Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Jesus: Why I believe He was a failure.
Brian
Member (Idle past 4960 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 286 of 427 (544744)
01-28-2010 3:06 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by New Cat's Eye
01-27-2010 3:40 PM


Re: Why I know Jesus was a success
get your point but one book by one author is a lot less impressive than the group of books that the Bible is.
So, a group of unknown authors sit with books written centuries before and scribe their books to tally with these books and this is impressive in some way?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-27-2010 3:40 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-28-2010 11:18 AM Brian has not replied
 Message 297 by Iblis, posted 01-29-2010 4:15 AM Brian has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 287 of 427 (544749)
01-28-2010 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 285 by Nuggin
01-27-2010 5:29 PM


Re: Why I know Jesus was a success
A good example would be the Horus Heresy series of the Warhammer 40.000 universe. It currently has 11 books out, and with 4 still underway (and that's probably not even the end of it). So far, 8 different authors have penned the different books. The series is internally consistent, contains gods and daemons, even a saint, and some view the Emperor of Mankind as a living god.
See here

I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Nuggin, posted 01-27-2010 5:29 PM Nuggin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Asgara, posted 01-28-2010 9:03 AM Huntard has not replied

  
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2303 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 288 of 427 (544766)
01-28-2010 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by Huntard
01-28-2010 3:32 AM


Re: Why I know Jesus was a success
Or the Star Trek universe. Hundreds of books by multiple authors, movies, cartoons. Some are canon, following what is called the bible, some are not.
Any relatively aware fan can tell you what is canon and what is not. Even those not quite following form still revolve around the same characters, the same locations, mentioning happenings in other books or movies.
There is a certain history, a timeline that is "sacred" to canonical work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Huntard, posted 01-28-2010 3:32 AM Huntard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by Nuggin, posted 01-28-2010 10:09 AM Asgara has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 289 of 427 (544772)
01-28-2010 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 288 by Asgara
01-28-2010 9:03 AM


Re: Why I know Jesus was a success
Any relatively aware fan can tell you what is canon and what is not.
Spock and Kirk getting it on. Not canon, yet oddly about half of the fan fiction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Asgara, posted 01-28-2010 9:03 AM Asgara has not replied

  
John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2996 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 290 of 427 (544775)
01-28-2010 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by Nuggin
01-27-2010 11:29 AM


Re: Why I know Jesus was a success
Excuse me. I thought you were serious about wanting to know what God says in His Old & New Testament message to those He is drawing to Himself. Since you are not, you may disreguard the Bible as being relevant for you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Nuggin, posted 01-27-2010 11:29 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by Nuggin, posted 01-28-2010 11:30 AM John 10:10 has not replied

  
John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2996 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 291 of 427 (544776)
01-28-2010 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by Brian
01-27-2010 11:56 AM


Re: Why I know Jesus was a success
I will give you one more prophesy concerning Jesus in Acts 3. When you see the Jewish people turning as nation to Jesus as their Messiah, then you can be assured the Lord's 2nd coming is very near.
18 "But the things which God announced beforehand by the mouth of all the prophets, that His Christ would suffer, He has thus fulfilled.
19 "Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord ;
20 and that He may send Jesus, the Christ appointed for you,
21 whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time.
22 "Moses said, 'THE LORD GOD WILL RAISE UP FOR YOU A PROPHET LIKE ME FROM YOUR BRETHREN ; TO HIM YOU SHALL GIVE HEED to everything He says to you.
23 'And it will be that every soul that does not heed that prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.'
24 "And likewise, all the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and his successors onward, also announced these days.
25 "It is you who are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant which God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, 'AND IN YOUR SEED ALL THE FAMILIES OF THE EARTH SHALL BE BLESSED.'
26 "For you first, God raised up His Servant and sent Him to bless you by turning every one of you from your wicked ways."
Edited by John 10:10, : spelling error

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Brian, posted 01-27-2010 11:56 AM Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by Nuggin, posted 01-28-2010 11:35 AM John 10:10 has replied
 Message 296 by purpledawn, posted 01-28-2010 2:01 PM John 10:10 has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 292 of 427 (544780)
01-28-2010 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by Brian
01-28-2010 3:06 AM


Re: Why I know Jesus was a success
get your point but one book by one author is a lot less impressive than the group of books that the Bible is.
So, a group of unknown authors sit with books written centuries before and scribe their books to tally with these books and this is impressive in some way?
More impressive than one author with one book, yes.
I'm not contending his point, I just thought he could have had a more analogous example.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Brian, posted 01-28-2010 3:06 AM Brian has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 293 of 427 (544782)
01-28-2010 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by John 10:10
01-28-2010 10:32 AM


