Jesus: Why I believe He was a failure.

I will admit you have a way of stating things that makes an opponent of yours appear irrational and overly emotional. But happily, I have been doing this long enough to recognize such tactics and dismiss them as an inability by yourself to be objectiveheres what I mean: Its not my theology, its in the text, its in the text of the entire Old testament, to which you have not and will not respond to simple questions. Is God mentioned in the text? Does the scripture say it is Gods throne not Davids primarily and exclusively Is the miraculous involved in the process. is God the one that established, amintained and took away these thrones.Your statement that it is my theology is an obvious attempt to distract the reader form the FACT that the text mentions ALL OF THESE THINGS, along with the physical parameters, that you so happily attach yourself to.Please tell me what part of the text am I ignoring. My goodness man I am begging you to take it all, how can I be ignoring it. But thats the point Paul, please explain what theological views you dont share. Is it simply that you dont believe there is more after the physical kingdom was taken away? its it that you dont believe God is its author and finisher? Is it you dont believe that that the scriptures call it Gods Kingdom? it is you dont believe that as Peg and Buz have pointed out, that its the throne thats involved not Solomon? Is it that you dont believe the part about Gods involvement in the process? is it you believe that we should only take what this book or single passage has to say about Davids, Solomons or Gods kingdom?Is it that you have adopted such a humanistic approach you will not entertain God here and that all of this is the ramblings of a crazy person.How in the world man, can you have a serious discussion about bible topics, without you telling someone what theological views you DONT SHARE. if its all physical with no REAL theological REALITIES, the text is useless AS COMMON GROUND. Paul, if you cant discuss the CONTEXT (the theological views), then the historicity is pointlessPaul, it is ridiculous to assume one can share Brians views, where the text mentions the nature of Gods kingdom and its fruition, when it (especially the Bible), is being viewed from a single point of view. Its an exercise in futility. Brians points have been approached and dealt with, even if not to his satisfaction. Now you do the same Without sounding childish, this is the exact point I am making about you and PD. Peg, Buz and myself to a certain degree have responded to all of Brians contentions and yours concering adoption, linage and textual criticism. You on the other hand have STEADFASTLY refused to acknowledge the text from the standpoint of God, Gods involvement. Gods entire dealing of the subject of the kingdom. YOU QUIETLY IGNORE IT AND SAY ITS IRRELEVANT here is another example of the point I am making at present. categorical dogmatic accusations that have NO bases in reality.No, I am asking that you be objective and true to t he text you use with such confidence. Take it all in Paul, not just that which suits your purposeEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

While I know you dont really believe this if you have any belief in God at all, this statement along with the rest of your post demonstrates a total lack of objectivity, rational and even slightest bit of common sense, not to mention a total disregard to contextual consideration and biblical considerations.As I said before if your stricly humanistic approach makes you happy, then by all means, stick with itEAM

