baby grows up and decides it likes to steel. Did that mother create a thief?
Yes, God has allowed us the choice of doing bad things.
And he has allowed us the choice of doing good things.When I do a good thing, is it God that is creating it, or is it me?
And when I do a bad thing, is it God that is creating ir, or is it me?God allows it.
Quote (david @ Nov. 02 2007,21:05) Quote You are still working off a false assumption.
correct me then. Those who wrote the Bible did not believe that it was in any way disrespectful to write God's name. Evidence of this is the thousands of times they did it.
You believe it is more respectful to not write his name….just in case, I guess.
What I'm saying is that those who wrote the Hebrew scriptures–I'm on their side.
I'm saying that it is a superstitious tradition that has lead us to this idea, an idea that doesn't match up with what the prophets believed.Perhaps you could correct my false assumption. What is it you believe and why do you believe this.
Do I claim inspiration? Am I a prophet? No so I am writing as a casual G-d fearing individual. Please do not equate me with the ones who authored G-d's Holy Word.Quote (david @ Nov. 02 2007,21:12) Quote If Brittany spears and her mom go to the mall, the headlines read: “Brittany spears goes to the mall.”
Sure, maybe some of the papers might read:
“Brittany and mom go to mall.”But most, would focus on what is considered more important. [[Not that any of that is important in the least.]]
And it's not a contradiction in the least if one paper says:
“Brittany goes to the mall” and another says
“Brittany and mom go to the mall.”Obviously, they both went, but one only included what it thought was most important.
People do this all the time. Yet, here, you WANT it to be a contradiction. It isn't. If the one paper said “only Brittany” or “Brittany by herself” or “brittany alone” etc. Then, it would contradict the other statements.
In normal life common sense, this wouldn't be a contradiction. We don't go around saying things like: “John, henry, frank and that's it went to the party.”
If we know these people, we might say: “John and frank went to the party.”
This doesn't mean frank couldn't have gone. It means the person writing has more attachment to or thinks John and frank are more worth mentioning, more relavent.I know you understand what I'm saying.
Yet, you continue to claim this is a contradiction. It is not.
Are these examples of contradictions? If so, how does the statement:
“Brittany went to the mall” contradict “brittany and her mom went to the mall”
?
How?
Please explain.
What exactly contradicts what here?
I know, I messed up by originally telling you what actually happened: That they both went to the mall. I shouldn't have done that. I should have only given you those two statements.
But anyway, in your mind, do these two statments contradict each other?
I am done with this particular phase of our discussions. You refuse to acknowledge and I accept that refusal. Let it be done.Quote You filled in the apologetic blanks that make the story work. Yet you have no logical right to, only the need to believe. If “common sense” is not a “logical right” then you are correct. I have no logical right to fill in the blanks.
He went into his house.
He drove away.Yet, he didn't leave his house.
Of course we know he left his house. It's not stated, but obvious. I have EVERY RIGHT to use my God given powers of reason to understand the obvious–that he left the house.No, true, it's not stated. But there are 10,000 things that aren't stated in that account. We are only told what we are needed to be told.
Quote Please do not equate me with the ones who authored G-d's Holy Word. Oh trust me, I'm not.
I only thought that perhaps, you would want to imitate their fine ways.
Quote (david @ Nov. 02 2007,21:13) Quote Which priest? This seems to be a pretty significant prophecy.
Yes it is but no name is given. It is the events that matter. The temple is destroyed as is the holy city, Jerusalem. Do you not find that significant? It was the end of the second temple. The third temple will be built when the real Moshiach comes.Quote (david @ Nov. 02 2007,21:15) Quote So you've just admitted that he violated one of these and was wicked. Interesting to say the least. No, what I admitted is that people who are cut off are often people who are cut off in death. (It just so happens that this is usually for bad reasons.)
Jesus was tried as a criminal, guilty of three charges, all of which were false.
Anyway, “cut off” does often refer to being cut off in death.
