The Real Mening of the Bible

Author: RaymondSheen
Jesus
God
Bible
Satan
Jehovah

Posts

Total: 176
Topic's author
#31
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
You don't get it, do you? You have to just let it go. I look down into a valley with a wall going down the center. On one side are idiots who believe in God and on the other side there are idiots who don't. And they're fighting about things they don't care enough about to actually look into. It's like watching a married couple argue about something that isn't the real thing they are arguing about. 

So, you have three choices. Walk away from it because it's silly and pointless, stay and argue about a smokescreen and never get to the real point, or learn about it and get to the real point. 
#32
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 396
Posts: 1,803
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@Stephen
@RaymondSheen
To Stephen : Look at all the witnesses this other individual brought forth. I just gave you four. 

What is your response to them? Are you going to deny them too?

You said explain. Why wasn't Isaiah connecting with Acts good enough?

Why don't you pick up these books and read if you're truly sincere? Is the onus supposed to be on me? I didn't write the bible. It's there for you to read, study, research, do your homework to know better of what you're talking about. The onus is on the book. I don't have to claim anything for what's for you to read.

Just acknowledge your error of the old Testament not touching on Jesus Christ.

If you don't read, don't speak on these things. Scripture says speak on what you do know.
#33
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 396
Posts: 1,803
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@Stephen
"then the name we should be looking for is Emmanuel.  "

Scripture say there is a way that seems right unto man. The scripture is not going to be a "should " anything. You read it as is and understand like I told you about the eunuch being asked, understand what thou readest?

But how can you without a guide or teacher?


#34
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mall
Did you actually expect the name Jesus to be mentioned?

😂  NO! And   If you are correct in your claim that the OT prophesises about Jesus, then the name we should be looking for is Emmanuel.  


Scripture say there is a way that seems right unto man. The scripture is not going to be a "should " anything. You read it as is and understand like I told you about the eunuch being asked, understand what thou readest?
And you are a contradictory bible dunce that hasn't even bothered to check your bible facts before making such ridiculous , easily disproven claims.

Matthew 1:20-23 King James Version


20 the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.
22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

 Which is it, bible thicko ? 

And you should go back and read what the actual prophecy actually states concerning the expected messiah.  You will find that even the author of Matthew's gospel , in his desperation in trying to tie Jesus to the OT prophecy got it totally wrong; he didn't know what he was talking about...... or was blatantly lying.

Off you go now. 
#35
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 396
Posts: 1,803
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@Stephen
@RaymondSheen
To Stephen: Acknowledge your error that we both showed on you.
#36
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@RaymondSheen
and never get to the real point
which is what exactly ?
#37
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Stephen
23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
The truth, as was told back then, is that Jesus' parents were Mary, and a Roman Soldier named Pantera. In other words, Jesus' father was in fact human.

The name Pantera was quite common back then, but we do have his first name too.

He was known as Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera.

This was recorded not only in the Jewish Talmud but also in other Jewish writings and Roman records. In it Jesus was referred to as Jesus (Yeshu) ben Pantera, Son of Pantera.

Jesus is a fairly modern take on his real name. He was mainly known as Yeshu or Yeshua, which makes sense as there was no letter J in the Hebrew or Greek alphabet around the time of the Jesus story.
Topic's author
#38
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
which is what exactly ?
You'll know when you get there. It may not be the same for you as it is for me. 

#39
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@RaymondSheen
which is what exactly ?
You'll know when you get there. It may not be the same for you as it is for me. 

appeal to the unknown

also known as

appeal to ignorance
Topic's author
#40
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
The truth, as was told back then, is that Jesus' parents were Mary, and a Roman Soldier named Pantera. In other words, Jesus' father was in fact human.
Really! And you have verification for this? 

The name Pantera was quite common back then, but we do have his first name too. He was known as Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera . This was recorded not only in the Jewish Talmud but also in other Jewish writings and Roman records. In it Jesus was referred to as Jesus (Yeshu) ben Pantera, Son of Pantera.
Wow. Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera. That sounds impressive. Fairly common you say? 

Jesus is a fairly modern take on his real name. He was mainly known as Yeshu or Yeshua, which makes sense as there was no letter J in the Hebrew or Greek alphabet around the time of the Jesus story.
Well, you've certainly done your homework. Now, you said they didn't have the letter J in the Hebrew or Greek alphabet, which makes sense because - well, it's a letter from the English alphabet, but then you give his alleged father's name as, in part, Julius? Did the Hebrew and Greek also have the other letters included in that formidable nomenclature?   







Topic's author
#41
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
appeal to the unknown

also known as

appeal to ignorance
Excuse me? What about it? Are you suggesting I'm ignorant of your possible findings in such an endeavor? 

#42
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@RaymondSheen
Really! And you have verification for this? 
exactly the same level of verification as yours
#43
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@RaymondSheen
Excuse me? What about it? Are you suggesting I'm ignorant of your possible findings in such an endeavor? 
you try to invalidate arguments by suggesting they're "missing the point"

but you fail to specify exactly what the target is

this is called

"an appeal to ignorance"
Topic's author
#44
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
you try to invalidate arguments by suggesting they're "missing the point"

but you fail to specify exactly what the target is

this is called

"an appeal to ignorance"
I see. The statement in question wasn't really a part of an argument, it was a personal suggestion of an ideological nature.  