Re: Why I know Jesus was a success
Excuse me. I thought you were serious about wanting to know what God says in His Old & New Testament message to those He is drawing to Himself. Since you are not, you may disreguard the Bible as being relevant for you.
Of course it's not relevant for me. It's fiction.
It's relevant for you because you want it to be. Just like Harry Potter is relevant for hundreds of thousands of kids. Doesn't change the fact that it's fiction.
If you want to say: "Hey, the philosophies set out in these books are good and I want to live by them." that's fine.
The problem is that people on your side of the debate aren't saying that. What they are saying is this: "Hey, this book is fact and therefore people who are NOT members of my religion ALSO have to obey these rules." And that, buddy, is bullcrap.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by John 10:10, posted 01-28-2010 10:32 AM John 10:10 has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 294 of 427 (544784)
01-28-2010 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 291 by John 10:10
01-28-2010 10:40 AM


Re: Why I know Jesus was a success
I will give you one more prophesy concerning Jesus in Acts 3. When you see the Jewish people turning as nation to Jesus as their Messiah, then you can be assured the Lord's 2nd coming is very near.
Here's the problem. 2nd Jesus ALREADY came and went.
There was another figure known to religion. Here are some of the things he did:
- Walked on water
- Raised a dead man named Alazarus
- Cured the blind
- Cured the diseased
- Died, went to Hell and was raised back up
- Died on a cross along with two other men
- Was born to a virgin, signified by a star
- His birth was heralded by servants of the almighty, as he was the son of the almighty
- He was known as the sheppard of men
Sound familiar?
If I told you this man is from 500 AD, wouldn't you say that he was the 2nd coming? Or is he a work of fiction? If he's a work of fiction, how do you know Jesus is real and he is false and not the other way around?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by John 10:10, posted 01-28-2010 10:40 AM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-28-2010 11:40 AM Nuggin has not replied
 Message 427 by John 10:10, posted 07-01-2010 9:59 AM Nuggin has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 295 of 427 (544785)
01-28-2010 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by Nuggin
01-28-2010 11:35 AM


Re: Why I know Jesus was a success
Sound familiar?
If I told you this man is from 500 AD, wouldn't you say that he was the 2nd coming?
Neat. Who is it? Got a link?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Nuggin, posted 01-28-2010 11:35 AM Nuggin has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 296 of 427 (544811)
01-28-2010 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by John 10:10
01-28-2010 10:40 AM


Joshua Was Like Moses, Not Jesus
quote:
I will give you one more prophesy concerning Jesus in Acts 3. When you see the Jewish people turning as nation to Jesus as their Messiah, then you can be assured the Lord's 2nd coming is very near.
The problem with what the author is saying in Acts is that the phrase supposedly spoken by Moses was not referring to a time over 1,000 years later.
Moses is talking to the audience in front of him. Those actual people would receive a prophet like Moses, not people a thousand years later. Italic additions are mine.
Deuteronomy 18:14-15 (This is Moses talking to his audience)
The nations you (people listening to Moses) will dispossess listen to those who practice sorcery or divination. But as for you (people listening to Moses), the LORD your God has not permitted you (people listening to Moses) to do so. The LORD your God will raise up for you (people listening to Moses) a prophet like me from among your (people listening to Moses) own brothers. You (people listening to Moses) must listen to him.
Since that specific group of people didn't want to hear God's booming voice, only one person would talk with God. God said that was good and he said so to Moses.
Deuteronomy 18:17
The LORD said to Me (Moses): "What they say is good. I (God) will raise up for them (people listening to Moses) a prophet like you (Moses) from among their (people listening to Moses) brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them (people listening to Moses) everything I command him.
The Israelites needed someone to lead when Moses died. They didn't care about 1,000 years in the future. Joshua was like Moses. God spoke to him and told him what to tell the Israelites. The author of Acts is not keeping true to the simple reading of the OT verses referenced when he applies the verse to Jesus. More of a technique to manipulate their audience instead of speaking facts.
Jesus wasn't like Moses. He didn't lead or govern the Israelites.

