dwise1 writes:
Are you now trying to claim that you were applying a theology which you do not at all believe in? What kind of nonsense are you trying to foist off on us there?
huh? Where did you get that idea?
Very simple. You were -- and still are -- emphatically denying and railing against the very thought that you were applying
your theology in interpreting those verses. Well, if it wasn't your theology, then it must have been somebody else's. In other words, a theology to which you do not hold because if you did hold to it then it would be
your theology after all and all your protesting would be meaningless nonsense.
And that's the problem: your objections make no sense at all.
dwise1 writes:
Your subsequent false accusation is nothing but a red herring, an attempt to draw attention away from your having made a false claim.
Are you serious? Look at the words
you used and I think if in my position you would have come to the same conclusion.
Have
you even bothered to look at what I had written? Obviously not, considering your nonsensical protests.
And by trying to focus us on such nonsense, you are trying to draw us away from the original issue of your false claim about what the verses
state. AKA "tossing out a red herring", a trick to throw tracking dogs off their scent, AKA "rabbit trails" meant to accomplish the same derailing (imagery being that the tracking dog abandons the track in order to chase a rabbit.
wise1 writes:
Your actions indicate that your name makes yet another false claim. If you are really seeking the truth, shouldn't you at least try to adhere to the truth? Making false claims and then tossing out red herrings to draw attention away from your false claims is moving in the opposite direction
How is attacking my screenname at all relevant to this thread? Please refrain from such obvious personal attacks in your future responses.
I wasn't attacking your screenname, but rather pointing out that your actions contradict it. As can be plainly seen if you would only bother to read what I wrote.
Trying to divert attention away from the issue of your original claim being false is a dishonest tactic. And employing such a dishonest tactics works
against the search for truth. Hello? Duh? Shouldn't take a genius.
dwise1 writes:
it would not at all affect the simple and obvious fact that your claim about what those verses state was completely and utterly false.
If you were to take a serious look at the scriptures I gave, and applied them with the other scriptures that point to Jesus divinity, you would see that you are the one using a red herring. The following scriptures all point to jesus divinity, and that he is the creator.
And you toss out yet another red herring.
Everybody else can see it. Why can't you?
What any document
states is in the
actual words it uses. Hello? It's not a question of what it's supposed to mean nor how we might interpret it.
It is solely a question of what the document's actual words are. What part of that do you not understand? How many times do we have to explain it to you? How can we make it any plainer?
OK, here are two of the verses you cited:
quote:
Psalm 33:6 -- By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.
quote:
Psalm 33:9 -- For he spake, and it was done; he commanded and it stood fast.
Show us where the word "Jesus" appears in those verses. Show us!
Show us where in Psalm 33 (one would need to refer to a Bible for the complete text; I'm not about to type the whole thing out) that the pronoun "he" is made to refer specifically to "Jesus". No, it obviously refers to "the Lord", which is to say to YHWH, AKA "God".
Those verses
state that "the Lord" is the Creator, which by the Jewish tradition which had produced that Scripture would be YHWH.
Again, it is only applying a theology which you share in (yes, it
is your theology and the theology of many others as well, but
not the theology of many others) that you then
interpret those verses as
meaning what you claim. And many others,
including the community which had produced those verses would totally disagree with your interpretation.
What those
state and how they could be
interpreted are two very different things. If in your original claim you had indicated that it was
your interpretation that those verses said that Jesus was the Creator, then that claim would have been true. But since you instead claimed that those verses
state that Jesus was the Creator and since those verses clearly do
no such thing, then your claim is false.
If you're going to continue with this, then stick to the issue of your claim. Stop trying to lead us astray with red herrings.
Edited by dwise1, : moved definition of "red herring"
™ Version 4.2