Topic's author
#45
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
exactly the same level of verification as yours
No. Not even remotely approaching that level. 


#46
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@RaymondSheen
a personal suggestion of an ideological nature
is this suggestion salient to the current discussion ?
#47
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,238
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@Mall
The old testament has prophecies about Jesus Christ.
It doesn't.
#48
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@3RU7AL
The truth, as was told back then, is that Jesus' parents were Mary, and a Roman Soldier named Pantera. 

  I have read  some on this in the past.  It may be worth also pointing out that there is a direct insulting statement that can be found from a Jewish source as to the illegitimacy of Jesus the Jew. The Talmud’s Mishna describes Jesus as “a bastard son of an adulteress” describing Jesus as ben Pantera (son of-Pantera) a corruption of the Greek word/name parthenos. Pantera was said to be a Roman archerfrom Sidon in Phoenicia but had served in Syria.  This of course may go some way in explaining why it is that Mark and John are silent concerning any "virgin" birth; there wasn't one, not in the sense that we today understand the word virgin.

I found it interesting that there is a scene in Monty Python's Life of Brian where Brian's Mother is caught  with a  Roman in the house where she then confesses to him telling him that his real father was  a Roman Centurion named Nortius Maximus.

"You mean you were raped" he askes ?

"Well at first,  yes" she replies.






#49
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Castin
@Mall
@RaymondSheen
Mall wrote: The old testament has prophecies about Jesus Christ.
Castin wrote: It doesn't.

Correct, Castin. I have had this discussion many times on this forum and no matter many times that this claim is shown to be false they still come back with the same old shite.

 Just the one discrepancy that I have shown above #34 Matthew 1:20-23  shows that the author of that gospel appears to be very confused.

The original prophecy rereferred to by Matthew actually states " The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.(which means ‘God is with us’).Isaiah 7:14

Without going into the details of the name/s Jesus, I can guarantee anyone that the name Jesus (derived from Yusuf/Joseph/Yeshua/Iesous and a few other derivatives) does not mean "god is with us".

And  no one throughout the gospels ever once addresses Jesus as "Emmanuel" either, not even his mother or his absentee father.

#50
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 396
Posts: 1,803
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@Castin
@Stephen
@RaymondSheen
"The old testament has prophecies about Jesus Christ.
It doesn't."


Then you calling Moses, all the prophets and Jesus liars.

Like I said when you read the old testament expecting a name to be there, you really don't understand what you're reading.

It's the same thing with claiming contradictions. All of you that's spreading falsehood saying that the old testament does not prophesize Jesus Christ are in error .

To RaymondSheen: They're in error.
Topic's author
#51
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@Stephen
How potent a power, then, is the telegraphic destined to become in the civilization of the world! This binds together by a vital cord all the nations of the earth. It is impossible that old prejudices and hostilities should longer exist, while such an instrument has been created for an exchange of thought between all the nations of the earth. - Charles Briggs and Augustus Maverick; The Story of the Telegraph, 1858

The destruction of man, according to the Bible is not with wars and greed and hate because we could easily survive as a whole with those things, but it is rather with the nothing from which they come. The Bible says the number 666 is the number of mankind, and all man can do with that is produce a sort of bad script for a pseudo horror film. A Satanic mythology. It's nothing. The more we have the greater the illusion that we're something but in reality, the more nothing there is. Something supported by nothing collapses. The number 6 represents incompleteness. It's repetition three times indicates the severity of nothing. In every way man is ultimately nothing. Incomplete. Greek numerically 6, 60, 600.

We invented the telegraph with the hope was that no nation would go to war because they could communicate, but the exact opposite is true, unprecedented war; we invented the cell phone - another device for communication - and with it we become more isolated than ever. Ideology without substance runs rampant and everything - supported by nothing - collapses. Your position as an atheist is only that of an ideologue. Nothing. And it collapses.

To the modern man a name means nothing. You can name your child Timothy and have no idea that it means tall grass. My name is David but I didn't know what that meant (beloved) until I became a believer in the Bible at 27 years old. To us a name is just a sound we like. To them, the people who wrote the Bible, the people who laid the foundation for civilization which is the very something all around us that we are turning to nothing - to them, names meant something.

Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about. To which I say, yeah. I'm incomplete. Timothy doesn't mean tall grass. Timothy is tall grass. Why? Timothy Hanson. Maybe Timothy is a strange name for a female turtle? Well, they didn't know how to sex a turtle when she was named. Timothy comes from the Greek name Τιμόθεος (Timόtheos) meaning one who honors God. Pointless. You can't conclude that only those who honor God are Timothy. Nor can you conclude that to be known as Emmanuel in meaning doesn't apply to a man named Jesus which means Salvation through God or as Michael, the first created by God and the name meaning "Who is like God?"

