Questions about the Bible , I ask as I read

[Jon Miller]

No, dude, you have shown yourself, back when I read your posts, over and over again to not have a clue about what you were talking about with respect to the NT. As such, I don't pay attention to your details, because there is no basis for discussion in them.

You won't even try to get into a conversation about them by reading a bit.

Now, I know that there are some things I don't know well, and I haven't entered into a conversation with you about traditional rabbi interpretations of the OT (unlike Ben and others). I have never changed what I said in this thread, I have maintained over and over again that you don't know what you are talking about, every statement I read by you on the NT I have to go 'huh, what in the world is he talking bout' (unlike Molly Boom, who comes at it from the hardcore atheist standpoint, which at least in places has conversant people).

I think you must be getting me mixed up with someone else, or have somehow misread what I have said.

Many Christians don't know the NT much, but you definitely are much much much less familiar with the NT then most practincing Christians.

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Basically I caught you on the fact that you didn't know what you were talking about 4 pages ago. I then ignored your arguments. I saw that you were continuing your arguments, and decided to tell you once more that you should study before talking about stuff you didn't know (which I caught you on 4 pages ago, and assumed you were still diong).

You then attacked me for being a ***** and having a huge ego, and also called me a fool. Additionally, yuo have accused me of making personal attacks.

I am really really not understanding you.

Jon Miller

[Arrian]

Remember, however, that I'm the one who has been disrespectful and whatnot in this thread

-Arrian

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Basically I caught you on the fact that you didn't know what you were talking about 4 pages ago. I then ignored your arguments. I saw that you were continuing your arguments, and decided to tell you once more that you should study before talking about stuff you didn't know (which I caught you on 4 pages ago, and assumed you were still diong).

You then attacked me for being a ***** and having a huge ego, and also called me a fool. Additionally, yuo have accused me of making personal attacks.

I am really really not understanding you.

Jon Miller

I made a mistake. I admitted it. You will not do likewise. Instead you attack my credentials. *golf clap*

I didn't "attack" you. You started it.

And the more we go round and round in circles like this, the further we go from the actual facts.

[Jon Miller]

No, I admit I made a mistake. I didn't read your last set of posts and commented on them. I also explained why I made that mistake.. which is that your posts weren't valuable earlier.

Jon Miller
(not all of Molly Bloom's are either... and I called him on it when he posted such)

[Vesayen]

My posts were not valuable? You are wrong about that, but also wrong in the posts themselves. I am correct. Your tucking your head in the sand.

[Jon Miller]

Some are valuable. In any one which discusses the NT they are not (or none of the ones I have read have been).

JM

[Vesayen]

Because your wrong? They are not valuable because they show your point of view, is flawed.

You can hang on one liners and ridiculous accusations but they are still wrong.

You acuse me of being incorrect and then do not provide information, just accusations.

Stick to the contested facts.

"Your wrong!"
"No, your wrong!"
"No, YOUR wrong!"

[Jon Miller]

No, they aren't valuable because clearly you don't know what you are talking about. You don't even know enough to engage in conversation in any other than a learning role. Since you are interested in doing that, there is no reason for me to take part in your posts.

I am trying to help you.

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

I did, you made claims about something said in the NT. I said that it wasn't said...

And you have continued to do this, over and over again.

I am trying to help you to know how to engage in conversations about Christianity. Some of Molly's posts suggest that he knows how, others suggest that he doesn't. I am not sure which set he is trolling with or if one set or both he is just copying from some atheist website.

Actually it is a bit about engaging in conversations period, if you are going to discuss something, have a little knowledge about what you are claiming things about.

Jon Miller

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I did, you made claims about something said in the NT. I said that it wasn't said...

What was that? I don't recall.

And you have continued to do this, over and over again.

You mean point out your avoidist tactics?

I am trying to help you to know how to engage in conversations about Christianity. Some of Molly's posts suggest that he knows how, others suggest that he doesn't. I am not sure which set he is trolling with or if one set or both he is just copying from some atheist website.

Since about halfway through this thread, it has stopped to be a discussion of Christianity. It has turned into a discussion of a prophecy or lack of in the Torah and some related issues.

Actually it is a bit about engaging in conversations period, if you are going to discuss something, have a little knowledge about what you are claiming things about.