Perhaps but show me in Jewish scripture where anyone was falsely cut off.Quote (david @ Nov. 02 2007,21:24) Quote You filled in the apologetic blanks that make the story work. Yet you have no logical right to, only the need to believe. If “common sense” is not a “logical right” then you are correct. I have no logical right to fill in the blanks.
He went into his house.
He drove away.Yet, he didn't leave his house.
Of course we know he left his house. It's not stated, but obvious. I have EVERY RIGHT to use my God given powers of reason to understand the obvious–that he left the house.No, true, it's not stated. But there are 10,000 things that aren't stated in that account. We are only told what we are needed to be told.
I am done with this particular phase of our discussions. You refuse to acknowledge and I accept that refusal. Let it be done.Quote I am done with this particular phase of our discussions. Fine, I tried to make it simpler for you, so you could see your obvious error and gain some common understanding.
I don't know how it could be any more plain. The fact that you refuse to answer the obvious, makes me think you actually do understand your error and don't want to discuss this any longer. I understand.
This, is common sense:
We don't go around saying things like: “John, henry, frank and that's it went to the party.”
If we know these people, we might say: “John and frank went to the party.”
This doesn't mean frank couldn't have gone. It means the person writing has more attachment to or thinks John and frank are more worth mentioning, more relevant.Anyway, if you withdraw from this conversation, I understand. You were unable to show me a contradiction other than the fact that one account lists all the people and one only focuses a few of them. THIS IS IN NO WAY A CONTRADICTION. And if it is, people contradict themselves a hundred times a day.
I believe I have proven this, and you have backed out of admitting that..
david
Quote Perhaps but show me in Jewish scripture where anyone was falsely cut off.
True, Christ was exceptional. No argument there.Quote Yes it is but no name is given. It is the events that matter. The temple is destroyed as is the holy city, Jerusalem. Do you not find that significant? It was the end of the second temple. The third temple will be built when the real Moshiach comes. Wouldn't we have to know the identity of this one?
24 “There are seventy weeks that have been determined upon your people and upon your holy city, in order to terminate the transgression, and to finish off sin, and to make atonement for error, and to bring in righteousness for times indefinite, and to imprint a seal upon vision and prophet, and to anoint the Holy of Holies. 25 And you should know and have the insight [that] from the going forth of [the] word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem until Mes·si′ah [the] Leader, there will be seven weeks, also sixty-two weeks. She will return and be actually rebuilt, with a public square and moat, but in the straits of the times.
26 “And after the sixty-two weeks Mes·si′ah will be cut off, with nothing for himself.
This particular messiah is messiah the “leader.” Yet, you don't know who it is?
Quote Please do not equate me with the ones who authored G-d's Holy Word.
I've always thought of “God” as the one who is the “author” of the Bible. Those who wrote it were his secretaries, writing his thoughts, the word of Jehovah.Quote (david @ Nov. 02 2007,21:30) Quote I am done with this particular phase of our discussions. Fine, I tried to make it simpler for you, so you could see your obvious error and gain some common understanding.
M error was not believing in you insertions. If i am to believe the Christian bible I must do so at face value not the apologetic insertions of someone who must believe lest they burn in the lake of fire.Quote I don't know how it could be any more plain. The fact that you refuse to answer the obvious, makes me think you actually do understand your error and don't want to discuss this any longer. I understand.
You insert, I explain. Thus you are extra-biblical and I am biblical.Quote This, is common sense:
We don't go around saying things like: “John, henry, frank and that's it went to the party.”
If we know these people, we might say: “John and frank went to the party.”
This doesn't mean frank couldn't have gone. It means the person writing has more attachment to or thinks John and frank are more worth mentioning, more relevant.Anyway, if you withdraw from this conversation, I understand. You were unable to show me a contradiction other than the fact that one account lists all the people and one only focuses a few of them. THIS IS IN NO WAY A CONTRADICTION. And if it is, people contradict themselves a hundred times a day.
I believe I have proven this, and you have backed out of admitting that..
david
I was unable to show you anything because you were determined not to see. You have what is called 'blind faith'. I have 'backed out' because your refusal to see the obvious is no longer worthy of my efforts. I could say the sky is blue but you will continue to say pink because you want to believe it is.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
