| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Pastor Dave" |
| Date: |
22 Jun 2003 10:50:50 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Biblical Origins |
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 18:10:35 GMT, "Weatherwax"
<weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote:
"Pastor Dave" <nospam-pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote:
"Pastor Dave" <nospam-pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote:
"kevin r" <ireland@astound.net> wrote:
No historical record of Christ? Haha yet do people
ever consider that the Year of their calandars is
calibrated give or take some years to the birth of
Jesus Christ our Lord.
Hardly evidence. Dating the calender to the birth of
Jesus did not begin until 525 c.e. Up until then the
most universal system was based upon the founding
of Rome on April 22, 753 b.c.e.
Everything Christ did was in fulfillment of the
Scriptures
documenting for you that God is with us always.
Interesting how Christians twist scripture. Do you recall
how Matthew 2:15? It says, "In this way what was
spoken by the Lord through the prophet was fulfilled: 'I
called my Son out of Egypt.'" That is supposed to be a
quotation from Hosea 11:1, but Hosea 11:1 is about
Israel, not Jesus or the messiah:
Hosea
11:1 When Israel was a young man, I loved him
like a son, and I summoned my son out of Egypt.
11:2 But the more I summoned them,
the farther they departed from me.
They sacrificed to the Baal idols
and burned incense to images.
Quoting Hosea like that was pure dishonesty.
Not at all. While I grant your premise in strict
context, let us also look at what Paul said...
1 Corinthians 9:9-10
9) For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt
not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the
corn. Doth God take care for oxen?
10) Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our
sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth
should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope
should be partaker of his hope.
Lesson: Scripture can have more than one meaning and
application. Yet, in strict application, you would
make the argument that oxen is the only thing under
discussion in the Old Testament.
People interpret scripture in all kinds of weird and asinine
ways. It seems that they don't care what the original intent
of
the author was.
And you pretend to know?
The clear intent of Hosea 11:1 is easy to see when taken in
context. It was the author of Matthew who took it out of context
and gave it another meaning.
The plain meaning of Deuteronomy 25:4 is clear to anyone. It is
Paul who discounted that meaning.
You can't believe that Scripture has a dual purpose in
places?
I resent Paul's implication that God does not care for
oxen. The quotation is from Deuteronomy 25:4 and was
written in the same humane spirit as Deuteronomy 22:6-7.
Where does it say that "God does not care for oxen"?
Oh wait, that's right, those are YOUR words, which you
are attributing to Scripture.
Read it again. In your own KJV, Paul asks "Doth God take care
for oxen?" Then he continues and says, "Or saith he it
altogether for our sakes?"
That is a simple "either, or" sylogism.
Either "God take care for oxen"
Or, "saith he it altogether for our sakes."
Paul's conclusion that it was "For our sakes" can only be
validated by assuming that God does not care for oxen.
That depends on the reading, taking into consideration
the method of speaking. Jesus taught us that God cares
for the sparrow. Do you think Paul didn't know that?
Paul simply said that God had a message for us and not
the oxen. :)
Dave Raymond
___
http://www.douknow.net/ev_evolution_test.htm
http://www.creationists.org/ervin.html
When Christianity becomes religion,
it leaves the heart hungry.
In the beginning, God created...
Don't tell me you believe the end,
if you don't believe the beginning.
"There are only two possibilities as to how life
arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to
evolution; the other is a supernatural creative
act of God. There is no third possibility.
Spontaneous generation, that life arose from
non-living matter was scientifically disproved
120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That
leaves us with the only possible conclusion that
life arose as a supernatural creative act of God.
I will not accept that philosophically because I
do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose
to believe in that which I know is scientifically
impossible; spontaneous generation arising to
evolution." - (Wald, George, "Innovation and
Biology," Scientific American, Vol. 199,
Sept. 1958, p. 100)
.
|
|
| User: "Weatherwax" |
|
| Title: Re: Biblical Origins |
22 Jun 2003 12:28:00 PM |
|
|
"Pastor Dave" <nospam-pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote:
"Pastor Dave" <nospam-pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote:
"Pastor Dave" <nospam-pastordave38@yahoo.com>
wrote:
"Weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote:
"kevin r" <ireland@astound.net> wrote:
No historical record of Christ? Haha yet do people
ever consider that the Year of their calandars is
calibrated give or take some years to the birth of
Jesus Christ our Lord.
Hardly evidence. Dating the calender to the birth of
Jesus did not begin until 525 c.e. Up until then the
most universal system was based upon the founding
of Rome on April 22, 753 b.c.e.
Everything Christ did was in fulfillment of the
Scriptures documenting for you that God is with
us always.
Interesting how Christians twist scripture. Do you
recall how Matthew 2:15? It says, "In this way
what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet
was fulfilled: 'I called my Son out of Egypt.'" That
is supposed to be a quotation from Hosea 11:1,
but Hosea 11:1 is about Israel, not Jesus or the
messiah:
Hosea
11:1 When Israel was a young man, I loved him
like a son, and I summoned my son out of Egypt.
