Why do scripter beleivers cherry pick verses

Author: CaptainSceptic

Posts

Total: 93
#31
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@BrotherDThomas
PGA2.0,

YOUR REVEALING AND TRUTHFUL QUOTE TO MY POST #20:   "Hilarious!!!"

Yes, I am glad that you admit that when you are in discussion with your Satanic Bible rewrites, it is HILARIOUS!  Tell you what, what is even more HILARIOUS is your Devil Speak you spew forth relative to your ungodly comical faith of "Preterism!"  Just watching you remove one foot to insert the other regarding your Satanic faith within these threads is better than watching Saturday Night Live!  HILARIOUS!
Yawn.
#32
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@BrotherDThomas
As usual, I expect you to RUN AWAY from my post herein, like you have done ad infinitum with my other posts directed to you when you slap Jesus in the face with your blatant Bible Ignorance, so once again, go into hiding to save yourself from further embarrassment from the Brother D Thomas. Hurry, RUN AWAY! LOL!
Of course you think I am running away. Yet I don't respond to bullies nor to ignoramuses who display hardly an ounce of decorum nor intelligence. 


#33
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Tradesecret



Tradesecret,

YOUR REVEALING AND EMBARRASSING QUOTE, AGAIN: "Just make up stuff as you go along. I have consistently applied the same hermeneutics for quite some time. I have yet to be caught out with an embarrassing biblical dilemma. "

Barring the FACT that I knew you were going to RUN AWAY from my post #9, because it held your Bible ignorance to the fire in being embarrassing WRONG again, and within this post in question, you were caught out with your Satanic hermeneutics regarding the term "FullFIl."  Shhhhhhhh, let you be silent to this post, and maybe your equally dumbfounded of the Bible will not notice your blatant faux pas, okay?!  Shhhhhhhhh, mums the word.


You are guilty of so many of Jesus' inspired words regarding your outright Bible stupidity, as was explicitly shown in my post #9, that you are now  guilty of the following inspired by Jesus' verse:

"The simple believes everything, but the prudent gives thought to his steps." (Proverbs 14:15)


Would you tell me what brand of "running shoes" you wear?  So many pseudo-christians like you are embarrassed to tell me this simple fact, I guess for obvious reasons. 


.
#34
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@BrotherDThomas
As for fulfilling the law, I don't think it ceased. Obviously, you did not comprehend what I wrote. Let me try and explain it to you. 

The OT law is still ongoing in the NT. The difference is the letter not the spirit.  Jesus did not stop the law. Yet he fulfilled it. The OT law of sacrifice was at its heart about what? 

It was about atoning for the sins of people in a temporary way because the blood of goats and cows are not eternal. Jesus however as the Eternal Son of God has blood that atones eternally - for the sins of his people. Hence, the OT Mosaic system is known as a shadow of things to come - namely Jesus who is the real deal.  therefore, the atoning sacrifices has not ended or been ceased in spirit - but in Christ is eternal for all his people. 

Hence, not ceased, but fulfilled in Christ. I notice you OMITTED to explain what fulfilled was according to your own thinking. Perhaps it is you who is running away from the obvious. Yes, you said what you think it was not. but OMITTED to say what you think it was. 


#35
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
Notwithstanding the fact that scripture is notoriously ambiguous anyway.
Says who?  
#36
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@CaptainSceptic
There you go again.

 it ought to be clear that his non-reading is not that he has no ability to read but that he is reading according to his own hermeneutic and not as Christians tend to read. 
I stated there are 10's of thousands of denominations, ad the driving factor is different interpretations.  So who are you to say your analysis applies to all Christians.
Your narcissism and self-righteousness are nearly biblical in volume.

Side question: As a Christian why would you mock someone for asking a question?
I disagree with you that are 10s of thousands of denominations. Stating such a thing does not make it true.  Yes, some of the major denominations interpret using different hermeneutics. mind you, the Catholic church and the Orthodox church do not consider themselves denominational. The Catholic church tends to interpret the bible - according to whatever their clergy tells them it means. The orthodox tend towards mysticism. That of course are their particular bents - and not in the spirit of the Reformation which commenced with the didactic that Scriptures interprets Scripture. Of the various denominations - today - Episcopalian, Reformed, Baptist, Lutheran, Church of Christ, Salvation Army, Brethren, etc, they tend to follow in spirit the Reformed position. Charismatic and Pentecostal denominations or churches tend to allow what they call the Spirit to understand the bible, although many simply follow the protestant line most of the time.  

When I talk about Christians generally following the hermeneutic I briefly outlined above - I was referring primarily to the Reformation churches. Yes, others are Christians and they follow their own traditions - but even most of these come back to understanding the difference between the OT and the NT as understood by the teaching of Peter in Acts and Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount. You don't have to agree with me - I can hardly care - but it is the fact. I do not know of any Christian who says we need to bring back the OT sacrifices started by Moses and Aaron because all of them believe that Jesus has fulfilled the law in his death. This is not cherry picking - it is because Christians teach that the OT pointed to Christ - and he as the messiah was the point of it all.  It makes perfect logical sense that once Jesus arrived - that things would change. If it did not change when he arrived, then there seems hardly any point of him arriving. 

Are all Christians consistent in their interpretation of the OT? I would say no. And this would explain why for some it seems that Christians cherry pick. Hence I reject your accusations of narcissism and self-righteousness. 

I mocked you because I am a sinner. Or it might be because I think the ridiculous deserves to be ridiculed. Or it might be because I don't think turning the other cheek means getting walked all over. I personally do get frustrated with comments that are repeated ad nauseum over and over again - despite ample and good answers to them.

