|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 10:18 am
x_Hikari_x Well, I would not say that believing in Jesus is enough to get into heaven. In James the it says that the demons believe in Jesus. Somehow, I don't think they're going to heaven...
Accepting him as Lord and Savior of your life is more than just beleiving in him. Unfortunately, there are some Catholics who do not have this. It all comes down to what's in the heart, really. The Bible is quite clear; Jesus is the only way. Exclusive? Yes. But it has to be. Well yes there not going to heaven but satan belives in Jesus they talked!...... well it was more tempting but yah if you are a spirt of hell then no you will not go back even if you bilive in Jesus.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:25 pm
Stxitxchxes I'd also like to say that I made a mistake, Messianic prophesies are present in the Pentateuch. I tend to only use Isaiah, but I was incorrect in stating that above. Anyway.. As for not using examples, here's a real simple one for you. Look at the list, now, on the left it lists OT prophesies (a great deal of which are taken out of context anyway, but I'll handle that later), and on the right, it lists verses from the New Testament. Seemingly to lend credence to these blurbs. In fact what it's doing is making a s**t-poor attempt at rationalizing. Read the head-note, the people who even wrote this had to acknowledge that none of these were prophesies, they were foreshadowings. Despite the ominous suggestions of foreshadows, they are not prophesies. Now, on to technical aspects. Here's your example: Leviticus 17:11 (used as a prophesy) I'll use your NIV version for the sake of ease. "For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life." Very sneaky, but no dice. This verse is about Yom Kippur, where animals were sacrificed at the Temple to atone for sins. The -only- blood that is considered Kabbalistically and Halachicly clean is the blood spilled upon the altar in the Temple. When an animal was sacrificed at the temple, its blood was collected and then ritually burned, this was the act necessary for atonement. Now, since we don't have the Temple anymore, we have Yom Kippur. Sorry, but this has absolutely nothing at all to do with Messianic prophesy. Now, if you want me to do a point-by-point of every one of these, I will indulge you, but I'd hope you won't because I really don't think that's necessary. Unless you want to question my integrity. You've proved one out of 324 statements wrong. You've got quite a ways to go, if you want to prove me wrong. Quote: ]Onwards! Jesus lineage is a tricky issue. Firstly, Jesus isn't a MALE (note that I previously said male descendant, not just descendant, as the prophesy on the subject mandates that he be a male descendant) descendant of David. Unless you're arguing that Jesus was a woman (very doubtful), then you're on shakey ground here. Quote: Unless you want to admit Joseph is his biological father, of course. The same goes for tribal affiliations. Jesus was not a member of the tribe of Judah. And it doesn't count to say that Joseph was his legal guardian, because even in the cases of children born out of wedlock, those children would not bear the tribal affiliations of their fathers due to the sinful way in which they were born. Exceptions have been made, but those exceptions only came from the Kohen Gadol (high priest) and the King. Because, you know, God is a lesser authority. Quote: And finally, Luke 3 and Matthew 1 (after reading them) give two completely different genealogies. Matthew 1 says his grandfather was Jacob (not THE Jacob, of course), and Luke 3 says that it was Heli. Some comparing of notes was probably in order, methinks. But it's still moot, because he's not a male descendant until you're willing to say that Joseph was his biological father. The geneology of Luke is a geneology through Mary. Quote: And finally, since Inquisitor is still beating the "you're damned" horse, I'm just going to toss a verse I came across in your own book, Romans 1:16. And finally, since Stxitxchxes is still beating the "I'm not damned" horse, I'm going to toss a verse I came across in my own book. Romans 1:16. Romans 1:16 I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 10:06 pm
You are quite possibly one of the worst debators I have ever seen. Cometh The Inquisitor Stxitxchxes I'd also like to say that I made a mistake, Messianic prophesies are present in the Pentateuch. I tend to only use Isaiah, but I was incorrect in stating that above. Anyway.. As for not using examples, here's a real simple one for you. Look at the list, now, on the left it lists OT prophesies (a great deal of which are taken out of context anyway, but I'll handle that later), and on the right, it lists verses from the New Testament. Seemingly to lend credence to these blurbs. In fact what it's doing is making a s**t-poor attempt at rationalizing. Read the head-note, the people who even wrote this had to acknowledge that none of these were prophesies, they were foreshadowings. Despite the ominous suggestions of foreshadows, they are not prophesies. Now, on to technical aspects. Here's your example: Leviticus 17:11 (used as a prophesy) I'll use your NIV version for the sake of ease. "For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life." Very sneaky, but no dice. This verse is about Yom Kippur, where animals were