I will admit and am very happy you have decided to answer these questions directly. this is something that many here would not do regardless of ones persistence to such important questions.Thank you for your honestly
At this point I am sure you could see why such a response would for all intents and purposes end any type of rational discussion for common ground.Out of curiosity however, why do yo think the composers of such books under consideration would reference God in the first place? Why do you think they believed God was directling these affairs and thier comments. If they believed this and they were mistaken from your perspective, would much of anything else they had to say be of any real value. My mistake, I thought when brian and yourself were considering the fact that Jesus was or was not a failure, that all relevant information in the text would be considered. If not who cares who Samuel or Jesus were, correct? Surely Samuel, Nathan David, Solomon and Jesus were just made up or they were all insane, pyschotic or very imaginative and if this is the case, who really cares?For sake of argument, if you were to assume, Gods actual involvement in the process as the text CLEARLY suggest, would this make difference in your evaluations?Forgive my ignorance, who is Slevesque? If he is just another atheist, your response is not necessary. Why would I not RELY ON THEOLOGICAL arguments when they litter the text. Surely without them, the text is a joke, like that of any greek mythology, correct?Your verbage above assumes indirectly that the supernatural is not a rational or logical way to proceed, when it is a very real part of the text. I will say it again, the supernatural is not my ASSUMPTION, its right there in the text.I might ask, why do you assume it is correct to cherry pick the text, then try and make a rational argument without it. Who truely is assuming anything here, if we are going to go stricly by the text?. te reader of our debate can easily see that it is yourself, who is assuming anything. surely you can see the completly contradictory statements in your above interesting comment. Thats what I have been contending for you to do, TELL US WHAT THE TEXT SAYS IN CONTEXT. Surely you wouldnt want us to take it out of context with the whole chapter of book would you Wow, again with the insults and debating tactics. Im happy to let ther reader decide whether i have made rational arguments and rebutalsAngry rants? really, Paul I remember one time I was reading the Bogard-Warlick debate between a baptist Ben M Bogard and Joe S. Warlick, and watching Bro. Joe gettiing up and looking straight at Mr Bogard, in much frustration and make this statement, "ben I believe it is impossible for you to get anything correct"Paul, I cant INSERT, myself into a discussion that Brian and myself started. I challenged Brian to demonstrate why Jesus was a failure, that makes myself and him the originators of this discussion. Do you get the implication here? Your attempts derive a conclusion on a broad topic like the kingdom of God, kingdom of David, Kingdom of Solomom and the such like from one single verse is simply ludicrous.besides all of this to exclude the most important aspect is simply ludicrous. Peg did not say it was not Solomons kingdom entirley. This another direct statement by yourself to cause prejudice. His implicatioon was simply that the THRONE was under consideration, not a single person at that point.Now watch this, his conclusions do not violate that text and more importantly they are supported by the rest of the Old and NT If you cannot see what his points and conclusions are at this point, its likely you never will. What passage were you refering to in Chronicles, there is no 37EAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

Ok ill try once more, have to run for now

PaulK writes:Sorry I have neglected this presently, I have been very busy with job related stuff. I will return to your last post as soon as I can. again sorryEAM

I dont know where you studied logic or how to analyze a text, but I m pretty sure even the simplest of minds would require us to keep 7:13 in the entire context of the chapter and book, which clearly includes God as its author and God as directing these affairs.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.Paul, are you going to admint that God is repleat in the text and assume atleast the possibility of his involvement? or are you going to use verbage to disregard that point, util the discussion becomes pointlessNow tell your audience again Paul who is disregarding the text. See here is what I mean, More side tracking verbage that refuses to take the take the text at face value 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.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 I know you have your pride Paul, but some people really should just say, I should not have involved in a discussion, where I had not considered all the logical ramifications beforehand.Paul, if you and brian believe that most of the Old testament statements and stories are myth in the first place, then there is no rational way for you to make the following statement: given the fact that you and brian believe most of even the Old testament to be myth, this is without a doubt the most ignorant statement I have ever heard.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 on verse as you doYour method of proceeding, is absurd at best. Please be my guest and explain how Nathans prophecy could be understood outside of its ENTIRE CONTEXT and without including his comments about God in the process No. But, nor would i proceed in a discussion with a Mormon or muslim without the idea or consideration, that God does not exist or that it is not possible that he is or is not possible author of thier writings. I would assume that he exists and that he could have something to do with those writings. it would be pointless otherwise.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 Peg writes:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------EAM writes:PaulK 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.Any person looking at your above statement would probably pat you on the head and say have a nice day.Paul if God exists and is the author of the book of samuel and the rest of the Old and New testaments, its not hard to figure out how peg would get that out of a single text.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.EAM

Paulk writes 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? Well, there you goquote:
________________________________________
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.
________________________________________ 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:Paul do you see the word CONTEXT IMPLIED in his statements, I do. Did you catch his very last sentence in this quoteUnderstanding 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: 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 ________________________________________ 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:
________________________________________ ________________________________________ 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 ________________________________________ 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________________________________________ 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 knowledgequote:
________________________________________EMA wrirtes: ________________________________________ 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:
________________________________________ ________________________________________Paul writes: 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 interpretationPaulK writes
________________________________________ Peg writes: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------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: EMA writes ________________________________________
PaulK writes: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 cavilsquote:
________________________________________
EAM writes ________________________________________
PaulK writes: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 willEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

I will take this as a defeat, that you refuse to acknowldege the importance of context and keeping things in context.Thanks for the exchangeEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.