11:2 But the more I summoned them,
the farther they departed from me.
They sacrificed to the Baal idols
and burned incense to images.
Quoting Hosea like that was pure dishonesty.
Not at all. While I grant your premise in strict
context, let us also look at what Paul said...
1 Corinthians 9:9-10
9) For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt
not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the
corn. Doth God take care for oxen?
10) Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our
sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth
should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope
should be partaker of his hope.
Lesson: Scripture can have more than one meaning and
application. Yet, in strict application, you would
make the argument that oxen is the only thing under
discussion in the Old Testament.
People interpret scripture in all kinds of weird and
asinine
ways. It seems that they don't care what the original
intent of the author was.
And you pretend to know?
The clear intent of Hosea 11:1 is easy to see when taken in
context. It was the author of Matthew who took it out of
context and gave it another meaning.
The plain meaning of Deuteronomy 25:4 is clear to anyone.
It is Paul who discounted that meaning.
You can't believe that Scripture has a dual purpose in
places?
I resent Paul's implication that God does not care for
oxen. The quotation is from Deuteronomy 25:4 and was
written in the same humane spirit as Deuteronomy
22:6-7.
Where does it say that "God does not care for oxen"?
Oh wait, that's right, those are YOUR words, which you
are attributing to Scripture.
Read it again. In your own KJV, Paul asks "Doth God
take care for oxen?" Then he continues and says, "Or
saith he it altogether for our sakes?"
That is a simple "either, or" sylogism.
Either "God take care for oxen"
Or, "saith he it altogether for our sakes."
Paul's conclusion that it was "For our sakes" can only be
validated by assuming that God does not care for oxen.
That depends on the reading, taking into consideration
the method of speaking. Jesus taught us that God cares
for the sparrow. Do you think Paul didn't know that?
Paul simply said that God had a message for us and not
the oxen. :)
As I said, it is Paul who is rejecting the possible dual meaning
of the passage. You should argue with him.
You can't assume that Paul knew what Jesus said. Paul himself
claims that his gospel is not from any human source (Galatians
1:11-2:5.) so he would not have learned it from the apostles.
Even the Gospels were not written until after Paul's death. And
I do not know of one place where Paul actually quotes Jesus.
--
Wax
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Biblical Origins |
22 Jun 2003 02:07:52 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 17:28:00 GMT, "Weatherwax"
<weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote:
"Pastor Dave" <nospam-pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote:
"Pastor Dave" <nospam-pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote:
"Pastor Dave" <nospam-pastordave38@yahoo.com>
wrote:
"Weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote:
"kevin r" <ireland@astound.net> wrote:
No historical record of Christ? Haha yet do people
ever consider that the Year of their calandars is
calibrated give or take some years to the birth of
Jesus Christ our Lord.
Hardly evidence. Dating the calender to the birth of
Jesus did not begin until 525 c.e. Up until then the
most universal system was based upon the founding
of Rome on April 22, 753 b.c.e.
Everything Christ did was in fulfillment of the
Scriptures documenting for you that God is with
us always.
Interesting how Christians twist scripture. Do you
recall how Matthew 2:15? It says, "In this way
what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet
was fulfilled: 'I called my Son out of Egypt.'" That
is supposed to be a quotation from Hosea 11:1,
but Hosea 11:1 is about Israel, not Jesus or the
messiah:
Hosea
11:1 When Israel was a young man, I loved him
like a son, and I summoned my son out of Egypt.
11:2 But the more I summoned them,
the farther they departed from me.
They sacrificed to the Baal idols
and burned incense to images.
Quoting Hosea like that was pure dishonesty.
Not at all. While I grant your premise in strict
context, let us also look at what Paul said...
1 Corinthians 9:9-10
9) For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt
not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the
corn. Doth God take care for oxen?
10) Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our
sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth
should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope
should be partaker of his hope.
Lesson: Scripture can have more than one meaning and
application. Yet, in strict application, you would
make the argument that oxen is the only thing under
discussion in the Old Testament.
People interpret scripture in all kinds of weird and
asinine
ways. It seems that they don't care what the original
intent of the author was.
And you pretend to know?
The clear intent of Hosea 11:1 is easy to see when taken in
context. It was the author of Matthew who took it out of
context and gave it another meaning.
The plain meaning of Deuteronomy 25:4 is clear to anyone.
It is Paul who discounted that meaning.
You can't believe that Scripture has a dual purpose in
places?
I resent Paul's implication that God does not care for
oxen. The quotation is from Deuteronomy 25:4 and was
written in the same humane spirit as Deuteronomy
22:6-7.
Where does it say that "God does not care for oxen"?
Oh wait, that's right, those are YOUR words, which you
are attributing to Scripture.