Do you think Jesus' name was Jesus? Or Yeshua, Joshua, Iēsous (Ἰησοῦς)? In heaven, before coming to earth he is introduced to us as Michael. You haven't even begun to scratch the surface and you think you can challenge me with your ideology? You think Jehovah's name was Jehovah, or Yahweh? Or I Am? These are just nomenclatures we're given to reflect a meaning. In Matthew 1:23 it even gives you the meaning and you missed it?!


Topic's author
#52
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@Stephen
On the Monty Python's Life of Brian, I was thinking of that when I responded as well. A great film. I don't think it should be blasphemy just saying the name Jehovah. Jehovah! Jehovah! Jehovah! Mathias, son of Deuteronomy of Gath was right, you know.  The Pharisees not so much. 
Topic's author
#53
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@Mall
To RaymondSheen: They're in error.
Forgive them for they know not what they do? 

#54
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@RaymondSheen
The Bible says the number 666 is the number of mankind,

Well no it doesn't say "mankind". It actually states :

Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

Why Christians get the idea that this is somehow a reference to Satan/ the beast is totally ludicrous. This is a clear reference to Emperor Nero for: "he that hath understanding", which , for all your word salad, you don't seem to have.


Topic's author
#55
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
Actually, a man being Adam. The Hebrew word Adham means man, human, earthling man, mankind. Ish meaning man, individual, husband etc. Woman in Hebrew means female man, wife. 

So, humanity. Mankind. The number of a wild beast. Humanity is like a wild beast, by preference, the beast represents incompleteness. Man created in God's image to live forever whereas the beast dies. Sin equals death. God's rest. Then we are complete. Israel contends with God, finds salvation. Then we are complete. The incomplete destroyed like wild beasts.

Does any of this ring a bell? (Isaiah 17:12, 13; Daniel 7:2-8, 17) The numbered kingdoms of man are a poor substitute for the rightful sovereignty of Jehovah God and his kingdom. Satan introduced to us the idea that we didn't need our creator. 

Explained in, oddly enough, Raymond Sheen: Desktop or Mobile device for your convenience. But I digress and plug. 

Welcome. Welcome to the Machine. 
 

Topic's author
#56
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@Castin
It doesn't.
It does. The first is Genesis 3:15.

#57
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 396
Posts: 1,803
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@RaymondSheen
Scripture says you do err not knowing the scriptures.

If you know the scriptures you wouldn't be saying you don't see  a name in this place so therefore it has nothing to do with this individual. That's error.

Then when I brought about the one they say is not in the old testament, that one said himself it's concerning him . Now you're on the spot looking like a liar calling the one you said is not in there a liar .

That's why I didn't get a response back on that. Incriminates them real bad. 

Scripture says they're mouths must be stopped or silenced for false teaching. They've been silenced.
#58
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 396
Posts: 1,803
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@RaymondSheen
Scripture says you do err not knowing the scriptures.

If you know the scriptures you wouldn't be saying you don't see  a name in this place so therefore it has nothing to do with this individual. That's error.

Then when I brought about the one they say is not in the old testament, that one said himself it's concerning him . Now you're on the spot looking like a liar calling the one you said is not in there a liar .

That's why I didn't get a response back on that. Incriminates them real bad. 

Scripture says they're mouths must be stopped or silenced for false teaching. They've been silenced.
Topic's author
#59
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@Mall
Scripture says you do err not knowing the scriptures.
Where does it say that, who does it say it to and who cares? In order for one to look at it like a thinking person who doesn't simply want the world to be like them, in other words who isn't looking at it like a tyrannical ideologue or religious fanatic simply using scripture in an unscriptural way, that is what they have to do. Ask themselves those questions. 

If you know the scriptures you wouldn't be saying you don't see  a name in this place so therefore it has nothing to do with this individual. That's error.
I'm not sure what you mean here. I don't even know what this is about. First of all, knowing your own or some apostate interpretation of scripture the authenticityThen when I brought about the one they say is not in the old testament, that one said himself it's concerning him . Now you're on the spot looking like a liar calling the one you said is not in there a liar .

That's why I didn't get a response back on that. Incriminates them real bad. 

Scripture says they're mouths must be stopped or silenced for false teaching. They've been silenced. of which is dictated in a dogmatic fashion isn't conducive to anything other than the aforementioned ideological and religious fanaticism. Doing that is just an imitation of God. You and I and the Pope or anyone else who would do that are capable only of deceiving in the name of God. But I'm not sure what not seeing a name in this place means or what individual you are referring to.   
I have no idea what you're talking about. Are you talking about disagreeing with someone here on a Biblical subject? I've found that just because people have a different take on the Bible doesn't make them a liar. 

#60
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 396
Posts: 1,803
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@RaymondSheen
Jesus said ye do err in Matthew 22.

You are calling Jesus a liar when you are told and shown where Jesus is in the old covenant and you reject it saying he is not. 

That's a lie. Even Jesus called out hypocrites when he seen them. Never mind disagreement. It has nothing to do with a way of interpretation. What was shown was plain , black and white.