Pre Fall Of Satan, Pre Creation And Post Creation Evil Show That The Bible God Is Self Refuting. (Comments Criticism, Please!)

[agnosticator]

 

 

 

Some people don't want to know about God and I don't tell them about Him, I talk about other things. I put "to whom has an ear", if they don't have an ear they don't have to respond. I'll just leave 'em and pray.

 

What I put in read is friendship, you missed it Mr. tunnel vision!

 

The bolded is confusing, and seems contradictory to me. Now go hug a Muslim!

[Ouroboros]

Heaven located in Orion's belt?

 

Sorry guys. I'm very behind in these threads...

[agnosticator]

Now, tops off, ladies, and into that mud!!!! Our reigning champ, THUMBELINA!!!!!!!!!! Let's rassle!!!

 

How appropriate. Today is Topless Day! WOOT!

[Thumbelina]

Long time, Thumbs!

 

You know, when you say things like this:

Job did not give up on God so why are skeptics always criticizing Him?

it confirms my conclusion that you should give up evangelizing the Heathens and concentrate on your mud wrestling career. You still do not understand the basic, crucial fact that "skeptics" can't criticize your deity for the simple fact we accept that there is no evidence whatsoever that it exists. We aren't criticizing the nonexistent, we are pointing out the absurdities and inconsistencies of Christian mythology in its myriad variations.

 

Now, tops off, ladies, and into that mud!!!! Our reigning champ, THUMBELINA!!!!!!!!!! Let's rassle!!!

 

 

I'm scared to give you a Christianly hug, your mind tends to be in the gutter. Let me start again, Hello Florduh!!!

 

Eh, you are an inadvertent Crowleyan and you're deceived.

[agnosticator]

Heaven in Orion's belt?

 

Hey Hans! Good to virtually see ya'! E. G. White (SDA Founder-prophet)believed that is where it's at.

[Thumbelina]

Some people don't want to know about God and I don't tell them about Him, I talk about other things. I put "to whom has an ear", if they don't have an ear they don't have to respond. I'll just leave 'em and pray.

 

What I put in read is friendship, you missed it Mr. tunnel vision!

 

The bolded is confusing, and seems contradictory to me. Now go hug a Muslim!

 

 

Why won't I hug a Muslim? There's a muslim who's married to a Baptist that I know, she's petite like me and he's a riot and he's very good to her.

[agnosticator]

Why won't I hug a Muslim? There's a muslim who's married to a Baptist that I know, she's petite like me and he's a riot and he's very good to her.

 

Glad to hear it! Have fun with your friends and mud wrestling with Florduh!

[Thumbelina]

Heaven located in Orion's belt?

 

Sorry guys. I'm very behind in these threads...

 

Ask the guys in that Men In Black movie. I don't really know where it's at, it's what some creationists believe.

[Thumbelina]

Why won't I hug a Muslim? There's a muslim who's married to a Baptist that I know, she's petite like me and he's a riot and he's very good to her.

 

Glad to hear it! Have fun with your friends and mud wrestling with Florduh!

 

That Florduh needs prayers. I don't want him to influence Par. Par is more innocent ( I hope Par doesn't try to prove he's not so innocent).

[Ouroboros]

Heaven in Orion's belt?

 

Hey Hans! Good to virtually see ya'! E. G. White (SDA Founder-prophet)believed that is where it's at.

It's the first time I hear this. It's a new low for Christianity. What's next? Hell in Betelgeuse?

 

Don't they know anything about constellations? Don't they understand the distance between the stars the form these patterns? It's not like these stars, nebulas, galaxies are next to each other. It only looks like it from our point of view.

[Ouroboros]

Heaven located in Orion's belt?

 

Sorry guys. I'm very behind in these threads...

 

Ask the guys in that Men In Black movie. I don't really know where it's at, it's what some creationists believe.

I seriously thought it was a joke. (The Men in Black movie is fiction, by the way, just for your information. There are plenty of bad science in most movies. I can't watch a show or movie without catching at least five.)

[Thumbelina]

Heaven located in Orion's belt?

 

Sorry guys. I'm very behind in these threads...

 

Ask the guys in that Men In Black movie. I don't really know where it's at, it's what some creationists believe.

I seriously thought it was a joke. (The Men in Black movie is fiction, by the way, just for your information. There are plenty of bad science in most movies. I can't watch a show or movie without catching at least five.)

 

I said I didn't know and I probably relayed what they said wrong. I never really looked into it. Maybe they said it was beyond that area, I don't remember.

 

 

Hollywood generally mocks God and the bible.