Having said that - I also welcome the opportunity to discuss things with people who are genuine. And if that is you and i have misread and taken offence at your opening words - then I apologise.  


#37
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Stephen
@Tradesecret



Tradesecret,

YOUR CONTINUING RUNAWAY POST: "Of course you think I am running away. Yet I don't respond to bullies nor to ignoramuses who display hardly an ounce of decorum nor intelligence. "

Uh, you are LOGICALLY running away because you simply did not address my post #9 in any way whatsoever, other than to RUN AWAY from it. Get it Huh? Scared?   2+2=4, oil and water don't mix, and your Biblical Ignorance is without bounds where your only way out was to RUN AWAY with a lame grade-school response above!  

In any event, your RUN AWAY quote above is pseudo-christian excuse #409238348564RA that is used when the assumed Christian like YOU knows that their position was biblically shown to be blatantly false, and knowing that they can't defend their position anymore, other than to run away from it, therefore the Christian like YOU has to come up with yet another lame and laughable response like you did in adding even more embarrassment for you.   I knew you wouldn't let us down, where your predictability of running away is a part of your true MO within this forum.

The irony of your decorum notion regarding myself, which defined is;  behavior in keeping with good taste and propriety, falls flat with your assumed decorum,  because in bad taste and lacking any propriety whatsoever, you LIED in front of the membership regarding your comical hermeneutic spin relative to the word "fulfill" relating to Jesus, and therefore the Old Testament is not to be followed anymore, NOT!  Tradesecret, as easily shown in my post #9, this ungodly position of yours was a real knee slapper, but at your expense once again!  :(


TRADESECRET, have you ever thought of writing comedy for SNL? I think you are missing your true calling.


NEXT?


.


Topic's author
#38
CaptainSceptic
CaptainSceptic's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 80
0
0
10
CaptainSceptic's avatar
CaptainSceptic
0
0
10
-->
@Tradesecret
Thank you for your detailed response.

1.  I appreciate your qualification that your comments are restricted to Christianity based on your experience.

2.  While you did not expressly say that Christians do not cherry-pick in my presence,  you did say Christians do not cherry-pick.  You actually signed off with it;  At the beginning, you said non-believers cherry-pick, which I would assume is the same thing.  You cant be a Christian and a non-believer.  So if Christians don't cherry-pick then, they don't do it in my presence.  

Hence, your accusation that Christians cherry pick is incorrect and my allegation that you don't have the ability to read is more accurate. 
3.  I do not know where the accusation of me not being able to read came from.  Nowhere did I hint at the corpus of my original question being driven from a written or reading experience.  This is not cherry-picking.   You accused me of not being able to read when that was not even part of the original question.  Can you tell me where my ability to read is a driving factor behind my curiosity of the original question, please?

4.    I reread your entire post three or four times.  And I still think my original understanding of your hermeneutic being "the" one required  So I boolean logic the narrative for you. 

a).  You state:   -- Understand this hermeneutic.  -- IF FALSE  "you take OT one way."  IF TRUE then "the OT is not done away but rather fulfilled in Christ."  AND/OR  iIF TRUE then you believe  "It is also a rule of thumb that the OT laws are perfect in substance - and that it is the spirit of the law we are to understand and apply - not necessarily the literal letter of the law."   

You are tying the hermeneutic to a "rule of thumb".   Not a belief, or a perspective, but a rule.   

Rather than insult me about my reading ability, why don't you ask for clarification,  or maybe look at the way you articulated it.
 
Notwithstanding the aforementioned, I will point out that I appreciated your explanation of sacrifice.  That concept makes sense to me, and you explained it well.

b).  You stated in your most recent response "the hermeneutic approach of Christians will lead you along one stream of thought - and not applying the same one - will lead you elsewhere. "   This is a singular approach.   Very much like my deduction from your first post, you reassert the same principal here.  You are saying all Christians have the same hermeneutic approach.    I have said repeatedly they do not.    Therefore my original deduction still stands and is not the bastard child of the inability to read, rather an accurate representation of what you have said in two different posts.

c).  You stated.  "I have answered calmly and non-judgmentally - well at least until my last sentence where clearly I attempted to mock you."   Is that an apology?

5.    Now we are getting to the meat.  

I genuinely do not understand what you mean by this.   Can you please elaborate.

that this does not mean you leave the context out, or the culture out, or the type of genre out.
 
6.  The purpose of me quoting John 15:7 was to show a  (very limited) example of what I was told.  My perception of this verse being a justification is "if you remember and quote my words, then prayer will work for you". It was meant to be used as a verse to support the mindset of blind memorization of verses.

So with that in mind, I explored Google for references to memorizing verses.  It is remarkable how many sites are out there to memorize scripture.   Not understand it.  Not apply it to any philosophy.  But to actually memorize it.     That verse, and the following, were justification for pure memory

Matthew 4:4.  [But he answered, “It is written, “‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”]

Provers 3:5  [Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding.]

Revelations 1 [Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy]


In summary,  despite your quoted claim to the contrary Christians do cherry-pick.  Not all perhaps, but certainly some do.  I have had the same conversation experience with Muslims and Jewish.   despite your claim, there is only "the" hermeneutic, there are in fact 100s of thousands if not more methods to interpret.  This is evidenced by all the denominations of Christianity alone. 

So with all the above, there lies a potential answer.  From a Christian perspective, there are a few verse examples that appear to clearly state that the words alone are what is important.  Yet let's agree that hermeneutics required.  Bam!  There appears to be a conflict.  A verse by the word that justifies a belief or behaviour gets qualified by the "word only" textual justification.  Where the verse does not meet or contradicts my belief I put it in the bucket of hermeneutics.  A "believer" can move the goalposts and justify whatever is said based on either side.  