sacrificed at the Temple to atone for sins. The -only- blood that is considered Kabbalistically and Halachicly clean is the blood spilled upon the altar in the Temple. When an animal was sacrificed at the temple, its blood was collected and then ritually burned, this was the act necessary for atonement. Now, since we don't have the Temple anymore, we have Yom Kippur. Sorry, but this has absolutely nothing at all to do with Messianic prophesy. Now, if you want me to do a point-by-point of every one of these, I will indulge you, but I'd hope you won't because I really don't think that's necessary. Unless you want to question my integrity. You've proved one out of 324 statements wrong. You've got quite a ways to go, if you want to prove me wrong. Fine, you want to play chicken and think I won't go point-by-point on these, so be it. I happen to not have any exams this week, so I'll bounce back on here tomorrow, and edit it with the beginnings of those prophesies addressed. Don't expect all of them at once, of course. Since it's 324 steaming piles of nonsense. Edit: And thus, I begin. 1st PoN (Pile of Nonsense, hereafter called) Gen 3:15, your source states it's a virgin birth. Horseshit, the word 'Almah' means young woman in Hebrew, has nothing to do with virginity. 2nd PoN Gen 3:15, your source is a horrible translation. It talks about crushing Satan's head. Satan isn't even mentioned in the verse, onyl the serpent. It's now on you to prove the serpent is Satan. Protip: There is none. 3rd PoN Gen 5:24, this makes absolutely no sense whatsobloodyever. It says 'Enoch walked with G-d; then he was no more, because G-d took him away.' What the hell does that have to do with anything? The NT source is even more random, it just takls about Herodias wanting to kill John. Seriously, did these guys not expect people to look these verses up? 4th PoN Gen 9:26,27 This verse talks about Canaan being Japheth's slave.. Okay. The NT verse then just gives a genealogy that involves Canaan. But this is in no way a prophesy. The least these twits could have done was give a commentary explaining their bizarre definition of the word 'prophesy', because right now, it sounds like, 'A snazzy word we use when we intend to give backup that has absolutely nothing to do with the subject.' 5th PoN Gen 12:3, finally one with a little bit of substance. But all this does is state that those who bless Abram will also be blessed. Then the NT verses state that all people will be blessed by Abraham's seed, the Jewish people, logically speaking. Then it talks about the servant (I'm assuming Jesus) comign and blessing them by turning them from their wicked ways. But in no way is this a prophesy or the fulfilling of one. G-d simply said 'the people who bless you will be blessed'. Do you have any idea how man messianic candidates we'd have if that was an actual messianic prophesy? Ludicrous. 6th PoN Gen 12:7, now we've got a real honest attempt at a prophecy. Gen 12:7 talks about Abram's seed(s) (translation contested, but that's noather argument altogether). Gal 3:16 states that when it states that his Seed, not seeds were to be blessed, and that the singular denotes that it was one person, who they say is Jesus. However, this is -pure- exegesis. The argument can easily be made that from one seed, many trees will be birthed, and thus from Abram's one seed (Isaac) came the rest of the Jewish people. 7th PoN Gen 14:18, Genesis speaks here of a priest of G-d named Melchizedek blessing Abram, Heb 6:20 likens Jesus to Melchizedek. That's all fine and well, but the Genesis verse doesn't foreshadow anything, and if the Hebrews verseis trying to argue that it's a hidden prophecy, then this again becomes exegesis. 8th PoN Gen 14:18 again, just goes on to explain that Mel was also a kind, the Heb 7:2 verse is just talking about Mel being a king, then it likens Jesus to him, given that whole King of Kings bit. But this is in no way a prophecy. 9th PoN Gen 14:18 again, the site you gave says it foreshadows the Last Supper. While I do see a similarity in the dialogue about sharing, these two instances are in no way like each other. Nor do they bear the slightest semblance of a prophecy. At best, in Matthew, Jesus might have been repeating a virtue from Mel, but to say that this ia a prophecy loosens the definition of the word prophecy into such an aquaeous concept that would again, make the criteria so loose that the number of messianic candidates would be in the millions, and none of them any more or less likely than Jesus as a Messiah. 10th PoN Gen 17:19, speaks about the seed of Isaac. The NT verse talks about natural descendants and spiritual descendants in terms of the claim to the people of Israel. This is fine, I don't agree with it but it's a perfectly reasonable claim to make. The problem is that it's not a prophecy. Hell, it doesn't even talk about Jesus in the paragraph containing the verse in the NT. If anything, the NT verse is making a distinction in Abraham's two sons, Isaac and Ishmael, clarifying that THE covenant was with Isaac, and not Ishmael (though it bears mention that Ishmael had a covenant made with him as well). Still working on them, feel free to tell me anytime you think I've addressed enough of them, otherwise this threatens to become one of the larger posts in the history of Gaia. Quote: Quote: Onwards! Jesus lineage is a tricky issue. Firstly, Jesus isn't a MALE (note that I previously said male descendant, not just descendant, as the prophesy on the subject mandates that he be a male descendant) descendant of David. Unless you're arguing that Jesus was a woman (very doubtful), then you're on shakey ground here. Male descendant, you dolt. 2 Samuel 7:12-13, he has to be a male descendant, ancestral descendancy passes through the males in Israelite tribal structures. All the mothers do is pass on the status of being a Jew. And that wasn't even instituted until the exile. Quote: Quote: Unless you want to admit Joseph is his biological father, of course. The same goes for tribal affiliations. Jesus was not a member of the tribe of Judah. And it doesn't count to say that Joseph was his legal guardian, because even in the cases of children born out of wedlock, those children would not bear the tribal affiliations of their fathers due to the sinful way in which they were born. Exceptions have been made, but those exceptions only came from the Kohen Gadol (high priest) and the King. Because, you know, God is a lesser authority. Oh, so you speak for G-d. So sorry, I wasn't aware I was talking to Metatron. Quote: Quote: And finally, Luke 3 and Matthew 1 (after reading them) give two completely different genealogies. Matthew 1 says his grandfather was Jacob (not THE Jacob, of course), and Luke 3 says that it was Heli. Some comparing of notes was probably in order, methinks. But it's still moot, because he's not a male descendant until you're willing to say that Joseph was his biological father. The geneology of Luke is a geneology through Mary. You obviously didn't even read it. Luke 3:23-38 23Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melki, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, 25the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, 26the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, 27the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, 28the son of Melki, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, 29the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, 30the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, 31the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, 32the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon,[d] the son of Nahshon, 33the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram,[e] the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, 34the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, 35the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, 36the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, 37the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel, the son of Kenan, 38the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. Quote: Quote: And finally, since Inquisitor is still beating the "you're damned" horse, I'm just going to toss a verse I came across in your own book, Romans 1:16. And finally, since Stxitxchxes is still beating the "I'm not damned" horse, I'm going to toss a verse I came across in my own book. Romans 1:16. Romans 1:16 I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. Funny, I don't see a single word in that about belief in Jesus. Only belief in G-d. Zoinks Scooby!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 5:01 am
Stxitxchxes You are quite possibly one of the worst debators I have ever seen. Cometh The Inquisitor Stxitxchxes I'd also like to say that I made a mistake, Messianic prophesies are present in the Pentateuch. I tend to only use Isaiah, but I was incorrect in stating that above. Anyway.. As for not using examples, here's a real simple one for you. Look at the list, now, on the left it lists OT prophesies (a great deal of which are taken out of context anyway, but I'll handle that later), and on the right, it lists verses from the New Testament. Seemingly to lend credence to these blurbs. In fact what it's doing is making a s**t-poor attempt at rationalizing. Read the head-note, the people who even wrote this had to acknowledge that none of these were prophesies, they were foreshadowings. Despite the ominous suggestions of foreshadows, they are not prophesies. Now, on to technical aspects. Here's your example: Leviticus 17:11 (used as a prophesy) I'll use your NIV version for the sake of ease. "For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life." Very sneaky, but no dice. This verse is about Yom Kippur, where animals were sacrificed at the Temple to atone for sins. The -only- blood that is considered Kabbalistically and Halachicly clean is the blood spilled upon the altar in the Temple. When an animal was sacrificed at the temple, its blood was collected and then ritually burned, this was the act necessary for atonement. Now, since we don't have the Temple anymore, we have Yom Kippur. Sorry, but this has absolutely nothing at all to do with Messianic prophesy. Now, if you want me to do a point-by-point of every one of these, I will indulge you, but I'd hope you won't because I really don't think that's necessary. Unless you want to question my integrity. You've proved one out of 324 statements wrong. You've got quite a ways to go, if you want to prove me wrong. Fine, you want to play chicken and think I won't go point-by-point on these, so be it. I happen to not have any exams this week, so I'll bounce back on here tomorrow, and edit it with the beginnings of those prophesies addressed. Don't expect all of them at once, of course. Since it's 324 steaming piles of nonsense. Edit: And thus, I begin. 