|
Author
|
Topic: Can a valid, supportable reason be offered for deconversion
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Dawn Bertot writes: A careful reading of the chapters makes it clear the writer is not trying to give a detailed in exact order description of what God did at every moment i suggest that you read genesis 1 more closely, and more carefully. it is primarily about the delineation and demarcation of time, culminating in the reasoning behind tradition of shabat (sabbath). careful mention is made for the definition of a day (an evening and a morning), what makes a week (six days of work, one of rest), and for the creation of the sun and moon to mark time. genesis 1 is not only an exact order, but that is its primary intention. this is, perhaps, what i mean about betraying the individual flavours for the sake of mashing it all together in one homogeneous lump. you have utterly lost that sense of genesis 1, for the sake of trying squeeze it together with genesis 2. you have abandoned a crucial point of the text, and the reason it was included, in order to make it like everything else. this is a disservice to the scriptures, and they deserve more respect than that.
No mention is made of how God created is made either. again, please read more closely. god's method creation is given both in genesis 1, and in genesis 2, and they are different. 1 provides a picture of an authoritative god, who creates by verbally commanding divisions -- and his creation obeys. genesis 2 portrays a more personal, caring god who physically shapes mankind with his own hands.
Or who the 'Us" is either. Its simply not necessary. the us is almost certainly a grammatical quirk, and not an actual plurality of entities. look:
quote:
וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, נַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם בְּצַלְמֵנוּ כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ
(v26) plural.
quote:
וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הָאָדָם בְּצַלְמוֹ
(v27) singular. same verbs, same subjects. same objects. he just seems to speak of himself in the plural when's talking to himself. he does it again in genesis 11, too. plural, "let us go down..." followed by the actual action taking place in the singular. Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.
אָרַח
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 86 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-13-2010 8:01 PM | | Dawn Bertot has not replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: scriptural unity
Dawn Bertot writes: arachnophilia writes: that's still nonsense. a good portion of the bible is simply not messianic, and a fair portion of the bits that are have nothing to do with the messiah you're likely thinking of. for instance, there was the messiah who lead the israelites into the promised land. the messiah who unified the tribes and ruled as the first king. the messiah who led the people back from exile... A good portion of the Bible is Messianic, which demonstrates unity of purpose no, still nonsense. it's like you said, "all fruit are just like apples!" and i said, "yes, but some are oranges." and then you replied "yes, but some are apples!" not a good rebuttal to the oranges.
None of these were of course the Messiah mentioned in Genesis 3:15 or the one in Isa 51, that would be called, mighty God, eternal father and Prince of Peace, fulfilled clearly in Christ in the New Law, correct? take it to jar's prophecy thread. i think you'll find that the majority of the time, ur reedin it rong.
You missed the part where I responded by pointing out that Paul and Christ acknowledge that the Old Law was only for a time, until the fulfillment of all things and you missed the part where i pointed out that this is not unity in the slightest.
Why do you assume a change in a way of doing something does not constitute a continuity of theology? because i recognize that change ≠ continuity. i think we're having some kind of basic logic problem here.
אָרַח
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: scriptural unity
Dawn Bertot writes: When one understands the ultimate purpose of God in scripture, the unifiying of himself and man after the fall, one easily understands the messianic prophecies when one has actually read the scripture, one easily understands that quite a lot of it has nothing to do with your proposed themes. for instance, what do you make of the books that don't even mention god?
I dont need to do anything, the scriptures will do it for you, just read it, with the clear theme in mind i suggest that you just read it. and for real this time. and without preconceived notions about what it's supposed to say or supposed to be about. you might find it says some things you don't expect, and doesn't say some things you did.
אָרַח
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 96 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-13-2010 11:12 PM | | Dawn Bertot has replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Dawn Bertot writes: Abortion hey Dawn, pop quiz. what's the punishment the torah dictates for abortion? compare and contrast to the punishment for working on a saturday.
Tell me more of how "your" morality is better than the Nazi's and what's the reward the torah promises for genocide?
אָרַח
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: scriptural unity
Dawn Bertot writes: Wrong. his life and ministry as related in history and the gospels are direct attestation to that accuracy. take it to the prophecy thread. we'll examine any prophecy you put forth.
Eyewitness testimony to the events in the nature of Gospels and NT letters. fun fact: none of the books of the new testament were written by people who personally knew christ (prior to the resurrection, in a real corporeal physical sense, anyways).
Im pretty sure George Washington existed, but even looking at a photograph does not prove to me that he actually existed or that he actually participated in all the events that he was said to have performed, does it? fun fact: george washington died before the invention of photography. fun fact, part 2: george washington died exactly 211 years ago, today.
The prophecies alone are enough reason to stay fun fact: there is currently a thread of prophecies as they relate to jesus.