[mymistake]

Hollywood generally mocks God and the bible.

 

And deservedly so since in the myth God does genocide, evil and is ploting to send billions to hell over something trivial. That theology deserves to be mocked.

[agnosticator]

Don't they know anything about constellations? Don't they understand the distance between the stars the form these patterns? It's not like these stars, nebulas, galaxies are next to each other. It only looks like it from our point of view.

 

With God all things are possible...

 

"Dark, heavy clouds came up and clashed against each other. The atmosphere parted and rolled back; then we could look up through the open space in Orion, whence came the voice of God. The Holy City will come down through that open space."³

 

3. Arthur White quoting Ellen White in Ellen G. White: The Early Years, Vol. 1 - 1827-1862, p. 154. Same quote is also found in Early Writings, p. 41; The Present Truth, August 1, 1849, "Dear Brethren and Sisters"; The Present Truth, January 31, 1849, "To Those who are receiving the seal of the living God".

[Ouroboros]

I said I didn't know and I probably relayed what they said wrong. I never really looked into it. Maybe they said it was beyond that area, I don't remember.

Rent or buy some science shows about the universe. It will change your limited view.

 

The Orion's belt isn't really an "area" like you think.

 

Hollywood generally mocks God and the bible.

I don't think Men in Black really said Heaven was in Orion's belt. It was a crystal or ball that was called something with Orion or Heaven, but not the Biblical Heaven.

[centauri]

@ Centauri

Cite the bible OT text that say the irreverent and censorious (who are very rebellious) will comprehend spiritual things. Cite the OT passage that say that people who use disingenuous practices of pitting different beliefs against each other by using google university as research, while ignoring the biblical stipulation of yielding to God and comparing scripture with scripture, will understand the bible. Dude all you do is read mostly Jewish propaganda and you do EVERY SINGLE THING that Rayskidude said.

 

centauri:

Well like you, rayskidude was an aspiring teacher/preacher that couldn't come up with an actual answer to a very simple request.

You're the zealots that make claims about the Bible displaying self-proving harmony.

If you're going to make such bold proclamations, be prepared to back them up with something more than Christian self-righteousness and imagined scriptural discernment.

The Jewish propaganda is their evaluation of what their scriptures mean.

 

Thumbelina:

*raised eyebrow* You Centauri are full of shenanigans. You do not (PRESENTLY; I believe you did in the past, you seem to be an avid reader too) search the scripture for truth, you take a doctrine from here and a doctrine from there in order to create confusion (that's the spirit of antichrist you know; I hope you stop, I still like you and don't want you to not be saved).

You claimed the Bible displayed complete harmony, which isn't the case.

As for your claim that I don't search the scripture for truth, that's subjective.

I'll counter your jab by saying that your standard for truth is obviously much lower than mine.

 

How can someone reason with you when you plan on dismissing everything and you do not do what Rayskidude said one is supposed to do to understand?

Do you take orders from the Pope?

I don't take orders from a pompous missionary.

 

The bible does prove itself to people with open hearts/minds. Show me in the bible where it says scripture is for persistent unbelievers with predetermined hearts. Show me where it says the scoffer has spiritual discernment. You as an unbeliever, an unbeliever, has placed yourself as a discerner of the bible, show the lurkers the scriptures where it says someone with an anti-gospel is able to do that.

I didn't make the claim about the Bible displaying complete harmony, that was you.

That claim doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

When faced with the reality that it doesn't, you dismiss the problems by dismissing the person pointing them out.

In your universe, no unbeliever is ever qualified to question your claims.

[Antlerman]

I haven't been on the site for quite some time. I drop in and......there's Thumby at it again! Girl, you need to grow up and move on!

Jesus agrees!

[florduh]

In your universe, no unbeliever is ever qualified to question your claims.

 

It's the perfect defense for utterly unsupportable claims. Even other believers hit a brick wall with her because they obviously aren't using their Bible correctly. Maybe I'll prepare for a debate with her by arguing with a small soap dish.

[centauri]

The Jewish propaganda is that God says all nations are to be blessed and given the opportunity for salvation and the Jews are exclusivist and don't give two shakes about the salvation of non Jews.

Jewish interpretation of their own scriptures makes far more sense than Christian ones, especially in cases where Christian writers ripped a verse out of context, which they did repeatedly.

 

You are similar to Heretic in that you're someone helter skelter in trying to find a gospel; it ends up a discombobulated mess, an anti gospel as it were. You're not as looney as Heretic though, you have read and have been reading about the laws and you seem to understand some of them but you isolate texts to support the Jewish view (that Christ isn't God and is unnecessary) and you do it without the HS.