How is this wrong?
#39
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Tradesecret



.
Tradesecret,

FIRST AND FOREMOST RELATIVE TO YOUR POST #32;  YOU LIED once again by not following your own statement in your post #32 relating to me and my posts towards your Bible ignorance when you stated herewith:  "Of course you think I am running away. Yet I don't respond to bullies nor to ignoramuses who display hardly an ounce of decorum nor intelligence. "

Whoops! You remove one foot to insert the other once again!  The only logical outcome of your misstep shown above is to logically perceive that when you are now responding to me relative to your dumbfounded post #32 that said you wouldn't for the said reasons, then you are CONTRADICTING yourself, preluding that you DO NOT perceive me now as either a "bully, ignoramus, and I do have decorum and intelligence!"  THANK YOU, the chickens always come home to roost!  Otherwise, to keep your word in your post #32, you should have remained SILENT to save what face you have left here on DEBATEART, get it? Maybe?  You continue to easily fall into the Brother D's traps.  :(



YOUR EMBARRASSING QUOTE IN POST #34:  "As for fulfilling the law, I don't think it ceased."

Huh? You "don't think it ceased?"  You are therefore not sure, but you base your child like perceived biblical hermeneutic spin relative to fulfilling the law on a convenient and embarrassing "MAYBE?"  Jesus and I deal in ABSOLUTES, understand Bible fool, where there are no "maybes" relating to the true words of our serial killer Yahweh/Jesus God, understood?  You're kidding, correct?  What ends will the Bible ignorant pseudo-christian like you take to try and save face within this forum?  ANOTHER TRADESECRET  LAUGHABLE CONCLUSION!  What's new? Absolutely NOTHING!


Sorry, but before I add additional proverbial egg upon your face in front for the membership, you are going to have to get out of another embarrassing moment for you upon this forum. Whereas this time, explain why you are NOT SURE of the "fulfillment" notion of Jesus' MO that you continue to grasp for straws upon.  Otherwise, as usual, your argument upon this topic is outright embarrassing, and where you should learn to just STFU to remove further embarrassment when the Brother D takes you to the carpet again, and again, and again!  

Anyway, at least "try" to explain your "Maybe" scenario to the topic at hand, okay?  We need further laughter; BEGIN:
#40
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
For Christian apologists to explain something hermetically ,  means  -  to  make it up as you go when caught on the back foot in an awkward embarrassing biblical dilemma. It also mean to redirect ones attention away with  biblical verses that go actually nowhere in explaining away  said awkward embarrassing biblical dilemma. But I have found the most favored tactic  of apologetic Christians is to  simply present one's own theories or even opinions as fact without supporting evidence. When all the above  fails to convince then its down to the age old veiled insults of one "not being able to read" and "understand". 
Just make up stuff as you go along.

Got it in one. That's exactly what I have said. See bold underlined in the above quote.

#41
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,072
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
Says you... inadvertently perhaps.

And says me and says everyone else who says it.
#42
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@CaptainSceptic
A "believer" can move the goalposts and justify whatever is said based on either side.  

"Can " and does so often. In fact they do this every time they are posed a prickly awkward question. I could offer many examples from this forum alone.

#43
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
Notwithstanding the fact that scripture is notoriously ambiguous anyway.
Says who?  

I do. And  this is why we have the  many different Christian denominations; because they interpret the scriptures differently.  They cannot all be right. Or are you going to offer your own  hermetical  definition as to what the word "ambiguous" means to god  and Christians.?



#44
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Tradesecret
As for fulfilling the law, I don't think it ceased. Obviously, you did not comprehend what I wrote. Let me try and explain it to you. 
Overall, I think you're a good discerner of Scripture, but I do disagree with you on some points. I won't waste my time with BrotherD. He shows he is not interested in dialogue but I see you as a brother in Christ so I wanted to give you my understanding to see if you find it reasonable. 

Regarding the OT law, if it has not ceased then where are the annual animal sacrifices of atonement, the priesthood, the temple, the OT economy, the feast days, the genealogies? Not only this, Christ has fulfilled the law for the believer, whether Jew or Gentile. I know you believe that. The Law of Moses has been abolished (Matthew 5:17-18) since it can no longer be carried out in the prescribed manner. It was always pointing to the better covenant, a schoolmaster or tutor to lead us to Christ.

Galatians 3:23-25 (NASB)
23 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. 24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

Matthew 5:17-18 (NASB)
17 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

Do we see every letter of the law still being practiced today?

Romans 7:6 (NASB)
But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

His sacrifice and resurrection have accomplished what the Law could not for those who have faith in Him. 

What did Jesus mean when He said: "until heaven and earth pass away"? 

The unbeliever still shows he has the law written on his heart. 

Romans 2:14
14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

The OT law is still ongoing in the NT. The difference is the letter not the spirit.  Jesus did not stop the law. Yet he fulfilled it. The OT law of sacrifice was at its heart about what? 
The OT law is the Law of Moses. Thus, it was still ongoing during NT times until AD 70. Jesus fulfilled the law for those who believe. He nailed the letter of the law, the punishment for breaking it to the cross. It is shown to be complete in that His one sacrifice is all the believer needs. For the New Covenant to be the only one needed the Old Covenant with all its sacrifices had to disappear. The Covenant God made was with specific people - OT Israel. The disappearing and replacement are what Hebrews is all about. 

Hebrews 8:13 (NASB)
13 When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.