אָרַח
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: scriptural unity
Dawn Bertot writes: Uh, I dont think so. Given the fact that Christ meets and nearly aceeds the clearly messianic prophecies in both the major and minor prophets that is not a given fact, but rather is precisely the question under debate. your problem is that you assume your conclusions.
If Christ fulfilled the law and the prophets, as it is clearly indicated in the Gospels, the you will have to provide a better answer than, "I just dont see it". All the evidence points obviously in that direction Unity between the testaments is screaming out at you. unless you've actually bothered to read them, that is.
אָרַח
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: scriptural unity
Dawn Bertot writes: This is ofcourse a silly notion. One cannot conclude that no one knows who wrote the book, then conclude they were not written by the claimed authors as Dr. A. points out, not knowing positively, and knowing negatively are two different things. we might not know who killed jimmy hoffa, but we can place some reasoned guesses. and none those guesses would ever include the famous emperor of france who lived a hundred years before.
there is no reason to suggest that the claimed authors are not the authors, especially where inspiration is involved the gospels were all written after the death of christ. well after. 40 or 50 years. those attributions are all tradition. the original books did not come with attributions. and i believe you're looking at "inspiration" the wrong way around. you're assuming it, and hammer the facts out to fit it. rather, you should assume the facts, and then see if you can reach your inspirational conclusion. you might find that it becomes incredibly difficult when you're not bending facts to fit your model.
Bruce and other qualified scholars place them squarely in the time they suggested as written really Arch, surely you can do better than that i suggest you look at the actual scholarship on the matter, and not misguided apologetics.
אָרַח
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: scriptural unity
Dawn Bertot writes: well I have read it and studied it, i'm not convinced. you seem to have come away with a severely colored interpretation; one that betrays a good portion of the text.
so perhaps you could provide from one of them why I should become a non-believer start in jar's prophecy thread.
A bit vauge on the books that dont mention God. What is you point? were you even aware that there are books in the bible that fail to mention god? how do you propose to make those messianic, let alone about christ?
אָרַח
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: scriptural unity
Dawn Bertot writes: Wrong again. Where there is no provable evidence, we have to go with what is demonstratable, as beliefs go. What does the evidence suggest no, dawn. you are assuming that because jesus is the messiah you happen to believe in, with all your heart and soul, that every time the bible says anything even remotely messianic, it must be talking about him. this is demonstrably not the case.
here is an example. Who was truely the son of promise, for Abraham. The one the Bible claims, or the one the Koran suggests The evidence would suggest that the Bible provides the true facts in this matter, given that it carries much more evidence for its facts and that the Koran is nearly a reproduction of the Bible Its what the evidence suggests again, assuming your conclusions.
אָרַח
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 161 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-14-2010 11:55 PM | | Dawn Bertot has not replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: scriptural unity
Dr Adequate writes: As you would know were it not for your chronic illiteracy, arach wrote that "none of the books of the new testament were written by people who personally knew christ (prior to the resurrection, in a real corporeal physical sense, anyways)". Which is true of Paul even according to the most orthodox of Christian views. and luke (gospel of luke, and acts). those are the most easily identifiable authors, academically. my statement may or may not be accurate regarding james. but no, he's assuming that the "matthew" the gospel of matthew is attributed to is the disciple matthew. ditto on john. (wanna tell me who mark is? and where the other 10 gospels are?)
אָרַח
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 160 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-14-2010 11:54 PM | | Dr Adequate has not replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
(2)
| |
| |
| |
|
Message 166 of 566 (596472)
12-15-2010 12:57 AM
|
Reply to: Message 126 by Taq
12-14-2010 12:51 PM
|
|
Dawn Bertot writes: You clearly did not have an adequate education in the scriptures. Taq writes: Yes, I did. Knowing what scripture says is independent of believing what scripture says. They are two different things. actually, i find that claimed belief in what the scripture says frequently gets in the way of knowing what scripture says. believers are so ready to betray the very thing they claim to cherish, just to get it to line up with their predetermined belief. people who set out to know what the scriptures say are frequently very surprised that it does not accurately detail the beliefs they once had about those same scriptures.
אָרַח
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 126 by Taq, posted 12-14-2010 12:51 PM | | Taq has not replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: scriptural unity
Dawn Bertot writes: Since you have provided no text, that you assume I have misinterpreted, I can only wait to see which ones i have already provided two verses, in a previous post, and requested that you explain the unity between the two. i can pick two more at random, if you would like. alternatively, you are free to explain how either verse is messianic. i've even given you a relatively low bar to jump here. at least one of them, i could fairly easily relay a common messianic reading. not that it'd be right, of course.
fortunately we are not debating that thread, nor do I have desire, as I have already indicated, to follow Jars method of reasoning, which is repetetion without response so you keep repeating, yes. unfortunately, if you're going to repeatedly make claims you want us to debunk, and refuse to take said claims to the thread specifically written for them, there's nothing we can do. you're just going to look like an insolent child, and too scared to play with the big kids.