There are Christian denominations that don't believe Jesus is God.

A discombobulated mess would describe Christianity, which cannot agree on even basic doctrine.

As for having the Holy Spirit, would you care to try proving that you have it?

 

You tie the hands of God with your choice; you tie the hand of the Christian who is willing to point out the scripture. However, there are certain things that I see you find questionable but your ears are stopped and you don't dialogue, you just automatically dismiss it by using the Jewish propaganda.

Indeed, the nerve of those uppity Jews.

They can't even interpret their own scriptures properly without having a Christian around to explain it to them.

 

The Christian who is trying to reason gives up because you are NOT communicating but just dismissing, you're not being a Berean! You then boast that the answer is not adequate, granted sometimes they are not , and you repeat the process thereby wasting people's time.

If your answers were even half-baked they might be useful.

The problem is that they're fully baked concoctions straight out of the Christian propaganda oven.

Am I wasting your time?

Then I'm delighted to do so.

Every minute you spend here is one less minute you have to be jamming your rancid theology into the skull of some poor person in an effort to dominate them.

 

*mad* That's not very nice Centauri! I had a crazy-as-a-fruit-bat atheist on another cite do the same trick except he used the SAB website; it's a way of closing ones ears and causing others to stumble too.

As I wrote earlier, holding you accountable is not a "trick".

 

IMO, I still think you're scared which is why you act the way you do. *sigh* If that's the case then I have to pray a 'father forgive him for he knows not what he's doing' prayer for you. Hopefully you will ditch your chicken-esque ways and you'll be saved and we'll end up meeting up in heaven

I'd say you're the unbeliever here.

You're unable to comprehend that any person would dare to question you.

You've received a tremendous amount of latitude here.

If you pulled your sermons and attitude on a Christian site that didn't agree with you, I'd wager you'd be tossed out within days.

[Antlerman]

In your universe, no unbeliever is ever qualified to question your claims.

 

It's the perfect defense for utterly unsupportable claims. Even other believers hit a brick wall with her because they obviously aren't using their Bible correctly. Maybe I'll prepare for a debate with her by arguing with a small soap dish.

Not sure what the soap dish is for, but it sounds interesting. Would you like to debate her? Just you and her one on one?

 

I remember some years back taking on our old Buddy Ferris in a serious discussion to pin him down. It actually changed his participation on this site radically. So, what you say? You up to a little, let's get serious Thumbsy discussion, just you are her? What should the topic be? How about "What's so important about coming to ExC for you to do all of what you do here?" Or maybe, "What make you right and everyone else wrong?"

[florduh]

You up to a little, let's get serious Thumbsy discussion, just you are her?

I'm not much of a debater. Besides, I feel there is no progress to be made with such a quirky take on Christian mythology and the aforementioned fact that in her estimation, nonbelievers are not even qualified to discuss such subjects. Our opinions and points are irrelevant to her and therefore not even addressed in any other way than endless postings of Scripture; not an original thought in her head, apparently. Looks pretty dead end to me. (No offense intended, end3.)

[centauri]

Heh, heh, Centauri Darlin', you haven't had an ear since I've been here or so it SEEMS, so why are you responding?

If you think I'm responding exclusively for you, you're mistaken.

I remember years ago when I was a lurker at another forum, and I appreciated those that confronted the Christian bulldozers whose mission was to dominate the board with preaching.

 

I do what the bible does and address whomever hath an ear.

 

Cite the Old Testament passage that says an expected king messiah would make parts of the law irrelevant and no longer binding, as Paul claimed.

 

It's contained in Daniel 9 . Limiting the bible to one passage is just a way of deliberately misunderstanding it to hold on to unbelief (stopping ones ear)

 

Where exactly does Dan 9 says this?

 

Daniel 9:27 ... he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, ... .

The "he" in this verse is a conqueror who comes to destroy Jerusalem.

A natural candidate is Vespasian and the Romans who sacked Jerusalem in 70 CE.

It's not a Jewish king.

 

Dan 9:26-27

And after the threescore and two weeks shall an anointed one be cut off, and be no more; and the people of a prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; but his end shall be with a flood; and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

And he shall make a firm covenant with many for one week; and for half of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease; and upon the wing of detestable things shall be that which causeth appalment; and that until the extermination wholly determined be poured out upon that which causeth appalment.'

 

This conqueror wouldn't allow Jews to sacrifice.

 

A Jewish king was to restore the law and lead people into great compliance with it.