I have plenty of knowledge. You refuse to discuss the issues and side track the thread.

[Jon Miller]

You are completely ignoring my earlier posts. Right we are discussing your problems with engaging in conversation, not anything dealing with religion.

I pointed out where you were wrong in your assumptions of what is in Mathew. You basically won't admit, or accept, that you knowledge isn't complete, that you don't know anything, and won't make the effort to become conversant an a language in order to discuss. I am not saying anything about postTemple Judaism, and havne't, because I recognise that I don't know enough about that subject to argue that with you.

If I wished to do so, I would read some, rather then trying to make pionts that were nonsense. I am trying to point out to you, that it is polite to do this.

Jon Miller

[Vesayen]

I said before that I had not read Mathew rescently and was unfamilliar with it. I have said repeated my knowledge is incomplete. In response to that, you repeatadly accuse me of being ignorant of other details which are irrelevant and unconnected to my lack of complete mastery level of all knowledge related to Christinaity. Nothing I said in my last *REAL* post, has anything to do with your objections as you just stated them, nor did anything you said in your last *real* post have to do with the objections you just stated.

I have to go and may not be back till tommorow.

[Ben Kenobi]

Most of the concepts about the Meshiach are not in the Torah but from later works. Based on the Torah alone, you could read it and miss the concept of the Meshiach entirely. This does make the entire concept, questionable. I poke at the flaws and inconsistencies as readily as I do for any other religion. I am an equal opportunity seeker of truth.

So there is authority beyond the Torah. Thank you. That is the point that I was getting at. You trust sources beyond the Torah, and I am going to ask you now which sources are these and why are these inspired works meriting our trust?

Because it would make this a whole lot easier? It need not name Jesus specifically, but it must provide enough details that we know they are talking about Jesus. It is not a prophecy for which anyone would be swayed to Jesus, if it can not clearly be identified, as Jesus who is prophecised

And how would one obtain reliable information about this person of Christ? That is my challenge to you. You say there cannot be an authority on God outside the Torah, and yet you admit other later books provide insights.

Why exclude the New Testament, as an authoritative source on the life and death of Christ?

An analogy of a court of law is completely inadequate because in this case the judge did not make you, make your desires, make the environment, or even make the law. The only thing the judge does is interpret the law. This is so dissimilar from G-D as to be a worthless analogy.

My point was really irrelevant as to where one submits the case. Is temptation the same as coercion?

Matter of perspective. From the perspective of any sufficiently omniscient observer(i.e. G-D, but not necessarily him… from any sufficiently knowledgeable observer), free will does not exist, it CAN NOT exist. Free will only exists from our perspective…. And it may in fact be an illusion. I am unsure of that.

If you are going to charge anyone with a crime that assumes they are in fact responsible for their actions and that free will exists. I agree this is a difficult question, but it is impossible for free will to exist from our perspective only, either it does or it doesn't.

So when precisely do “Christian values” cease to be a thing which were practiced by Christians for century after century? Are you saying that Christians had no connection to Christian values from 500 CE to 1800 CE?

I did not say that. Where does Christ teach that murder and theft are ok? Christians have always acted contrary to the teachings of Christ, and this did not begin in 500 nor has it ended in 1800.

However, if we are to hold Christians personally responsible for their actions, then it makes little sense to blame their religion for their actions as you have done so here. Yes it is a poor reflection on Christ, but it does not change the fact that Christ teaches us to love our enemies, to give to the one who needs, and first and foremost, to love our neighbour as we would love ourselves.

To Jews, faith if stupid. Faith is stupid because faith is a “mystical feeling” and to a Jew, you could just as easily have a “mystical feeling” aka faith about a carved piece of wood if you were taught to. Faith is not only stupid to Jews but a danger because since you can have faith in anything, faith might lead you astray from G-D.

I say you should open your eyes some. There are Jews who take the opposite position to you on this issue.

This is another *FUNDAMENTAL* difference between Jews and Christians. Our religions are not similar. We may share enough in common to live peacefully as neighbors and our religions are different, this is not necessarily a bad thing, but we are very different.

You seem rather devoted to restating that case over and over.

Yet you have studiously avoided the Ten Commandments.

Civilization is a hell of a lot older then Greece, even older then the “first” Sumerian city states.

True, but we are talking about WESTERN civilisation here.