Read it again. In your own KJV, Paul asks "Doth God
take care for oxen?" Then he continues and says, "Or
saith he it altogether for our sakes?"
That is a simple "either, or" sylogism.
Either "God take care for oxen"
Or, "saith he it altogether for our sakes."
Paul's conclusion that it was "For our sakes" can only be
validated by assuming that God does not care for oxen.
That depends on the reading, taking into consideration
the method of speaking. Jesus taught us that God cares
for the sparrow. Do you think Paul didn't know that?
Paul simply said that God had a message for us and not
the oxen. :)
As I said, it is Paul who is rejecting the possible dual meaning
of the passage. You should argue with him.
No, that's ok, you go ahead, since you seem to like it.
You can't assume that Paul knew what Jesus said.
Sure I can.
Dave Raymond
___
http://www.douknow.net/ev_evolution_test.htm
http://www.creationists.org/ervin.html
When Christianity becomes religion,
it leaves the heart hungry.
In the beginning, God created...
Don't tell me you believe the end,
if you don't believe the beginning.
"There are only two possibilities as to how life
arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to
evolution; the other is a supernatural creative
act of God. There is no third possibility.
Spontaneous generation, that life arose from
non-living matter was scientifically disproved
120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That
leaves us with the only possible conclusion that
life arose as a supernatural creative act of God.
I will not accept that philosophically because I
do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose
to believe in that which I know is scientifically
impossible; spontaneous generation arising to
evolution." - (Wald, George, "Innovation and
Biology," Scientific American, Vol. 199,
Sept. 1958, p. 100)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Weatherwax" |
|
| Title: Re: Biblical Origins |
22 Jun 2003 10:28:51 PM |
|
|
"Pastor Dave" wrote:
"Weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote:
"Pastor Dave" <nospam-pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote:
"Pastor Dave" wrote:
"Weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote:
"Pastor Dave" wrote:
"Weatherwax" wrote:
"kevin r" <ireland@astound.net> wrote:
No historical record of Christ? Haha yet do
people ever consider that the Year of their
calandars is calibrated give or take some
years to the birth of Jesus Christ our Lord.
Hardly evidence. Dating the calender to the
birth of Jesus did not begin until 525 c.e. Up
until then the most universal system was based
upon the founding of Rome on April 22, 753
b.c.e.
Everything Christ did was in fulfillment of the
Scriptures documenting for you that God is with
us always.
Interesting how Christians twist scripture. Do you
recall how Matthew 2:15? It says, "In this way
what was spoken by the Lord through the
prophet was fulfilled: 'I called my Son out of
Egypt.'" That is supposed to be a quotation
from Hosea 11:1, but Hosea 11:1 is about
Israel, not Jesus or the messiah:
Hosea
11:1 When Israel was a young man, I
loved him like a son, and I summoned
my son out of Egypt.
11:2 But the more I summoned them,
the farther they departed from me.
They sacrificed to the Baal idols
and burned incense to images.
Quoting Hosea like that was pure dishonesty.
Not at all. While I grant your premise in strict
context, let us also look at what Paul said...
1 Corinthians 9:9-10
9) For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt
not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the
corn. Doth God take care for oxen?
10) Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our
sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth
should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in
hope should be partaker of his hope.
Lesson: Scripture can have more than one meaning
and application. Yet, in strict application, you
would make the argument that oxen is the only
thing under discussion in the Old Testament.
People interpret scripture in all kinds of weird
and asinine ways. It seems that they don't care
what the original intent of the author was.
And you pretend to know?
The clear intent of Hosea 11:1 is easy to see when
taken in context. It was the author of Matthew who
took it out of context and gave it another meaning.
The plain meaning of Deuteronomy 25:4 is clear to
anyone. It is Paul who discounted that meaning.
You can't believe that Scripture has a dual purpose in
places?
I resent Paul's implication that God does not care
for oxen. The quotation is from Deuteronomy
25:4 and was written in the same humane spirit
as Deuteronomy 22:6-7.
Where does it say that "God does not care for oxen"?
Oh wait, that's right, those are YOUR words, which
you are attributing to Scripture.
Read it again. In your own KJV, Paul asks "Doth God
take care for oxen?" Then he continues and says, "Or
saith he it altogether for our sakes?"
That is a simple "either, or" sylogism.
Either "God take care for oxen"
Or, "saith he it altogether for our sakes."
Paul's conclusion that it was "For our sakes" can only be
validated by assuming that God does not care for oxen.
That depends on the reading, taking into consideration
the method of speaking. Jesus taught us that God cares
for the sparrow. Do you think Paul didn't know that?
Paul simply said that God had a message for us and not
the oxen. :)
As I said, it is Paul who is rejecting the possible dual
meaning
of the passage. You should argue with him.
No, that's ok, you go ahead, since you seem to like it.
You can't assume that Paul knew what Jesus said.
Sure I can.