Hebrews was written primarily to Jewish believers in Christ who were thinking about returning to Judaism. Hence, the author (many believe it to be the Apostle Paul) could say in Hebrews 9,

8 The Holy Spirit is signifying this, that the way into the holy place has not yet been disclosed while the outer tabernacle is still standing, 9 which is a symbol for the present time. Accordingly both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make the worshiper perfect in conscience, 10 since they relate only to food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until a time of reformation.

Still standing. That would signify before AD 70 when the temple and city were destroyed by the Romans. 

16 For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it. 17 For a covenant is valid only when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives. 18 Therefore even the first covenant was not inaugurated without blood.

Christ's blood, His life, His sacrifice of atonement, has initiated the New covenant. The two covenants were in transition for 40 years from His death until the judgment was fulfilled in AD 70 for the sins of those who did not believe in Him (see Hebrews 3).

25 nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own. 26 Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 27 And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, 28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.

He appeared in AD 70 the second time as He told His disciples He would while some of them were still alive. 


Matthew 16:27-28 (NASB)
27 For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds.
28 “Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”

If you get the wrong audience of address AND/or wrong timeline or time statements, you risk misinterpreting Scripture. Who is the audience of address, the 'you' spoken of here? What is the timeframe in reference to - the OT economy, which still is functioning at the time of the writing of Hebrews.

It was about atoning for the sins of people in a temporary way because the blood of goats and cows are not eternal. Jesus however as the Eternal Son of God has blood that atones eternally - for the sins of his people. Hence, the OT Mosaic system is known as a shadow of things to come - namely Jesus who is the real deal.  therefore, the atoning sacrifices has not ended or been ceased in spirit - but in Christ is eternal for all his people. 

Hence, not ceased, but fulfilled in Christ. I notice you OMITTED to explain what fulfilled was according to your own thinking. Perhaps it is you who is running away from the obvious. Yes, you said what you think it was not. but OMITTED to say what you think it was.
Abolished would mean ceased (Matthew 5:17-18). If Christ has obtained eternal redemption then what need is there of the Law of Moses for the believer. The unbeliever still shows he/she understands the law of God for he/she still knows it is wrong to lie, murder, steal, commit adultery, covet, etc. Thus, he/she shows he/she is still answerable to God in breaking His laws. Thus, the believer and unbeliever are living under the grace of God. He allows the sun to shine on both for a period of time (Acts 17:24- to the end of the chapter). The unbeliever still thinks their good works are sufficient to save them. They still think their deeds are good enough to meet God's perfect standard. Thus, they ignore or see no need for a Savior. They think they can accomplish only what God could by His grace, His Spirit, His Son.

#45
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Stephen



Stephen,

The entity of the Bible itself proves that it is ambiguous, which therefore shakes my faith to the core. :(


.
#46
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Tradesecret
I mocked you because I am a sinner. Or it might be because I think the ridiculous deserves to be ridiculed. Or it might be because I don't think turning the other cheek means getting walked all over. I personally do get frustrated with comments that are repeated ad nauseum over and over again - despite ample and good answers to them.

Having said that - I also welcome the opportunity to discuss things with people who are genuine. And if that is you and i have misread and taken offence at your opening words - then I apologise.  


Overall, your post was excellent, IMO. I like reading what you write.

Concerning mocking, I like what two verses in Proverbs say regarding those who mock Scripture and God.

Proverbs 26:4 (NASB)
4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
Or you will also be like him.

Answer a fool as his folly deserves, That he not be wise in his own eyes.

These two verses do not say the same thing yet contain some profound truths that I like to apply to those who think they know better about Scripture to point out the folly of their thinking. In the end, God is not mocked. Every knee will bow.

Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.

As you say, those who are genuinely inquiring, an honest and gentle answer is required, to the best of our ability, discernment, and knowledge of Scripture. Those who want to trample the Gospel I tend to use sarcasm and often apply the principles of Proverbs 26:4,6. 
#47
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@BrotherDThomas
which therefore shakes my faith to the core. :(
That is sad Brother. And I feel genuinely sorry for you. 

I sometimes envy those with faith, especially at times of sorrow and mourning, when the lord has decided it is time to take an only child from its mother and they can simply think and believe that their innocent child didn't suffer for months on end for nothing and will be rewarded in a much better place that the mother could ever hope offer her only child.
#48
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@CaptainSceptic
In summary,  despite your quoted claim to the contrary Christians do cherry-pick.  Not all perhaps, but certainly some do.  I have had the same conversation experience with Muslims and Jewish.   despite your claim, there is only "the" hermeneutic, there are in fact 100s of thousands if not more methods to interpret.  This is evidenced by all the denominations of Christianity alone. 
Since you have challenged me to debate twice I take interest in your forum posts.

I think cherry-picking is common to all of us at times. Although there are all kinds of ways of interpreting passages of Scripture, there is only one correct understanding. To understand Scripture you must understand what the Author is saying. To understand anyone, you must correctly interpret what they are saying. For the believer, God's word is the plumbline. When in doubt, the Scriptural verse and the surrounding passage (context) need to be considered. The audience of address, the timeframe, the culture of the times all plays a role. Although Scripture is written TO specific OT people, the application and admonition are FOR us today also. Although there are many profound teachings the overall message is simple enough for a child to understand in the themes of sin and redemption and the difference between covenants in their scope and means. Humans have wronged God. God, as Creator, has provided His righteous standard. The OT is a covenant of works. The NT is a covenant of grace. One shows the result of what happens when human beings try to achieve God's perfect standard on their own merit and the other shows what happens when we trust in Another to meet that standard on our behalf.  
#49
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0


.
PGA2.0,

ONCE AGAIN, ANOTHER BIBLE DUMBFOUNDED QUOTE BY YOU: "The Law of Moses has been abolished (Matthew 5:17-18) since it can no longer be carried out in the prescribed manner. It was always pointing to the better covenant, a schoolmaster or tutor to lead us to Christ."