Heard of hamurabi’s code? Prohibitions on theft, on murder? Civilization was old before Jews were on the scene and prohibitions on murder and theft of equals, just as old. If you look to Judaism and Christianity as a common cause for our moral prohibitions, you’d have to look further back to where they got theirs from.

So you deny that Moses received the Law from God, and that the Israelites simply made up their own moral code as an updating on what people around them had already taught?

The original point(going up) was a challenge to my assertion that Christians practiced slavery for ages. This is bad.

It was, I don't deny this.

“Christians” did not ban slavery, economic pressures, banned slavery in the most of the world. Slavery was always justified with religion. Its banning was justified with the fact it was no longer profitable.

I suggest you go read William Wilberforce. The economic interests were AGAINST him and in favour of the use of slave labour, always have and always will be.

His argument is that they are persons no different from you or I, and that it is wrong and an affront to God to treat them as slaves.

“Christians” ending slavery is not a black mark(even though it was not “Christians” but a Christian society),

however it is not a gold mark. It was not done for moral reasons, but economic ones. I am speaking of slavery on a global basis, not just America-which used JESUS to justify slavery long after much of the first world had given it the boot in their countries.

So am I. I am speaking of slavery banned throughout the British Empire. And yes it was Christians practicing Christians who pushed through the ban.

Read up on Wilberforce if you don't believe me.

Passover has nothing to do with rebirth or spring, unlike most other holidays from other religions which take place at the same time.

Easter has EVERYTHING to do with Spring. It is a date inherited from pagan fertility festivals. It is about the “rebirth” of the world in spring time.

Horse hockey. Christians say that Easter is about the death and resurrection of christ.

Shouldn't they get to decide what their own celebration is about? Look, I could call Pesach a pagan spring festival but I did not and I will not. I expect the same respect from you regarding Christian traditions as I have accorded to Jewish Traditions.

How can it be a usurped pagan fertility festival and not be about spring?

Who says it is a usurped pagan festival? Just because it takes place in the spring?

Again, the same sword cuts through Pesach, if the date is the only thing.

Passover does not have a spring or rebirth aspect. It is about a specific historical event.

Christians believe that the death and resurrection of Christ is no less a historical event then the passing over of Israel's firstborn in Egypt. Hence your argument has no merit against Christians.

The natural worlds apparent rebirth in Spring has nothing to do with Passover in ANY way. Passover is entirely about commemorating a specific historic event which happened in Spring.

And so is Easter. It commemorates the death and resurrection of Christ which happened in the Spring, shortly after the Passover.

In fact I suggest you read up on the last supper, which was a passover celebration between Christ and his disciples.

Any person sacrificing themselves to G-D in a sacrifice of that manner, is little different then sacrificing someone else to G-D. Unbelievably taboo.

Christ submitted himself to the authorities, the Romans who crucified him and the Jews who turned him to the Romans so that he might be crucified.

Yet you say what Christ did was taboo?

Wow….. and you accused me of being incensetive before? Wow. Way to insult the majority of the worlds population. I guess if you’re a Christian or a Jew you’re a godless Satan worshiping idolater who fornicates in the moonlight huh?

Note I took you to task for insulting Christians by saying that Christ teaches that murder and theft is good.

How does this square with the argument that Islam supports both murder and theft of infidels in order to spread Islam around the world?

Inside every society in the world, theft or murder of equals is a crime. Who are equals varies as much based on religion as on cultural issues. Theft and murder of equals is a crime everything on the planet.

So it's ok to rob infidels because they are less then you. And you condemn Christians for slavery? Interesting perspective Ves.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Vesayen
I said before that I had not read Mathew rescently and was unfamilliar with it. I have said repeated my knowledge is incomplete. In response to that, you repeatadly accuse me of being ignorant of other details which are irrelevant and unconnected to my lack of complete mastery level of all knowledge related to Christinaity. Nothing I said in my last *REAL* post, has anything to do with your objections as you just stated them, nor did anything you said in your last *real* post have to do with the objections you just stated.

I have to go and may not be back till tommorow.

And I apologise for that (since I posted without having read your post really). I had stopped reading your posts, but at my casual inspection when I opened the thread, it appeared as if you were doing the same thing as before. As such, I made a post, which I now regret, as it most likely acheived nothing.

Jon Miller