 

Ezek 37:24

And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.

 

Jesus didn't do that.

 

Cite the Old Testament passage that says the new covenant would eliminate parts of the law and be based on faith in a human sacrifice that dies for your sins.

 

It's contained in Daniel 9

 

Where would that be found in Dan 9?

 

Daniel 9:24-27

There isn't anything in Dan 9:24-27 that says a human sacrifice dies to save you from your sins.

There are two anointed ones in Dan 9.

The first one, a prince, comes after 7 weeks of years or 49 years.

The second anointed one is cut off, presumably killed at the end of another 62 weeks of years or 434 years.

A second prince then comes to destroy the city.

That prince makes a contract with the Jews for 1 week of years or 7 years, and stops the Jews from sacrificing for 3 1/2 years.

 

Dan 9:24-27

Seventy weeks are decreed upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sin, and to forgive iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal vision and prophet, and to anoint the most holy place.

Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem unto one anointed, a prince, shall be seven weeks; and for threescore and two weeks, it shall be built again, with broad place and moat, but in troublous times.

And after the threescore and two weeks shall an anointed one be cut off, and be no more; and the people of a prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; but his end shall be with a flood; and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

And he shall make a firm covenant with many for one week; and for half of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease; and upon the wing of detestable things shall be that which causeth appalment; and that until the extermination wholly determined be poured out upon that which causeth appalment.'

 

The new covenant is defined in Jeremiah 31, not Dan 9.

The new covenant says nothing about the law being ended or having to believe in a vicarious human sacrifice to be saved.

If you think otherwise, then cite where it does.

 

Cite the section of the law that says a human being is a valid sin sacrifice. Centauri has no insight to see spiritual things !

 

 

Isa 53, Neh 3 (one man had to build the dung gate, no one else could do it.) etc.

 

Isa 53 is not the law.

 

In essence it is, it's the law of GRACE. Th law of grace is contained in the Decalogue, you know.

So in your mind, there's a new law called "the law of Grace" that Isaiah gave to the Jews.

This new law supersedes and makes void the law that was given to Moses.

That's quite a doctrine.

Where does God tell Moses that the laws he was given were going to be rendered irrelevant?

 

Why wasn't Malachi informed of this doctrinal bombshell?

He was under the impression that the law of Moses was of primary importance.

 

Mal 4:4

Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments

 

I don't see anything about "law of Grace" in this.

 

The law was delivered to Moses and is found in the first five books of the Old Testament.

 

Yes I know.

 

Specific rules for sacrifice are found in Leviticus.

That would be a good place for you to start.

 

Exodus contains the law too. Remember Moses was with God 40 days getting instructions?

That's why I wrote that Leviticus was the primary source.

 

Isaiah is primarily a metaphorical theme writer who personified the servant Israel in Isa 53.

Neh 3 is also not the law.

 

Why don't you guys not get that the ten commandments are comprehensive? The passages are descriptions of God's grace, they're under the umbrella of the Decalogue.

The Ten Commandments don't give a license to use a human as a sin sacrifice, it's illegal according to God's law on proper sacrifices.

[Realist]

Now, tops off, ladies, and into that mud!!!! Our reigning champ, THUMBELINA!!!!!!!!!! Let's rassle!!!

 

... are tickets to the event on sale yet?

 

Seeing Thumb likes to hog the ex-C boards so much with her twoddle it will be a great way for her to contribute something financially to the cause!

[Realist]

Grabs bags of popcorn!!

[centauri]

centauri:

Cite the Old Testament passage that says introducing a new ritual that involves the drinking of blood would be part of the new covenant.

 

Jeremiah 31:31

-----------------------------

 

centauri:

I don't see anything about a new ritual involving the consumption of blood in this:

Jer 31:31-33

Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:

But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

 

It says God would reaffirm his law under a new contract.

.......

 

God did, Christians see Jesus as God and He did fulfill what was written in Jeremiah. He made this covenant by instituting the Lord's supper.

At this supper Jesus the God contradicted his prior instructions not to consume any manner of blood.

Also, where does the Lord's supper say that everyone is to die for their own sin?

Where does the Lord's supper say that the law would be infused into the hearts of the people so that they would obey it?

If one introduces a new ritual that involves breaking the law, it seems odd that this can be considered fulfilling Jeremiah.

That's like saying robbing a bank fulfills the law against theft.

 

That very law forbids the consumption of blood, symbolic or otherwise.

 

The laws forbade the drinking of literal blood, diseases are carried in the blood. It says nothing about symbolic drinking, you're making that up!