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by John 10:10, posted 01-28-2010 10:40 AM John 10:10 has not replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3896 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


(1)
Message 297 of 427 (544884)
01-29-2010 4:15 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by Brian
01-28-2010 3:06 AM


Why I know Cthulhu was a success
and this is impressive in some way?
A really good example for this sort of thing would be the Lovecraft mythos. Howard Phipps pirated a very small amount of esoteric references to bolster his pulp horror stories and make his Outer Gods and Old Ones more believable, and ended up creating a very compelling fictional world. It was so compelling that in his own time several other writers tapped into it with his permission and it served as a guide to what to do and what not to do in developing horror fiction.
As a result of this "guide" status, new generations of writers have continued to pay homage to the mythos, generally tapping into minor bits of dramatic window-dressing to create whole new myths explaining those references. Thanks to August Derleth's misinterpretation of Lovecraft's ideas, a lot of these differ strongly from what the sage of Providence ever talked about or cared for.
This is very similar to the way the Old and New Testament worked out. The Pentateuch reconstruction of the thought of Moses, and the attached Prophets giving it new applicability for other situations, inspired a whole mass of very un-Mosaic literature around the turn of the aeon. These various parties of gnostics and apocalyptics and minority talmudists grab bits and pieces of Torah and Nephibim and twist them all out of shape to support whole new ideas and allegories that no one in Old Testament times would have liked in the least. Ezekiel in particular would have been horrified by the New Testament cycle.
Ezekiel 8:14,15 writes:
Then he brought me to the door of the gate of the LORD'S house which [was] toward the north; and, behold, there sat women weeping for Tammuz.
Then said he unto me, Hast thou seen [this], O son of man? turn thee yet again, [and] thou shalt see greater abominations than these.
Jesus in comparative mythology - Wikipedia
Another reason that the Cthulhu mythos is a good model for the development of the New Testament from the old is that since the 1960s the Lovecraft entities have received a lot of usage in Magickal studies, as a demonstration that fictional deities are just as good as allegedly "real" ones. As is always the case with good magic, this has resulted in the spawning of numerous more or less deluded religions.
Some of these are awful, they essentially believe that much of the corpus is "literally true" and that the Great Old Ones are real beings from outer space who are trapped in other dimensions and can be temporarily unleashed to do the usual demonic stuff. Others are more mature, one of my favorites is a group who have pirated John Gray's ideas and essentially developed an analogical system around the theme that Men Are From Dunwich, Women Are From Innsmouth.
Some pretty interesting parallels there, aren't there? And in a thousand years or so no one will be able to see much difference between the two religious traditions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Brian, posted 01-28-2010 3:06 AM Brian has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 298 of 427 (545353)
02-03-2010 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by PaulK
01-27-2010 11:50 AM