1st PoN (Pile of Nonsense, hereafter called) Gen 3:15, your source states it's a virgin birth. Horseshit, the word 'Almah' means young woman in Hebrew, has nothing to do with virginity. 2nd PoN Gen 3:15, your source is a horrible translation. It talks about crushing Satan's head. Satan isn't even mentioned in the verse, onyl the serpent. It's now on you to prove the serpent is Satan. Protip: There is none. 3rd PoN Gen 5:24, this makes absolutely no sense whatsobloodyever. It says 'Enoch walked with G-d; then he was no more, because G-d took him away.' What the hell does that have to do with anything? The NT source is even more random, it just takls about Herodias wanting to kill John. Seriously, did these guys not expect people to look these verses up? 4th PoN Gen 9:26,27 This verse talks about Canaan being Japheth's slave.. Okay. The NT verse then just gives a genealogy that involves Canaan. But this is in no way a prophesy. The least these twits could have done was give a commentary explaining their bizarre definition of the word 'prophesy', because right now, it sounds like, 'A snazzy word we use when we intend to give backup that has absolutely nothing to do with the subject.' 5th PoN Gen 12:3, finally one with a little bit of substance. But all this does is state that those who bless Abram will also be blessed. Then the NT verses state that all people will be blessed by Abraham's seed, the Jewish people, logically speaking. Then it talks about the servant (I'm assuming Jesus) comign and blessing them by turning them from their wicked ways. But in no way is this a prophesy or the fulfilling of one. G-d simply said 'the people who bless you will be blessed'. Do you have any idea how man messianic candidates we'd have if that was an actual messianic prophesy? Ludicrous. More to come tomorrow. Quote: Quote: Onwards! Jesus lineage is a tricky issue. Firstly, Jesus isn't a MALE (note that I previously said male descendant, not just descendant, as the prophesy on the subject mandates that he be a male descendant) descendant of David. Unless you're arguing that Jesus was a woman (very doubtful), then you're on shakey ground here. Male descendant, you dolt. 2 Samuel 7:12-13, he has to be a male descendant, ancestral descendancy passes through the males in Israelite tribal structures. All the mothers do is pass on the status of being a Jew. And that wasn't even instituted until the exile. Quote: Quote: Unless you want to admit Joseph is his biological father, of course. The same goes for tribal affiliations. Jesus was not a member of the tribe of Judah. And it doesn't count to say that Joseph was his legal guardian, because even in the cases of children born out of wedlock, those children would not bear the tribal affiliations of their fathers due to the sinful way in which they were born. Exceptions have been made, but those exceptions only came from the Kohen Gadol (high priest) and the King. Because, you know, God is a lesser authority. Oh, so you speak for G-d. So sorry, I wasn't aware I was talking to Metatron. Quote: Quote: And finally, Luke 3 and Matthew 1 (after reading them) give two completely different genealogies. Matthew 1 says his grandfather was Jacob (not THE Jacob, of course), and Luke 3 says that it was Heli. Some comparing of notes was probably in order, methinks. But it's still moot, because he's not a male descendant until you're willing to say that Joseph was his biological father. The geneology of Luke is a geneology through Mary. You obviously didn't even read it. Luke 3:23-38 23Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melki, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, 25the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, 26the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, 27the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, 28the son of Melki, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, 29the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, 30the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, 31the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, 32the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon,[d] the son of Nahshon, 33the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram,[e] the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, 34the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, 35the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, 36the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, 37the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel, the son of Kenan, 38the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. Quote: Quote: And finally, since Inquisitor is still beating the "you're damned" horse, I'm just going to toss a verse I came across in your own book, Romans 1:16. And finally, since Stxitxchxes is still beating the "I'm not damned" horse, I'm going to toss a verse I came across in my own book. Romans 1:16. Romans 1:16 I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. Funny, I don't see a single word in that about belief in Jesus. Only belief in G-d. Zoinks Scooby! I know I am not the brightist apple in the bunch... But Jesus Christ is our lords name... Whats G-d our new savior or something?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 5:26 am
Well, There's a problem with that kind of thinking.
