|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Poor Satan, so misunderstood. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
jaywill writes:
quote: No, he didn't. The serpent in the garden was precisely that: A serpent. Nothing more, nothing less. The Bible directly calls the serpent a beast. The punishment of the serpent is to have its legs removed and to have his offspring forever crushed under the heel of humans. Those are things you to do animals, not supernatural beings. There was no devil in the garden.
quote: No, he didn't. The serpent never tells Eve to eat from the tree. He simply points out that god is not being truthful regarding it. Unlike the direct statement of god, that eating from the tree would cause a physical death before the sun set on the day that one ate of it, instead the eater would become as gods, knowing good and evil. And the serpent was right: Adam and Eve, of their own volition, eat from the tree and become as gods, knowing good and evil. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Greatest I am writes:
quote: Which means that Satan is not evil but is an instrument of god. Has it not occurred to you that the "Satan" of Job is not the same persona as the devil that appears in the New Testament? There is no such thing as the devil in Judaism. That would defy the purpose of the monotheism: One god, only one, everything comes from him. To have a devil would mean there are two and there is only one. To have a son would mean there are two and there is only one. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
jaywill writes:
quote: Why are you forcing a Christian interpretation on a Jewish text? Genesis was written by Jews for Jews and can only be understood in a Jewish context. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
IamJoseph writes:
quote: Except the Bible says it was. The garden was placed among the four rivers, two of which most people actually have heard of: The Tigris and Euphrates. If it were not in the physical realm, what on earth were Adam, Eve, all the other animals, and all the plants doing there since all of them were physical beings?
quote: Except the Bible specifically says that everything started on the first day, five days before the creation of humans.
quote: There's that Christian imposition upon a Jewish text again. The Messiah is not a philosopher. The Messiah is a warlord. Prophecy specifically says so. Oh, and the Messiah does not die. Ergo, Jesus cannot be the Messiah which is one of the myriad reasons why Jews don't accept him. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
IamJoseph responds to me:
quote: Oh, yes, you do. Otherwise, you wouldn't try to push a Christian concept onto a Jewish text.
quote: No such thing. Science says nothing about the existence of god, just as it says nothing about the existence of YOU. Nobody thinks you don't exist. Science is the study of things that happen on their own. Oh! Looks like we're back to the question that never gets answered: Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?
quote: And yet, you reject the OT. You continue to try and push Christian concepts onto Jewish texts.
quote: Why? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
jaywill responds to me:
quote: Adam was created by the Jewish god, wasn't he?
quote: The fact that you have strayed and have started worshipping other gods doesn't change the fact that the creation story in Genesis is a Jewish story.
quote: Nothing. All you have to do is follow the god of the Jews. It's the first commandment, after all: I am the lord, your god. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
quote: Of course not. But if you decide to worship other gods, what do you expect?
quote: Indeed. But that means you don't get to claim it says things it clearly doesn't simply because you wish it applied to this other god you're worshipping. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
jaywill responds to me:
quote:quote: No, it doesn't. For precisely the reason that the serpent was nothing more than an animal, no connection to god, not supernatural, not the devil. There is no such thing as the devil in Judaism.
quote: See, there you go trying to force a Christian interpretation on a Jewish text. The serpent mentioned in Revelation is not the same character as the one mentioned in Genesis.
quote:quote: What do you mean you aren't sure? You mean you haven't read the Bible? Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. See? A beast of the field. Not an angel. Not a devil. Not an instrument of god. Just a plain serpent. Genesis 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: See? A beast of the field. Treated like an animal. Not a fallen angel. Not a devil. Not an instrument of god. Just a plain serpent. 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. See? Treated like an animal. Not a fallen angel. Not a devil. Not an instrument of god. Just a plain serpent.
quote: Indeed. And the Bible clearly and directly calls the serpent a serpent. Not a fallen angel. Not a devil. Not an instrument of god. Just a plain serpent.
quote: There you go again trying to force a Christian interpretation on a Jewish text. There is no such interpretation to be found in the Torah.