Yes. But don't you recall that you accused me of pretending to
know? That's what you do when you assume.
--
Wax
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Biblical Origins |
24 Jun 2003 08:41:59 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 03:28:51 GMT, "Weatherwax"
<weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote:
You can't assume that Paul knew what Jesus said.
Sure I can.
Yes. But don't you recall that you accused me of pretending to
know? That's what you do when you assume.
The Bible tells us that he did.
Pastor Dave Raymond
___
In the beginning, God created...
The fact is, if you can't believe the beginning,
you can't believe the end and shouldn't claim to.
To disbelieve the beginning, is to doubt many things
that Jesus said. After all, He made it clear that
He believed it. If you believe in the Trinity, how
can you believe that God wouldn't know how it all
started? If you can't believe the beginning, then
get off the pulpit.
Atheism is folly, and atheists are the greatest
fools in nature; for they see there is a world
that could not make itself, and yet they will not
own there is a God that made it. - Matthew Henry
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Biblical Origins |
25 Jun 2003 08:34:52 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 17:48:20 GMT, "Weatherwax"
<weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote:
You can't assume that Paul knew what Jesus said.
Sure I can.
Yes. But don't you recall that you accused me of
pretending to know? That's what you do when you
assume.
The Bible tells us that he did.
That response is typical of you: A mere asserting without
support..
What it shows, is that while you people PRETEND to know
what the Bible says, you really have no clue. You're
just very frightened believers, who won't admit it.
Pastor Dave Raymond
___
In the beginning, God created...
The fact is, if you can't believe the beginning,
you can't believe the end and shouldn't claim to.
To disbelieve the beginning, is to doubt many things
that Jesus said. After all, He made it clear that
He believed it. If you believe in the Trinity, how
can you believe that God wouldn't know how it all
started? If you can't believe the beginning, then
get off the pulpit.
Atheism is folly, and atheists are the greatest
fools in nature; for they see there is a world
that could not make itself, and yet they will not
own there is a God that made it. - Matthew Henry
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Biblical Origins |
25 Jun 2003 03:52:52 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 16:36:41 GMT, "Weatherwax"
<weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote:
"Pastor Dave" <nospam-pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:629jfvg693civo3chp9keikh847isil5gs@4ax.com...
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 17:48:20 GMT, "Weatherwax"
<weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote:
You can't assume that Paul knew what Jesus said.
Sure I can.
Yes. But don't you recall that you accused me of
pretending to know? That's what you do when you
assume.
The Bible tells us that he did.
That response is typical of you: A mere asserting without
support..
What it shows, is that while you people PRETEND to know
what the Bible says, you really have no clue. You're
just very frightened believers, who won't admit it.
You still have not provided support Dave. To wit:
In an earlier post you wrote:
"Jesus taught us that God cares for the sparrow.
Do you think Paul didn't know that?"
Let's see you give evidence that Paul would have known that, or
that Paul knew any of the sayings of Jesus quoted in the gospels.
And I won't. You people claim to know the Bible. You
have just proven that you don't.
Pastor Dave Raymond
___
In the beginning, God created...
The fact is, if you can't believe the beginning,
you can't believe the end and shouldn't claim to.
To disbelieve the beginning, is to doubt many things
that Jesus said. After all, He made it clear that
He believed it. If you believe in the Trinity, how
can you believe that God wouldn't know how it all
started? If you can't believe the beginning, then
get off the pulpit.
Atheism is folly, and atheists are the greatest
fools in nature; for they see there is a world
that could not make itself, and yet they will not
own there is a God that made it. - Matthew Henry
.
|
|
|
| User: "Weatherwax" |
|
| Title: Re: Biblical Origins |
25 Jun 2003 09:46:10 PM |
|
|
"Pastor Dave" <nospam-pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote:
"Pastor Dave" <nospam-pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote:
You can't assume that Paul knew what Jesus said.
Sure I can.
Yes. But don't you recall that you accused me of
pretending to know? That's what you do when you
assume.
The Bible tells us that he did.
That response is typical of you: A mere asserting without
support..
What it shows, is that while you people PRETEND to
know what the Bible says, you really have no clue.
You're just very frightened believers, who won't admit it.
You still have not provided support Dave. To wit:
In an earlier post you wrote:
"Jesus taught us that God cares for the sparrow.
Do you think Paul didn't know that?"
Let's see you give evidence that Paul would have known
that, or that Paul knew any of the sayings of Jesus quoted
in the gospels.
And I won't. You people claim to know the Bible. You
have just proven that you don't.
It just proves that you are a joke.
--
Wax
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Biblical Origins |
26 Jun 2003 03:17:07 PM |
|
|
Weatherwax wrote:
"Pastor Dave" <nospam-pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote:
"Pastor Dave" <nospam-pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote:
You can't assume that Paul knew what Jesus said.
Sure I can.
Yes. But don't you recall that you accused me of
pretending to know? That's what you do when you
assume.