First off, like that Guy sed (or something like this),
Jesus+your love=Salvation
Yeah, basicaly, there's your ansewer right there.
But lets get into the deeper meaning-ish.
Many and many people think that What we do,
what we are, Its just a religon, and thats just
it for them a RELIGON. Well, to tell the truth,
religon wont get you no where near heaven fast.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 5:31 am
Stxitxchxes Oh, so you speak for G-d. So sorry, I wasn't aware I was talking to Metatron. Actually, I thought the Bible speaks for God, since it's his word: Matthew 1:21 "And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins." Stxitxchxes Funny, I don't see a single word in that about belief in Jesus. Only belief in G-d. Zoinks Scooby! No dude you are so wrong. It's talking about believing in the Gospel: Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. Paul wrote Romans, and he was an apostle and bondservant of Jesus. And just in case: Definitions of the word Gospel 1. the teachings of Jesus and the apostles; the Christian revelation. 2. the story of Christ's life and teachings, esp. as contained in the first four books of the New Testament, namely Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. 3. (usually initial capital letter) any of these four books. 4. something regarded as true and implicitly believed: to take his report for gospel. 5. a doctrine regarded as of prime importance: political gospel. 6. glad tidings, esp. concerning salvation and the kingdom of God as announced to the world by Christ. 7. (often initial capital letter) Ecclesiastical. an extract from one of the four Gospels, forming part of the Eucharistic service in certain churches. 8. gospel music. –adjective 9. of, pertaining to, or proclaiming the gospel or its teachings: a gospel preacher. 10. in accordance with the gospel; evangelical. 11. of or pertaining to gospel music: a gospel singer. as you can tell, most of these definitions are about Jesus Christ, not about God alone. Romans 1:16 says that the gospel is salvation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 10:07 am
LRD_nick Stxitxchxes You are quite possibly one of the worst debators I have ever seen. Cometh The Inquisitor Stxitxchxes I'd also like to say that I made a mistake, Messianic prophesies are present in the Pentateuch. I tend to only use Isaiah, but I was incorrect in stating that above. Anyway.. As for not using examples, here's a real simple one for you. Look at the list, now, on the left it lists OT prophesies (a great deal of which are taken out of context anyway, but I'll handle that later), and on the right, it lists verses from the New Testament. Seemingly to lend credence to these blurbs. In fact what it's doing is making a s**t-poor attempt at rationalizing. Read the head-note, the people who even wrote this had to acknowledge that none of these were prophesies, they were foreshadowings. Despite the ominous suggestions of foreshadows, they are not prophesies. Now, on to technical aspects. Here's your example: Leviticus 17:11 (used as a prophesy) I'll use your NIV version for the sake of ease. "For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life." Very sneaky, but no dice. This verse is about Yom Kippur, where animals were sacrificed at the Temple to atone for sins. The -only- blood that is considered Kabbalistically and Halachicly clean is the blood spilled upon the altar in the Temple. When an animal was sacrificed at the temple, its blood was collected and then ritually burned, this was the act necessary for atonement. Now, since we don't have the Temple anymore, we have Yom Kippur. Sorry, but this has absolutely nothing at all to do with Messianic prophesy. Now, if you want me to do a point-by-point of every one of these, I will indulge you, but I'd hope you won't because I really don't think that's necessary. Unless you want to question my integrity. You've proved one out of 324 statements wrong. You've got quite a ways to go, if you want to prove me wrong. Fine, you want to play chicken and think I won't go point-by-point on these, so be it. I happen to not have any exams this week, so I'll bounce back on here tomorrow, and edit it with the beginnings of those prophesies addressed. Don't expect all of them at once, of course. Since it's 324 steaming piles of nonsense. Edit: And thus, I begin. 1st PoN (Pile of Nonsense, hereafter called) Gen 3:15, your source states it's a virgin birth. Horseshit, the word 'Almah' means young woman in Hebrew, has nothing to do with virginity. 2nd PoN Gen 3:15, your source is a horrible translation. It talks about crushing Satan's head. Satan isn't even mentioned in the verse, onyl the serpent. It's now on you to prove the serpent is Satan. Protip: There is none. 3rd PoN Gen 5:24, this makes absolutely no sense whatsobloodyever. It says 'Enoch walked with G-d; then he was no more, because G-d took him away.' What the hell does that have to do with anything? The NT source is even more random, it just takls about Herodias wanting to kill John. Seriously, did these guys not expect people to look these verses up? 4th PoN Gen 9:26,27 This verse talks about Canaan being Japheth's slave.. Okay. The NT verse then just gives a genealogy that involves Canaan. But this is in no way a prophesy. The least these twits could have done was give a commentary explaining their bizarre definition of the word 'prophesy', because right now, it sounds like, 'A snazzy word we use when we intend to give backup that has absolutely nothing to do with the subject.' 