Yes I am aware of this, the same way I am aware that Job, makes no reference to the Law, or even implies its existence you might want to double check that one. one of job's friends actually speaks the word "torah".
I never said every word in the OT was a messianic prophecy. no, you said it was the unifying theme. if there are bits that are clearly unrelated to any messiah, that's not exactly a unifying theme. for instance, the entire book of job, which specifically refutes several notions integral to paul's arguments for the need for a spiritual messiah.
One of the main ways i know an OT prophecy was about Christ is having an inspired writer in the NT tell me its interpretation that's funny. see, one of the ways i know some authors of the NT are not inspired is because their words concerning yahweh are untrue (deuteronomy 13). the OT encourages skepticism of claimed inspiration, and for a good reason. otherwise, we might be tempted to believe everyone who comes along and claims to speak for yahweh. and since they speak for yahweh, we know they're telling the truth about speaking for yahweh. that didn't cut it in bronze age. they'd stone the guy who claimed that. why does it cut it in modern christianity?
Think about it, why would I accept your conclusions over thiers? Can you give me agood reason? because you've read the original text they are referencing. oh, wait, no you haven't. but seriously, take it to the prophecy thread.
אָרַח
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: scriptural unity
I agree and there is no justification for you assuming that the writers of the NT, did not know Christ. that assertion alone is ludicrous Not only do they claim to have been with him, fun fact: none of the gospels are written in first person. the only books that use first person are the epistles.
there is no time frame problem even if they were written as late as you claim considering lifespans, yes there is.
Amazing, he calls F. F. Bruce, misguided apologetics yes, i did. pretty much anything evangelical is misguided. and apologetics is what he did. that's the technical and correct term.
This is truely amazing, you really dont understand what you are doing do you? You reject without hesitation any conclusion I have drawn and say it is not possible and cannot be accepted. it has nothing to do with whether or not you said. it just happens to be wrong.
Then without even realizing it ( I believe) you assume that all of your assertions and conclusions must be accepted without hesitation, because that is what the evidence must demonstrate, yet it does not you might want to actually look at that evidence. but we can discuss that sort of thing once we established that you can even read and understand the bible.
אָרַח
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Dawn Bertot writes: And of course what taq says and what you quoted from him, is simply double talk verbage, unless demonstrated on a single point in an argument form what i posted was not an argument, but a summary of my past experiences. mostly on this very board, i might add. about 6 years ago, i gave up arguing against creationism with science, and instead, would reply to every post with information from the bible. your own posts have frequently demonstrated your willingness to betray the intent and goals of scripture, in defense of your predetermined opinion on the matter. for instance, you are willing to do away with the finer points of much of the major prophets for the sake of claiming that the entire bible is about jesus. what are you doing is raping the bible of its humanity, and beauty.
Do you have anything better than, "a bird in the hand is better than two in the bush"? yes. i do.
quote:
Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
people who set out to know what the scriptures say are frequently very surprised that it does not accurately detail the beliefs they once had about those same scriptures. You fellas are killing me with these gems of wisdom this is based on my experience in an actual bible study class. the professor asked everyone to check their beliefs at the door, and just examine the text for what it was. certain notions, some big and some very small, would arise from time to time, and we'd go and look at the text -- and the text would generally not support those notions. the majority of the class was surprised that the thing they had heard about bible were not actually in the bible.
But isnt that the point, we base our understanding against what the scriptures actually says agreed!
But here is another amazing point. You clearly, as I have read other posts of yours, dont believe it is from God or inspired of God, yet your are sure that your conclusions must be the correct ones you misrepresent me.
You imply that others that do not accept your conlcusions must of course be in error, because they do not see things as you do against the "evidence" you have collected But using the messianic prophecies as an example, you cannot provide absolute evidence that they are not predictive of Jesus Christ. when in fact the "evidence" we do have certainly leans in that favor err, no. we have some NT authors who say that the evidence leans in their favour. but the evidence is also there to plainly check -- and we must check those assertions against the scriptures as well. for instance, if a new testament author claims that jesus is the messiah because he rode into jerusalem on a donkey, we can check that against zechariah 9, and see that the prophecy also states things like the messiah bringing world peace, ruling the world, etc. donkeys aren't especially important -- several thousand people probably rode into jerusalem on donkeys on the very same day as christ. and, as i mentioned above, the scriptures actually give a method by which we can determine inspiration. simply claiming it is not enough.
אָרַח
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: scriptural unity
Dawn Bertot writes: Everyone make a mental note, DA disagrees that Jesus Christ is a Spiritual king over the Church (Spiritual Israel) and that is what the prophets predicted and the inspired writers in the NT make clear through inspiration and evidence it doesn't say "spiritual", does it? adding words kind of changes things. especially considering that the context of all the messianic bits generally indicates a physical kingdom. you know, the same way that the book of revelation does.
אָרַח
|
™ Version 4.2