HELLO? Your misnomer of whether the OT laws, ALL 613 OF THEM, can be carried out or not is moot!  This is because of the simple biblical axiom that they are still too be followed today in the 21st century, understood Bible fool?

Tell the membership, what part of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount don't you understand relative to following the 613 laws of Moses TODAY?  

JESUS STATED: "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled" (Matthew 5:18).  With these words, Jesus likened the continuance of the Mosaic 613 Laws to the permanence of heaven and earth, UNDERSTAND?!  Therefore, has Heaven and earth passed away or disappeared yet? NO IT HAS NOT! Therefore, as Jesus stated with specificity, the true Christian is to follow every jot and tittle of the 613 commanded laws of the Old Testament until the earth and heaven do pass away!  2+2=4, oil and water don't mix, and your outlandish Bible ignorance is again laughable!

JESUS STATED: “In fact, this is love for God: to keep his commands. And his commands are not burdensome (1 John 5:3) The ONLY commands at Jesus' time were the 613 commands of the Old Testament.  Therefore, Jesus condoned the murdering of homosexuals in this godly instructed passage, to wit: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."  (Leviticus 20:13) Additionally, Romans 1 26-27, understood, Bible fool? Yes, Jesus condoning the murdering of gays shakes my faith to the core, but what are we to do?

 Besides, do you want to call Yahweh/Jesus a LIAR when both stated: "My covenant I will not break,Nor alter the word that has gone out of My lips." (Psalm 89:34) The inspired word of Yahweh/Jesus wrote the entire 613 Commandments, and as stated in the Psalm passage, Yahweh/Jesus WILL NOT BREAK THE COVENANT, NOR ALTER IT IN ANY WAY, therefore the 613 Old Testament laws are to be followed today, UNDERSTOOD?

 Listen up, are you going to hold a vigil to remove the 10 Commandments in front of the court houses around the USA, because they are part and parcel to the total 613 Mosaic laws that you state are NOT to be followed?!  GET IT?  LOL


YOUR RUNAWAY QUOTE FROM THE INEVITABLE: " I won't waste my time with BrotherD. He shows he is not interested in dialogue ...."

Pseudo-christian excuse # 4984858485 to RUN from you easily being made just another Bible ignorant fool upon this forum! Besides, as explicitly shown with your ever so wanting posts, you DO NOT have the acumen to engage me in the first place. Therefore, the only thing that you are good for within this forum, is for me to show others in what a true pseudo-christian looks and acts like by being a minion of Satan against the TRUE words of Jesus the Christ! THANK YOU!


___________

"Hi, my name is PGA2.0, and to save face towards calling Yahweh/Jesus a LIAR towards still following the 613 commandments, I am going to bend over backwards, stumble, LIE, and do everything possible in the name of Satan to try and hermeneutically spin doctor away the fact that we are to still follow the 613 commandments that were biblically inspired by Jesus Why? Well, it is because it is barbaric to follow such atrocious  laws in the 21st century, that's why.  BUT, it matters not if I am made the continued fool for at least trying to remove these Bronze, Iron, and Middle Ages laws today, okay? . Come on, at  least give me credit for trying to make said 613 Mosaic Laws useless, okay? Please?  I am trying so hard to do so, where in turn, we won't be so embarrassed about them in the future, okay?  Who is with me on this project? Come on, let's unite!"
__________


.




#50
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Stephen


Stephen,

YOUR MEANINGFUL QUOTE OF UNDERSTANDING: "I sometimes envy those with faith, especially at times of sorrow and mourning, when the lord has decided it is time to take an only child from its mother and they can simply think and believe that their innocent child didn't suffer for months on end for nothing and will be rewarded in a much better place that the mother could ever hope offer her only child."

Yes, as it is understood, when my Yahweh/Jesus gives a young innocent child unbearable cancer, where the parents are in complete turmoil and stress, then lets this child die instead of healing it, then it is assumed that Jesus is "testing" the parents in how devoted they are to Him.  It is far better that Jesus took this child from their loving parents as a test, then to let it grow up with its loving family in the future.  Hey, they still have pictures of this child to remember, so Jesus is still ever loving and forgiving, praise!


.
#51
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Groan. First, it is hard to separate who is saying what since you never use the tools provided to make things clearer. Second, your posts are full of ad hominem attacks where you attack me rather than my content. 

PGA2.0,
ONCE AGAIN, ANOTHER BIBLE DUMBFOUNDED QUOTE BY YOU: "The Law of Moses has been abolished (Matthew 5:17-18) since it can no longer be carried out in the prescribed manner. It was always pointing to the better covenant, a schoolmaster or tutor to lead us to Christ."

HELLO? Your misnomer of whether the OT laws, ALL 613 OF THEM, can be carried out or not is moot!  This is because of the simple biblical axiom that they are still too be followed today in the 21st century, understood Bible fool?
Atonement of sin was necessary to maintain a right relationship with God. The priesthood was the mediator between the OT sinner and God. The Day of Atonement was annually practiced to offset the sins of the nation. The temple was the meeting place between God and His people. The genealogies showed the bloodline of the priesthood and also the bloodline the Messiah would follow. After AD 70 none of these things are operational. Thus, Matthew 5:18 applies, the smallest letter of the law has perished. It can no longer be followed.

Tell the membership, what part of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount don't you understand relative to following the 613 laws of Moses TODAY?  