PD writes:Oh no, am I going to need to extract from you as we did Paul exacally what your position on God and Gods alleged word is or is not? He was man enough to bring forward his position and beliefs in this respect, which basically demonstrated the fallacy of his approach, atleast from my and others respectYou speak as if you dont believe the bible can be taken as one text. As I explained to Paul anyone can look at one verse and derive any conclusion they wish, especially if they percieve it as a work of a man or group of men with no particular direction except thier own.In that respect, not only was jesus a failure but so was everybody else in the Old Testament as well.here is a simple question. If the throne is not Gods throne as the other passages Peg has quoted indicate and ascribe, then what are the scriptures? Are they a work of men or are they work of God through men.When you can answer this question candidly and without evasion, you have no problem figuring out whose throne it actually is in the scripturesMy guess is that you will not be as straight forword as was Paul, you and I have been down this road before.My and Pegs mind work as if the scriptures are the word of God, completely. If that is not what you expected can please tell me how you expected our minds to work

Hardly, I was simply pointing out your failure to acknowledge the simple rule of exegesis which requires any form of contextual examination. I was claiming no victory, I was actually expressing disappointment on your part to provide this simple ruleEAM

You can use the Bible as proof of the Bible, if you are having a Biblical discussion in a Biblical context. As I told the atheistic PaulK, our goal here is not to demonstrate at this point whether the scriptures are the word of God, but to look at the totality of scripture, AS OUR ILLUSTRIOUS ORIGINATOR OF THE THREAD INDICATED, we should, to determine the qualifications of Jesus Go back and read the OP, understand the nature of the discussion from that standpointThere is no indication in the OP as to why we should not assume for argument sake we are dealing with t he word of God as a whole, or atleast we may proceed in that manner, without everyother line by skeptics, stating, it isnt real anyway.The idiocy, which proceeds in a discussion, assuming that these are simply the works of men, with no inspiration from and of God, is both a waste of time and and will result in total chaos from an argument standpoint, for those that believe that it is actually a total work of God. Believing God is nowhere in the process is profitable for nothing such a discussion, for anyone could ascribe any meaning they wish to any passage or text. If however the scriptures are viewed on a whole as Gods Word, the discussion will have some simlitude of relevanceIf one views the fulfillments in Jesus as stricly physical items to be determined at every turn, approaching it from a work of men, then most if not all of the meanings will be missed. Samething for the Old Testament as wellAs I explained to Paul and PurpleD many times now, God never intended Israel to have a king other than himself, he never intended there to be ONLY a physical kingdom, even though there existed a physical aspect of it represented in physical formEarly on God said to Samuel, "Give them all thier hearts desire, because they have not rejected you, they have rejected me, THAT I MIGHT REIGN OVER THEM."I believe kings reign correct?Only a humanist or the psuedo-theologian, not paying any attention at all will not put the above passage together with 2 Samuel 7:13, to see that they are speaking about the same thing. One is speaking about one aspect of it at one point, the other is speaking about the same kingdom at another point addressing another issue, yet, the same kingdom and throne.Its eventually all about God and Samuel makes that point clear very early in thier historyThis is why I pressed paul to give me his position on what he believed the scriptures actually were. From that point he quickly lost the discussion and had virtually nothing left to say on the matter.It is not my intention to press people on that issue to aggrevate or be rude, there is simply no logical way to proceed if there is not a common frame of reference.i do not believe the Iliad is a work of God, therefore we have no discussion or common frame of reference, to examine it, as to its application to real world affairs. It is internally consistent with mythological items, so who cares what it has to say in relation to real world events, or the success of this person or that personThis is why I say, that for you and myself to have discussion about issues you believe (I think) are mythological is a waste of your time and mine.You had a better discussion, I watched in times past with that delightful Bertot fellow about axioms. I could be wrong, but I dont believe this is really an area where you are going to have much success. however, I could be wrong, if you feel an atheist approach is warrentedPerhaps you could explicate your views Rrhain, on the Word of God contained in the scriptures, Is it actually the work of God or the work of men?If it is the word of God, could that explain the connection of writers, words, thoughts and ideas across a long period of time?EAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.