5th PoN Gen 12:3, finally one with a little bit of substance. But all this does is state that those who bless Abram will also be blessed. Then the NT verses state that all people will be blessed by Abraham's seed, the Jewish people, logically speaking. Then it talks about the servant (I'm assuming Jesus) comign and blessing them by turning them from their wicked ways. But in no way is this a prophesy or the fulfilling of one. G-d simply said 'the people who bless you will be blessed'. Do you have any idea how man messianic candidates we'd have if that was an actual messianic prophesy? Ludicrous. More to come tomorrow. Quote: Quote: Onwards! Jesus lineage is a tricky issue. Firstly, Jesus isn't a MALE (note that I previously said male descendant, not just descendant, as the prophesy on the subject mandates that he be a male descendant) descendant of David. Unless you're arguing that Jesus was a woman (very doubtful), then you're on shakey ground here. Male descendant, you dolt. 2 Samuel 7:12-13, he has to be a male descendant, ancestral descendancy passes through the males in Israelite tribal structures. All the mothers do is pass on the status of being a Jew. And that wasn't even instituted until the exile. Quote: Quote: Unless you want to admit Joseph is his biological father, of course. The same goes for tribal affiliations. Jesus was not a member of the tribe of Judah. And it doesn't count to say that Joseph was his legal guardian, because even in the cases of children born out of wedlock, those children would not bear the tribal affiliations of their fathers due to the sinful way in which they were born. Exceptions have been made, but those exceptions only came from the Kohen Gadol (high priest) and the King. Because, you know, God is a lesser authority. Oh, so you speak for G-d. So sorry, I wasn't aware I was talking to Metatron. Quote: Quote: And finally, Luke 3 and Matthew 1 (after reading them) give two completely different genealogies. Matthew 1 says his grandfather was Jacob (not THE Jacob, of course), and Luke 3 says that it was Heli. Some comparing of notes was probably in order, methinks. But it's still moot, because he's not a male descendant until you're willing to say that Joseph was his biological father. The geneology of Luke is a geneology through Mary. You obviously didn't even read it. Luke 3:23-38 23Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melki, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, 25the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, 26the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, 27the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, 28the son of Melki, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, 29the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, 30the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, 31the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, 32the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon,[d] the son of Nahshon, 33the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram,[e] the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, 34the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, 35the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, 36the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, 37the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel, the son of Kenan, 38the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. Quote: Quote: And finally, since Inquisitor is still beating the "you're damned" horse, I'm just going to toss a verse I came across in your own book, Romans 1:16. And finally, since Stxitxchxes is still beating the "I'm not damned" horse, I'm going to toss a verse I came across in my own book. Romans 1:16. Romans 1:16 I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. Funny, I don't see a single word in that about belief in Jesus. Only belief in G-d. Zoinks Scooby! I know I am not the brightist apple in the bunch... But Jesus Christ is our lords name... Whats G-d our new savior or something? No, G-d is the father of what you Christians call the trinity. An o goes where I place a dash, because out of tradition Jews don't inscribe his name.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 10:14 am
OMG its Luisito Stxitxchxes Oh, so you speak for G-d. So sorry, I wasn't aware I was talking to Metatron. Actually, I thought the Bible speaks for God, since it's his word: Matthew 1:21 "And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins." And if you read what we were actually talking about, I was addressing the fact that he was trying to place his own understanding as completely superceding mine. Those who make the assertions bear the burdon of proof, remember. Quote: Stxitxchxes Funny, I don't see a single word in that about belief in Jesus. Only belief in G-d. Zoinks Scooby! No dude you are so wrong. It's talking about believing in the Gospel: Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. Paul wrote Romans, and he was an apostle and bondservant of Jesus. And just in case: Definitions of the word Gospel 1. the teachings of Jesus and the apostles; the Christian revelation. 