quote: Yes, but it isn't referring to Genesis. The "Satan" of the Torah is the agent of god, doing god's bidding and in perfect harmony with god. The idea that Revelation is referring to Genesis is a modern Christian interpretation forced upon a Jewish text. Genesis was written by Jews for Jews and can only be understood in a Jewish context...which means there is no such thing as the devil and the tale told in Revelation is made out of whole cloth with no connection to the Torah of any kind as it refers to entities that do not exist.
quote:quote: We don't know. The Bible doesn't say. That doesn't change the fact that the serpent was right. Adam and Eve did not die as god said they would. Instead, they became as gods, knowing good and evil as the serpent said. The serpent never told Eve to eat of the tree. He simply told her the truth.
quote: Why? Why does knowing the truth mean she has to eat of the tree? The serpent does not tell Eve to eat. He merely tells her the truth. [quotations from the New Testament deleted for space] There you go again trying to force Christian interpretations upon a Jewish text.
quote:quote: Where was the lie? The serpent didn't tell Eve to eat from the tree. He simply told her the pure truth. [quotations from the New Testament deleted for space] There you go again trying to force Christian interpretations upon a Jewish text. Geneis was written by Jews for Jews and cannot be understood outside of a Jewish context. Any reference to the New Testament is necessarily flawed. You have to explain Genesis using the Torah and Judaism, not Christianity. Or are you saying that Jews don't understand their own religion? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Greatest I am responds to me:
quote: Again, that's a Christian claim. The Torah directly contradicts that idea. "Satan" first appears in Job as an agent of god, under orders from god, carrying out god's will.
quote: Indeed. It means "Adversary," but not as one to god. Rather, it is god's adversary to man. You are forcing a Christian interpretation onto Judaism. Are you saying Jews don't understand their own religion? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
jaywill writes:
quote: That's an overly simplistic way of putting it, but it gets to the point: Satan in Job is an agent of god. The name translates as "Adversary," but not as an adversary to god but rather god's adversary to man. Where does this idea come from? Well, that would be the Torah. You have actually read it, have you not? Here: Job 1:12 And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. See? Satan is being driven by god, working under god's direction and orders. And again in Job 2, Satan does nothing but what god tells him to. And who does Job finally raise his wrath to? Not to Satan but to god. And eventually, god comes unto Job and lifts him from his travails.
quote: There's no reference to a serpent in Job. And the reference to Satan in Zechariah is to a person: The King of Tyre. We've been through this before.
quote: But that's a Christian interpretation imposed upon a Jewish text. There is no devil in Genesis, therefore the "serpent" of Revelation cannot be the same serpent from Genesis.
quote: Because it means that there is an "other" to god. But in monotheism, there is no "other." There is only god. All things, good and evil, come from god.
quote: But you're confusing Christianity with Judaism as if Jewish texts could ever justify a Christian claim. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
IamJoseph writes:
quote: Incorrect. The first five books of the Bible are the Torah. The "Old Testament" is everything you find in the "Old Testament" in the Bible. That's why it's called the "Old Testament." The "Old Testament" contains the Torah, the Nevi'im (the Prophets), and the Ketuvim (the writings). Judaism refers to this collection as the "Tanakh," but they order the books differently than Christians do. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
jaywill responds to me:
quote: Why did you ignore my very next sentence? The fact that you have started worshipping other gods doesn't change the fact that the creation story in Genesis is a Jewish story.
quote: Yes. That's how I know that Jesus isn't the Messiah. He fulfills none of the prophecies of the Messiah clearly delineated in the Jewish texts. For one thing, the Messiah doesn't die. Jesus died. Ergo, Jesus cannot be the Messiah. Or are you saying Jews don't know their own religion?
quote: Non sequitur. Please rephrase. We're discussing whether or not Christian concepts can be imposed upon Jewish texts.
quote: But Jesus wasn't the Messiah. He fulfilled none of the prophecies of the Messiah as laid out in the Jewish texts. Ergo, you have done no such thing.
quote: If it were, why do you have it out of order? Why do you split it into 39 books when there are only 24? Why do you impose line breaks on it that do not exist? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
IamJoseph responds to me:
quote: Incorrect. You ignored your own text. The river parted into four. Those four rivers are here on earth. Therefore, the thing happens here on earth.