Wrong again, it always refers ultimatley to God or comes back to God and when you quit being purposely obstinate, you will acknowledge that simple truthYour levels of management (theory) are the first and only attempt you have ever made to me, that you believe the scriptures are the Word of God. Even this illustration is a weak indirect answer to the direct question I put to you concerning the word of GodIs your implication here and in your previous post to me an indication, that you actually believe the scriptures, Old or new or both are the word of God? Is this what you are trying to void saying in so many words and illustrations. How can I know if you wont tell me plainlyJust like the ark, the tabernacle and the judges, the THRONE is a representation of Gods rule over Israel. Notice carefully in context of 1 Samuel chapter 7, whos throne it actually is, starting verse 8 Notice how God uses the word, Judges, house, and other terms as if they refer actually to him and his kingship and rulership. Actually we could say any rulership God gave to anyone, was only temporary and limited.You know in your heart of hearts PD, its all just about God, whether we are tallking about a specific person, an aspect f the throne, timeline of some physical aspect of the throne, timeline of some human that will sit on some physical, throne, who built this or that, or whatever else. you know these are just vain attempts to avoid the fact that God is the ruler, God is the king, the kingdom is his and, all the other facts in this connectionEven if one isolates a verse like 7;13 and tries to strangle out of it some specific meaning, which you are justified in doing in some respect, THE CONTEXT OF NOT ONLY THIS BOOK, but all other passages presented by Peg and your vain attempts and word usage and verbose rambling, will not allow any other interpretation, than it is actually Gods throne, Gods purpose and intentions through time.there is nothing wrong with identifying certain specfic aspects and points in specfic passages, but the TEXT TRUMPS the individual verse. the context, is that it is MY PEOPLE, MY PEOPLE ISRAEL, MY JUDGES, MY TABERNACLE, MY ARK, MY THRONE, MY TEMPLE, MY KINGDOM and MY KINGSHIP You fellas are simply my insturments to complete MY WILL. And MY WILL is that the throne and the kingdom will continue forever and it has in the nature and purpose of Jesus Christ, who was and is the very God that spoke to Nathan, Samuel and David. It came full circle, as if it would notAgain pointing to the fact that often times the word throne is refering to a person or persons does not allivate you of your problem concering the context and verses quoted above by Peg that CLEARLY INDICATE AND DESIGNATE, who is actually the king and what is involved in context as king of Israel.from this aspect alone you have been demonstrated to be in error and have demonstrated certain sidetracking techniques to avoid that obvious point
Nice try though PDEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

If God is its author and sustainer it always refers to God. Any throne established by God, is from and by God and can be taken away by God. Mans authority in any situation is always contingent on Gods authority. Any throne in existence is actually Gods territory.Ofcourse you have a point grammatically, just as anyone else would have a point, were they to isolate Jesus' words when he said, "My kingdom is not of this world", then conclude outside of CONTEXT AND REASON THAT HIS KINGDOM EXISTED EXCLUSIVLEY OUTSIDE OF THIS WORLD.While one could make a case grammatically for that contention, that is not what he meant to imply, exclusively, if it is KEPT IN CONTEXT of both the text, the entire context, AND WHEN THE WHOLE OF SCRIPTURE IS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION.In the same way one can isolate a single passage like 7:13 of Samuel, then conclude grammatically, that that is all that can be derived from that teaching, that the kingdom was only physical, for physical purposes.i have already explained it is nonsensical to make a case from a single passage, as seems to be your goal. Collectively the scriptures represent Davids throne as Gods throne. If the method of approach you have chosen to interpret scriptures works for you , then I would suggest you stick with it. It is both, unreasonable and nonsensical to me. Peg has already demonstrated with to many other passages that Israels throne, David throne, whoevers throne, are also Gods throne. You simply keep throwing the passages under the BUS and saying they dont apply But I have always agreed on this point. I agree God never wanted them to have an earthly king, even from the beginning as Samuel clearly indicates. Your statement that jesus didnt Govern is both unwarrented and unsubstantiated. your assuming that Gods rule has to be one of a physical NATURE ONLY. Was the Old Mosaic law only a physical law or was there a SPIRITUAL aspect to it as well, ie,"thou shalt love the Lord thy God, with all thy heartt, mind and soul" tThis is a rule and law of the heart and mind, not purely a physical thing to be observed.While there is a certain physical aspect of and to Jesus Church/Kingdom, he rules the primarily the HEARTS AND MINDS OF HIS servants. he governs the more important aspects."If I be lifted up, I will draw all men unto myself". That he accomplished with unbelievable successCol 1: His kingdom is the hearts and minds of people by which we have redemption, the forgiveness of sin by becoming a member of his body the church which is a physical kingdom as described aboveNot only is a king with a kingdom, he is God that desired to be Israels spiritual king from the begininng. In Pauls words we have not only that christ was and is a king, but WHAT AND WHERE HIS KINGDOM IS AND ITS NATURE PD there is nothing wrong with grammar, but context and the totality of scripture trump grammar as I have indicated above. Even the context of the old testament does not support your smokescreen attempts to dethrone God. Nitpicking passages and making single passages conform to theory do not A SOUND ARGUMENT MAKE. Even the simplest of readers can see you attempt is both silly and nonsensicalEAMEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.