JESUS STATED: "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled" (Matthew 5:18).  With these words, Jesus likened the continuance of the Mosaic 613 Laws to the permanence of heaven and earth, UNDERSTAND?!  Therefore, has Heaven and earth passed away or disappeared yet? NO IT HAS NOT! Therefore, as Jesus stated with specificity, the true Christian is to follow every jot and tittle of the 613 commanded laws of the Old Testament until the earth and heaven do pass away!  2+2=4, oil and water don't mix, and your outlandish Bible ignorance is again laughable!
The "heaven and earth" OT Israel lived under was the OT economy and ritual sacrificial system. That is no longer existing after AD 70. If you take a look at the references to heaven and earth in the OT you would understand what they refer to. You can't rip them out of there context and cultural significance and still expect to understand what is being said. Their way of life came to an end in AD 70. Their lives revolved around the temple and sacrificial system to maintain their relationship with God. In AD 70 God judged them and found that system of worship wanting. A better way is now available for believers.  
Topic's author
#52
CaptainSceptic
CaptainSceptic's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 80
0
0
10
CaptainSceptic's avatar
CaptainSceptic
0
0
10
-->
@PGA2.0
You state 

there is only one correct understanding.
Yet then you state

the Scriptural verse and the surrounding passage (context) need to be considered. The audience of address, the timeframe, the culture of the times all plays a role.

So how is everyone supposed to get the correct? understand with all the subjectivity.
#53
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@BrotherDThomas


JESUS STATED: “In fact, this is love for God: to keep his commands. And his commands are not burdensome (1 John 5:3) The ONLY commands at Jesus' time were the 613 commands of the Old Testament.  Therefore, Jesus condoned the murdering of homosexuals in this godly instructed passage, to wit: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."  (Leviticus 20:13) Additionally, Romans 1 26-27, understood, Bible fool?
 2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and observe His commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome. 4 For whatever is born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith.

Again, ripping verses out of context do you no favours. Jesus came to establish a New Covenant. We live by the faith of His ability at work within us. Dying to ourselves we live for Christ. He has fulfilled the law for us and met all God's righteous requirements. Thus, there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

The victory is our faith. 

How do we overcome the world? Through our faith in Christ Jesus. What kind of work is required by God?

Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.”

His works of righteousness are what save the believer, not our own, not what we do to obtain salvation but on what He has done to obtain it for us. 

Ephesians 2:8-10 (NASB)
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.


 Besides, do you want to call Yahweh/Jesus a LIAR when both stated: "My covenant I will not break,Nor alter the word that has gone out of My lips." (Psalm 89:34) The inspired word of Yahweh/Jesus wrote the entire 613 Commandments, and as stated in the Psalm passage, Yahweh/Jesus WILL NOT BREAK THE COVENANT, NOR ALTER IT IN ANY WAY, therefore the 613 Old Testament laws are to be followed today, UNDERSTOOD?  Listen up, are you going to hold a vigil to remove the 10 Commandments in front of the court houses around the USA, because they are part and parcel to the total 613 Mosaic laws that you state are NOT to be followed?!  GET IT?  LOL
God did not break His covenant, He fulfilled it in Christ Jesus. Jesus was found without sin, something that does not apply to you or me. The Old Covenant was a type or picture of something far greater, the New Covenant. The shadows and types found in the Old Covenant all point to a far greater truth and reality - Jesus Christ. The symbolism and imagery are all pointing to Christ. Moses is a type of Christ, a prophet and a mediator for God's people. The sacrificial system all points to Jesus Christ. The physical reality of the OT point to spiritual truths found in Christ Jesus and the New Testament. 

The Ten Commandments are common to both testaments, except some would argue, the Sabbath. The 613 Mosaic commands were for a specific time, the time of the OT.

1 Corinthians 10:11 (NASB)
11 Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.

Present tense at the time of writing --> have come. The end of the age of the OT came in their generation.

Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.

Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.

#54
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@CaptainSceptic

there is only one correct understanding.
Yet then you state
Wait a minute. Do you deny that to understand someone you need to understand the context, the specific word meaning, and intent of what the author or communicator means? If you do not get the author's intended meaning you have not understood what they meant. Does that principle make sense to you?


the Scriptural verse and the surrounding passage (context) need to be considered. The audience of address, the timeframe, the culture of the times all plays a role.

So how is everyone supposed to get the correct? understand with all the subjectivity.

Understand that every Scripture has a meaning the Author is conveying to you indirectly and to the relevant audience directly. Understand the timeframe is one is referenced. Understand too that some references are more easily understood by the culture to which it was addressed. Thus, we need to understand the references in terms of that culture. We don't usually carry wineskins around with us, nor are most of us living in an agrarian economy. We have to understand what a shepherd did and the significance of a lost sheep. We, generally speaking, are not Jews, and we don't live in that ritualistic and sacrificial economy. We have to understand the significance of what is taking place and why. We have to understand the significance of the sacrificial lamb and the scapegoat. They are not common to our culture in North America. Then we have to understand the themes running through Scripture like sin and redemption, and many words that are not common to everyday use. 

Thus, Scripture says to study to show yourself approved, "accurately handling the word of truth." For those who error those who have discernment should teach, reproof, correct, train. 

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

One thing is logically certain, two people who say diametrically opposite things cannot both be true to what is the case. We do have a standard as Christians to reference and prove our points.