2. the story of Christ's life and teachings, esp. as contained in the first four books of the New Testament, namely Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. 3. (usually initial capital letter) any of these four books. 4. something regarded as true and implicitly believed: to take his report for gospel. 5. a doctrine regarded as of prime importance: political gospel. 6. glad tidings, esp. concerning salvation and the kingdom of God as announced to the world by Christ. 7. (often initial capital letter) Ecclesiastical. an extract from one of the four Gospels, forming part of the Eucharistic service in certain churches. 8. gospel music. –adjective 9. of, pertaining to, or proclaiming the gospel or its teachings: a gospel preacher. 10. in accordance with the gospel; evangelical. 11. of or pertaining to gospel music: a gospel singer. as you can tell, most of these definitions are about Jesus Christ, not about God alone. Romans 1:16 says that the gospel is salvation. That's fine and well, but you're trying to twist the verse. The verse exalts the gospel, but hen states that salvation is there for those that believe in the power of G-d. Secondly, according to your logic, all one needs to do is believe in what Jesus taught, and not in his divinity. Which is contradictory to this whole 'Why you're damned.' bit. Edit: I'd also be pointing out that the NIV makes no mention of Jesus in that verse. And you're falsely stating that the gospel is Jesus' alone. Your own defition clearly points out almost as many times that the apostles' gospel is just as apparent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 10:39 am
Quote: That's fine and well, but you're trying to twist the verse. The verse exalts the gospel, but hen states that salvation is there for those that believe in the power of G-d. The verse says that the gospel is the power of God. And before anyone misinterprets that, I am not saying that the Gospel is the only power of God. Quote: Secondly, according to your logic, all one needs to do is believe in what Jesus taught, and not in his divinity. Which is contradictory to this whole 'Why you're damned.' bit. You misinterpreted my "logic". Jesus also taught that he was the Son of God. So if you believe in what Jesus taught, you believe in him: that he is the Son of God and our savior. And also, I never said that Jews are damned. Romans 1:16 clearly says it. Any one who believes will be saved. Quote: Edit: I'd also be pointing out that the NIV makes no mention of Jesus in that verse. And you're falsely stating that the gospel is Jesus' alone. Your own defition clearly points out almost as many times that the apostles' gospel is just as apparent. Since when is the NIV the "go-to" version? And about the definition: Quote: as you can tell, most of these definitions are about Jesus Christ, not about God alone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 12:57 pm
OMG its Luisito Quote: That's fine and well, but you're trying to twist the verse. The verse exalts the gospel, but hen states that salvation is there for those that believe in the power of G-d. The verse says that the gospel is the power of God. And before anyone misinterprets that, I am not saying that the Gospel is the only power of God. Contested, and now that's an issue of semantics. I assert that the sentance is stating that the power of G-d is salvation, and that Paul is merely saying he's not ashamed of the gospel. It really depends on how the sentance is read. Quote: Quote: Secondly, according to your logic, all one needs to do is believe in what Jesus taught, and not in his divinity. Which is contradictory to this whole 'Why you're damned.' bit. You misinterpreted my "logic". Jesus also taught that he was the Son of God. So if you believe in what Jesus taught, you believe in him: that he is the Son of God and our savior. And also, I never said that Jews are damned. Romans 1:16 clearly says it. Any one who believes will be saved. That's a universalism. We're all sons and daughters of G-d. I'm talking about divinity, however. I believe that Jesus was as much a son of G-d as I am, but I question his divinity, big difference. And I think I'm picking up on a subtlety here. You say you don't believe Jews are damned, but my gut says you're playing with words and are trying to insinuate that Jews, because they are Jews, aren't damned. But what about Jews that practice Judaism in its pure form? I'm genuinely not trying to be antagonistic here, just asking for a clarification. Because, if you mean what it looks like you mean, then you just contradicted yourself with the mention of Romans 1:16. Quote: Quote: Edit: I'd also be pointing out that the NIV makes no mention of Jesus in that verse. And you're falsely stating that the gospel is Jesus' alone. Your own defition clearly points out almost as many times that the apostles' gospel is just as apparent. Since when is the NIV the "go-to" version? And about the definition: Quote: as you can tell, most of these definitions are about Jesus Christ, not about God alone. And since when is your translation the go-to version? I'm simply stating that your opinion, based on your translation, is not 100% substantiated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:05 pm
Well, based on Romans 1:16, none of us are ever going to be right, because like you said, it all depends on how you read it and interpret it.