quote: But the earth he was created in WAS THE GARDEN. Therefore, the garden was on earth. Genesis 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. The garden is "east." Not in another dimension. Not in a spiritual realm. It's simply "east." It's here on earth.
quote: Incorrect. The text says the exact opposite. The animals are specifically created FOR THE USE OF ADAM TO FIND HIM A WIFE. Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
quote: Incorrect. The story of Genesis 2 is chronological. Adam is created. God notices that Adam is alone. God creates animals in an attempt to find a wife for him. None of the animals are suitable, therefore god creates Eve.
quote: Incorrect. Genesis 1 directly contradicts Genesis 2. This is not surprising since Genesis 1 and 2 are distinct and separate creation myths from earlier times that were cobbled together into a single text.
quote: Incorrect. The days in Genesis 1 are literal, 24-hour days. That's what "evening and morning" means: A literal, 24-hour day.
quote: You're right that Genesis 1 and 2 don't make any sense when placed next to each other. That's because they're separate, distinct creation stories from earlier times that were cobbled together into a single text. For an even clearer and more startling example of this hatchet job of an editing, see the story of Noah. Two stories of a flood are told in parallel. That is why Noah does things like enter the ark twice, the fact that the animals come in both "twos" and "sevens," that the ark comes to rest twice, etc.
quote: That's because the Messiah does not die. Jesus died. Therefore, Jesus cannot be the Messiah. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
IamJoseph responds to me:
quote: You're being disingenuous. "Out of Eden" means it kept on flowing. Eden was not all there was to existence. All rivers that currently flow on earth do not flow "out of earth." They are completely self-contained on the planet. Remember, Adam and Eve are cast out "east of Eden." And "parting" does not imply a spiritual or supernatural or interdimensional leaving of one space-time continuum into another. It means exactly what it appears to mean: Split into four. You're ignoring the second part of the statement: "parted [I][B]and became four heads[/i][/b]."
quote: No, it doesn't. You're forcing your desires upon the text. Where do you find anything in the text that indicates such? Chapter and verse, please.
quote: And that doesn't tell you something? No, not that the garden of Eden is in some supernatural place (else how could the rivers that started in Eden make it to the earth where we can see the Euphrates still today?) Something else? You know...about stories?
quote: Why would they? There's nothing special about any other place on earth. The reason why Eden is guarded is because the Tree of Life is there and if humans were to eat from it, their apotheosis would be complete.
quote:quote: But you've just ignored the fact that you made an error. You claimed that the animals were made [I][B]before[/i][/b] Adam was put in the garden. That isn't true. They were made after. This is in contradiction not only to historical fact but also in direct contradiction to Genesis 1. Considering that Genesis 1 and 2 were written by different people at different times in different cultures, it is not surprising to find that they tell contradicting stories.
quote: Incorrect. One of the rules of understanding the OT is that it is cobbled together from many different sources. But each source relates its tale chronologically. Genesis 2 is written chronologically: First god creates Adam, then creates plants and animals, then creates Eve. You're trying to say that when the Bible says that god took pity on Adam for being alone and created animals to be with him, what it's really saying is that god didn't create the animals for Adam to be with him because he had already created them in some non-discussed time and place. Genesis 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. Your logic is saying that those two lines should be reversed and the entire intent of Gen 2:18 needs to be discarded because it directly states that god creates the animals after he created Adam. You said, and I quote: "We know also from ch 2, the text, the animals emerged prior to Eve's emergence/seperation: this signifies a time prior to the garden placement of Adam." But that isn't what the text says. Genesis 2:18-19 clearly show that the animals emerged after.
quote: Irrelevant. We're not talking about the appearance of the animals with relation to Eve. We're talking about the appearance of the animals with relation to Adam. You directly stated that the animals were created in "a time prior to the garden placement of Adam." But the text directly contradicts that claim. God sees Adam is alone [I][B]and then[/i][/b] creates animals. Therefore, they cannot have been created [I][B]before[/i][/b] Adam was placed in the garden. And we know that Adam was already in the garden because in Gen 2:15, we are told that god put Adam in the garden.