Re: Whose Interpretation Contradicts?
Paulk writes
And even the simplest of minds should be able to tell the difference between knowing what a text says and believing it. Even if we grant that God is supposedly the originator of the prophecy (but NOT of the book itself) and that the writers believed that God was directing events, this does not tell us that these things are true. Nor - if we are taking the book as a historical document - can we assume that they are true.
Paul, knowing what the text says or believing what the text has nothing or little to do with involving the entire context. I will admit you learned some very skillful tactics to avoid a point. In debate this is called a smokescreen, you might remember it from your days in Alabama at the university
You flip flop around like a bug on a hot plate. Who said anything about any of it being true, right now we are simply talking about keeping things in context, or at bare minimum considering the entire context. You do see the difference correct?
Oh, and I studied logic at the University of Birmingham, if you must know.
Well, there you go
quote:
________________________________________
EAM writes
To this point in the debate you have REFUSED acknowledge the text from this standpoint. To make this point clear to all readers here I would ask you to provide the post or statement, where you have included God, either directly or indirectly as a part of the text. We on the other hand have considered and addressed most if not all of brians contentions and entertained them as possiblities to the solution.
________________________________________
Simply demanding that we adopt your viewpoint - a repeated theme in your posts - is neither reasonable or productive. As I have repeatedly pointed out, this thread is about Brian's reasoning, and if you wish to show that that is invalid you need to either do it within Brian's viewpoint (which treats the Bible like any other historical document) or provide arguments for your views. You have done neither. Nor have you even come up with an argument which makes use of those assumptions.
Would you please just debate and leave off the insinuations. Im not asking anybody to adopt anything but a little common sense. Right now that involves you acknowledging a statement like 7:13 in its entire context
What thinking person would simply ascribe a teaching on a topic to a single verse and give its entire meaning without viewing its entire context.
I will now address this repeated nonsense that Brians view point does not include the context or makeup of the context. Brains contention was that jesus was a failure, he references prophecy AND BLOODLINE. Simply because he lists these things is no indication that they should not be discussed from the source or context they are derived. paulK has come up with this rule that we MUST only discuss that single aspect, not Brian. No where in the OP does Brian insist this is the only aspect involved. As a matter of fact he states
Brian writes in his OP:
What is the evidence then? Well the ONLY record of the life of Jesus is the text of the New Testament and of other biblical texts (such as The Gospel of Thomas and Gospel of Barnabas) that did not make the cut when the editing committees constructed the NT. Since these texts are not normally referred to when making a case for Jesus’ Messianic claims we just need to look at the current NT texts.
We also have to look at another collection of texts, The Tanakh, since that is where the origins of messianic ideology begin. We need to look there to discover what the Messiah actually is then apply the verses to the life of Jesus we have in the NT.
Paul do you see the word CONTEXT IMPLIED in his statements, I do. Did you catch his very last sentence in this quote
Understanding or believing Paul, really. How would you do either without the entire context, which ofcourse includes theNT as Brian has pointed out in his OP.
EMA writesquote:
________________________________________
Now tell your audience again Paul who is disregarding the text.
________________________________________
Paul writes:
You and Peg. Peg's reading - which you apparently jumped in to defend - is not valid and you have yet to make any sort of argument to the contrary.
There is nothing wrong with Pegs reading if we take the entire context into consideration. Something you have refused to do even to this point and have now lost the debate from that aspect alone, Tell us plainly Paul is the entire context important or not?
EMA writes
quote:
________________________________________
See here is what I mean, More side tracking verbage that refuses to take the take the text at face value
________________________________________
That "side track" was a direct answer to a question that YOU raised. And of course if I hadn't answered you would likely accuse me of evading the issue.
But the question I raised was more than valid. But thanks for admitting you are using both, side track and evasion. That will help the audience to see you haven’t yet answered whether context is important or not, as of yet.
Oh yeah that’s right, ‘believing’ verses ‘understanding’, I forgot. Talking at a question is not the same as answering it, so Ill put in another form.
If as the text suggests, God is involved in this process of kingdoms and kingship, specifically the one mentioned by Nathan, ie, tell david, this or that Is it possible that pegs contention that the throne and not a person is under consideration here ? given the fact that the originator of the thread suggested we should look at all involved to make an informed decision?
Ema writes:quote:
________________________________________
relevance of the plain text needs to be demonstrated??????. First you cry that we are disregarding the plain text, then you isolate a single verse, which disregards the plain text, then you disregard the rest of the text which speaks of Gods involvement, then you disregard Pegs very insightful observation that it is the THRONE, not a person, that is under consideration, then AFTER ALL OF THIS ABSURDITY, you have the nerve to conclude that I am somehow not going by the plain text. reaaly Paul, do you think your readers are not seeing these simple points.
________________________________________
Any reader who "sees" any such thing has a problem, since none of them is true.
But Paul your making an invalid assumption, Im not asking you to believe the text, only to respond as to whether CONTEXT might be important, since our esteemed thread originator suggested it was.
EMA writes
quote:
________________________________________
Your problem is that you are not ACTUALLY prepared to discuss the text, but have involved yourself in a vicious circle and problem from which you cannot extricate yourself
________________________________________
Can you just skip the false accusations and actually produce a rational argument ?
I already have numerous times. Here it is again, if the text is to be adhered to then its more than reasonable to UNDERSTAND, COMPREHEND, FATHOM,BELIEVE, that a THRONE AND NOT A SINGLE PERSON, is under consideration.
Your problem Paul is that you saw the force of Buz and Pegs argument and had to scramble to the ridiculous position that we must simply go by what 7:13 says alone, without text or context, or what the rest of the scriptures has to say on the topic
A slick move but very observable and obvious to any thinking reader as to what you attempted. Remember Paul Brians post includes an examination of more than one verse, or would you like for me to re quote the OP
________________________________________
This is all just an attempt to bully by assertion. Unless and until you can produce a rational argument to support your claims I have no reason to believe them. My pride doesn't enter into it.