The Bible tells us that he did.
That response is typical of you: A mere asserting without
support..
What it shows, is that while you people PRETEND to
know what the Bible says, you really have no clue.
You're just very frightened believers, who won't admit it.
You still have not provided support Dave. To wit:
In an earlier post you wrote:
"Jesus taught us that God cares for the sparrow.
Do you think Paul didn't know that?"
Let's see you give evidence that Paul would have known
that, or that Paul knew any of the sayings of Jesus quoted
in the gospels.
And I won't. You people claim to know the Bible. You
have just proven that you don't.
It just proves that you are a joke.
===>He's a phony coward! -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Biblical Origins -- COWARDLY "PASTOR" DAVE |
26 Jun 2003 03:16:28 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 16:36:41 GMT, "Weatherwax"
<weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote:
"Pastor Dave" <nospam-pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:629jfvg693civo3chp9keikh847isil5gs@4ax.com...
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 17:48:20 GMT, "Weatherwax"
<weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote:
You can't assume that Paul knew what Jesus said.
Sure I can.
Yes. But don't you recall that you accused me of
pretending to know? That's what you do when you
assume.
The Bible tells us that he did.
That response is typical of you: A mere asserting without
support..
What it shows, is that while you people PRETEND to know
what the Bible says, you really have no clue. You're
just very frightened believers, who won't admit it.
You still have not provided support Dave. To wit:
In an earlier post you wrote:
"Jesus taught us that God cares for the sparrow.
Do you think Paul didn't know that?"
Let's see you give evidence that Paul would have known that, or
that Paul knew any of the sayings of Jesus quoted in the gospels.
And I won't. You people claim to know the Bible. You
have just proven that you don't.
===>You cannot hide your cowardly phoniness behind such
childish nonsense! -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Devol" |
|
| Title: Re: Biblical Origins -- Persevering "PASTOR" DAVE |
26 Jun 2003 04:09:45 PM |
|
|
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
news:3EFB549C.CCA330B7@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...
===>You cannot hide your cowardly phoniness behind such
childish nonsense! -- L.
Still waiting for you to admit your logical error in the matter of the
census of Israel.
Since you're not a coward, I'm sure it was just an oversight. Here's some
space for you to write your retraction:
____________________________________________________________________________
_______________
.
|
|
|
| User: "Weatherwax" |
|
| Title: Re: Biblical Origins -- Persevering "PASTOR" DAVE |
26 Jun 2003 10:30:04 PM |
|
|
"Chris Devol" <abc@defghijk.lmn> wrote:
"Libertarius" wrote:
===>You cannot hide your cowardly phoniness behind such
childish nonsense! -- L.
Still waiting for you to admit your logical error in the matter
of the census of Israel.
Since you're not a coward, I'm sure it was just an oversight.
Here's some space for you to write your retraction:
_______________________________________________
_______________
You refused to answer such a simple questions as whether you
believed in your own existence. And now you are accusing others
of not answering your questions.
Of course Libertarius has already responded to your request. It
is you who refuse to recognize the implications of 1 Chronicles
21:1 and 2 Samuel 24:1. If you could throw off all the Christian
dogma which is cluttering your thinking, you could make a study
of the Old Testament's view of Satan and of angels. If you did
this you would discover that Satan is not pictured as a demon or
an arch enemy of God, but rather as part of God's assembly, an
angel, sitting at God's right hand. You would also discover that
angels are not individual beings, but manifestations of God. But
an understanding of the Old Testament is beyond your abilities.
--
Wax
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Biblical Origins |
26 Jun 2003 03:12:59 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 17:48:20 GMT, "Weatherwax"
<weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote:
You can't assume that Paul knew what Jesus said.
Sure I can.
Yes. But don't you recall that you accused me of
pretending to know? That's what you do when you
assume.
The Bible tells us that he did.
That response is typical of you: A mere asserting without
support..
What it shows, is that while you people PRETEND to know
what the Bible says, you really have no clue. You're
just very frightened believers, who won't admit it.
===>What it shows is that you are a cowardly pretender,
who DELETED the challenging portion of that message,
rather than responding to it, since you knew you were in
the wrong.
HERE IS THE QUESTION you dodged:
"In an earlier post you wrote:
"Jesus taught us that God cares for the sparrow.
Do you think Paul didn't know that?"
Let's see you give evidence that Paul would have known that, or
that Paul knew any of the sayings of Jesus quoted in the gospels."
Respond to that challenge or admit you are a PHONY!
Libertarius
=========
Pastor Dave Raymond
___
In the beginning, God created...
The fact is, if you can't believe the beginning,
you can't believe the end and shouldn't claim to.
To disbelieve the beginning, is to doubt many things
that Jesus said. After all, He made it clear that
He believed it. If you believe in the Trinity, how
can you believe that God wouldn't know how it all
started? If you can't believe the beginning, then
get off the pulpit.