quote:quote: The textual analysis of it. A big example of the evidence is that Genesis 1 directly contradicts Genesis 2. That wouldn't be consistent with a single authorship. It is, however, consistent with a multiple authorship. And if we look at other mythologies of the time, we find parallels in other cultures. Take, for example, the story of Noah. It's pretty much plagiarized from the myth of Ut-Naphishtim. And if you read the text, it is clear that it is two stories told simultaneously. That's why we see such bizarre things as Noah entering the ark twice, the number of animals being inconsistent from one verse to the next, that the ark lands twice, that the earth dries up twice, etc.
quote: Irrelevant. People are capable of distinguishing time without the sun. When the astronauts are up in the shuttle, they are orbiting the earth about once every 90 minutes. They see the sun rise and fall multiple times during a "day." That's because everybody knows what a "day" is. The phrasing, "evening and morning," is indicative of a literal, 24-hour day. If you want to indicate a metaphorical, nebulous length of time, you don't phrase it that way.
quote: Irrelevant. The Psalms are not referring to Genesis. Besides, if you do go that route, you've got a problem: The plants are created before the sun. Plants cannot live without the sun. If a "day" is referring to thousands of years, how on earth did the plants manage to live without the sun?
quote: Incorrect. First, there is no real "calendar" of the Old Testament. Second, the most accurate actual calendars of the ancient world is that of the Maya.
quote: You do realize that sentence one is directly contradicted by sentence two, yes? At any rate, Gen 1 and Gen 2 directly contradict each other. The order of creation in Gen 1 is plants, animals, humans (both male and female). The order of Gen 2 is male human, plants, animals, female human.
quote: Indeed. That's why we know that Gen 1 and Gen 2 were written by different people at different times from different cultures and thus, we are not surprised to see they contradict each other.
quote: Irrelevant. You must remember that there are no "chapters" or lines in Genesis. People who wrote it down arbitrarily put the breaks in. In fact, the Jewish and Christian versions of the texts have different line breaks and even have a different order of the books. For you to try and maintain some sort of cosmic significance over the placement of a single word in an arbitrary breakpoint is the height of silliness. Remember: The Torah is an oral document. It's supposed to be spoken aloud.
quote:quote: Which is another reason why Jesus cannot be the Messiah. Jesus claimed to be god.
quote: And Jesus fulfills none of them. That's why Jews don't accept him as the Messiah. Or are you saying Jews don't understand their own religion?
quote: Therefore, why would Christians care what the Jewish texts say? Why all the sturm and drang about Jesus fulfilling the prophecies of the Jews? If the Christians are simply making stuff up, why do they care what other people say? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
jaywill responds to me:
quote: No, it doesn't. It simply calls the devil a "serpent" in Revelation and you have imposed upon the text that this reference to a "serpent" is the same one as the "serpent" of Genesis 3. But there is no textual support for such a claim.
quote: Something's up with the entire story since god is regularly wandering along the earth, but we don't find that to be so bizarre, now do we? Genesis is not the first time animals talk. Balaam's ass talks to him and he isn't surprised by it in the least. Yes, god grants the ass the power of speech, but that is irrelevant. Balaam doesn't flinch when his animal talks to him. He even responds to it and they have an argument. So the idea that we're supposed to ascribe supernatural origin to the serpent simply because it talked is irrelevant. Remember, god made the animals specifically for Adam to see if any of them would be a suitable wife. Why wouldn't they talk?
quote: Incorrect. God does have the couple's best interests at heart...he just screws up in how he goes about protecting it. We're back to the example of the vase and the baby. Suppose you have a delicate Mhing vase. It's standing on a rickety table. You put your toddler in the room with the pedestal and the vase. Do you really think simply telling the toddler, "Don't touch!" is going to be sufficient? And when we inevitably hear the crash of an ancient piece of porcelain shattering, do we blame the toddler for disobeying a direct order or do we blame the parent for being irresponsible in putting an innocent toddler next to a potential disaster? God didn't want them to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. There's a simple solution to that: Don't put the couple where they can get at the tree. Instead, god decides to put them by the tree and then [I][B]lie[/i][/b] to them about it.
quote: Huh? There's no such thing as the devil in Judaism. That's the entire point behind monotheism: There is only one. The Old Testament clearly states that god is the source of everything, including evil.