2 Corinthians 10:3-5 (NASB)
3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, 4 for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. 5 We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ

As Christians, we believe the knowledge of God is found in written revelation in the OT and NT Scriptures.
#55
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
I do. And  this is why we have the  many different Christian denominations; because they interpret the scriptures differently.  They cannot all be right. Or are you going to offer your own  hermetical  definition as to what the word "ambiguous" means to god  and Christians.?
Well, I for one, do not believe that the bible is ambiguous at all.  It is clear. Crystal clear in fact. I disagree with your ASSERTION that ambiguousness is the reason we have the many different Christian denominations on several counts. Firstly, the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church split over an issue of doctrine based on their doctrine of the Holy Spirit, not over the teaching of Scripture nor of any particular verse. Hence, it was not the bible being clear, it was the way the teachers at that time understood the Trinity, and in particular the role of the Spirit.  Remember also that at that time indeed even as it is today in those two "denominations" that the final decision of what the Bible says is not the bible itself - but the church's theologians that decide. 

When Luther came forth in his generation, his focus on the righteousness of Christ from the book of Romans was not in dispute nor an ambiguous reading or understanding. He had like the people of his time read it from a cultural point of view. When Luther read it in the context with the cultural understanding of the original language - what was unclear because of culture became crystal clear. And indeed even the Romans afterwards came to agree that this was correct. In another episode in his life, Luther debated over the words of "This is my body" which some claim are ambiguous as well.  But I ask you, how is it ambiguous? Luther like the Romans, argued that Jesus was stating that the bread becomes the ACTUAL body of Jesus. The other reformers argued it was a symbol pointing to the death of Jesus.  Others argued it was in faith - the spiritual body of Christ.  Ambiguous hardly! No one was saying - Jesus was saying that the bread became a unicorn or the bread was really a symbol of life. Or it was by faith anything you like. Every group totally agreed that Jesus was stating that this bread represented Jesus' death in some manner. Exactly what that manner is has become subject to many debates in history - and it is one of the big debates - but read my next words - NO new denomination has ever started from any so called difference in relation to these words.  In fact at the time - Luther was still within the Catholic church even if he was being pursued or on the virge of excommunication. But the Lutheran Church did not start on any so called vagaries of Scripture - but rather on another entire rationale. On authority - on whether the Scriptures interpreted the Scriptures or whether the church decided.  

After the reformation began - new churches and I suppose we could call them denominations sprang up. The Lutherans, the Reformed movement - the dissidents and anabaptists - brethren independent Congregationalists, etc. Now the question is - did any of these so called parts of the church spring up because the bible is somehow ambiguous or were there other primary reasons why? Things such as geography, culture, different views on church government, or authority?

Yes, there have been many discussions and debates over the Scriptures - but I cannot think of one denomination that has ever started because of a so called ambiguity in the bible. Baptists differ from protestants in relation infant baptism. But their major reason for different denomination is theological - not ambiguity in the bible. They take the view that the so called visible church on earth ought to be wholly full of born again adult Christians. Protestants follow the OT Jewish religion  that the people of God included children.  Catholics and the Orthodox church don't actually believe in a visible or invisible church. 

The Baptist church and other like minded churches arose out of a cultural spirit - of democracy and separation of church and state-  not on the ambiguity of the bible. This is one reason they are a dominant church in USA - one of their own helped write the Constitution - and is why they have such bizarre statements in it.  Presbyterians - reformed churches arose prior to that time - and if you read their doctrinal statements such as the WCF - you will see statements about the civil government which would be seen as outrageous today. 

The Episcopalian church - sometimes called the Anglican or the C of E denomination has a couple of origin stories - perhaps the most famous one is because the king wanted a divorce - he rejected the pope - this is not a story of the bible verses being ambiguous - but rather AGAIN - an issue of authority. Of power. Who is going to tell me what to do? 

Most of the modern so called denominations are really under the same umbrella - just in different locations. For instance-  the Episcopalian denomination on each continent and in some states in different nations - despite the fact that they are all the same denomination are considered different denominations - not on doctrine nor on ambiguous bible passages but on geography and politics. In Australia the Presbyterian church has a different denomination in each state - but one denomination nationally. Is it seven or 1? And there are also various reformed churches in Victoria and even so called different Presbyterian denominations - but these are a product of history and tradition not ambiguity of scripture.  An example in Australia recently was the commencement of the Uniting church - combining several denominations - some went in  and others remained because traditionally they had been raised a Methodist and wanted to die a Methodist - but it had nothing to do with vague scriptural references. 

Hence - I think that the overall rationale that we have so many denominations because the bible is somehow vague is nonsense and not able to be demonstrated. In fact I would like to see how many actual denominations exist that are not really part of another group. I suspect that in the end it would probably be approximately 10. Andmany of those would hold to much of the other's teachings - up to 95%. 

The question of the bible being vague is another question 
#56
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0



.
PGA2.0,


Listen up, don’t you remember me stating that you follow the fraudulent Preterist Faith that is not only Satanic, but goes directly against Jesus’ inspired true words?!  Subsequent to ungodly Preterists using a Sharpie pen and scissors to mark out, and cut out approximately 75 percent of the JUDEO-Christian Bible, what is left is a Satanic “pocket size” version at Jesus’ expense! BLASPHEME!

As if the above Preterist fraud isn’t disturbing enough to Jesus, and as shown, you come forth with some of the most laugable Devil Speak “mumbo-jumbo-gumbo-dumbo, strum” rhetoric that this forum will probably ever see!  Look at your phrases and words, that are copy and pasted from your Satanic faith’s website, where obviously you don’t have the sense to feel embarrassed.

Whether you are a half assed Preterist, or a whole assed Preterist, the truth is that your pagan faith was “hatched by Satan” in the year of 1790, get it?! Therefore, your faith is yet another DIVISION of Christianity where every Bible reader prior to this date read the bible wrong in your Satanic view, and are therefore swimming in the sulfur lakes of Hell as we speak! LAUGHABLE!  In turn, the Catholic faith says that you are wrong, and will burn in the sulfur lakes of Hell, GET IT? LOL!