Atheism is folly, and atheists are the greatest
fools in nature; for they see there is a world
that could not make itself, and yet they will not
own there is a God that made it. - Matthew Henry
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Biblical Origins |
26 Jun 2003 03:08:28 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 03:28:51 GMT, "Weatherwax"
<weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote:
You can't assume that Paul knew what Jesus said.
Sure I can.
Yes. But don't you recall that you accused me of pretending to
know? That's what you do when you assume.
The Bible tells us that he did.
===>Another "pastoral" LIE!
THE BIBLE says no such thing. IN fact "the Bible" says NOTHING AT ALL.
Only WRITERS compiled in the Bible say things. But there is absolutely
ZERO EVIDENCE from ANY of the writings in the Bible that Saul/Paul knew
much of anything about Jesus -- except perhaps that the man was arrested
and
crucified by his (i.e. Saul/Paul's) fellow ROMANS! But as for what Jesus
may
or may not have said, there is no evidence he knew at all, since by his
own
declaration he did not receive from any of Jesus' follwoers the (phony)
"gospel"
he was teaching!
Libertarius
=========
.
|
|
|
| User: "Weatherwax" |
|
| Title: Re: Biblical Origins |
26 Jun 2003 10:04:30 PM |
|
|
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:3EFB52BC.B94724F7@netscape.net...
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 03:28:51 GMT, "Weatherwax"
<weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote:
You can't assume that Paul knew what Jesus said.
Sure I can.
Yes. But don't you recall that you accused me of
pretending to know? That's what you do when you
assume.
The Bible tells us that he did.
===>Another "pastoral" LIE!
THE BIBLE says no such thing. IN fact "the Bible" says
NOTHING AT ALL.
Only WRITERS compiled in the Bible say things. But there
is absolutely ZERO EVIDENCE from ANY of the writings
in the Bible that Saul/Paul knew much of anything about
Jesus -- except perhaps that the man was arrested and
crucified by his (i.e. Saul/Paul's) fellow ROMANS! But as
for what Jesus may or may not have said, there is no
evidence he knew at all, since by his own declaration he
did not receive from any of Jesus' follwoers the (phony)
"gospel" he was teaching!
Of course it is in Galatians that Paul states he did not receive
his gospel from any man. This is the only letter in which Paul
talks about his conversion and early ministry, and this is the
most important document we have concerning the early history of
the church because it is a first hand account while Luke's
account in Acts is second hand up to the time he joins Paul (the
"we" passages.)
There are contradictions between Galatians 1-2 and Acts 9 in
regards to Paul's conversion and his first visit to the church in
Jerusalem. There is further conflicts regarding the famine in
Acts 11:27-30, and the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15.
Paul claims that on his first visit to Jerusalem that he only
spoke to Peter and James "the Lord's brother." While Acts 9:28
states that Paul was associating freely with the apostles. At
first I was more willing to accept Luke's version because Paul
was trying to make a theological point and might have been
tempted to bend the truth. But I noted that Paul did swear that
he was telling the truth (Gal 1:20,) and my regards for Luke as a
historian went down when I realized that Acts 11:27-30 could not
have happened in the manner described. Then in trying to resolve
the difficulties I realized that the "Jerusalem Council" is a
composite of two separate events and is out of place. I finally
arrived at the conclusion that Paul is to be preferred as a
historian over Luke.
In contrast to Acts, Galatians and other letters from Paul
indicates that there were serious differences and disputes
between Paul and the church in Jerusalem.
--
Wax
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Biblical Origins |
22 Jun 2003 05:40:32 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 17:28:00 GMT, "Weatherwax"
<weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote:
"Pastor Dave" <nospam-pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote:
"Pastor Dave" <nospam-pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote:
"Pastor Dave" <nospam-pastordave38@yahoo.com>
wrote:
"Weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote:
"kevin r" <ireland@astound.net> wrote:
No historical record of Christ? Haha yet do people
ever consider that the Year of their calandars is
calibrated give or take some years to the birth of
Jesus Christ our Lord.
Hardly evidence. Dating the calender to the birth of
Jesus did not begin until 525 c.e. Up until then the
most universal system was based upon the founding
of Rome on April 22, 753 b.c.e.
Everything Christ did was in fulfillment of the
Scriptures documenting for you that God is with
us always.
Interesting how Christians twist scripture. Do you
recall how Matthew 2:15? It says, "In this way
what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet
was fulfilled: 'I called my Son out of Egypt.'" That
is supposed to be a quotation from Hosea 11:1,
but Hosea 11:1 is about Israel, not Jesus or the
messiah:
Hosea
11:1 When Israel was a young man, I loved him
like a son, and I summoned my son out of Egypt.
11:2 But the more I summoned them,
the farther they departed from me.
They sacrificed to the Baal idols
and burned incense to images.
Quoting Hosea like that was pure dishonesty.