 

Answer this, with your reasoning, was it unlawful to eat human flesh? Was it unlawful to eat human flesh symbolically?

The law forbade the consumption of blood in any manner.

 

Lev 17:10

And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people.

 

Are you prepared to argue that God would disapprove of blood consumption in any manner yet somehow approve of people that pretended to drink blood?

 

It was Jesus that declared symbolic intention as sin when he equated lustful thoughts to actual adultery (Matt 5:28).

Symbolic sin is still sin according to Jesus.

Also, according to Christian doctrine, the process of transubstantiation makes the blood quite real.

 

Exodus 24:6; Exodus 24:8 ; Jeremiah 31:31 ;

New Testament, covenant made:

Luke 22:20

-----------------------------

 

Luke 22:20

Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

 

I didn't see anything in Jer 31 about needing to believe in a vicarious human sacrifice who creates a new covenant by putting his blood in a cup and urging people to drink from it.

In fact, Jer 31 says that each person will die for their own sin.

In Exo 24 , the blood involved was that of bulls (which were valid sacrifices) and nobody drank it.

 

You need spiritual discernment to see. In Jeremiah 31 it says a new Covenant will be made.

In other words, you have no specifics from Jeremiah that says what you want it to mean.

Jeremiah 31 says absolutely nothing about needing to believe in a vicarious human sacrifice that dies for you sins.

It says the opposite, that each person will die for their own sins.

 

][/b]

Daniel gave the time prophecy as to when Messiah was to arrive. Jesus came right on time and was cut off for our sins in the middle of the week (31/2 years after He was baptized).

There are two anointed ones in Dan 9, and neither one fits Jesus.

The first is a prince and the second is simply designated as anointed, meaning it could be a high priest.

The first arrives after 7 weeks and the second is cut off after 62 weeks.

 

Dan 9:24-26(ESV)

“Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place.

Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.

And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.

 

Cyrus was probably the first prince, coming after 49 years to rebuild the city.

That leaves Jesus as the second anointed, which doesn't work because the prophecy is for 70 weeks of years (490 years).

The 70th week is 7 years in length.

Jesus allegedly died around 28-33 CE, which means Jerusalem had to be destroyed no later than around 40CE.

It wasn't destroyed until 70CE, which doesn't fulfill prophecy.

Nor does Daniel say that an anointed one would be cut off as payment for sins.

 

][/b]

Before Jesus died He instituted the Lord's Supper and gave the symbolic bread and wine for His disciples to remember Him by. He replaced the passover with the Lord's supper.

So Jesus decided to replace these instructions:

 

Exo 12:42

It is a night to be much observed unto the Lord for bringing them out from the land of Egypt: this is that night of the Lord to be observed of all the children of Israel in their generations.

 

Where does the Old Testament say that a king messiah would institute this new ritual as a replacment for the passover observation?

You see, I don't trust you to provide accurate information and so I'd like to see scriptural confirmation from the source document (i.e. Hebrew scriptures) that validates your theory that God sent a king messiah to replace some of his laws.

 

][/b]

He was going to be the lamb. If the shewbread, seven-branch candlestick, oil, the incense, the ark of the covenant, and the human high priest were all symbolic then why the heck will the bulls etc be literal?

The passovers lambs (plural not singular) were not sin sacrifices.

Passovers lambs or goats, were slain to commemorate an event.

 

Also, are you suggesting that the bulls blood in Exo 24 wasn't real?

 

Where in Jeremiah does it say each person will die for their own sin?

Right here:

 

Jer 31:30

But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.

 

There's a law of non contradiction and it's one of the basic laws in classical logic. It states that something cannot be both true and not true at the same time when dealing with the same context. It's AGAINST the health laws (these are SEPARATE from the ceremonial laws and should be followed today! ) to drink actual blood so animal blood was NEVER drunk in the OT, it was sprinkled on the people or in the sanctuary!

 

If it was against God's law to consume any manner of blood, then Jesus taught contrary to what God had instructed.

He introduced a ritual that was abomination in the eyes of God.

 

They did not drink actual blood, m'kay?!

Catholic Christians say otherwise.

You can look up the word "transubstantiation" for details.

And that doctrine is backed by scripture:

 

1 Cor 11:28-29

But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

 

If you don't like the doctrine, take it up with your fellow Christians.

Furthermore, Jesus proclaimed that symbolic sin was still sin.

So even if it was only "pretend" blood, the intentional sin is still there.

You've run out of escape hatches on this issue.

 

Was the VERY human high priest the actual high priest or did he represent a higher authority?

How does a high priest fit into this?