quote: Incorrect. In fact, the exact opposite. The talking animal tells the truth. The only thing the serpent says is that if they were to eat of the tree, they would not die but would become as gods, knowing good and evil. And that's exactly what happens. Adam and Eve eat of the tree, they do not die, and they become as gods, knowing good and evil.
quote: And? The serpent is described as quite intelligent. Why is this problematic?
quote: And what's the first thing they panic over? You would think it would be eating from the tree since that's apparently the only thing they were ever told not to do. But it isn't. They panic over something else.
quote: I don't have to. It's a story, therefore it is simply a given. The serpent is smart. It doesn't matter how the serpent knew what it did. The simple fact of the matter is that it did know and told the truth: If you eat from the tree, you will not die but instead will become as gods, knowing good and evil.
quote: Why does having dominion mean that man knows everything? Remember, humans are innocent. They necessarily don't know everything. After all, they don't know good and evil.
quote: You do realize that you just contradicted yourself, yes? Previously, you said, "The talking animal also lies." Now, you're saying that the animal is telling the truth. Which is it?
quote: But there weren't any. Genesis is quite clear on this. "In the beginning" means there was no "previous." If there were, it wouldn't be the "beginning."
quote: You've got it backwards. The reason why we think of "beginnings" when we hear "Genesis" is because the book called "Genesis" talks about a beginning. That is, we attached the meaning "beginning" to the word "Genesis," not the other way around. That said, you just contradicted yourself. "Genesis" is a story of the beginning. Therefore, there cannot be a "before" or it wouldn't be a "beginning."
quote: Not as such. I say that there is no such thing as the devil in Genesis. The Jewish texts were not written of a piece. They, like the rest of the Bible, are cobbled together from various sources over hundreds of years. If you read the text, you can see the influences of other cultures slowly start to color the text. The texts evolve. That said, there is no real concept of the "devil" in Judaism the way there is in Christianity. Judaism is a monotheism: There is only one. All things come from god. The text directly states that everything does, including evil: Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
quote: ...there is no mention of the devil. We've been through this before. Ezekiel is talking to the king of Tyre: Ezekiel 28:12 Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. Are you saying the devil was the king of Tyre?
quote: Noah, for one. Genesis 6:9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.
quote: Well, since Ezekiel 28:12 directly indicates god does, the answer to that question is clearly in the affirmative by simple inspection. Are you saying the devil was the king of Tyre?
quote: Again, not about the devil. This is a reference to the king of Babylon. Isaiah 14:4 That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased! Are you saying the devil was the king of Babylon?
quote: Incorrect. The best candidate for this statement is the person to whom the text specifically states it is directed toward: The king of Babylon (generally considered at this time to be Nebuchadrezzar).
quote: That's because Satan is not to be found in Genesis.
quote: Because there is no such concept as the devil in Judaism. Not in the way Christianity sees it.
quote: Incorrect. In fact, the exact opposite is true. It is because there is not even a glimmer of the devil to be found anywhere in Genesis, that gives us grounds to say there is no concept of the devil to be found there. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
jaywill responds to me:
quote: Irrelevant. It doesn't matter that Jesus decided to become a martyr (assuming he even existed in the first place). The only thing that is important is whether or not Jesus fulfilled any of the prophecies of the Messiah as laid forth by the Jewish texts. And he doesn't. The biggest one is that the Messiah doesn't die. Jesus died. Therefore, he cannot be the Messiah.
quote: Incorrect. I see it and fully understand its significance. I just don't claim that it has any connection to the Jewish texts. It's a Christian claim and concept. It holds a great significance to Christians. But Christians and Jews don't worship the same god.
quote: Why? He fulfills none of the prophecies of the Messiah, therefore how could he possibly be the Messiah? Unless you're saying that the prophecies of the Messiah are false?
quote: Um, who said I was Jewish? And now you're engaging Pascal's Wager. You didn't think the god that truly exists was the Christian one, did you?
quote: Indeed. As the various televangelists say in their anti-Semitic ranks, they need the Jews. Their vision of the Apocalypse requires that Jews exist in Israel in order for them to be cast into hell at the second coming. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024