Not at all. While I grant your premise in strict
context, let us also look at what Paul said...
1 Corinthians 9:9-10
9) For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt
not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the
corn. Doth God take care for oxen?
10) Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our
sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth
should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope
should be partaker of his hope.
Lesson: Scripture can have more than one meaning and
application. Yet, in strict application, you would
make the argument that oxen is the only thing under
discussion in the Old Testament.
People interpret scripture in all kinds of weird and
asinine
ways. It seems that they don't care what the original
intent of the author was.
And you pretend to know?
The clear intent of Hosea 11:1 is easy to see when taken in
context. It was the author of Matthew who took it out of
context and gave it another meaning.
The plain meaning of Deuteronomy 25:4 is clear to anyone.
It is Paul who discounted that meaning.
You can't believe that Scripture has a dual purpose in
places?
I resent Paul's implication that God does not care for
oxen. The quotation is from Deuteronomy 25:4 and was
written in the same humane spirit as Deuteronomy
22:6-7.
Where does it say that "God does not care for oxen"?
Oh wait, that's right, those are YOUR words, which you
are attributing to Scripture.
Read it again. In your own KJV, Paul asks "Doth God
take care for oxen?" Then he continues and says, "Or
saith he it altogether for our sakes?"
That is a simple "either, or" sylogism.
Either "God take care for oxen"
Or, "saith he it altogether for our sakes."
Paul's conclusion that it was "For our sakes" can only be
validated by assuming that God does not care for oxen.
That depends on the reading, taking into consideration
the method of speaking. Jesus taught us that God cares
for the sparrow. Do you think Paul didn't know that?
Paul simply said that God had a message for us and not
the oxen. :)
As I said, it is Paul who is rejecting the possible dual meaning
of the passage. You should argue with him.
No, that's ok, you go ahead, since you seem to like it.
You can't assume that Paul knew what Jesus said.
Sure I can.
===>Sheepherder Dave's whole life is based on
ASSumptions and ASSertions! -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Biblical Origins |
22 Jun 2003 05:38:59 PM |
|
|
Weatherwax wrote:
"Pastor Dave" <nospam-pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote:
"Pastor Dave" <nospam-pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote:
"Pastor Dave" <nospam-pastordave38@yahoo.com>
wrote:
"Weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote:
"kevin r" <ireland@astound.net> wrote:
No historical record of Christ? Haha yet do people
ever consider that the Year of their calandars is
calibrated give or take some years to the birth of
Jesus Christ our Lord.
Hardly evidence. Dating the calender to the birth of
Jesus did not begin until 525 c.e. Up until then the
most universal system was based upon the founding
of Rome on April 22, 753 b.c.e.
Everything Christ did was in fulfillment of the
Scriptures documenting for you that God is with
us always.
Interesting how Christians twist scripture. Do you
recall how Matthew 2:15? It says, "In this way
what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet
was fulfilled: 'I called my Son out of Egypt.'" That
is supposed to be a quotation from Hosea 11:1,
but Hosea 11:1 is about Israel, not Jesus or the
messiah:
Hosea
11:1 When Israel was a young man, I loved him
like a son, and I summoned my son out of Egypt.
11:2 But the more I summoned them,
the farther they departed from me.
They sacrificed to the Baal idols
and burned incense to images.
Quoting Hosea like that was pure dishonesty.
Not at all. While I grant your premise in strict
context, let us also look at what Paul said...
1 Corinthians 9:9-10
9) For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt
not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the
corn. Doth God take care for oxen?
10) Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our
sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth
should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope
should be partaker of his hope.
Lesson: Scripture can have more than one meaning and
application. Yet, in strict application, you would
make the argument that oxen is the only thing under
discussion in the Old Testament.
People interpret scripture in all kinds of weird and
asinine
ways. It seems that they don't care what the original
intent of the author was.
And you pretend to know?
The clear intent of Hosea 11:1 is easy to see when taken in
context. It was the author of Matthew who took it out of
context and gave it another meaning.
The plain meaning of Deuteronomy 25:4 is clear to anyone.
It is Paul who discounted that meaning.
You can't believe that Scripture has a dual purpose in
places?
I resent Paul's implication that God does not care for
oxen. The quotation is from Deuteronomy 25:4 and was
written in the same humane spirit as Deuteronomy
22:6-7.
Where does it say that "God does not care for oxen"?
Oh wait, that's right, those are YOUR words, which you
are attributing to Scripture.
Read it again. In your own KJV, Paul asks "Doth God
take care for oxen?" Then he continues and says, "Or
saith he it altogether for our sakes?"
That is a simple "either, or" sylogism.
Either "God take care for oxen"
Or, "saith he it altogether for our sakes."
Paul's conclusion that it was "For our sakes" can only be
validated by assuming that God does not care for oxen.
That depends on the reading, taking into consideration
the method of speaking. Jesus taught us that God cares
for the sparrow. Do you think Paul didn't know that?