Exacally correct in this context and for these purposes. have you read the entire context of the discussion? we are arguing what the Apostles and prophets have to say concering the Kingdom of God. there is no need at this point to discuss whether these are actually Gods words, that would be simply ignorant, let me demonstrate.lets say one person started talking to another concering Bigfoot. The one that started the discussion assumed the other believed in bigfoot. Assuming this the originator STARTS DISCUSSING VERY SPECIFIC DETAILS about and for Bigfoot. It then becomes very obvious to the second that the first assumes he agrees with the existence of a creature in the first place. The second interupts the first and says, hooold, hoold hoold on a minute, I dont believe in Bigfoot in the first place, why would I discuss any SPECIFICS of a creature i dont believe in.the first insists that there is evidence for his existence, the second says well lets talk about that instead, the first says I dont want to talk about that I want to talk about the specifics, of what he eats and how he would poop, etc. the second says we havent established his existence yet, etc, etc etc, back and forth.Rrhain, we are discussing internally, assuming for all intents and purposes that the prophets and Apostles were correct in thier estimations, guided by God and his authority, that these are true statements. Arguing your positions that you are contenting for, whilest trying to determine a specfic menaing of scripture is nonsensical. Both will be approaching it from a COMPLETELY OPPOSITE POINT OF VIEW and the meaning will be altered forever by what you view the SCRIPTURES AS AND WHOS WORK IT ACTUALL IS OR IS NOT.Why would I have discussion about Bigfoots hunting skills if I dont believe he existed in the first place. Do you see the pointits fine to discuss that which you are observing but not really at this point. Atleast it is totally nonsensical to bat it back and forth at this time.if these fellows were not guided by the Holy Spirit, who cares what they had to say, they believed God was directing thier words, some thought God spoke directly to them, if he did not they were either delusional, deceptive or liars.We are ASSUMING they were correct in thier approach. this is a Bible discussion, much the same way two mormons would be debating over the book of Mormon Exacally correct. perhaps you could approch it from that aspect to put your skills of verbosness and your understanding of tautologies to work hereEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