Furthermore, since your comical and ungodly faith preclude that if all prophecies have happened before and up to 70AD, then you are stating that IT IS A LIE in calling the hope for Jesus to return in bodily form in the future, at the end of time and history, and raise our bodies towards heaven, and bring judgment to all unbelievers, is now a ruse! You slap Jesus in the face because the 4 aforementioned biblical entities unifiy the history of Chrisitianity and Jesus’ Second Coming, but to your Satanic thinking, even though these four entities unify Christianity, and the future Second Coming, to you these precepts is fraudulent and WRONG!  HELLO?

The bottom line is YOU live in the past, where TRUE Christians live in the godly future, understood?


.
#57
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0


PGA2.0,

What you fail to realize is post-70 A.D. of the book of Revelation renders all Preterist thought absolutely FALSE. THINK, the earliest Christian historian who recorded the church’s knowledge of the Domitianic dating of Revelation was Hegessippus in 150 A.D. and this continued to be the unanimous view until about 4 centuries later with the Syriac Peshitta NT manuscript in which someone wrote that John was exiled under Nero. HELLO? Therefore, It is sometimes claimed that the Neronic dating is in the original, but this is impossible since the original lacked the book of Revelation. The history shows there is no source or reasoning given for this change in that 6th century manuscript. This is most problematic at best, and definitely lacks the authoritativeness that would be required to credibly make such a huge revision to what was commonly accepted and passed down from the end of the first century/beginning of the 2nd. FACT!

The same can be said for the Muratorian Fragment, which is the 7th century copy of the 2nd century original, with no way to prove the Neronic dating was in the original. There is no record of any of the early church fathers holding to the Neronic date of Revelation, where this is a fascinating glimpse into the early church fathers and what they believed on a variety of topics is in ‘A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs’, over 700 pages that were compiled by David Bercot!  In addition to Hegessippus, who, notably, wrote this prior to Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Eusebius, Jerome, Sulpicius Severus, and a number of other church fathers both before and not long after the council at Nicaea in 325AD, all confirm that John was exiled to Patmos by Domitian where he received Revelation, get it?!!!  The lack of any dissenting view naming Nero in place of Domitian until the 6th century should give early-date advocates pause. 2+2=4! Therefore, most of the events of Revelation are still in our future where some view the messages to the churches as having already been strictly for them and completely fulfilled, while some view each church as symbolic for a different time period, and of course there could be room for double-fulfillment of most of those first 3 chapters.

Remember, there was a celebration on Patmos in 1995 commemorating 1900 years, approximately, as in 95 or 96 A.D., since the Revelation Jesus gave to John. Furthermore, what other events in the 1st century A.D. are ever claimed as taking place 2 or 3 decades earlier, or later? UNDERSTAND? With all of the accurate records kept during the Roman Empire era and surviving today, there is little room for such a vast difference being possible.  Understand this simple premise, its commonly believed that Jesus died around 30 or 33 A.D., Paul and Peter were martyred in the 60’s, Nero lived from 37-68 A.D., etc. NO ONE SAYS JESUS DIED IN 3AD OR 60AD, or that Peter and Paul were martyred in the 30’s A.D. or 90’s A.D., or that Nero actually reigned around the time of Jesus’ ministry as recorded in the Gospels!  The majority of scholarship places John’s writing of Revelation in the mid-90’s, but somehow your insidious Preterist faith thinks it’s ok to go against the overwhelming consensus of the past 2000 years? LAUGHABLE!!!  

Remember, the great fire of Rome took place for nearly a week during 64 A.D., but no one places it in 54 A.D. let alone 34 A.D. A powerful earthquake in 60 A.D. devastated Laodicea, and yet no one ever says that earthquake took place in 30 A.D. 30 years prior. With the vast majority of evidence to the contrary. Your Satanic Preterist faith literally rests on this single pillar of the dating of the book of Revelation. And, really, that is no pillar at all in light of the historicity of the late date!!!!  

Now, go hide yourself from the above FACTS that make your Preterist faith as comical as the Pentacostals, Mormons, Jehovah Witneesess, etc., because in the true Matthean  4:10 way, BE GONE SATAN!
#58
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret

-
->@zedvictor4 wrote; Notwithstanding the fact that scripture is notoriously ambiguous anyway.
Tradesecret, wrote:    Says who?  


Stephen wrote: I do. And  this is why we have the  many different Christian denominations; because they interpret the scriptures differently.  They cannot all be right. Or are you going to offer your own  hermetical  definition as to what the word "ambiguous" means to god  and Christians.?

Tradesecret, wrote: Well, I for one, do not believe that the bible is ambiguous at all. 


Of course you don't. That is because you interpret it to your own level of "understanding" and to fit your agenda.  And continually move the goalposts when caught on the back foot or have painted yourself into a tight biblical corner. The scriptures themselves disagree on many issues causing ambiguity.


It is clear. Crystal clear in fact.
  In your opinion and your own understanding and of course, your own "interpretation".. 




#59
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,072
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
Exactly.
Topic's author
#60
CaptainSceptic
CaptainSceptic's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 80
0
0
10
CaptainSceptic's avatar
CaptainSceptic
0
0
10
-->
@PGA2.0
Hey PGA

You state

Do you deny that to understand someone you need to understand the context, the specific word meaning, and intent of what the author or communicator means?
Sure you need to try to understand that, however, my entire point is that the aforementioned process is still subjective.  Look at all the different opinions you have on this thread alone. And everyone would claim to have a proper understanding.

You were not there, or in the head of the other.  So all you can do is speculate.