In response to your question about the Jews: I believe that Jews aren't damned for being Jews. I believe that Jews that don't believe and accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior are damned, just like any other regular person. Because you can be a Jew, and still believe in Jesus Christ.
I never said that my translation was the "go-to" but since you were talking about the NIV like if it was the Pure word of God, I just had to say it. Either way, I believe that the word Christ was omitted from the NIV in Romans 1:16 because it wasn't needed since it's obvious that the gospel being spoken of was the gospel of Christ.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 3:41 pm
Stxitxchxes You are quite possibly one of the worst debators I have ever seen. Says the man who has to resort to ad hominem. I mean really, at least you could try to be cordial. Quote: Funny, I don't see a single word in that about belief in Jesus. Only belief in G-d. Zoinks Scooby! Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit are all incarnations of YHWH. To talk about belief in God is to talk about belief in Jesus. And, if that verse doesn't do it for you... John 14:6.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 3:47 pm
Stxitxchxes Male descendant, you dolt. 2 Samuel 7:12-13, he has to be a male descendant, ancestral descendancy passes through the males in Israelite tribal structures. All the mothers do is pass on the status of being a Jew. And that wasn't even instituted until the exile.[/quoe] Jesus was a male, Jesus was a descendant of David, in the Tribe of Judah. It doesn't take much to put two and two together... And again with the ad hominem. Really, I'm trying to have a civilized convorsation here. Quote: Oh, so you speak for G-d. So sorry, I wasn't aware I was talking to Metatron. No, The Bible speaks for YHWH, and it says that Jesus was in the Tribe of Judah, in the line of David. Quote: No, G-d is the father of what you Christians call the trinity. An o goes where I place a dash, because out of tradition Jews don't inscribe his name. To be technical, God's name is alot closer to YHWH, and God The Father is simply an incarnation of YHWH.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 7:02 pm
Cometh The Inquisitor Stxitxchxes You are quite possibly one of the worst debators I have ever seen. Says the man who has to resort to ad hominem. I mean really, at least you could try to be cordial. Quote: Funny, I don't see a single word in that about belief in Jesus. Only belief in G-d. Zoinks Scooby! Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit are all incarnations of YHWH. To talk about belief in God is to talk about belief in Jesus. And, if that verse doesn't do it for you... John 14:6. You sort through the chaff quickly with brow-beating, your average fluff bunny gets too self-conscious then and usually questions themselves. It's really just become a reflex of mine. As for the triune G-d, you're going to have to convince me of that first. Because until the council of Nicaea, there was only one G-d or aspect of him. This is the reason Judaism regards Christianity as idolatrous, because for thousands of years prior, G-d was believed as indivisible, even in terms of aspects. This is of course not to be confused with aspects such as the Shekinah, which is an aspect of character, as opposed to an aspect of being. And you can quote all the NT verses you want to trying to convince me that I'm damned. Bottom line is that I don't regard the NT as truth, I'm not like a Pagan in this regard. If you're going to try and make a Jew see the light, you're going to have to argue Old Testament with him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 7:05 pm
Cometh The Inquisitor Stxitxchxes Male descendant, you dolt. 2 Samuel 7:12-13, he has to be a male descendant, ancestral descendancy passes through the males in Israelite tribal structures. All the mothers do is pass on the status of being a Jew. And that wasn't even instituted until the exile. Jesus was a male, Jesus was a descendant of David, in the Tribe of Judah. It doesn't take much to put two and two together... And again with the ad hominem. Really, I'm trying to have a civilized convorsation here. Quote: Oh, so you speak for G-d. So sorry, I wasn't aware I was talking to Metatron. No, The Bible speaks for YHWH, and it says that Jesus was in the Tribe of Judah, in the line of David. Quote: No, G-d is the father of what you Christians call the trinity. An o goes where I place a dash, because out of tradition Jews don't inscribe his name. To be technical, God's name is alot closer to YHWH, and God The Father is simply an incarnation of YHWH. Contested. Only the NT lends credence to Jesus' claim as being part of the tribe and a descendant of David. And no, G-d's name is not a lot closer to Yahweh, there is no W sound in Hebrew, besides that, YHWH or YHVH isn't his name, until you write it in the Hebrew. It's just that when we say G-d, we're addressing Adonoy. Really, the dash is just cultural tradition, don't read so much into it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