Ignoring my claims is not the same as responding to them and you have made no effort to respond to my contention of ignoring the context ,either in part or whole
Am I incorrect in stating that our originator suggested what the rest of the scriptures had to say concerning these matters?
My further educated observation is that you did not actually understand what the scriptures taught on the throne of David or the kingdom of Israel before you involved yourself in such a discussion. You really should study it from a Biblical perspective next time before entering into a discussion on which you have little or no knowledge
quote:
________________________________________
EMA wrirtes:
nathans prophecy is useless and pointless without a belief that it is actual and REAL in the first place. Since you will find nathans prophecy nowhere outside the book of Samuel, how in the world could it be understood or believed outside of its ENTIRE CONTEXT, or for that matter INSIDE its context and ISOLATING one verse as you do
________________________________________
Again this is all assertion and no argument.
But Paul, you have been proceeding in this discussion, if only from argument sake, as if these events might have actually happen. You form your arguments confidently against a passage or text, then assure us this is all we need do, to comprehend the meaning of the writer. You establish your methodology as if it were the only acceptable method of approach.
Then when this method of approach is demonstrated to be silly at best you resort to the ole, well it doesn’t matter anyway none of this real in the first place
After all of this you still have not demonstrated that the throne itself is not what is under consideration verses a single person.
Many other passages have been introduced to demonstrate this point, you have categorically dismissed, ignored and failed to respond to a single one as was suggested by our originator in his opening comments.
EMA writes:quote:
________________________________________
Im certainly not going to proceed in a discussion with a person that actually believes Hercules was actually involved with and direct by a pantheon of mythological Gods. i would pat them on the head, smile and say, you have a nice day now
________________________________________
Paul writes:
But you are prepared to demand that I do something very like that.
You really don’t see things as they really are do you? Through no influence of mine and much to my surprise YOU chose involve yourself in a discussion of Biblical themes, hoping people would disregard the text, the very obvious fact that God, the spiritual and miraculous are repleat in the text and thrn suggest we should ignore and disregard all of these obvious items in favor of your humanistic approach.
Im not demanding anything only suggesting that to proceed in a discussion where these things are involved, THEN NEVER MENTION THEM IS A BIT SILLY.
A Humanistic approach that disregards the text allows for nearly any interpretation
PaulK writes
________________________________________
Except for the fact that I am not attempting to do anything so broad. All I am attempting to do is establish whose kingdom it is, according to 2 Samuel 7:13. And the most important aspect would be the text of 2 Samuel 7:13. And yes it is absurd to try to exclude the clear meaning of it as Peg tried to do.
Peg writes:
Solomon was to be the builder temple, but another decendent would be the indefinitely lasting ruler of Davids throne.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EAM writes: [/qs]Now watch this, his conclusions do not violate that text and more importantly they are supported by the rest of the Old and NT[/qs]
PaulK writes:
Really ? Perhaps you can explain how the quote above can be read from 2 Samuel 7:13
EMA writes
i know your readers do Paul, but perhaps now you are starting to see the relevance of the entire text and God in the process.
________________________________________
PaulK writes:
Apparently YOU don't know because you were meant to be explaining it and you haven't.
I have explained the most important part, the part where text, the entire text is meant to be taken into consideration. You have avoided a very careful and insightful argument presented by the other fellows, that the throne, not an individual was under consideration. You have avoided it by the use of verbage and side tracking cavils
quote:
________________________________________
EAM writes
Paul there is no common ground here and we might as well be talking about hercules.
We have acknowledged brians aspects and only when you wish to be objective and consider the possibility that God was actually directing samuel, Nathan and these individuals, will the discussion have any common frame of reference.
if you start with the belief that God does not exist, not a part of the scriptures, the discussion is nonsensical. i dont know how to better make this point.
________________________________________
PaulK writes:
If the only way you can make a point is to loudly assert it, with added false accusations for spice then there is a good chance that it isn't true. Even worse, it seems that you can't even provide a rational argument even with your preferred assumptions. our
I love the way you avoid a point. You belittle, insult and ignore, nearly everything presented to you, then hope the audience ignores that you have not yet responded to my argument.
Certainly, if we are asked to accept your outlandish method of isolating a single verse, drawing incomplete textual CONCLUSIONS, ignoring the fact that Gods involvement is spread across the chapter, text, book and scriptures, if even for argument sake.
My guess is that you never will
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by PaulK, posted 01-27-2010 11:50 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by PaulK, posted 02-03-2010 12:43 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 299 of 427 (545362)
02-03-2010 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by Dawn Bertot
02-03-2010 11:33 AM


Re: Whose Interpretation Contradicts?
Well we can look through your posts and see a lot of false accusations a lot of assertions and the odd insult. But no argument. The most we have is references to arguments that were allegedly made - but weren't.
All you've proven EMA, is that you don't have an argument - just a lot of bullying bluster. And if anyone can be bothered to read your nasty little screeds, they will see that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-03-2010 11:33 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-03-2010 1:31 PM PaulK has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 300 of 427 (545375)
02-03-2010 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 299 by PaulK
02-03-2010 12:43 PM


Re: Whose Interpretation Contradicts?
Well we can look through your posts and see a lot of false accusations a lot of assertions and the odd insult. But no argument. The most we have is references to arguments that were allegedly made - but weren't.
All you've proven EMA, is that you don't have an argument - just a lot of bullying bluster. And if anyone can be bothered to read your nasty little screeds, they will see that.
I will take this as a defeat, that you refuse to acknowldege the importance of context and keeping things in context.
Thanks for the exchange
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by PaulK, posted 02-03-2010 12:43 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by PaulK, posted 02-03-2010 1:47 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024