EMA writes:
quote:
________________________________________
we are arguing what the Apostles and prophets have to say concering the Kingdom of God.
________________________________________
Rrhain writes What accuracy are you speaking of?
Consistency is where we are at in the discussion. We have already discussed Brians issues and we don’t agree with him, he does not agree with us on geneology and historical accuracy, we have pretty much left that behind because allpoints that could be discussed have been discussed
EMA writes: ________________________________________
R writes: They do if the scriptures are the word of God and I have never seen a conclusive argument that they are not the word of God After examining the evidence all one has left is their beliefs
Besides this I assumed you knew by belief I meant what one could demonstrate, in a belif not simply their opinion
Your assuming the scriptures are not the word of God SIMPLY because I have assumed it for argument sake here. There is every good reason to know or belief it is the word of God, even if it doesn’t satisfy youYour approval of the evidence to establish validity is not required to proceed with a sound argument concerning connected matters.EMA writes ________________________________________
Rrhain writes: Is this habit you have of putting words in peoples mouth, building a strawman and knocking him down, a longtime problem, or has it just started recently. Im not claiming the Bible is true ONLY because it says so, Im convinced it is because of the consistency that can be extracted even from its own merit to establish a pattern for the prophecies, kingdom and MessiashipNo one has ASSUMED EXCLUSIVELY that the Bible is Gods word. Its assumed (based on sound reasons) at PRESENT to proceed with another area. Assumption is not THE ONLY requirement for a valid belief that the scriptures are Gods word. Facts are a very large part of the process concerning the scriptures being the Word of GodFor all your intelligence you seem to be unable to comprehend that point. You approval is not required to proceed logically to establish validity, consistency or methodology. Your approval is not necessary to establish what circular reasoning is or is not concerning obvious evidenceEMA notes ________________________________________
R writes: Again, your approval of the initial evidence is not necessary to make a subsequent argument worthy or valid. No amount of evidence will convince some people we actually walked on the moon or that the Holocost actually happened. If you don’t believe me wait 1000 years and wait to see what they will be saying about these events. They will be called fiction and fantasy n a large scaleEMA writes: ________________________________________
R WritesYou miss the point of my statement and its logical import. It doesn’t matter why they said what they said or whether they lied or that they were mistaken or that they were mislead (did I get the other two?). It only matters (NOW WATCH THIS RRHAIN) WHAT YOU BELIEVE ABOUT THEIR STATE OF MIND,THEIR STATEMENT AND WHAT THEY BELIEVED. Whether enough external evidence and internal evidence is present to establish validity before discussing consistency. Clearly you don’t believe there is, so whats your point?It only matters if the initial evidence is convincing enough to you to get you to their comments and statements, about God. It does not matter all the reasons they may have had occasion to assert such things. Im telling you I could not give a rats behind what they had to say, about a bunch of mystic viewpoints, if God was not their influence. Who cares,correct?So my import concerned you, not why they made such commentsNot to be overly obvious but it should be observed that consistency in the text and by the writers goes along way to establish validity, oorrect?
quote:
________________________________________
EAM writes: ________________________________________
R writes:Im sorry, I missed the part where you ESTABLISHED THAT THE SCRIPTURES ARE NOT THEWORD OF GOD, they are unreliable, inconsistent, to assume I am proceeding with an invalid approach. Arent you making an enormous ASSUMPTION. Can I not discuss the Declaration 0f Independence’s intrinsic values without being accused of circular reasoning when discussing several of its internal declarations as parts, then a whole? Do I need, at every setting to discuss the DOIs evidences, before discussing its individual parts for validiy. As far we are concerned the DOI had one author and there is every good reason to proceed as if theris oneauthor in the scriptures If you weren’t ignoring obvious, yet unspoken evidence, at present, that has been rehearsed 1000 times on this website, I wouldn’t need to talk about your belief systems, or your beliefs concerning the scriptures. And you wouldn’t assume I was ASSUMING ANYTHING EITHER PERSONALLY OR IN ARGUMENT FORM. Certainly you are smart enough to deduce that at some point the outlandish claims contained in the scriptures alongside the common statements have to be taken into consideration, when approaching these subjects. Again it does not matter why the author included God and the miraculous, only that they did and that they believed God to be directing these affairs over long periods of time, past certain individuals life spans.If this is true in any or every sense of the word, then of course your belief system will come into play concerning such topics. Certainly anyone could point out circular reasoning if they believed the scripturesto be the work of several men over several centuries, but if it is a work of an omnipotent God, then there is no real reason to ascribe circular reasoning
God actual or imaginary involvement in these matters and whether you actually think that happened makes all the difference in the world and in such a discussion. If you don’t you really are wasting your time and mine. I will not let up off the point because it is actually very vitalEAM
________________________________________Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.