Paul simply said that God had a message for us and not
the oxen. :)
As I said, it is Paul who is rejecting the possible dual meaning
of the passage. You should argue with him.
You can't assume that Paul knew what Jesus said. Paul himself
claims that his gospel is not from any human source (Galatians
1:11-2:5.) so he would not have learned it from the apostles.
Even the Gospels were not written until after Paul's death. And
I do not know of one place where Paul actually quotes Jesus.
===>But he sure refers to things he has learned by revelation]
from his incarnate savior god CHRISTOS! -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Weatherwax" |
|
| Title: Re: Biblical Origins |
22 Jun 2003 11:02:07 PM |
|
|
"Libertarius" wrote:
Weatherwax wrote:
"Pastor Dave" wrote:
"Weatherwax" wrote:
"Pastor Dave" wrote:
"Weatherwax" wrote:
"Pastor Dave" wrote:
"Weatherwax" wrote:
"kevin r" wrote:
No historical record of Christ? Haha yet
do people ever consider that the Year of
their calandars is calibrated give or take
some years to the birth of Jesus Christ our
Lord.
Hardly evidence. Dating the calender to the
birth of Jesus did not begin until 525 c.e. Up
until then the most universal system was based
upon the founding of Rome on April 22, 753
b.c.e.
Everything Christ did was in fulfillment of the
Scriptures documenting for you that God is with
us always.
Interesting how Christians twist scripture. Do
you recall how Matthew 2:15? It says, "In this
way what was spoken by the Lord through the
prophet was fulfilled: 'I called my Son out of
Egypt.'" That is supposed to be a quotation
from Hosea 11:1, but Hosea 11:1 is about
Israel, not Jesus or the messiah:
Hosea
11:1 When Israel was a young man, I loved
him like a son, and I summoned my son out
of Egypt.
11:2 But the more I summoned them,
the farther they departed from me.
They sacrificed to the Baal idols
and burned incense to images.
Quoting Hosea like that was pure dishonesty.
Not at all. While I grant your premise in strict
context, let us also look at what Paul said...
1 Corinthians 9:9-10
9) For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt
not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the
corn. Doth God take care for oxen?
10) Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our
sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that
ploweth
should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in
hope should be partaker of his hope.
Lesson: Scripture can have more than one
meaning and application. Yet, in strict
application, you would make the argument
that oxen is the only thing under discussion in
the Old Testament.
People interpret scripture in all kinds of weird
and asinine ways. It seems that they don't care
what the original intent of the author was.
And you pretend to know?
The clear intent of Hosea 11:1 is easy to see when
taken in context. It was the author of Matthew who
took it out of context and gave it another meaning.
The plain meaning of Deuteronomy 25:4 is clear to
anyone. It is Paul who discounted that meaning.
You can't believe that Scripture has a dual purpose in
places?
I resent Paul's implication that God does not care
for oxen. The quotation is from Deuteronomy
25:4 and was written in the same humane spirit as
Deuteronomy 22:6-7.
Where does it say that "God does not care for oxen"?
Oh wait, that's right, those are YOUR words, which
you are attributing to Scripture.
Read it again. In your own KJV, Paul asks "Doth God
take care for oxen?" Then he continues and says, "Or
saith he it altogether for our sakes?"
That is a simple "either, or" sylogism.
Either "God take care for oxen"
Or, "saith he it altogether for our sakes."
Paul's conclusion that it was "For our sakes" can only be
validated by assuming that God does not care for oxen.
That depends on the reading, taking into consideration
the method of speaking. Jesus taught us that God cares
for the sparrow. Do you think Paul didn't know that?
Paul simply said that God had a message for us and not
the oxen. :)
As I said, it is Paul who is rejecting the possible dual
meaning
of the passage. You should argue with him.
You can't assume that Paul knew what Jesus said. Paul
himself claims that his gospel is not from any human source
(Galatians 1:11-2:5.) so he would not have learned it from
the apostles. Even the Gospels were not written until after
Paul's death. And I do not know of one place where Paul
actually quotes Jesus.
===>But he sure refers to things he has learned by revelation]
from his incarnate savior god CHRISTOS! -- L.
Are you talking about Paul, or about Dave?
--
Wax
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Biblical Origins |
23 Jun 2003 11:12:26 AM |
|
|
Weatherwax wrote:
You can't assume that Paul knew what Jesus said. Paul
himself claims that his gospel is not from any human source
(Galatians 1:11-2:5.) so he would not have learned it from
the apostles. Even the Gospels were not written until after
Paul's death. And I do not know of one place where Paul
actually quotes Jesus.
===>But he sure refers to things he has learned by revelation]
from his incarnate savior god CHRISTOS! -- L.
Are you talking about Paul, or about Dave?
===>Well, I was referring to Saul/Paul, but one might suppose
that the fake "pastor" has similar "revelations". -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
